DIY measurement of time dilation in a gravity well - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2023, 10:45:49 pm
content: Disclaimer - I only have a YouTube level of understanding of the following subject.It is widely accepted the time proceeds proportionally more slowly when gravity is present. For example, when a perfect clock 1km above earth’s surface shows exactly one day of elapsed time, an identical perfect clock on the surface of the earth will show about 10nS less duration for the same day. A practical example of this real phenomena is the need to keep GPS satellite clocks in zero G synced with ground based clocks.How can we check out this weird situation at home? If we reduce the aforementioned 1km distance to 100 metres and we put an oscillator of 100MHz on top of a 100 metre tower and an identical oscillator on the ground and feed both into our dual trace scope, after one day we should see 36 degrees of phase shift between the two oscillators.Not everyone has two oscillators with the required degree of stability, least of all me. What then if we have asingleoscillator on the ground and a feed coax up the 100 metre tower and a transmitting antenna aiming back down toward us. Then feed to the scope both a signal directly from the oscillator and one received from the elevated antenna. There will be propagation delay of course, but both signals will initially have a certain fixed phase difference.If in fact time proceeds more slowly at ground level compared to 100 metres above the ground then we should perhaps see the two 100MHz signals gradually creeping out of phase at 36 degrees per daydespite coming from the same oscillator source, should we not?

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2023, 11:15:47 pm
content: I'd guess that your setup won't produce any phase travel. But general relativity is a difficult subject and most of the time requires serious mathematical efforts. I'd recommend reading about gravitational red shift and whether it reverses when going back.Regards, DieterPS: There is a nice Wikipedia description of such terrestrial experiments. They use two clocks to generate and measure the phase travel.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2023, 11:37:00 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on January 21, 2023, 11:15:47 pmYes, I did actually read about gravitational red shift and that is what got me thinking about how an ordinary person could conduct a somewhat comparable experiment. The fact that we can see a star is red shifted makes me think the experiment might work. I’ll have a further read up on the subject though.

author: WatchfulEye
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2023, 10:54:41 am
content: The experiment you propose is feasible, and indeed has been done in the famous Hafele–Keating experiment. The HK experiment was complicated by the fact that the clocks were travelling in commercial airliners, and so the experiment measured both the effect of gravitational red shift and special relativistic time dilation, with the latter being the dominant effect.The problem is that the gravitational effect is small, and few oscillators have the required stability. Measuring 3.6 ns of phase shift over 24 hours is a fractional deviation of 4.2 x 10^-14 - few oscillators have that level of stability. You're looking at something like the high performance variant of the microchip 5071A, which is specified to have an Allan deviation at 10^5 seconds (approx 1 day) of <2.7 x 10^-14. The Allan deviation can be thought of as the standard deviation of the time measurement for a specified period. So, while this oscillator is exceptional, the oscillator noise is a substantial fraction of the signal - so you would need to repeat the experiment multiple times, or run for a longer period, to collect sufficient statistics.If you could increase the height to 1 km or more, for example by climbing a mountain (or visiting a ski resort), then your signal becomes much larger and it becomes feasible to measure it more easily. The difficulty is measuring the phase shift over this sort of distance - options include GPS transfer (each oscillator logs phase shift relative to GPS satellite(s), or you simply transport the test oscillators to the test location, and set the experimental duration long enough that the effects of travel are minimal.With a high enough location, then the experiment is accessible to the (motivated) amateur:http://leapsecond.com/great2005/

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2023, 12:00:48 pm
content: Quote from: WatchfulEye on January 22, 2023, 10:54:41 amI was suggesting using a single oscillator and splitting the signal into two paths. That way any drift in the single oscillator would affect both measured signals and mostly null out. That way any normal and reasonably stable oscillator could be used. And any creep in phase difference due to difference in rate of elapsed time should hopefully keep on accumulating until it is clearly above any noise.

