STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the THEORY OF RELATIVITY

I don't understand very clear your message. Are you a coordinator of the site?

"We" is just a way to speak, I don't like to use "I".
Without becoming no time. A stopped clock is silent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK. You are right. You can see more information about Duality becoming-time in: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?113416-Duality-becoming-time

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that isn't what he said. You can see how you're mistaken very easily. Pick up an object in the room with you right now. Stand with it in your hand, at your side. Drop the object. Pick it up again. Now swing your arm and let the object go at the same location as before. Now it'll be thrown across the room. Same object, same place, same gravitational field, same space-time curvature, different trajectory because different initial speed. Rocket science this is not. As I elaborated on in a previous post, the geodesic an object moves along depends on initial location and initial velocity. But I also commented how the geodesic equation was the relativistic generalisation of the concept of F=ma. In Newtonian physics an object's trajectory depends on it's initial position and initial velocity too.

This is something you'd be familiar with on a working level if you'd learnt even high school calculus, as initial conditions and simple mechanics are taught to children. Clearly you haven't read much about it, even on a qualitative level, given such comments you've made and likewise you're obviously unfamiliar with anything even close to the mathematics involved. As such forming the extremely entrenched views you appear to have is not a terribly rational thing to do.

I'm a moderator, yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cesspool, please.

 

That is your argument for the curvature of space?
I've never seen an argument so infantile !

Let me show you how to do a calculation of the trajectory and that has nothing to do with the curvature of space.

External Ballistics: Elevation/ Declination:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or something more interesting, that has nothing to do with the curvature of space, but only elementary physics.


Earth’s other moons:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The path of a simulated minimoon that is temporarily captured by Earth. The object approaches Earth from the right and finally escapes capture along the red path to the upper right. The size of Earth and the Moon are not to scale but the size of the minimoon’s path is to scale in the Earth-Moon system. Inset: Radar image of near-Earth asteroid 1999. This 3.5-km-wide asteroid is more than 1,000 times larger than the biggest minimoons, but it shows the irregular shape and expected of minimoons."

I wonder, when will you support that if you hit a wall that's not true and there is no force but a discontinuity in space ?!

 

Your educational level is very low. Don't you have nothing to contribute?

 

Show me your proof that "Time is a dimension of space." under SR.

 

The Science Joy Wagon has presented a simplistic, non-relativistic explanation of gravity, suitable for a 10th grader. It completely ignores Relativity, posing everything in the language of classical physics.

C'mon ... learn some basic relativity. Einstein's Relativity/

 

What for? I've proofed is not. Don't you know the principles of Relativity?

 

Do you think that was a formal argument? It was a dumbed down explanation of how your comment about different trajectories mean different curvature was false. I made it basic so you could grasp it. Obviously you didn't even manage that.

All of that is done using Newtonian dynamics. Yes, it's pretty good most of the time but it is only an approximation. You cannot use the same physics to correctly model the trajectory of Mercury or the time timing drift GPS networks experience.

For things which are not compact, not massive or not moving very quickly general relativity and Newtonian mechanics say pretty much the same thing. Thus you CAN view all of those trajectories in terms of space-time curvature but typically you wouldn't because the calculations are more complicated and end up with the same result, more or less. However, if you want to consider something very massive and compact, like a black hole, or something moving very quickly then you'll not be able to describe it properly using the 'elementary physics' you just linked to. One of the major motivations for Einstein to work on general relativity was that even in the 1900s observations of Mercury were precise enough to make people realise Newton wasn't quite right. Newton also doesn't predict the bending of light around stars correctly, which was the first differentiating experiment done to tell who (if either) was correct, Einstein or Newton.

The fact you're unfamiliar with this, that Newtonian gravity only goes so far before it is no longer accurate enough for purpose, shows that you haven't really done any work with general relativity. If you had, rather than just dismiss something you don't understand, you'd know why Newtonian gravity is still used in many places even though it is wrong. If you want to put a satellite into geostationary orbit then you can use Newtonian gravity. However, if that satellite is to be part of the GPS network then you need to use general relativity to work out the effect the gravitational field of the Earth and the satellite's motion will have on the clock it carries.

