Gravity Works Like This

Whooosh! There goes time, passing by!

No Grumpy. Clocks count the cycles, and that's it. There isn't any actual time passing by.

Because of the wave nature of matter. Simplify a muon to a wave in a circular path like this O. It's good for one zillion rotations. Now turn it round so it looks like this | then move it fast so it looks like this /\/\/\/\/\/\ and you should recognise the simple inference of time dilation.

That was 1905. Now pay attention:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”.

RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY by A. EINSTEIN translated 1920.

The word velocity is the common usage, not the vector quantity. It ought to be speed. My quote from 1920 trumps yours from 1905, so:

Game, set, match.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No there aren't. That's cargo-cult pop-science. Virtual particles are field quanta, not short-lived real particles. It's like you divide the field up into chunks and say each is a virtual particle. You know how virtual photons are said to mediate electromagnetic force? Well get this: hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, and magnets don't shine.

Matt Strassler's article isn't bad: http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

"...The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle..."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you really understand GR, you understand what dark energy and dark matter really are. There are clues.

All: Sorry, I must go. Read the OP. Understand it. Once you do, you'll be amazed at how simple it is. Beware the guardians of ignorance and the peddlers of woo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow... I am far from a scientist... But, I do have a degree in psychology... I highly recommend you see a professional, as soon as possible... Sorry, you're not all there. I'm REALLY not trying to insult you...I'm at a loss here...

 

Farsight

Yes you are being dishonest. Funny how that "variable speed of light" thing never made it into any of the papers on Relativity that he, himself, wrote. At the risk of being repetitious...

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. EINSTEIN
June 30, 1906

We call it his Special Relativity paper.

And he extended that constant speed to those frames under acceleration/in a gravity field with his paper on General Relativity.

So, no, Einstein did not posit anything BUT a constant speed of light in his actual theory, no matter what quote-mined, out of context snippets you can find of things he said elsewhere. Einstein said a lot of things, much of which was about the competing theories or ideas. Your non-understanding and quote mining is the problem here, not what Einstein said. To say he posited anything else when it counted is to lie. You are taking what he said about coordinate speed(distance/time between any two points in space)when lightspeed can be said to vary(straight lines are always shorter than curved ones, the light follows curved spacetime at lightspeed, not the straight lines between points, thus the difference between the expectation(straight line elapsed time between two points varies with the degree of spacetime curvature)and the reality(constant speed along that curved path)). Lightspeed can only be said to vary between two points within a Euclidean grid, that's because light actually moves in a spacetime with bent "straightline" paths, and the more spacetime is bent, the more the discrepancy in time of transit between the two types of space. The coordinate speed of light is variable, but the actual speed of light through spacetime is always c, just like Einstein said in his theory. On page one, in the third paragraph.

Bull. The constant speed of light is built in, time dilates in proportion to that value, mass is related to energy by the square of that value. That value is a constant throughout reality, independent of it's measurement or description. Everywhere you see c in an equation it validates our thinking that that value is fundamental. Lightspeed is the basis for all the changes we see in time, length, energy and mass. If that value was subject to variability, then mass would be,too(in fact that variation would be squared). An atomic bomb may or may not detonate depending on whether light felt frisky that day or not. This Universe is built on that value, as is all mass in the Universe. It is far from being a tautology, no matter what metric you invent to describe that value to yourself(the Universe could not care less what metric you use). How is it a tautology when the speed of light ALWAYS is measured to be that value, from all sources, to all frames. Light has never been measured to travel at anything but that value in a vacuum, get back to us with this drivel when that occurs.

At 300,000 k/sec, 186,000 m/sec as measured in any circumstance, even in a gravity well. In all frames, between all frames and from all sources. Period.

