12

# The Red Shift without Expansion

Krumple

1
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 09:06 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

But you are not far off from my explanation of light not being bent by gravity, instead space is bent and light travels in a straight line following the bend in space. So from the light's (photon) perspective it always travels in straight lines but if space is bent in the presence of matter then the light appears to curve.

Well, that sounds like GR's explanation too. If you define a "straight line" as "the shortest distance between two points," then the nature of a "straight line" will depend on the nature of the "surface" you're working on.

Al had to abandon Euclidean plane geometry in favor of a "Reimannian" geometry where parallel lines WILL meet, etc. A "straight line" will be curved on the surface of a globe, like earth, for example.

Yes exactly, however; we can't physically see the curve of space like a glove. We have to infer it through another means which is why I think the explanation that light doesn't have enough velocity to escape the gravity of a black hole. Its actually the other way around, space is curved inward causing light to travel straight into it.
layman

0
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 09:22 pm
@Krumple,
I know very little about General Relativity, and certainly don't pretend to understand it. I'm told it is a theory of gravity (not a theory of motion, like SR).

I'm told that the "curvature" of space supposedly caused by the earth's gravity is less than 1 inch in the entire (25,000 mile) circumference of the earth.

How would that degree of "curvature" cause cannonballs to go falling to earth at such ever-increasing speed when dropped off of skyscrapers?

Actually, it's said, it's not a curvature of "space" but of "spacetime." Supposedly it is the "time" element that causes the vast majority of gravitational phenomena on earth.

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.
Krumple

1
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 09:32 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

I know very little about General Relativity, and certainly don't pretend to understand it. I'm told it is a theory of gravity (not a theory of motion, like SR).

I'm told that the "curvature" of space supposedly caused by the earth's gravity is less than 1 inch in the entire (25,000 mile) circumference of the earth.

How would that degree of "curvature" cause cannonballs to go falling to earth at such ever-increasing speed when dropped off of skyscrapers?

Actually, it's said, it's not a curvature of "space" but of "spacetime." Supposedly it is the "time" element that causes the vast majority of gravitational phenomena on earth.

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.

Because the closer you get to the center of mass the stronger the "force".

Its like a hill except this hill is steeper near the bottom than the top.

In other words the closer you get to the ground (surface) the more influence the field has on an object as it falls.

The strength of the field is directly proportionate to the square of the distance from the center of mass.

Its why our moon can affect the water of Earth's oceans. I think the sun and the moon as affect the Earths core. The Earth is constantly tugged back and forth which I believe generates heat. I don't think the Earths core will ever cool down unless we lost the moon.
layman

0
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 09:35 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.

Because the closer you get to the center of mass the stronger the "force".

Its like a hill except this hill is steeper near the bottom than the top.

In other words the closer you get to the ground (surface) the more influence the field has on an object as it falls.

The strength of the field is directly proportionate to the square of the distance from the center of mass.

Its why our moon can affect the water of Earth's oceans. I think the sun and the moon as affect the Earths core. The Earth is constantly tugged back and forth which I believe generates heat. I don't think the Earths core will ever cool down unless we lost the moon.

Well, Krumps, you seem to be describing Newtonian gravity here, not GR. In GR, gravity is NOT a force, they say.
Krumple

1
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 09:40 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

What does "time" have to do with "gravity?"

I have no clue.

Because the closer you get to the center of mass the stronger the "force".

Its like a hill except this hill is steeper near the bottom than the top.

In other words the closer you get to the ground (surface) the more influence the field has on an object as it falls.

The strength of the field is directly proportionate to the square of the distance from the center of mass.

Its why our moon can affect the water of Earth's oceans. I think the sun and the moon as affect the Earths core. The Earth is constantly tugged back and forth which I believe generates heat. I don't think the Earths core will ever cool down unless we lost the moon.

Well, Krumps, you seem to be describing Newtonian gravity here, not GR. In GR, gravity is NOT a force, they say.

Which is why I put it in parenthesise. For certain things you can use math as gravity being a force. However; its not exactly accurate to use it as a force.
layman

0
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 10:02 pm
@Krumple,
Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....
layman

0
Wed 8 Feb, 2017 10:08 pm
@layman,
I have seen the phenomenon of mass distorting space, though, I think. I saw a 450 lb woman at the mall last week, for example. She made every person who approached her from a distance suddenly swerve away when they spotted her. Me, I wasn't gettin near that thing to begin with. I've heard that terrible things happen to you when you get sucked in by a black hole, ya know?
0 Replies

layman

0
Thu 9 Feb, 2017 03:18 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....

I've seen analogies made which involve "moving through time," but I can't make sense of them. Since when were abstract concepts like "time" something you can "move through," like a forest, or something? Reification, anybody? How about a little dose of hypostatization, maybe?

Yeah, I was out driving down Time Highway the other day when it suddenly made a sharp left turn that I didn't see coming. I went clean off the road, and, suddenly I became weightless. I had lost contact with gravity.

Time aint something that just "passes," I guess. Ya gotta muster up some energy to plow through that ****.
Krumple

1
Thu 9 Feb, 2017 10:15 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

layman wrote:

Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....

I've seen analogies made which involve "moving through time," but I can't make sense of them. Since when were abstract concepts like "time" something you can "move through," like a forest, or something? Reification, anybody? How about a little dose of hypostatization, maybe?

Yeah, I was out driving down Time Highway the other day when it suddenly made a sharp left turn that I didn't see coming. I went clean off the road, and, suddenly I became weightless. I had lost contact with gravity.

Time aint something that just "passes," I guess. Ya gotta muster up some energy to plow through that ****.

I know you have objections to it. But I like to look at it another way.

