Mordred

The answer really depends on which mass your using. If you use rest mass of the two objects or the enertial mass. For the OP if you place the same dumbbells into a higher gravitational potential they would gain inertial mass. So they wouldn't be the same mass. As they gain in inertial mass they would emit stronger gravity waves. Remember GR teaches that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical. You can find the formula for radiated power https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave under mathematics. They provide a Newtonian style formula for power.

Most of the variations are covered in the various inflation models. There is 70+ variations in Encyclopedia inflationarious. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwio2r_hkIzMAhUJwmMKHeBBBq4QFggRMAA&usg=AFQjCNF04zrTjFJanQx2Yb1Ze-Lp571U5Q

At least infinite theory theory using false vacuum related metrics. The closest possibility would be the zero energy universe model. That particular variant may allow the possibility. The metrics however require potential vs kinetic energy in a geometry. Curvature requires the use of pseudo tensors which GR advocates tend to frown upon. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj598fEoIvMAhVUzWMKHeuPC-kQFggRMAA&usg=AFQjCNETzVlkxJseEroHw2ZaZsxV-vHoOg It is another variant of universe from nothing. Though seems similar to the David posted there are differences in the actual metrics. Least this is the closest possibility I've run across.

Although this is a good article, this particular model conjecture doesn't imply an infinite universe. The main reason is it requires rapid inflation from a Planck length. Universe from nothing models though theoretically plausible, are typically finite. In many ways this model is a quantum variation of Bubble universe creation. Very similar to chaotic eternal inflation. I personally know of no universe from nothing model that is considered infinite. Doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any. I honestly can't see how the mechanism in this paper could be used for an infinite universe.

Too hard to tell from this article, the full article may be more revealing. At a glance though I would think it involved the conservation of momentum laws.

Yeah right I forgot your the role model to higher learning and good behavior LMAO. I'm done wasting my time have a good life

Why are we talking about angels lol. Honestly the shows yet again a lack in your willingness to learn. It's too bad really, you limit yourself. However that's not my problem. That's your self limitation. The math works with observational evidence plain and simple. You can choose to deny that fact all you want. Personally I couldn't care what your opinion of me is. I happen to be a proud grandfather. So quite frankly insulting me with regards to children makes you extremely petty. Not that your lack of substance in your arguments is particularly worth much merit. Enjoy your ignorance. If you want answers to the meaning of T read the links

At one time, quantum process via virtual particle/ antiparticle pair production. This process was later shown unlikely due to too much energy in the process. About the same time quintessence, which didn't match. Now I would say a possibility involves the Higgs field. At least the majority of recent papers are moving in that direction.

Then you have pulsars which emit electromagnetic radiation at regular intervals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar or standard candles... http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/03/standard-candle-supernovae-are-still-standard-but-why even handier to have luminosity to temperature relations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity Plenty of methods of cross checks using different physics applications All of which can be used via mathematics to distance and time measurements. Did you ever look at the formula for frequency? [latex] f=1/T[/latex] Here I shouldn't have to teach high school physics. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-period.htm If you had a total lack of time the frequency would be zero. Here is a good article on gravitational redshift vs time dilation. . http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture490_ch6.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj9jY-h9IfMAhVU7GMKHVZRB5gQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNHJKHzN5VeOymsT5NXYBj19rUQuQw I chose a simpler article for math level. The arxiv physics articles get a little too deep. Your argument that this represents the physics here but not there is pointless. If you study the material provided you will learn it applies there as well. How can it not. We can measure those physics at any range up to the CMB 46 Mpc away from us. Any change in physics will change those methods.

For example the formula I posted earlier. Using the link I supplied earlier with Weins displacement law, coupled with the Rayliegh scale for say the most abundant element hydrogen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series each one of these color bands can represented by a frequency. So by measuring hydrogen at various distances and using the gravitational redshift formula We can measure the time dilation effects via the frequency change (redshift/blueshift) We can calculate time dilation using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift "In astrophysics, gravitational redshift or Einstein shift is the process by which electromagnetic radiation originating from a source that is in a gravitational field is reduced in frequency, or redshifted, when observed in a region of a weaker gravitational field. This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation" Hydrogen is a handy source to measure we know it's spectral index, simplified the emitter frequency any time dilation would alter the spectral index frequencies. The same happens with temperature Precisely there is that pesky time again. Tipped you admit there is time involved........... Now to measure the time dilation. Use this formula. [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] G=gravitational constant c=speed of light M=mass of gravitational body [latex]\Lambda[/latex] is wavelength, the subscript o denotes the observer wavelength. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency

I've presented my arguments and religion aside you have yet to show a single decent argument. Yet you demand that of us. For shame. Why should we bother when you've obviously refuse to consider our responses with anything other than "you lie, your blinded by faith, we didn't measure anything etc etc etc." If you honestly believe science doesn't use multiple approaches to test it's models your wrong. Every theory in physics is tested rigorously. Especially GR. So far all your posts have shown that you have no understanding of basic physics so showing the higher mathematics is pointless. Redshift for example is an extremely well tested theory that uses time dilation. However your response shows you don't wish to understand how. If anything, every one of your posts suggest your here to preach, not understand the information presented thus far to you. If you interested in learning you would have asked for clarity on how we apply those physics formulas in deep field measurements. Not simply post, " that doesn't mean anything"

Why would you think a star burns any different with nuclear fusion processes than here, Why would you think that the spectrography signature for hydrogen or helium which uses frequency is any different than here. Why don't we see this alternative time behavior you believe in when we look at spectography measurements. Or even see it in radio signals. We do have radio telescopes. Other than the redshift/blueshift which is explained with GR. All our measurements MATCH the physics we see here on Earth. Your claims otherwise are based on your denial without any true understanding. Quite frankly I certainly hope your church doesn't teach you to remain ignorant. That would be harmful to your congegration membership.