He said that lightspeed is invariant IN HIS THEORY and that's where the rubber meets the road. That's what survived any thoughts or ideas he had before. IT DOES NOT MATTER that you found sentences out of the context that you obviously do not understand that can be snipped and twisted to tell your lies. And if he changed his mind why did he put it in his General Relativity as well? What you are saying is typical of what Creationists quote from Charles Darwin when he was playing Devil's advocate, taking words out of context to support their idiocy. Einstein posited invariant lightspeed as one of only two precepts that he built Relativity on, what you are claiming is also equally as idiotic as the stupidest Creationist(I think Ham holds that record so far).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, one should pay attention and actually look at the text.

Einstein begins the next chapter with this claim, "HITHERTO I have purposely refrained from speaking about the physical interpretation of space- and time-data in the case of the general theory of relativity. As a consequence, I am guilty of a certain slovenliness of treatment, which, as we know from the special theory of relativity, is far from being unimportant and pardonable."

So the passage that Farsight quoted is slovenly, i.e., sloppy. Indeed, Einstein immediately notes this in the two paragraphs following the one Farsight quotes, noting that special relativity is to hold exactly in the case that there is no gravitational influence (just like Newton said that orbits held exactly in the case that there were no nearby interfering factors).

In Chapter 23 he lays out the problem with Special Relativity and velocity, showing that identifying a gravitational field with acceleration introduces problems for synchronizing clocks at a distance as laid out in SR. In Chapter 27 to Chapter 29 he explicitly (though still not in the detail of his main works) identifies the solution to these problems, use arbitrary Gaussian coordinate systems, lay out how gravity changes these systems, and present the laws of motion as invariant across arbitrary coordinates. In modern language, use curved spacetime.

It's worth noting that in Chapter 28 Einstein abandons the notion that we need to have some sort of regular clock "clocking up" anything, including motion.

Finally in Chapter 29 Einstein lays out that gravity should be formulated as governing the behavior of the geometry itself, i.e., curved spacetime.

If one is going to read only the sloppy parts of Einstein and never read the precise content, then one is going to be free to make all sorts of mistakes.

 

If you have an explanation for dark matter and dark energy that the entire physics and astronomy has missed, then please show us some basic calculations that we can use to see it for ourselves.

Unless, of course, you are lying.

 

Except the "best" evidence in this case requires that we disregard empirically conclusive evidence that is clear for the exact dynamic of time, because that concrete evidence doesn't fit the abstract math constructs of time in GR; However the empirical time evidence does fit the math's of SR, which also happens to be compatible with QM, while GR is not. Follow the evidence first is what I am saying, and in some case's we no longer do that, we strictly follow the math even when we have to disregard evidence to say the math works.

That is not a criticism for math being the language to explain physics, just a criticism of the belief that if the math works for what we can test we just sweep other evidence under the rug and create mystical forms of energy to fit the math and say it still works. Math is not a god, it is a form of communication subject to deceptive descriptions as any other language is, albeit vastly more difficult to hide a factious description of reality using math than any other language (that's why it is best for physics but not perfect); the observable evidence indicates that some physics math's may be doing that and we should follow that evidence first, yet we do not.

 

PhysBang

There is a reason it is hard to quote anything from the General Relativity paper, because a complete thought in that paper can take pages to represent without being out of context(or sloppy, as you note). As Farsight has demonstrated. And you have so skilfully illustrated so it is easy for any reasonable person to see. Well done, sir!

Einstein and Darwin were often more generous to competing ideas than was necessary and the critics take full advantage of it.

I was going to post something similar but upon reading your post i feel I only need add "What he said:itold:"

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

More stupid word games. This is why it's so nice to not be practically illiterate in math, because then you can directly evaluate, explore and verify theoretical concepts and ideas for yourself instead of trusting your favourite TV scientist and hoping that you understood him right.

If you knew anything about Quantum Field Theory, you'd know that all fundamental particles are field quanta, whether real or virtual. And no, it's not about dividing the field into chunks and pretending that they're particles, it's about interpreting time-dependent quantum perturbation theory in such a way as to imagine that the mathematical perturbations are being caused by the interactions of physical (albeit undetectable) entities. Besides, I already made it clear that virtual particles are only one possible interpretation of what's happening at the quantum level, so maybe you should go waste some of Layman's time arguing with him about it instead.

