Are laws of nature really the same in all reference frames?

[Passionflower]

Ah, but if delta r represents distance as perceived by an observer at infinity

1. How do you conclude that delta r is distance as perceived by an observer at infinity.
2. If so, how do you conclude that the observer at infinity has the ultimate saying about what the real length is?

r simply represents the, so called, reduced circumference and directly relates to the circumference and area of resp. a circle and sphere.

Are you perhaps saying that the increase in radius and volume between shells of lower r-values over the expected Euclidean values is not due to the fact that space is no longer Euclidean but due to the fact that rulers shrink?

, and a local, stationary observer computes a proper distance (with their t=0 simultaneity) of something greater, that implies the local rulers look short to the observer at infinity (in the radial direction).

What kind of computation did you have in mind?

wrt the first reference, I am sorry I must be slow but I do not see where it states anything that is relevant to what you said, could you tell me exactly what you think shows the reference that rulers shrink.

wrt to the second reference I am also at a loss, where exactly is this pointed out that rulers shrink?

 

[PAllen]

1. How do you conclude that delta r is distance as perceived by an observer at infinity.
2. If so, how do you conclude that the observer at infinity has the ultimate saying about what the real length is?

r simply represents the, so called, reduced circumference and directly relates to the circumference and area of resp. a circle and sphere.

Are you perhaps saying that the increase in radius and volume between shells of lower r-values over the expected Euclidean values is not due to the fact that space is no longer Euclidean but due to the fact that rulers shrink?What kind of computation did you have in mind?

wrt the first reference, I am sorry I must be slow but I do not see where it states anything that is relevant to what you said, could you tell me exactly what you think shows the reference that rulers shrink.

wrt to the second reference I am also at a loss, where exactly is this pointed out that rulers shrink?

With regard to the first reference, the following is said:

"Gravitational Length Contraction

Lengths of objects in gravitational fields are contracted according to the theory. The prediction has never been tested. For the keen, you may wish to derive this prediction using the same techniques used in the previous sub-section to derive gravitational time dilation. "

With regard to the second reference, there is the following:

"The factor of 2 relative to the equation of 1911 arises because in the full theory there is gravitational length contraction as well as time dilation. Of course, the length contraction doesn’t affect the gravitational redshift, which is purely a function of the time dilation, so the redshift prediction of 1911 remains valid"

Here is another discussion, but it is not at all rigorous:

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/g0_en/g4_en/

"The smaller r is, the longer a segment in the radial direction will be when measured with local yardsticks. As seen from OFF: yardsticks shorten in the radial direction with increasing strength of the gravitational field! Thus, for the thickness of a spherical shell around M, a local surveyor determines a larger value than an observer in OFF. "

[EDIT: found better discussion of this:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm ]

 

[Bjarne]

First of all speed of light globally is not the same everywhere.
Statement that "laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" means that local experiments will give the same results. But global observations can be different.

I guess the different speed of light happens doesn’t matter whether the length of the rulers always is comparable the same or not.

 

[Bjarne]

With regard to the first reference, the following is said:

"Gravitational Length Contraction

Lengths of objects in gravitational fields are contracted according to the theory.

Right
I agree (and "disagree").
Notice Observer “Ex” (external) will not see any length contraction.
Seen from the perspective of "Ex" the distance of the Milkyway would be the same for both A and B.

B is deeper inside the gravitionel field of the Sun. He will complete 1 orbit in less time as A.

If B shall have the right to claim that the orbit of the MW is shorter (length contraction), it is only possible if B’s ruler is comparable longer than A’s.

Do you understand that point? – It seems like a contradiction but it is not, but rather a mathematical necessity that B’s meter stick must be longer than A’s.
(You must also respect the mathematical reality of observer Ex, - Observer Ex must also have the possibility to understand other realities - relative to his own )


B and A’s perception of speed can also not possible be the same, simply because B’s clock is ticking slower.

We should not be allowed to mix realities, hence also not to force our (A’s) perception of speed into B’s reality.

So since B’s time-rate is ticking slower, - that alone should mean that B moves FASTER than A, - but because B’s ruler (seen from a mathematical point of view) must be longer the speed is the “same” – but not comparable the same.

Notice A and B will agree to complete the orbit of the MW in the exact same period, but they can impossible agree about distance / circumstance / time / rulers.