author: WatchfulEye
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2023, 12:51:44 pm
content: The signal when sent up your coax to your elevated transmit antenna will be redshifted, but when it returns to earth where your apparatus is, it will be blueshifted an equivalent amount - so this experiment will not be able to measure it.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2023, 04:08:09 pm
content: This guy landed some test equipment you can use to make the measurement:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-an-atomic-clock-really-works-zeeman-alignment/msg4494280/#msg4494280(Though I doubt he would let you borrow them...)Run network or coax cable between the 2 clocks and change the altitude of one.On an XY scope, compare the time of drift between the two 5MHz outputs, once when their heights matched, then again when one is 100m above the other.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2023, 08:19:15 pm
content: Tricky though.It's even trickier than assessing the Earth's curvature at 100m above ground.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2023, 02:29:14 pm
content: Sending the signal up the tower and back will not work for the reason WatchfulEye identifies. If it did, then there would be an increasing phase shift with time. This would be a duplication of theMichelson–Morley experiment.If there was some way to "chop" the two oscillators, then their drift could be cancelled out, and a lower noise measurement made, but that would involve swapping them at a high rate somehow. Mount them on a big Ferris wheel, or pair of linked elevators?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:27:17 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on January 21, 2023, 10:45:49 pmBoy o boy – where do i start!Firstly, without meaning to offend, u know almost zilch about this stuff, & the little that u do know is wrong. Me myself i know a bit more than u, hence i am happy to discuss this stuff.1. There is no such thing as time. However, everything that we see & feel is a process, & all processes have a rate of ticking, & that ticking is affected by lots of things.2. Irrelevant but i will comment anyhow. GPS duz not in any way need the synchronization of any clocks anywhere.3. U mention a perfect clock on the surface & 1km up. Here u show that u don’t understand (1). If there were such a thing as time, & if Einstein were correct, then u would be ok to use the words that u used. But there is no such thing as time, & Einstein was not correct. Getting to the point, what i mean is that u said "clock", meaning any & all clocks. No. Different clocks will be affected by elevation in different ways. And, having identical clocks duznt get around this problem.4. U mentioned that problem of stability. That is fair enuff. But i would like to point out that much of the instability of clocks is due to an ignorance of real physics. Much of the instability is due to certain effects, which if understood can be accounted for, if not avoided.5. Re having a single oscillator & a 100 m antenna. I don’t see how u would get a gradually creeping out of phase (ie that accumulates). What u should expect is a number of different kinds of (nearnuff) cyclical phase changes, due to a number of effects. Some changes will have a daily signature (sidereal day of course), some an annual signature (due to Earth's orbit).6. Why not use one oscillator. Send a signal from the top of a hill -- & then send a signal from lower. A scope would measure the change in Hz. But i suppose that the heart of the oscillator would be a quartz crystal – a quartz crystal would be affected (by elevation etc) in ways that u could not ever imagine.7. But i don’t know much about the accuracy of such instruments. And of course the problems of temperature & air pressure etc. But, even if the instruments were very sensitive (& had zero error etc), u could not imagine the (mainly relativistic) effects & peculiar signals that must happen. It would make an MMX look like child's play.I would be happy to say more about some of this if desired.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 05:48:34 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:27:17 amSo you are telling us that mass and energy do not alter the curvature of spacetime?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 07:43:29 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 05:48:34 pmThere is no such thing as time, hence no such thing as spacetime.Light & em radiation do bend due to the presence of mass (but not due to the presence of energy)(there is no such thing as energy).Einstein made a correct prediction (re light bending near mass), but for wrong reasons (called equivalence).If Circlotron send signals to the top of his 100m antenna he will find that he has a big MMX kind of experiment on his hands -- koz electricity on a wire is due to photons (electons) propagating on the surface of the Cu -- & the propagation speed is say 1c/1 in air, & 2c/3 if insulated Cu -- the real problem being that the speed of electricity is affected by the aetherwind blowing throo the antenna -- the aetherwind is say 500 km/s south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis -- hence the speed of electricity varies during a day (due to Earth's spin & alignment) & during a year (due to Earth's orbit) -- & this is just the start of Circlotron's problems.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 08:38:31 pm
content: This forum member has written lots of nonsense in many threads. There can't be any discussion - he just enjoys provocation and confusion.Time and energy are extremely useful concepts in physics as is the progress Albert Einstein made long time ago in various areas of physics. General relativity is one of them and there have been several successful experimental verifications. Once more i'd recommend reading Wikipedia instead,Regards, Dieter

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:18:09 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 07:43:29 pmTime and spacetime are not the same thing. Are you sure you understand what Einstein's General Relativity is?