No I did you ignored. Here is the temperature to wavelength formula via Weins displacement law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law objects won't emit a temperature if it experiences zero time.

I suggest you study what the term frequency means. You obviously haven't a clue. Does the words. Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time. Not mean anything to you.

Wrong it takes time for light to move from a to b. So when you apply c*t this equals length. come on this is elementary school math. Do you understand the term wavelength or frequency.? Do you know that temperature affects the emitter frequency via blackbody temperature radiation? Are you aware that you must have a time component to have a frequency? Are you aware that we measure the temperature at any point astronomy studies? Or is your next argument going to be no your wrong it's your blind faith.

I already explained how we use light to measure time. I'm not going to waste my time on someone not interested in the scientific methods.

No you made a claim that time works different than what our models show. Yet supply no alternative to discuss other than were wrong your right. BORING. I at least supplied a link showing measurement data and tried to explain it to you. Don't bother posting your christanity link. I happen to be a devout Catholic. That doesn't prevent me from studying science.

I agree it makes for an incredibly boring debate.

Lol our models do an incredible job of making predictions prior to observation. If you wish to consider that based on faith so be it. I have faith my feet is currently touching the floor. In all seriousness though, I dont waste my time arguing belief. If you want to discuss science that's fine. However if the counter argument you can come up with is to ignore scientific data of measurements and extremely well tested models with a lame poor argument of faith. That conservation is far too boring of an argument. It lacks any imagination or scientific merit to discuss. I honestly hope you can provide a better argument worth discussing other than "FAITH"

I can absolutely see happening if every time someone tries explaining something you don't understand and arguing "Faith" Just curious though do you even know how Faith is defined? The common definition is the belief of something you can't see or measure. Which is the opposite in those regards to physics which all about measurements. Yet every time we mention measurement you argue that's faith...

It's not faith, look at the definition of time and then look at the definition of force. This are basic physics terminology. While looking at how force is defined study Newtons three laws of inertia. If your going to argue against physics you may as well study basic physics terminology.

Quite frankly if time didn't exist neither would spacetime. The only way time cannot exist is if there is literally nothing, not even a volume. In point of detail any absolutely empty volume would still have time. Even if it never changes. That's a measure of duration. Though quite frankly that's rather impossible to have a absolutely unchanging volume. So the concept of no time is also a meaningless concept. Time also measures duration not just change. Time isn't a force it's a measurement. It's not what I think, it's what GR allowed us to understand, and test. The tests of GR is incredible, they have even measured the time dilation between your feet and your head. It's used and tested everyday, for example particle accelerators and GPS satellites. Any cosmological distance measurements employs GR. It must.

The easiest way to think of time is the measured rate of change or duration. How we choose to model that rate can vary. Some models use "action" and geometry. GR uses geometry with vectors and scalars

This gets complex, I'll try to keep it simple. You look at a clock at rest with yourself at rest. Both you and the clock are in the same reference frame, you both being in the same gravitational potential and at rest. Now if we add a third observer who is also looking at the same clock, but is moving, who also has a clock that has been previously synchronized with the other clock. If the moving observer looks at the synchronized clock he is carrying he will see nothing unusual, however if he looks at the clock at rest, we will see it ticks at a different rate than the one he is carrying. The observer at rest will measure the same change in the clock that is moving. how you measure time depends on your reference frame (spacetime geometry) compared to the reference frame of the emitter. There is essentially a couple of reasons this occurs. light is the same velocity regardless of observer =c. So the velocity of measured signal (light pulses from the clock doesn't change) When you have relativistic effects occur two key affects occur simultaneously. Time dilation and length contraction. We model these two influences using time =ct. We map the spatial coordinates as x,y,Z. Hence 4d. Here time is treated coordinate with a vector component. Collectively we refer to this as spacetime. Reference frames being the coordinate condition of the observer and the coordinate difference of the emitter compared to the observer. if there is no difference in the coordinates the emitter and observer is in the same reference frame. Reference frames apply at all scales of measure, locally and globally in the case of modelling spacetime geometry of the Universe. As spacetime geometry also influences the light paths via null geodesics, we can essentially look for distortions in deep space images to measure potential spacetime geometry change. This is the function of the curvature term in the Cosmology FLRW metric, which is a simplified version of the Einstein field equations.

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] Using this formula if the light path enters a gravity well there is time dilation. Ordinarily when it exits the gravity well the wavelength is restored. However if the background mass changes while the light is in the well, we can notice a difference. This forms the basis of the Sachs-Wolfe effect. Which is an application of using time dilation to our advantage. This technique is handy in CMB measurements as well as mapping possible gravitational lenses, and potential variations in the rate of expansion.