I appreciate your contribution to the thread and I understand most of what you have explained, but still I wish there was a simpler way to understand and compare how B's reality really is, as well as understand how would B’s ruler would be compared to A’s.

I think there still is more to discover to make that simpler, straight and logical.

 

[zonde]

I guess the different speed of light happens doesn’t matter whether the length of the rulers always is comparable the same or not.

It matters. Length of rulers is related to local speed of light and local rate of clocks.

 

[A.T.]

Are you perhaps saying that the increase in radius and volume between shells of lower r-values over the expected Euclidean values is not due to the fact that space is no longer Euclidean but due to the fact that rulers shrink?

I think these are just two different ways to say the same thing:

- The space in not Euclidean, so rulers measure more radius than expected based on the circumference, so the rulers appear to be shrunk when compared to identical rulers placed around the circumference.

This is equivalent to:

- The space-time in not Euclidean, so clocks measure less time than expected, so the clocks appear to be slowed down when compared to identical clocks placed around the circumference.

 

[PAllen]

Right
I agree (and "disagree").
Notice Observer “Ex” (external) will not see any length contraction.
Seen from the perspective of "Ex" the distance of the Milkyway would be the same for both A and B.

Correct, some observer floating away from the milkyway would see these distances the same.

B is deeper inside the gravitionel field of the Sun. He will complete 1 orbit in less time as A.

If B shall have the right to claim that the orbit of the MW is shorter (length contraction), it is only possible if B’s ruler is comparable longer than A’s.

Do you understand that point? – It seems like a contradiction but it is not, but rather a mathematical necessity that B’s meter stick must be longer than A’s.
(You must also respect the mathematical reality of observer Ex, - Observer Ex must also have the possibility to understand other realities - relative to his own )

Here, you have confused several things. The length contraction I described had to do with local rulers as perceived by a distant observer. However, I never proposed a way to use local ruler measure for astronomic distances (it is possible, building a ladder of distances).

Totally independent of the issue of local rulers perceived from a distant free fall observer, I proposed a different, simple convention for astronomic distances (radar ranging, using local time, and assumption speed of light is isotropically c. It is only using this convention (rather than local rulers) that you end up with shorter distances to distant objects, and thus the same speed measured by A and B.

Note that whatever definitions are used, some measurements by A and B will differ (assuming each uses the same definitions). This is not unexpected or inconsistent with invariance of laws of physics.

Let's state what is really claimed by different relativity principles:

1) Galilean relativity: All laws take the same, simplest, form in any inertial frame. Note, this never meant that measurements are the same, only laws (equations) relating measurments. The main thing wrong with this was that its law for velocity transformation between inertial observers turned out to be experimentally incorrect. Between observers with relative acceleration, there is no simple relativity, and laws take more complex form.

2) Special relativity: Same principle as above, except the transformation law between different frames is different and consistent with experiment. In particular, there is no 'relativity' between observers undergoing relative acceleration.

3) General relativity gives you both less and more. The laws of special relativity only apply locally, for inertial observers, defined as those in free fall. There is no unique answer at all to such things as long distances or velocity of a distant object (whether for inertial observers or non-inertial observers). Instead there are only useful conventions you may choose, and procedures for making valid physical predictions based on whatever conventions you choose. There is a general formulation of laws such that whatever conventions are used by any observer, the laws in this form apply (but measurements are not the same). However, the same conventionality of coordinates means, in practice, you use transformation rules to convert your measurements to the most convenient coordinates for calculation.

Based on (3), your A and B observes each know they are non-inertial; they know the magnitude of their acceleration. Seeing the sun, and making measurements, they can determine the quali-local structure of spacetime. What each does, in practice, is convert their local measurements, using the predictions of GR to accomplish this, to milkyway center coordinates (each able to determine a different required clock adjustment, for example). They compute distances, speeds, etc. in this frame. Each one doing this ends up with the same predictions and values. This is all that is expected, and found to be true.

B and A’s perception of speed can also not possible be the same, simply because B’s clock is ticking slower.

You cannot make such a blanket statement. It depends on measurement conventions. I have shown that there exists a simple convention that has the property that A and B differ on distances and times such that speeds of distant objects come out essentially identical. Other equally valid measurement conventions will lead to different results. However, GR provides the precise rules allowing A and B to make the same physical predictions whatever consistent conventions they use, and compare results, as long as each knows the other's conventions. The requirement on consistency here are very broad (one-one mapping of spacetime, continuity conditions, etc.).