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:23:36 pm
content: Similar ballpark: The LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:27:53 pm
content: Yes, please ignore Aetherist on this subject.The gravitational red shift ("dropping" a photon down a well) was demonstrated back in 1964 using the Mössbauer effect to detect a small change in the frequency of a gamma photon between the top of a tower and the bottom.Original reference: T E Cranshaw and J P Schiffer 1964 Proc. Phys. Soc. 84 245Later experiments improved this measurement with stronger radioactive sources and a taller tower.To avoid paywalls, see pp 16-20 of this publication from Argonne National Laboratory, that starts with a discussion of the Mössbauer effect:https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2005/09/54366.pdfThe Mössbauer effect can detect very small changes in the frequency/energy of a photon emitted from a radioisotope (see the ANL article for the gory details).It's kinda sorta like detecting an audio-frequency Doppler shift of a gamma photon energy (don't take that sentence literally).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:30:33 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 09:18:09 pmYes i have studied (at home) STR & GTR for many years. I made an Excel that showed that an incremental iteration using basic GTR equations did indeed give the "correct" numbers for the bending of light passing the Sun (2 kinds/sets of bendings)(one due to ticking)(one due to contraction of rods)(both equal in total, but having completely different curves along the way).I daresay that no-one else has made such an Excel.However the GTR theory for the bending of light passing the Sun is wrong -- & i have used Excel to give the same total bending using aetherwind theory & aether gravity theory (once again 2 kinds of bending here).

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:31:15 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 07:43:29 pmSure. And this forum doesn't exist. You don't exist. I'm not even replying to this post.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:38:25 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 09:30:33 pmAnd after all this study, you don't seem to know that spacetime and time are not the same thing.Remember, it was Einstein who said that time is nothing more than an illusion, it actually doesn't exist, and yet his General Relativity which he knows is not time has been measured and proven apparently more than you know.Since you cannot grasp what his 'spacetime' actually is and confused it of being some sort of time, there is nothing here to converse about.Bye.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:42:32 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on January 25, 2023, 09:27:53 pmYes, Circlotron's antenna signal going up to his/her antenna would indeed be affected by gravitational redshift, & this redshift i suppose can be fairly accurately modelled by GTR.But this effect (on phase of signal going up to the antenna) is a constant kind of effect & therefor would not affect Circlotron's X – hence this Einsteinian shift can be ignored here.Are u aware that the Einsteinian shift fails to account for actual delays for signals passing the Sun – it fails by factors of over 1000 – but aether theory accounts for the measured delays. There have been at least 2 such Einsteinian shift failures – if u like i can find them for your info.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:47:49 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 25, 2023, 09:31:15 pmThe only time that exists is the present instant -- & this instant is universal (ie in our infinite eternal universe).There is no such thing as Einsteinian time.The passing of time is an illusion -- albeit one of the great mysteries of life.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:52:31 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 09:38:25 pmI agree with Einstein that time is an illusion -- tho i suppose my illusion is different to his illusion.I am fairly informed re experiments etc re time (Hafele Keating etc). Thats why i know that GTR & STR are krapp.Re spacetime. The space bit is about the contraction of rods (ie length) -- the time bit is about the change in ticking of clocks (ie time dilation) or something or everything.In GTR i suppose that u cant have one (eg LC) without the other (TD).On the other hand STR depends on velocity -- & GTR depends on mass & velocity -- but i think that all the same u karnt have one (LC) without the other (TD).

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 09:59:15 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on January 25, 2023, 09:23:36 pmLIGO type signals would not come into play in Circloton's X -- hence can be ignored -- or, what i mean is, that there would be no LIGO type signals, ie the signal would be zero, so, no need to ignore.There are no such things as Einsteinian GWs -- but i think that LIGO can detect some kinds of signals -- not sure what kinds, i would have to have a think about it.LIGO, being in vacuum, is not like an old fashioned MMX (these worked in gas mode, not vacuum mode). But i would have to have a think. Its complicated, what with hanging mirrors etc.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:03:52 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 09:47:49 pmYes, I already replied to this post. If you see my reply below yours just ignore that. Thanks.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:14:50 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 25, 2023, 10:03:52 pmDon't waste your time on this...

