Jump to content

MPMin

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-8 Poor

About MPMin

  • Rank
    Atom

Recent Profile Visitors

1121 profile views
  1. By launching do you mean the launching movement through space is what causes the desynchronisation?
  2. With reference to space expansion, what would an observer see if they were between myself and the distant point? My understanding of synchronised means the two clocks indicate the same amount of time has passed, in phase just means they are ticking at exactly the same time. If as per my analogy, if you were an observer between the two clocks that were originally synchronised on earth but now one is in orbit, it would now seem that if you could see both clocks while being between them they would no longer be in synch?
  3. Does the ‘own frame of reference’ perspective mean that the timing of the engine (or atomic clock) for the purposes of time keeping are consistent with its own perspective or experience of time? My uncertainty about ‘frame of reference’ when referencing ones own perspectives/experience causes me to wonder when do the clocks actually diverge from each other? Does the disparity between the clocks only occur when the clocks are reunited because that’s the only time they can be compared or does half of the disparity between the clocks occur when one of the clocks is half way through it’s journey t
  4. To help me better understand I’d like to explore the following hypothetical. Assuming this engine was a precision piece of engineering that ran at a perfectly constant RPM, you could then consider the engine to be a time piece of sorts as well as an engine. If you now had two of these engines perfectly synchronised on earth and sent one of the engines in to outer space (excluding all the practical factors required to make an engine run) to be in the same orbital plane around the sun as the earth and outside of the earth’s influence of gravity, the engine on the earth would run a little faster
  5. Thank you all for reacting to my questions. My reaction is firstly, it was not my intention to start a new thread. The subject of ‘flat universe’ was raised in my previous thread and I asked for clarification. I do however appreciate this new thread to further expand my learning. On the subject of the universe with reference to parallel lines, there seems to be some definitive wriggle room due to colloquialisms. My understanding of parallel lines is that two parallel lines do not intersect or diverge on a two dimensional plane. However, when considering parallel lines in a three dime
  6. Perhaps I’m just not getting the concept of time. I cant see how time is inextricably linked to space as described by the ‘space time’ model because; for example, two identical clocks that are side by side on earth experience the same time as each other and consequently identically indicate that the same amount of time has past. However, if you then send one of those two clocks out into space and bring it back to it’s place of origin the two clocks will no longer show that the same amount of time has past. It would appear to me that the clock that went to space and back experienced less time b
  7. I don’t want to go off track understanding time but I think I’m getting confused over the ‘universe is flat’ perspective. Does the universe being ‘flat’ just mean it is infinite in every direction?
  8. Yes, and I understand that’s correct if you completely accept the current model of space time. I’m not asking if ‘time’ being attracted to gravity is likely, I’m just asking if time being attracted to gravity is in any way possible as an alternative hypothesis to the current model? In other words, in consideration of the fact that the current model is a theory, without specifically referencing the current theory, what’s the independently observable reason that time can not be attracted to gravity?
  9. Aside from time being considered as part of the standard model of ‘space time’ is there any reason why as an alternative hypothesis that time could not be attracted to gravity?
  10. Does that mean that em waves leaving the sun’s surface are of a higher frequency than when they reach an observer at the edge of the solar system?
  11. Does the electromagnetic radiation climbing out of a gravity well only stretch while climbing out of the gravity well or does it stay stretched even after it’s left the gravity well? To help me understand this better, if you were able to shine two beams of light with exactly the same frequency, if you were to shine one of the beams of light from Jupiter to an observer in feee space and the other identically produced beam of light from a place with no gravity to the observer, would the beam of light from Jupiter be red shifted from the observer’s point of view? also assumin
  12. Perhaps where I’m going wrong is referring to the very large mass as a black hole because what I’m getting is it wouldn’t be a black hole by definition if anything could escape it. So to revise my questioning, instead of referring to black holes in my questions I meant to refer to very large masses that are capable of significantly reducing radiation because I’m trying to understand if radiation is red shifted when emitted from very large masses?
  13. But hypothetically speaking, for the sake of my understanding, assuming Gammas were being emitted from within a black hole and assuming the gravity of the black hole was not strong enough to reduce the frequency of the gammas to nil but only strong enough to reduce the gammas to a lesser frequency then could it be hypothetically possible the gammas to be emitted as visible light?
  14. If I understood a previous explanation properly, it suggest that gravity reduces the frequency of electromagnetic radiation as it moves away from the source of gravity. If I’ve understood this correctly then hypothetically speaking, if gamma rays were being emitted inside a black hole, assuming the gravity of the black hole was not great enough to reduce the frequency of the gamma rays to nil, the gamma ray’s frequency could be reduced to a visible light frequency hypothetically speaking.
  15. To help me better understand this concept, hypothetically speaking, gamma rays could potentially escape as visible light? Would we then expect to see a narrow circular rainbow at the event horizon?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.