We should not be allowed to mix realities, hence also not to force our (A’s) perception of speed into B’s reality.

There is really one reality in GR - the spacetime manifold. There are many ways to label events in it, and many different physical processes for taking measurements, that can be used at different places, times, instrument speed etc. GR allows any of these to be used to probe the underlying reality. However, the underlying reality does not include statements such as a unique valid distance between distant objects, nor a unique valid relative speed between distant objects.

So since B’s time-rate is ticking slower, - that alone should mean that B moves FASTER than A, - but because B’s ruler (seen from a mathematical point of view) must be longer the speed is the “same” – but not comparable the same.

Notice A and B will agree to complete the orbit of the MW in the exact same period, but they can impossible agree about distance / circumstance / time / rulers.

That all depends on how they take and interpret measurements. Using raw local measurements, some of these must disagree (but not necessarily all of them, and many choices about which differ). However, if each converts their measurements to an agreed common coordinate convention, using the predictions of GR, they will agree on everything.

I appreciate your contribution to the thread and I understand most of what you have explained, but still I wish there was a simpler way to understand and compare how B's reality really is, as well as understand how would B’s ruler would be compared to A’s.

I think there still is more to discover to make that simpler, straight and logical.

 

[Bjarne]

Here, you have confused several things. The length contraction I described had to do with local rulers as perceived by a distant observer.

My point is imaging you could jump between A and B’s reality, which difference would there be , except time ?

Well I have come to a new simpler conclusion.
When I would jump from A’s to B’s reality, I would see the exact same Universe.
The distance between the Earth and the Moon, or any other distance would be exact the same everywhere.

But if we compare these 2 realities, - B’s reality would be a bit smaller. - Everything would be a bit smaller, also the ruler.
That could then also explain the cause of the Shapiro delay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
Because speed of light must then be measured in the local surroundings.

Edit
No
I change my mind
This can't be true because then there would be no Shapiro delay, but rather opposite

PS
Any idea what is causing the Shapiro delay ?

 

[Bjarne]

Let's say the International Space station (ISS) was orbiting the Sun in the exact same orbit as the Earth.

A clock on board the ISS and the Earth would now tick different due to different gravity.

This mean that the laws of orbit gravity can't be the same these 2 places, simply because the time consumption to complete one orbit for both objects, - is larger for the ISS

So what is wrong?

I mean the law of nature must be the same everywhere, or ?

Is the answer that; - the length of one second not is the same both places , - or in other words that one second is "stretching" on board the Earth (compared to one second on board the ISS) and therefore longer compared to one second at the ISS ?

I mean the time to complete one orbit must be the same on board at both objects, but a clock on board the 2 objects would not show this.

There must be a simple way, basic to explain which factor(s) is (are) changing

 

[ghwellsjr]

Let's say the International Space station (ISS) was orbiting the Sun in the exact same orbit as the Earth.

A clock on board the ISS and the Earth would now tick different due to different gravity.

This mean that the laws of orbit gravity can't be the same these 2 places, simply because the time consumption to complete one orbit for both objects, - is larger for the ISS

So what is wrong?

I mean the law of nature must be the same everywhere, or ?

Is the answer that; - the length of one second not is the same both places , - or in other words that one second is "stretching" on board the Earth (compared to one second on board the ISS) and therefore longer compared to one second at the ISS ?

I mean the time to complete one orbit must be the same on board at both objects, but a clock on board the 2 objects would not show this.

There must be a simple way, basic to explain which factor(s) is (are) changing

You don't have to use the example of the ISS in the same orbit as Earth but far removed to make your point. You can use the simple fact that atomic clocks near sea level at Greenwich tick at a different rate than identical atomic clocks at Boulder Colorado at an elevation of one mile. They would each say that the orbit of Earth around the sun takes a different amount of time based on their own coordinate system.

But what is important is that they both measure the same value for the speed of light and in order to do that, they must use the time from their local clock, not some other time such as from GPS which gives the same time for every point on earth.

 

[Dale]

A clock on board the ISS and the Earth would now tick different due to different gravity.

Yes.