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:33:13 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:27:17 amDespite being posted by aetherist with the above time stamp.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:38:27 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 10:14:50 pmBut what do u think about Circlotron's proposed X using a 100 m antenna?Might it work? I mean in theory (obviously an oscillator etc offa ebay wont be accurate enuff).My thinks re the Circlotron-X are in my reply#9.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:50:59 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on January 25, 2023, 10:33:13 pmEinstein & i agree that time is an illusion -- but u dont agree.I said that your Circlotron-X will not give a creeping accumulating signal -- i said that it would give a cyclical signal -- lots of cyclical signals actually.Now for some more info for u.1. If u use 2 oscillators, or if u move one oscillator between 2 locations, u will need to be careful that the oscillator(s) is/are horizontal.2. And, u will need to be careful that the oscillator(s) are orientated in the same NSEW direction.3. And u will need to work quickly -- if a lot of time passes then the good work of having the oscillator(s) horizontal etc will be wasted.1 2 3 are due to the effect of length contraction of the quartz crystal in the oscillator -- LC is due to the aetherwind (speed of)(& direction of) -- i did the calculations for LC of a crystal years ago in Excel -- more importantly, i did the calcs for the effect of LC on the TD for the crystals in Excel -- i am a genius.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:54:07 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 10:14:50 pmWhat time?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 10:56:26 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 25, 2023, 10:54:07 pmEinstein's illusory time -- & my illusory time (alltho we karnt both be correct)(different kinds of illusions).But for sure your idea of time is not correct.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:01:46 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 25, 2023, 10:54:07 pmThe energy you had to expend firing your neurons to read and reply to statements in this thread ever so slightly shortening your lifespan.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:14:05 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 11:01:46 pmWhat energy?

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:25:13 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 25, 2023, 11:14:05 pmThe residue from the Big Bang.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:27:56 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 25, 2023, 11:14:05 pmEnergy is not a material thing. Energy is a math construct based on force -- hence what i should say is that force is not a material thing.All material things have mass -- non-material things (eg force & energy) do not have mass. But, this is a circular argument -- a material thing is something that has mass, & mass is due to being material (a circular argument or definition).Do u have any examples of the existence of pure energy.Or any mention of such existence in modern physics?I wont hold my breath.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:32:08 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 11:25:13 pmAHA. Congratulations. U have anticipated & replied to my most recent reply.Yes -- the only mention of pure energy in modern physics was indeed in relation to the BB.The BB theory says that in the beginning all that existed was pure energy.But, i am not aware of any modern physics that says that some of that pure energy still exists as some kind of residue!!

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:39:21 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:27:56 pmMy god, the Casimir effect proving vacuum point energy. Is your knowledge of experimental proof physics so terrible as seen by a number of your recent posts...

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2023, 11:57:47 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 25, 2023, 11:32:08 pmPlease define the word “recent”.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 12:07:23 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 25, 2023, 11:39:21 pmHmmmm -- the Casimir Effect (a quantum theory effect) says that Einstein is wrong -- yet u rub the Casimir Effect in my face as an example that supposedly helps your case that Einstein is correct.In addition -- Einstein did not believe in the BB -- yet u invoke BB to help your case that Einstein is correct.STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.The aether will return -- it never left.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 12:17:41 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on January 25, 2023, 11:57:47 pmRecent means in the near past.Past means an earlier time.Time is based on ticking.Ticking is a process.Processes are illusions.Illusions are due to memory.Memory is due to consciousness.Consciousness is a mystery.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 12:27:23 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:07:23 amHow come you did not say that this doesn't prove energy does not exist?Ok Mr expert on General Relativity enough to know it is wrong, then you must also know the name of the General Relativity effect which causes this:Approximately 1.5 years ago, LIGO recorded a relatively close gravity wave from the collision of two neutron stars instead of black holes whose collision and explosion was proven as it was observed by telescope at the same time, seen as a nova releasing new heavier elements into our universe. Without friction in space, why do such high gravity mass objects orbits decay and accelerate so quickly? What is the given name to what's responsible for this rapidly accelerating decay in orbit? Why do the mass of these objects measured by LIGO and observed by telescope match the predicted orbit decay by General Relativity's fundamental mathematical structure?There was also another telescope captured image within our Milky Way galaxy which has also illustrated and proved the existence of this force, so we know it is real. I'll let you know as a prize if you figure out the effect I'm talking about.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:28:44 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 12:17:41 amSo you used "recent", a term you yourself define as being based on an illusion.From there, can't we conclude that you are being delusional?