 

I've quoted from papers and books that Einstein wrote!

Grumpy, you're in denial. You've been fed some popscience version of relativity, and your conviction is such that you won't go and read what Einstein actually said. Then if I show you what he said, you're squeaking "out of context" or somesuch nonsense.

Grumpy, nothing moves through spacetime. It's a four-dimensional mathematical space. A block universe that features all times at once. You can draw worldliness in it, but nothing moves through it. It's static.

This is like trying to tell some kid the truth about Santa Clause. Grumpy, mass varies. It's called the mass deficit. Go and look it up.

No Grumpy. What you're saying is typical of the creationists. I'm like the guy showing you the fossils and the strata and the radio-dating. You're the one hysterically denying it. Einstein is on my side, and so is the evidence, and the physics.

 

I have an explanation, not a calculation. As per the variable speed of light, calculation does not deliver understanding. And no, I'm not lying.

 

You've never explored anything for yourself. You believe in garbage like photon energy stored in the spacetime background, I have to explain conservation of energy to you and tell you the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c², and you eventually agree with me without conceding that you've changed your tune. Pah.

And I've got news for you about the electron. It isn't an excitation of the electron field. Because the electron field is just a configuration of the photon field.

No, virtual entities. As in non-real entities. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, and magnets don't shine! The reality underlying the virtual photons of QED is the evanescent wave aka near field. See this from 1973.

No, I'll just make it clear that virtual particles aren't real particles popping in and out of existence. And correcting you on any other popscience pseudoscience you come out with. Where on Earth do you get this stuff from?

 

Can you find a university Quantum Field Theory textbook or set of lecture notes that disagrees with what I said? I was just reviewing some of the maths behind virtual particles this very morning.

 

In other words then, you don't have an explanation.

 

Farsight

Yes, out of context and with no understanding, as PhysBang showed so well.

I retired from teaching after 30 years. Care to guess which subjects I taught? I would never claim to completely understand all aspects of Relativity, but I know it to a much greater degree than you do. Your dishonesty and quote-mining without understanding has been exposed for all to see. I don't really care about what you are saying Einstein said or meant, I've studied(deeply)what he put into his theory. I taught it to thousands of students. And I would fail you in a hot minute for the idiocy you are pushing. Even the pop-si show much more understanding than you've been able to generate.

Idiocy. Demonstrably false non-sense.

It is a four dimensional mathematical description of reality. The spacetime existed long before man invented the math to describe it. You are mistaking the map as being the territory, it isn't.

Idiotic gibberish.

Yes, mass varies RELATIVE to it's speed. It's actually energy that it gains as it moves faster, but mass and energy are the same thing by the conversion factor of the speed of light(c)squared. If the c varied that mass would sit there pulsing with random amounts of gravity, with no energy removed or added. Mass does not vary in that way. Ergo, c must be constant.

Stop trying to tell everyone that Santa is real, we all know better.

Not even a little bit, you deny his second precept and reach entirely different conclusions. You are denying everything he put into his theory. You have obviously never bothered to read or try to understand his work, other than key word searching for quotes you can misuse, evidently. Go post in the pseudo-science threads, it's where this non-sense belongs.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Morning Grumpy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes yes, we know all that already. That was my point. That purely-SR 'view' is sterile and does not contain the information about the local realities EACH twin is undergoing the effects of. The whole point that now mainstreamers make; that to get the local-reality-view which THEN makes the alleged paradox NOT a paradox, they ALSO include the NON-LINEAR information (acceleration profiles) to make sense in reality of the outcome of one ACTUALLY clocking/aging FASTER RATE than other twin.