This mean that the laws of orbit gravity can't be the same these 2 places, simply because the time consumption to complete one orbit for both objects, - is larger for the ISS

How do you get from the above correct statement to this incorrect conclusion? The law of physics which pertains to this situation is GR. What makes you think that GR states that both clocks should measure the same time?

 

[Bjarne]

You don't have to use the example of the ISS in the same orbit as Earth but far removed to make your point. You can use the simple fact that atomic clocks near sea level at Greenwich tick at a different rate than identical atomic clocks at Boulder Colorado at an elevation of one mile. They would each say that the orbit of Earth around the sun takes a different amount of time based on their own coordinate system.

Correct
But the example of the ISS and the Earth orbiting the exact same orbit is at least for me easier to handle, because both such observers (these places) must be right, which mean the time one orbit takes can't be the same.

Hence there is a problem since the gravity-orbit-equations a ISS inhabitant and a Earth inhabitant will use, - will not give the same result.
For exsample to determinate their speed or orbit size.

So whos calculation will be wrong?
The Earth observer or the ISS observer?

Option 1 is the definition of 1 second cannot be universal.
Option 2, - this is what wrote about above, ( but now I have change my mind) and believe option 1 must be correct.

You don't have to use the example of the ISS in the same orbit as Earth but far removed to make your point. You can use the simple fact that atomic clocks near sea level at Greenwich tick at a different rate than identical atomic clocks at Boulder Colorado at an elevation of one mile. They would each say that the orbit of Earth around the sun takes a different amount of time based on their own coordinate system..

It is the same kind of problem, 2 observers (on the Earth), -one living in a cellar and another one in a skyscraper, - both would not be able to agree how long time it takes the light (e.g; from the sun) to reach a certain point of the earth.
So what is wrong, - which simple factor(s) must be flexible?

Is it the definition of how long 1 second is from place to place, - or is it distances or/and speed that not are the same in such 2 observer realities. ?

As I wrote I believe it is “one second” that cannot have a universal definition.
If that should be wrong WHAT is hen the correct answer?

The answer must as I see it be simple, logical and understandable - since we are discussion simple math, >> time multiplied with speed must = distance ( and not for exsample distances)

 

[Bjarne]

How do you get from the above correct statement to this incorrect conclusion? The law of physics which pertains to this situation is GR. What makes you think that GR states that both clocks should measure the same time?

Because ………….
Let say one (atomic) clock is on board at the ISS and another on board of the Earth, both objects orbit the Sun in the exact same orbit.

Let’s say the clock on board the ISS ticks double so fast compared to a clock at the Earth (due to different gravity)
And exactly this is the problem, - because time is different these 2 places.

Hence many laws / equations cannot give the same result.
1 orbit of the Sun cannot at the same time be both 500 million km and also 250 million km.
This should be pretty simple, at least so long time multiplied with speed must = distance.
Due to time is not the same even in the same orbit, we have such principle problem (just not so exaggerated as the example shows,).

This means that either equation-constants, distances and/or speed, - or the definition of 1 second cannot be the same in different space-time realities.
Does the stable nailed definition of one second mean that we are mixing ingredients of different space-time realities?
As I see the difination of "one-second" cannot be universal, and if it really should be how can we know it is so?

It seems that “our definition” of 1 second simple cannot be used in other space-time realities..
I know this will confuse you, - but the point is that yes a process in a different space time reality can be either faster or slower as here at the planet.

How can equation and laws of gravity be exactly the same everywhere, something must give and take. Why doesn’t it seem to be answer to these questions?

Shortly spoken, let say 1 second is the same length everywhere, - but the process responsible for the definition of 1 second is not the same. Is that possible?

 

[Dale]

Hence there is a problem since the gravity-orbit-equations a ISS inhabitant and a Earth inhabitant will use, - will not give the same result.
For exsample to determinate their speed or orbit size.

So whos calculation will be wrong?
The Earth observer or the ISS observer?

Why should either one be wrong? If the ISS and the Earth observers both use GR then the ISS observer can calculate what both he and the Earth observer can measure, and likewise with the Earth observer. Then they can each perform the measurements and see if they agree with the predictions. If they each do the math correctly then the ISS observer can calculate what the Earth observer will measure and vice versa. Assuming they mach with the observations, then in what way is anyone wrong?