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:35:32 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2023, 01:28:44 amShhhh, be quiet... I snagged him on something he cannot Google or just ask anyone about. Let's see how long it takes him to answer my General Relativity question.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:41:48 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 26, 2023, 12:27:23 amFor starters – Einstein did not believe in gravity waves – certainly he did not believe in LIGO gravity waves, ie gravity waves that carry energy. Now to your first question.Re the Casimir Effect proving that space contains zero-point energy – i don’t remember ever having a deep think about the Casimir Effect – but i suppose that 2 metallic plates a few nanometres apart might have an attraction – the answer will involve electons – electons are photons that hug the surface of conductors – electons are what causes electricity on a wire – the attraction will involve the behaviour of electons – plus it might involve the behaviour of common electrons on the surfaces (ie electron charge) – now, electons repel electons, & electrons repel electrons, & electons repel electrons, they all have negative charge – hence the cause of attraction is in the first instance contradictory – the plates should experience repulsion not attraction – but i will have a think – yes, i think i have it -- as Feynman said "like attracts like" – i agree – there is the answerBut the Casimir Effect has nothing to do with your question re whether energy exists as a material thing (or having some of the properties of material things in some instances).Re your second question. I don’t understand it. If LIGO uses GTR theory to calculate masses & orbit decay etc then how can u assert that the masses & orbit decay etc validate GTR? If A is used to calculate B, then how does B prove A?Re the name of a force. All forces are gravitational or electro-magnetic or centrifugal.Praps u are referring to the supposed precession of perihelion effect – which i suppose is not really a force (according to Einsteinists).Anyhow, this GTR precessional effect is fake.Re LIGO. LIGO is a fake-fraud. There has not been much happening at LIGO lately -- wonder why?As more LIGOs are made we will see that they all prove that GWs dont exist.This will be funny. Karnt wait.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:46:21 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2023, 01:28:44 amEinstein said that time is an illusion -- so, if Einstein ever used the word recent (or at least its German equivalent), then that makes he & i both delusional in your opinion.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:48:28 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 01:46:21 amThat's not an opinion there, just a fact.Well, that is either being delusional, or yanking everyone's chain. You may know which one it is for you, but for Einstein, maybe not.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:56:35 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 26, 2023, 01:48:28 amIf i am correct (that your criticism of me should apply equally to Alby) -- then the natural conclusion is that it is u that is yanking the chains.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 01:57:13 am
content: Wrong.Just because Einstein didn't believe in black holes even though it was brought to his attention that his theory predicted them doesn't mean they still aren't real or don't exist just because Einstein said they are not real.The issue here is General Relativity right or wrong. More is known about GR today than Einstein could have foreseen in his day. Just like black holes, Einstein was told that his theory predicts the possibility of gravity waves. Einstein thought that they would be too impossibly weak if they actually do exist to ever be proven. But General Relativity says they can exist and we did sense their existence by measurement.Being an expert enough on General Relativity to be able to say it is wrong means you should know this history.You got 1 more day to answer my simple question which only has around a 1 sentence answer and for extra credit, around another 2-3 sentences describing what the effect is. Einstein knew exactly the effect I am describing and the proper term of whats going on has been used in numerous scientific papers on the subject as such a a student of spacetime should know.Good luck Mr. General Relativity is not real...