None of that does anything to negate what I've been saying. If you had hands on experience with this stuff, rather than just making conclusions and trying to post-hoc justify them using Google and posting whatever you find, you'd realise your mistakes and reason for the continued use of Newtonian models in some instances but not in others.

I always find it amusing when people like yourself start indignantly linking to things you obviously don't know how to do yourself, trying to tell me how it works when, in some cases, it's literally my job. Yes, it is elementary physics, too bad you never learnt it.

As you may currently be presently aware, your sentence construction sucks.

 

Actually the way you phrased it in your original post was wrong. Relativity doesn't say time is a part of space but rather space and time are melded into a single construct, space-time. The way in which we might decide to split space-time into a spatial part and a temporal part is a matter of choice, ala coordinate choices and Lorentz transforms, and thus any physics should be independent of that choice, ala Lorentz invariance.

I can see why someone reading about relativity might think physicists are saying time is a part of space. Often 'space' in physics or maths is actually referring to some abstract arena, not spatial space. For example, saying 'space-time is a vector space' is entirely accurate because the second space, 'vector space', isn't referring to the space-time construct but rather a mathematical abstract 'space'. It's like saying "The space of all functions". This is referring to a set defined by functions, not some physical space. Hence sometimes space-time is called a space. It's partly an abuse of terminology and partly due to the fact someone familiar with the details will understand what is being referred to from the context. Suffice to say relativity doesn't consider time a part of spatial space but rather part of the space known as space-time.

But as has been said, your conclusions about some of the details of relativity are mistaken, due in no small part to a lack of familiarity with the specifics.

 

LET ME SHOW YOU THE WAY I SEE IT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEME.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the half of the diagram corresponds to the space, the third dimension is projected on the plane, the z coordinate. But our mind interprets "z" as if it were placed perpendicular to the plane. The plane assumes to "z". In the half corresponding to the time, we found sequential events and a circle that represents the mind. The mind is an immaterial element, therefore no dimensions. Due this feature the mind assumes, by the experience of life, the dimension that correspond to time. The time (duration) is projected in the mind allowing conceive (intuit) the fourth dimension "w".

 

But if the fourth dimension "w" is simply a construct of our mind how would you explain the fact that objects can occupy more than one (x,y,z) coordinate? Or that multiple objects can occupy a single (x,y,z) coordinate?

 

Very good questions.

The dimension "w" is abstract, but the events are real, like the bodies (two or three dimensions). We represent these dimensions in coordinates to study its properties. We can align multiple bodies in only one sense of the space or dimension.

 

Beyond just knocking up a picture in MS Paint can you provide any sound reasoning for this view of yours? If you cannot then I'm going to cut out the various pseudoscience posts and make them into a thread, which is then kicked over to the pseudoscience forums.

 

I think that any interesting conversation has now been played out, and the woo woo meter has hit a new high. Thread moved to alternative theories.

 

Wait, you guys ridicule someone for a few dozen posts and then as soon as I contribute something you chuck the thread? Deja vu!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This post of mine will probably make me look silly, but what the heck.

Skimming this entire thread in a couple minutes was a comical distraction. Thank you to all contributors.

 

ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES

One thing I am aware: That my ideas defy one of the best known theories but not very well explained and understood.
But I do not fear the criticism.

1 - Law of conservation of mass (and energy). Physics and Chemistry.

2 - Maximum value of speed (of light). Mathematics and Theory of Relativity.

3 - Law of changing matter. Natural sciences.

The matter is always in perpetual activity. This is a simple principle, but is never taken into consideration to explain the evolution of natural phenomena. As we see the relativity is based on a temporary absolute principle (until proven to exceed the speed of light). The Duality becoming-time is based on a 100% certainty principle. Time is variable (relative) in relation to the becoming and not the constancy of the speed of light.

 

Ah, yes the law of changing matter. How well I remember that chapter in my text book Natrual Sciences and Junk Like That.