 

[Dale]

Hence many laws / equations cannot give the same result.

Please be specific. The relevant law is GR, so what is the specific difference between the Earth GR and the ISS GR? In what way is GR at all modified between the two frames?

Simply because two different observers measure something different does not mean that the law governing the measurement is different. For example, due to Doppler shift two different observers will measure different frequencies for a given light source, but that by itself does not imply that Maxwell's equations are different.

 

[Bjarne]

Why should either one be wrong? If the ISS and the Earth observers both use GR then the ISS observer can calculate what both he and the Earth observer can measure, and likewise with the Earth observer. Then they can each perform the measurements and see if they agree with the predictions. If they each do the math correctly then the ISS observer can calculate what the Earth observer will measure and vice versa. Assuming they mach with the observations, then in what way is anyone wrong?

So long that time multiplied with speed, is a valid equation, both observer cannot agree about the circumstance of the same orbit.
Right?

So you can sit on the Earth and calculate the orbit of the Earth and you will get a certain result. – You will believe this is 100 % true.

A ISS inhabitant can do the same from his perspective, - and from the exact same orbit, he also will believe his result is absolute right about the circumstance just calculated.

But since time is not the same, (and I assume we agree speed is the same) – we have now 2 different circumstances, - these can’t be the same.

So who is wrong and who is right?

I mean do you believe the orbit of the Earth can be both 250 billion km and also 500 billion km ?

It doesn’t sound logical - and hence hard to buy.

 

[Dale]

So long that time multiplied with speed, is a valid equation, both observer cannot agree about the circumstance of the same orbit.
Right?

So you can sit on the Earth and calculate the orbit of the Earth and you will get a certain result. – You will believe this is 100 % true.

A ISS inhabitant can do the same from his perspective, - and from the exact same orbit, he also will believe his result is absolute right about the circumstance just calculated.

But since time is not the same, (and I assume we agree speed is the same) – we have now 2 different circumstances, - these can’t be the same.

So who is wrong and who is right?

I mean do you believe the orbit of the Earth can be both 250 billion km and also 500 billion km ?

It doesn’t sound logical - and hence hard to buy.

There is a race track near my town. One driver, racing for team ISS, stays always on the outside edge of the race track, and the other, racing for team Earth, stays always on the inside edge of the race track.

Using their odometers they each measure the length of 100 billion laps around the same track. One obtains a length of 250 billion km and the other 500 billion km.

So who is wrong and who is right? I mean, do you believe that the track can be both 250 billion km and also 500 billion km? It doesn't sound logical - and hence hard to buy.

Therefore, the laws of physics must clearly be different on the inside of the track and the outside.

 

[Bjarne]

There is a race track near my town. One driver, racing for team ISS, stays always on the outside edge of the race track, and the other, racing for team Earth, stays always on the inside edge of the race track.

Using their odometers they each measure the length of 100 billion laps around the same track. One obtains a length of 250 billion km and the other 500 billion km.

So who is wrong and who is right? I mean, do you believe that the track can be both 250 billion km and also 500 billion km? It doesn't sound logical - and hence hard to buy.

Therefore, the laws of physics must clearly be different on the inside of the track and the outside.

This is not an identical analogy, but can rather be compared to that the orbit of Venus have different circumference than the Earth (Edit; - I wrote circumstance above this is of course wrong- bad english) .

According to this example there are no logical problems, except when you mean that the radius to the Sun is different measured from the Earth to the sun compared to measured from the ISS and to the sun, - even though both objects, - ( the Earth and the ISS) both would obit the Sun in the exact same orbit (and with the exact same speed).

Is that what you mean?

 

[Dale]

Of course the analogy is not exact, then it would not be an analogy.

The point is that you are measuring different things and calling them the same thing. The surface of the Earth and the ISS are different locations on a curved surface. There is no logical reason to expect them to measure the same thing, and no logical reason to conclude that the laws of physics are different.

You have not demonstrated any conflict with GR nor with logic.

 

[Bjarne]

Of course the analogy is not exact, then it would not be an analogy.

The point is that you are measuring different things and calling them the same thing. The surface of the Earth and the ISS are different locations on a curved surface. There is no logical reason to expect them to measure the same thing, and no logical reason to conclude that the laws of physics are different.

You have not demonstrated any conflict with GR nor with logic.