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 02:26:16 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 01:41:48 amThe Neutron star merger gravity waves were seen and given an approximate location in the sky by LIGO. Optical telescopes saw the fading glow of a neutron star collision in the targeted location of the sky. The visual sight of that collision pretty much sealed the deal with LIGO's observation being real.Also, yes, the gravity waves and the speed of the deteriorating orbit that LIGO observes does reveal the mass of the colliding objects. You should know this Mr. I understand General Relativity so well to be able to say it is false, as GR allows you to back-calculate the mass of orbiting massive objects through the ramp speed of their decaying orbit.Again, I'm off for the night and lets see if you can still answer my question by tomorrow night.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 02:27:06 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 26, 2023, 01:57:13 amMy apology to Circlotron for polluting his thread – but this Einsteinian stuff duz or might affect his Circlotron-X.I am a bit puzzled – u ask me to name a force – or praps it is an effect.I am starting to think that u are talking about the conversion of mass to energy. Or something related to that.That is an interesting topic. The fundamental particle is the photon – photons exist in at least 7 possible states – free photons (eg light) – electons (semi confined photons on the surface of good conductors)(electons make electricity) – free electrons (photons that have formed loops by biting their own tails) – fully confined electrons (electons that hug a nucleus instead of a surface)(orbiting electons)(orbiting electons have wrongly been called electrons) – protons (electons that have formed a very tight loop or figure 8 or something) – exotic particles (electons that have formed exotic loops) -- neutrinos (free photons that have formed a pair sharing the same axis but 180 deg out of phase).When matter disintegrates the confined photons change & bekum free photons.There is no release/emission of gravity waves -- & in any case gravity waves do not have intrinsic energy (but here i am talking about Newtonian gravity waves, that do exist)(a different animal to LIGO GWs).There is no release of any free energy – free energy duznt exist.There is not necessarily any conversion of mass to energy -- & if there is a kind of conversion of mass to energy then it duz not necessarily accord with E equals mcc.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 02:32:30 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 02:27:06 amWrong, Wrong, Wrong... Just answer my question. What is the name given to the GR effect which causes the orbits to decay causing neutron stars and black holes to merge. I don't care if you think it is real or not. Or, what you think is causing the effect. For you to know it is not real, such a general effect of GR, you need to know what's the given name of the effect. Otherwise you do not know what GR is or how it is intended to work, so you cannot say GR is wrong.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 02:34:05 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 26, 2023, 02:32:30 amI mentioned the precession of perihelion effect earlier!!!! It is fake.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 02:53:40 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on January 26, 2023, 02:34:05 amWrong. That effect is on low density and low mass scales like our sun and the slight elliptical orbit of Mercury and larger distances.This is not the effect when you have 2 closely equal mass bodies with the density of neutron stars or black holes with insane orbit speeds which can almost be audibly heard, rising in pitch to a merger within a few seconds at the final moments.Come on, you must know the term which describes this spacetime action.The effect was also visually observed and measured by the W. M. Keck Observatory looking at an actual star on a steep elliptical orbit around Sagittarius A Star being shredded apart at the heart of our milky way. Measurement of light spectrum and timing of the debris once again proved this predicted effect in GR. What is the name of this effect.(I might have just given too much away... Though, there was another telescope experiment placed in Earth orbit to test this function...)

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 04:45:22 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 26, 2023, 02:53:40 amNo i dont know of any peculiar GTR spacetime actions relating to binary BHs etc.I dont believe in singularity BHs -- but i believe in ordinary supermassive stars, but these karnt ever be black (praps brown or grey).Ordinary supermassive binarys must suffer orbital inspiral & ringdown & merger, partly hastened by simple tidal (friction) losses, & partly hastened by relativistic LC effects (LC gives change of shape due to LC, due to spin)(giving another dose of internal friction losses).Jets (polar jets mainly i think) can be explained lots of ways -- we dont know much aboutem.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 07:41:54 am
content: In ascending powers of ten:Archimedes Plutonium and Plutonium atom totality theory.Gene Ray and Timecubeaetherist and GTR, STR, MMX etc.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 11:07:11 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on January 26, 2023, 07:41:54 amWhat if your Circlotron-X involved an oscillator at center of Earth & an oscillator on surface of Earth -- what ticking difference would u expect (ignoring temp etc problems).

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 02:31:17 pm
content: For someone who likes to take lazy short cuts (as indicated by their writing) I doubted they would have the discipline to apply focussed thinking and have the ability to wrap their mind around such a subject. I wasn't wrong.Nevertheless, this has been the most entertaining waste of time I've spent all week.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2023, 03:19:26 pm
content: Should one want to do a gravitational red-shift experiment, it is probably better to use a tower above the Earth's surface (as in the Mössbauer effect gamma-resonance measurements I cited above), rather than a hole in the ground, since there are some minor problems evaluating the gravitational field down a borehole, since the density of the planet is not distributed uniformly, but the field above the surface is more straightforward to calculate.The original papers and the Argonne historical article about gamma measurements provide guidance as to how much gravitational red shift can be expected with a reasonable tower.