You just repeated the purely-SR abstraction view as if it meant anything when the actual local EFFECTS on each is NOT 'interchangeable' in FACT, only in maths exercise abstraction. See now my point there?

No no no, mate! In reality there are absolutes in effect and configuration. eg., Angular velocity/speed is NOT 'relative' but 'absolute'. And gravitational accelerative/velocity effect/profiles are absolutely linked to the gravitating body and grav field well strength/gradient etc in reality.

All these 'impressions' that you have about 'everything being relative' is pure abstraction views from purely UN-real theory/models. Time to step back into the local reality if we are to make sense of it all. The rime and usefulness of purely maths-abstractions masquerading as 'explanations' is OVER. We have moved on.

Did you read and understand what I explained about the nature of that 'invariant c' term and what it REALLY means when looked at closely? It is the messurement from timing and light propagation INFORMATION....which in RATIO stays the SAME 'c' between frames precisely because timing and propagation across space information are COMPLEMENTARY VALUES which go into making the PROPRTIONATE calculation 'c' INVARIANT. Did you miss that? The 'invariant' is the 'c', NOT the speed of light per se in every frame. If time varies, and speed of light varies, the proportionate result will be INVARIANT 'c' and NOT ABSOLUTE 'c'. That subtle difference between 'absolute c' and 'invariant c' clearer now?

No, that wasn't the point. It's not whether WE are there to see it or not; it's whether matter/events of/in energy-space exists there or not, and hence whether 'time' can be said to be derivable from it or not in any real, physical/maths sense (and not just assumed philosophical sense). See the subtlety there also? We don't figure in it at all if the matter/events don't exist.

Rushed again. Sorry for typos. Anyhow, at this point I would suggest you re-read what I have posted to you lately and resist the easy option of defaulting to what you 'think' I am saying, and think it all through based on what I (and Maxila) actually saying about empirical reality of material/energy events/energy-space as distinct from abstraction of mathematical 'time' as a purely DERIVED graphing 'axis/dimension'. Cheers Grumpy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Grumpy.

Just a quick observation on your discussion with Farsight on this point:

Note well where Einstein clearly emphasizes that SR cannot claim unlimited domain of validity. And further, that SR holds ONLY where we are able to disregard the influence of gravitational fields!

Note well that it was the SR only theory you quoted, Grumpy. The same theory Einstein said was invalid in GR contexts. And that extension to GR theory does not automatically make SR part ON ITS OWN any more validly applicable in GR contexts than before.

Hence why NOW mainstreamer Relativists use the ACCELERATIONS profiles for the twins as background data NECESSARY to make sense of the purely mathematical SR view which IN ITSELF as pure SR produces the famous paradox that isn't when ACCELERATION is taken into account to DISPEL the 'both clocks are dilated' nonsense from SR-only abstract maths 'views'.

So Grumpy, maybe you owe Farsight an apology for saying he was being 'dishonest' in presenting/interpreting what Einstein said?


And again, I strongly suspect all the cross-purpose exchanges and frustration is due to the conflation of the term 'constant c' with 'invariant c'. I explained the subtle but important differences to you earlier, and that difference if understood properly as to how they came about and what they REALLY mean, will help prevent all the to-and-fro based on conflations and abstract confusions therefrom. Cheers!

 

The problem is, your "explanation" seems not to match any of the observations. So you are explaining only your fantasy, not the physics.

 

PhysBang.

Be careful not to conflate 'interpretation of observations' with the objective observations themselves before theoretical overlay 'interpretations' on objective data. If you treat both the same, then you may be inadvertently assuming things not in evidence as YOU 'understand' them.

PS: Ask CptBork about the question between him and Farsight about the photon energy/frequency into a Black Hole etc. CpatBork says he has answered the question, so he should be best placed to tell you exactly what the point/issue involved. Else just read back to the relevant posts between him and Farsight about it. The question is clearly put several times. Even in my earlier post I quoted the exact question and asked for the answers from anyone.

Cheers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!