Either speed, distance and/or the definition of 1 second can then not be the same. It is a simple mathematical necessity. I haven't got an excact answer where the "camel is buried"

I am just asking the simple question; - how would these space time realities look like (what would be the comparable difference) if I could jump between them, and see the differences?

I am not an expert in his field, but it is easy to see that the full story can’t have been told so far.

I also did not got the answer (yes or no) to whether the orbit circumference for exsample of the Earth really can be 2 different sizes, (the same orbit), according to the exsample mentioned above..

And if this is so, how can the law of gravity apply for both without contradictions.

 

[Dale]

Either speed, distance and/or the definition of 1 second can then not be the same. It is a simple mathematical necessity.

Is it a mathematical necessity? I certainly haven't seen any derivation that would show that.

Although without a derivation posted from you it is hard to tell where you are going wrong in your thoughts, it seems to me that the mistake could be that you are mentally sticking to flat geometry. Since the geometry of GR is curved, you can easily get shapes as described without any logical contradiction.

I also did not got the answer (yes or no) to whether the orbit circumference for exsample of the Earth really can be 2 different sizes, (the same orbit), according to the exsample mentioned above.

The two paths are not the same, so the answer is "yes, two different paths may have different lengths".

Each path is a 1D line (a helix) in a 4D curved spacetime. You can easily come up with coordinate systems where the two paths have two coordinates which are identical and constant, and you can parameterize the paths by one of the remaining coordinates, but they will always be different in at least the final coordinate. They are simply different paths with different lengths, no contradictions nor confusions.

And if this is so, how can the law of gravity apply for both without contradictions.

You certainly haven't demonstrated any conflict with the law of gravity. I don't even know what you think would be contradicted here.

 

[A.T.]

I mean do you believe the orbit of the Earth can be both 250 billion km and also 500 billion km ?

Depends on the convention used to measure distance. If we use the convention that distance is measured with rulers at rest, then distance is frame dependent. This is true even without gravity.

 

[Agerhell]

There are a lot of posts in this thread, maybe this is already answered.

Basically in a gravitational field, you previously mentioned Mercury and the Earth and now the Earth and a satellite following the Earths orbit around the sun, the perceived velocity of light, using an external clock will be slower deeper in a gravitational field. However, for a local observer the rate ot time will slow down in a gravitational field by the exactly same amount, so locally c will always be perceived as invariant. That the velocity of light slows down in a gravitational field is known as "Shapiro Delay" as i see is already mentioned.

Regarding the guy on Mercury watching an object fall down on Earth (from say A to B), his clock will tick another amount of ticks than an earthbound observer. However, due to the fact that light slows down with exactly the same factor as time in a gravitational field both observers will acually agree on the acceleration, if both use local rate of time and how long light travels per time unit locally as measures.

Regarding ISS and the Earth, if, let's say, the conditions are such that the rate of clocks onboard the ISS is 1 percent faster than the clocks on Earth. Under such circumstances the light will also travel 1 percent faster around the ISS (less Shapiro delay). They ISS observer and the Earth observer will basically disagree on how many clock-ticks an orbit around the Sun takes.

However if the, by radar say, measure the distance to the sun they will also disagree on the distance to the Sun, as measured in local seconds.

But I really do not understand what you point is...

 

[Bjarne]

There are a lot of posts in this thread, maybe this is already answered.

Basically in a gravitational field, you previously mentioned Mercury and the Earth and now the Earth and a satellite following the Earths orbit around the sun, the perceived velocity of light, using an external clock will be slower deeper in a gravitational field. However, for a local observer the rate ot time will slow down in a gravitational field by the exactly same amount, so locally c will always be perceived as invariant. That the velocity of light slows down in a gravitational field is known as "Shapiro Delay" as i see is already mentioned.

Regarding the guy on Mercury watching an object fall down on Earth (from say A to B), his clock will tick another amount of ticks than an earthbound observer. However, due to the fact that light slows down with exactly the same factor as time in a gravitational field both observers will acually agree on the acceleration, if both use local rate of time and how long light travels per time unit locally as measures.

Regarding ISS and the Earth, if, let's say, the conditions are such that the rate of clocks onboard the ISS is 1 percent faster than the clocks on Earth. Under such circumstances the light will also travel 1 percent faster around the ISS (less Shapiro delay). They ISS observer and the Earth observer will basically disagree on how many clock-ticks an orbit around the Sun takes.

