I accept on the evidence available cosmology as it is known today, while standing on the shoulders of giants of the past.. While you still cling to the long defunct refuted Plasma/Electric Universe theeeeeeory. Why does Pot, Kettle, black come to mind?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wrong again as usual..... The basis if what Einstein said still stands.....Some points have been modified and I have pointed that out to another nut in Farsight. Wrong...SR and GR are overwhelmingly supported theeories as is the 300 year old Newtonian mechanics. Nothing wrong in thinking outside the box if you are qualified....you fail on both.
For energy that is unbound, in the rest frame, time progresses as it propagates and 'spreads out', even though at c, for all intents and purposes, time is stopped. So for unbound energy, time is both moving in the rest frame and stopped at c. For energy that is bound, as in a particle or an atom, the 'spreading out' stops (as far as we know), because entanglement is faster than c. Interior to the particle, say, an electron, additional unbound energy may briefly become bound by the process of being absorbed and remitted, but over time in the rest frame, the particle interior is stable because time is stopped or mitigated by entanglement. Time progresses at a faster rate in the rest frame outside of the particle. We should probably invent some new terminology to capture the whole picture without thinking so hard. The two states of time dilation (at rest and at c) are not contradictory. Time dilation is different everywhere.
The point is when Minkowski used the word spacetime, he was in fact speaking of a four dimensional coordinate system, it did not include, as defining components, the energy, mass and momentum, that GR requires to define spacetime as it relates to gravitation.... And SR is a subset of GR, as you put it, only where the affects and influence of gravitation can be ignored. The word as used in those two contexts does not have a single definition...
All points noted Dan. No energy is transported, and there's no actual evidence that anything else is either. Einstein rejected spooky action at a distance, just as I reject woo. But people want to believe in mystery and mysticism.
Entanglement isn't woo. In order for energy to become bound as it is in a particle of matter, some mechanism acting faster than light in a vacuum must be able to act to bind it. Entanglement would be that something. An understanding of this is a powerful thing. Relativity is not a complete theory, as you already understand.
Pot, kettle, black! You are one of the chief peddlers of woo we have, as well as untruths such as your TOE.
Paddoboy, there is no gravity in special relativity and the spacetime that Minkowski described is defined by 3 spacial dimensions and one of time. General realativity describes a gravitational field not a four dimensional coordinate system. How many of the ten unknowns.., or variables - are not Minkowski's spacetime coordinates? The Minkowski quote you keep using within the context of GR, was made before GR was published.... Spacetime as it is used in GR refers to the field, not just the coordinate system.
I know what SR covers as well as GR. I also see the context in which spacetime is used, and the perceived reality of it as accepted as per my links. http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html I'm really at a loss to know exactly what you are getting at other than what you stated a while back. :shrug: This being the science section as accepted by mainstream, I see it rather essential to correct gross errors such as "no evidence of gravitational waves"or no warping, curving and twisting and other such antics to attempt derision of accepted mainstream cosmology. An example of the crank nonsense and pseudoscience I refer to......
Where did you read this ? Popo-science ? You are driven by the term Special (in SR) and General (in GR), and trying to make an argument that 'special' must be the sub set of 'General'....... Are you aware of color charge etc ? It will be nice to get your opinion on that, read, assimilate and then write. No copy paste allowed. And yes, write about this subset thingie, only after knowing fully what you are writing...
Most sensible people know what is meant.....You fail on that first point. Let me state it again.....SR is a subset of GR. Whatever other nonsense your ignorance directs you to is your concern. 'Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move.' -John Wheeler
Oh, and its Pop science. You probably picked up popo from some Bollywood trash or similar. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!....And Something that you continually preach here both as the god and rajesh, and why at least three forumites that I know of have you on ignore.
What ever you write has a new word..popo-science, this word is especially coined by me for your posts and copy pastes.. Popo-science is actually few steps below popscience, in popscience there are some generalizations but good enough for educated interested people, popo-science on the other hand is pure non sense, full of mistakes, meant for uneducated interested people like you... for example, SR is subset of GR...this is popo-science... And by the way its better that 'uneducable' people do not read my posts. It will do no good to them, they are just 'uneducable' with total reluctance to learn. You are improving, thats good.
Whatever you silly boy! All I see is another case you focusing on yourself in the mirror.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again, like the old cocky on the biscuit tin, you just ain't in it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can you point to an experiment that demonstrates it in a clear fashion that you can actually see? The answer is no. No energy is transmitted from A to B, nor information, nor anything else that can be detected. When you look for what's actually been measured it's always slippery, all you get is a whole load of handwaving and a graph. It isn't bound by entanglement. Who told you this Dan? I don't peddle woo, you dismiss Einstein along with hard scientific evidence because it doesn't square with the woo you believe in.
It (a fundamental particle like a quark or an electron) isn't bound by charge; it would simply fly apart. E=mc^2 tells us the matter that is bound energy is incontrovertibly energy, so what other mechanism could possibly bind energy that is known to real science and would be consistent with what we know about relativity? I'm not talking about atomic structure, which is pinned together by EM, electroweak, strong nuclear force, and the Higgs mechanism. I'm talking about what keeps the particles that are bound within atomic structure together. Protons and neutrons, both made of quarks and gluons, behave much differently outside of an atom. The neutron decays. The proton does not. Elecrons are likewise stable, and are known to exist in entangled pairs in the inner shells, and even Cooper pairs of unbound electrons seem to be entangled, as, apparently, is the Higgs. If something inside a quark or an electron were entangled, how would we even know? You wouldn't. The only reason we know the inner electron shells are, is a long story.
Since you're such a vocal opponent of entanglement, I'm curious how you explain Bell inequality violations. The fact that two measurement can have results more strongly correlated than any local, realistic variable could account for seems like pretty strong experimental evidence of entanglement.
The strong force. Note that the residual strong force is what keeps protons and neutrons together in a nucleus, whilst the strong force is what keeps quarks together in a proton. People don't talk about the strong force when it comes to the electron, but whatever it is that keeps it in one piece is surely related to the force that keeps the proton in one piece. Note that you can annihilate the proton and the antiproton to gamma photons just as you can annihilate the electron and the positron to gamma photons, whereafter the strong force has apparently vanished. See this image courtesy of CSIRO Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think the interesting question is what keeps the photon moving at c? If you look at the bag model, it features a kind of tension. If you shake a rubber mat, you need a tension property for the wave to propagate.