In this view time is consistent and constant in all frames if reference. But first let me suggest why I am doing this.

If the universe was once all contained in a singularity and time did not exist, my premise is that time could never begin to exist from a point of nonexistence without time itself first existing. Time is required for change to occur.

With that said, time is universal, consistent and constant. The difference is space. If space changes shape the distance within that space changes. We know matter impacts space. I'll continue this later..
Krumple

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 01:24 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

layman wrote:

Well, you said a lot of things that are commonly known, but you didn't help me understand how "time" makes things fall to the earth.

Then again, I'm probably inherently incapable of understanding that connection anyway, so.....

I've seen analogies made which involve "moving through time," but I can't make sense of them. Since when were abstract concepts like "time" something you can "move through," like a forest, or something? Reification, anybody? How about a little dose of hypostatization, maybe?

Yeah, I was out driving down Time Highway the other day when it suddenly made a sharp left turn that I didn't see coming. I went clean off the road, and, suddenly I became weightless. I had lost contact with gravity.

Time aint something that just "passes," I guess. Ya gotta muster up some energy to plow through that ****.

I know you have objections to it. But I like to look at it another way.

In this view time is consistent and constant in all frames if reference. But first let me suggest why I am doing this.

If the universe was once all contained in a singularity and time did not exist, my premise is that time could never begin to exist from a point of nonexistence without time itself first existing. Time is required for change to occur.

With that said, time is universal, consistent and constant. The difference is space. If space changes shape the distance within that space changes. We know matter impacts space. I'll continue this later..

Wow everyone patiently waiting for me to finish explaining this.

When space gets warped in the presence of matter the distance between two points can increase due to this warp. However; it will not appear to be unusual and any object moving through that space will be assumed to be under the effects of gravity to explain its path.

The point here is to give up the idea of gravity but instead imagine space as a 3d grid without matter, but when matter is present that perfectly 90° 3d box grid is now curved with the side near the mass slightly shorter than the further side. This means the shorter distance between two points isn't a straight line! Its a curved line bent in the direction of the mass. So an object follows thus curve naturally. No gravity needed.

This can be consistent with the square of the distance from center if mass. The closer side will always have a shorter length than the further side. Yet both are trying to be parallel with same length but can't due to the mass bending the space.

This also means the density of space can very but time stays consistent only the distance within that space changes giving the illusion of time dilation.

It can explain why light bends near massive objects.

It can explain orbits.

And it can explain why time seems to change as your altitude changes.
layman

0
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 01:34 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Its a curved line bent in the direction of the mass. So an object follows thus curve naturally. No gravity needed.

Heh, Krumps, once again you present all kinds of claims, asserted basically as "fact," without offering anything in the way of justification or explanation.

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in weak fields (such as earth). This "curvature" notion doesn't even enter the claim until you get around black holes, and ****.

If you're cruising at 700 mph at 30,000 feet, then suddenly cut off your engines, why don't you just keep cruising into outer space? Why do you, before long, hit the ground? HARD? "Curvature" causes that? I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.
layman

0
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 08:56 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

There are places where the tides rise and fall, twice a day, by more than the height of a 4-story building. That one-inch "curve" cause that, ya figure?
McGentrix

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 11:34 am
@layman,
layman

0
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 12:23 pm
@McGentrix,
Interesting little vid, there, Gent, but it doesn't answer the question. How does "warped space" make an apple accelerate at ever-increasing speeds if there is no detectable warp or curvature to begin with?

Furthermore, his graphs show a gradual, steady downward path, but the line should go virtually straight down, with a whole lot of distance covered in very little time.

Did this video really "explain" everything to you?

I'll give the guy some credit for rejecting the "rubber sheet" analogy as being persuasive, at least. That whole analogy presupposes a gravitational "force." Without that the sheet wouldn't stretch, to begin with.
McGentrix

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 12:36 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Furthermore, his graphs show a gradual, steady downward path, but the line should go virtually straight down, with a whole lot of distance covered in very little time.

O.o

You understand how examples work, right? They aren't an absolute life like recreation. They are used to demonstrate how something works.

Britanica says
Quote:
On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth's mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth's surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second.

I don't get why you don't grasp things and I believe it to be an act.
Krumple

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 01:25 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

The curve caused by the Earth extends out past the moon. The sun's space curve extends out past the Kuiper belt. The galactic curve extends over 50k light-years.
Krumple

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 01:27 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

There are places where the tides rise and fall, twice a day, by more than the height of a 4-story building. That one-inch "curve" cause that, ya figure?

You are saying it's one inch, I'm saying that's not my conclusion. It extends millions of miles.
0 Replies

layman

0
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 01:46 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I don't get why you don't grasp things and I believe it to be an act

I don't think you're following the convo at all, Gent. The picture you posted talks about gravity as a "force" and is describing Newtonian notions of gravity. But nobody was talking about that.

We were discussing how GR, with it's "spacetime curavture," and where gravity is NOT a force, could explain the phenomena.
layman

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 01:50 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

The curve caused by the Earth extends out past the moon. The sun's space curve extends out past the Kuiper belt. The galactic curve extends over 50k light-years.

There ya go again, Krumps, making statements with no argument being offered to support them. The question wasn't even "how far" to begin with. It was a question about how "much" space curvature, not how "far."

But it really wasn't even that to begin with. GR itself says it aint the "space" element, but rather the "time" element of spacetime which causes gravity on earth. Your "explanation" of that ignored the question and started talking about space curvature.

How does "time" cause gravity?
McGentrix

1
Mon 13 Feb, 2017 02:16 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

How does "time" cause gravity?

Seriously? Like 5 posts ago. https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6363874

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King