Space-time curvature is incorrect

"Did anybody see any living dinosaurs? No? Then how can we know anything about them?"

we practically know NOTHING about them
Do you know whether the T Rex was really a carnivorous animal, or did he use his razor sharp teeth to eat huge fruits and nuts. btw, his teeth are still rasor sharp, even after millions of years

"Did anybody witness continental drift directly? No? Then how do we know it happens?"

yes, continental drift is measured directly
there is no relevance with this

"Has anybody ever seen a lithium atom? No? Then how do we know lithium exists?"

you can witness millions of lithium atom if you want to, so yes, it is save to say lithium or at least that "stuff" exists

"Has anybody ever been inside the sun? No? Then how can we say what processes happen there? "

these are just theories based on assumptions and observation

"Something to think about."

You didn't answer the question. there has never been the confirmation of the two-way approach which relativity takes for granted, or was there? fossils have nothing to do with this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"yes, continental drift is measured directly"

Actaully, there are no such measurements. Continental drift happens at very small intervals, such as 4 inches a year. This is way to small to measure, say, north america moving this far.

Continental drift is just a theory that explains a lot of things, it has evidence, but has not been directly observed.

Just pointing that out, i think...

By the way, does anyone want to respond to my previous post?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're always upset with folks like (Q) and I for calling you stupid. Here's an idea for you: go do some research before you open your mouth and prove our opinion correct.

http://www.panga.cwu.edu/

There are LOADS of groups doing research with carrier-phase GPS systems -- interferometric systems capable of measuring positions down to the millimeter. Scientists have been directly observing crustal movement using the GPS satellites for almost a decade.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"go do some research before you open your mouth and prove our opinion correct. "

Your probably right. I have no way to defend myself. I shouldn't have said that on a whim. Thinking back, I don't know why I put it down, just to say something I guess.....

sorry

 

James R: Would you mind replying to what I posted for you before?

here is the relavent part:

"There's no conflict whilst the two observers are in different frames of reference. "

It seems that the only way to make the equations show light to go the same speed is to slow down the moving observer's time. If you slow down the moving observer's time, obviously his time would be going slower than the stationary observer, am i correct?

So if the moving observer's time IS actually slower, then why do both observers see eachother's time to be going slower?

"If they ever come back into the same reference frame, the acceleration involved in doing so will sort out discrepancies"

As food for thought: If the moving observer accelerates back to the stationary observers speed, isn't the stationary observer also accelerating to the moving observer's speed?

 

Oh is that so, James R? For God sakes, explain to me why we ought to accept the postulate in the two-way approach, instead of running away into "analogies". Show me one experiment that has confirmed time dilation from both sides. Just one , or is that too much asked for one the world's leading theories?

 

I certainly don't agree with that. The analogies that you gave, yet again, are not to be compared with this case. Much of the discussion about relativity is about how we ought to interpret all these experiments. The two-way occurence of time dilation and lenght contraction, and in fact, EVERY single experiment that deals with different FOR's, has never been confirmed. This is the very basis of relativity, yet they have failed to show it. This concerns me. Direct observation would put an end to this controversy. It would leave little room for other competing theories or ideas from some people. And yes, you can be sure that no such experiment has EVER been performed, otherwise it would be in ALL the main books, courses and websites whom deal with relativity.

 

C'est moi

I really have missed you these last few weeks. How's it hanging dude?

To be fair, you are right, direct a experimentation proving affects of relativity has not been performed. For the simple reason we can not put a real live human in a craft, accelerate to relativistic speeds and actually do a test.

So we rely on indirect tests such as particles in accelerators, cosmic rays and such like. Again, you probably know this, but what the hey. Time dilation has been observed in relativistic cosmic rays. That is, they survived longer than the classical, non-relativistic half-lives in accordance with relativities predictions. Particles, when accelerated to near c gain energy exactly as predicted relativity. Lasers exhibited redshifting as per gravitational redshifting. The proof of the basic equations of Quantum Mechanics uses relativistic equations. You may disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation but the theory has been very successfull. Things like anti-matter was predicted by the <i>relativstically</i> corrected schroedingers wave equation or Dirac Equation.

In short, all the ancillary tests and tests of other models that rely on relativity being correct have behaved exactly as expected. This says a lot about the validity of relativity as a good working assumption.

You can, and will no doubt, point out that other theories exist that can explain the same results. But to do so requires invoking lots of new physics. This is where Occams Razor gets wielded and the theory with the minimal number of workable axioms is the preferred one.

Plus, don't forget that Relativity started as a fix to the motion of charged particles (electromagnetism) under the Galilean Transform. If you drop Relativity, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, you reinvoke the original problem.

 

I think we understand each other

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. The difference is that I don't put my faith in it. The reason is that, the word says it all, INDIRECT proof, has nothing to say on the validity on the two-way approach which relativity uses. It merely gives confidence, not enough for me. If it would be the other way around, i.e. the two-way approach has been confirmed by experiment (PROOVING ultimetly the very basics of relativity) and not the less important consequences of it, then my friends, it would be foolish to doubt this kind of certainty.

Thus, there is still the opportunity to explain time dilation etc. differently, in a way that the observer does not determin what is reality and what isn't. I think that if such a theory would be developed, that it should get priority towards relativity, simply because objectivity is favoured above subjectivity. Relativity assumes that reality is what an observer sees, therefore we get a multitude of realities. I belief that there can be such a thing as one reality, without the need of it being observed. I think that would be a postulate also, and a more acceptable one for me. I think I'm getting all the philosophic way again, should have gone for metaphysics; stuck in archaeology now. oh hell

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And Thed, you mention Occam and also the problem that relativity is already incorperated into QP. I believe that it is getting ever messier. Now with string theory and its compadres gaining importance, needing multiple dimensions which we cannot observed (no reality possible according to relativity I think, and I also think QP makes a big deal out of the fact that the main interpretation says that an observer needs to observe things for them to become reality - and we cannot observe these dimensions), I have the feeling that not only will they get more and more stuck in a virtual reality of mathematics and computer science, but also there will and there is no leading figure(s) who has the skill to lead these evolutions (such as Dirac etc. at the time). Maybe someone will pop up somewhere, having developed something which gets to the core (maxwell etc.), without having the need of getting into entities which cannot be observed etc. I think that the basic reality is SIMPLE, and therefore, the TOE should be simple as well.

 

yes but acceleration requires general relativity which becomes very messy mathematically to describe

 

whats your point?

 

IS ANYONE ELSE GOING TO POST?