However if the, by radar say, measure the distance to the sun they will also disagree on the distance to the Sun, as measured in local seconds.

But I really do not understand what you point is...

Very good explanation.

So... when a clock due to gravity difference (in a different space-time reference frame) ticks let's say comparable 1% slower compared to the earth-space-time reference frame, - both the Time is now 1% slower , and the ruler and speed is now all 1% (edit >>) larger , if I understand this correct (?)

So when time is stretching, distances (and hence speed) is doing the same.

The first point?
I was just wondering how relative differences would look like if I could jump between such realities and see the comparable difference.

A second point …
Hmmm now the whole solar system (and the rest of the whole universe) is 1% larger one place compared to the same universe seen from the Earth space-time perspective (if we could and would compare them).

To be extreme the difference can be much larger than only 1% ..
So how can it be the same universe?
I mean, - It seems that the whole Universe is either shrinking or stretching just because of local (gravity) differences, - not because the whole universe is “so much” affected by the ISS or a fast moving muon a collapsing star or what so ever.

It seems it ‘all’ ( the optical transformation) happens “locally” (?).
Well I believe we just must say, - this is how it is.
Nothing is maybe what is seems to be… or?

 

[Dale]

Bjarne, please go back and read my post 111, particularly the second section. There I explain that the spacetime paths are different. The fact that different paths have a different length is no large surprise. When you measure different things you get different results, like if you measure my height and yours and find that they are 1% different.

The first point?
I was just wondering how relative differences would look like if I could jump between such realities and see the comparable difference.

What different realities? Would you assume that reality is different because my height is different from yours?

A second point …
Hmmm now the whole solar system (and the rest of the whole universe) is 1% larger one place compared to the same universe seen from the Earth space-time perspective (if we could and would compare them).

Would you claim that the universe is a different size for you than it is for me simply because our heights are different? Would you claim that rulers have changed size or that clocks have changed rates?

All of your confusion seems to stem from the incorrect assumption that the two different paths are the same and should therefore have the same length. Not only are they not the same path, there is also no symmetry that you can invoke here to claim that they should have the same length. Once you let go of that erroneous assumption then hopefully everything else falls into place.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, please go back and read my post 111, particularly the second section. There I explain that the spacetime paths are different. The fact that different paths have a different length is no large surprise. When you measure different things you get different results, like if you measure my height and yours and find that they are 1% different.

What different realities? Would you assume that reality is different because my height is different from yours?

Would you claim that the universe is a different size for you than it is for me simply because our heights are different? Would you claim that rulers have changed size or that clocks have changed rates?
.

When distances between the ISS and the Sun, and between the Earth and the Sun no longer are comparable the same, - even in the exact same orbit - the diameter of the Sun is also not, also not the diameter of the Earth or the Moon, or the diameter of New York, Cadillac’s, rulers or the distance to whatever else it may be.
I cannot imagine that some distances would change but not all. – Which mean that the whole universe also not can be the same for such 2 different space-time observers?

This cannot be so surprising, - So fare I understand a photon is everywhere at the same time,- or nowhere at the same time. – What I am saying is that distances do no linger exist. It is even wrong to say “the same time” because time doesn’t exist too from that perspective. Well this is off course an extreme perspective but this is the direction relativity goes isn’t it?

 

[Dale]

I cannot imagine that some distances would change but not all.

There is no distance which has changed. Two different spacetime paths have two different distances.

 

[Bjarne]

There is no distance which has changed. Two different spacetime paths have two different distances.

Right
You know what I mean anyway.

 

[Dale]

Right
You know what I mean anyway.

Yes I know what you mean, but what you mean is illogical given the above. The fact that the lengths of two different paths are different does not imply any of the conclusions you have made about the laws of physics changing or anything else changing.

 

[Bjarne]

Yes I know what you mean, but what you mean is illogical given the above. The fact that the lengths of two different paths are different does not imply any of the conclusions you have made about the laws of physics changing or anything else changing.

How would you define and limit the comparable distance difference to a "path" - for example the path of the ISS or the path of the Earth ?
For example where are the "borders” to what belong to the path and what is not the path. - Logical I would say it is everything or nothing, not only a path. It simply sounds wrong in my ears.