Gravity Works Like This

[Grumpy]

RC

It's clear, that MATHEMATICAL time is predicated on energy-space EVENTS, not on some abstract 'time flow/entity' being mathematically derived VIA such events.

No, it is clear that time passes differently in frames moving in relation to each other, both see reciprocal slowing in the other frame. Time also slows for acceleration/gravity fields. Time is variable. That variability is caused by events and by matter. Left alone, motionless in relatively empty space time passes at it's fastest possible rate(whatever that rate is in that nearly empty frame at a standstill(Relatively, anyway)). Time passes whether there are events or not, in fact events cause it to pass at slower rates, you don't get faster time with more events, you get slower time the more extreme those events are. So why posit that it approaches a maximum with less extreme events(or no events at all), yet disappears entirely when the last event ceases? Does not make sense. Events can DEFINE time, but they do not cause time. It is a dimension of space/time, we are always traveling toward the future at faster or slower rates depending on our frame's conditions/state. You could stop time by going lightspeed or standing on a BH, two of the most extreme events. So no, events occur in time, their occurrence does not create time, they dilate it.

In other words, abstract 'time' is based in real energy-space transitions, motions, propagations etc EVENTS which are COMPARED and when 'simultaneous' can be compared to derive the MATHEMATICAL 'time' parameters which we include in the math models as the 'time dimension' GRAPHING AXIS 'representation' along which other real events are related to in 'geometry/duration' etc.

Er...no. When you compare two events you are only comparing their rates of time, you are not creating time.

See? Those who read but do not actually understand what Einstein actually said/meant, have a totally misleading 'impression' of what mathematical time and clock events actually mean and what their function is and is NOT in the 'theory' which has been 'invaded by mathematicians' to the point that Einstein himself complained once that:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."---Einstein

.

That was a joke, not a complaint. And I don't think Einstein meant what you think he meant. But our math is an invention that is subject to being used incorrectly. I avoid it like poison. Until one groks what you are trying to apply math to, it's unlikely you will do it correctly or get an accurate result(though Einstein got lucky getting his Cosmological Constant almost right for the wrong reason). There are others here much better versed in Lorenz transforms or Malinowski space if the math helps you understand it. It just gives me headaches, nasty stuff.

Grumpy

 

[CptBork]

It is accepted science that random particle pairs are created and annihilate each other randomly. It is also accepted in the scientific community that it violates conservation laws (even though it has not been fully accepted here yet). It is just that about every cubic meter a particle and it's antiparticle will randomly be created and then destroy each other, and no one knows why this happens just that it does.

You're presenting a very distorted and inaccurate picture of virtual particles. There are infinitely many of them popping up all the time in every conceivable volume of space, and they can carry any amount of energy and/or momentum, including negative energy. No, they don't violate any conservation laws. For example, energy conservation isn't violated if a virtual particle carries zero energy, or if it carries negative energy and the particle that emits it gains energy from the emission, etc.

Yes it is, as they have been detected directly from experiment that is the only real reason why they believe this happens. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue, because the fact that particles just pop out of nothing would be complete hearsay. Also no one has proven that virtual particles are not real, they are just called such because they have a different mass than their normal everyday counterparts. It would be hard to prove that something with mass does not really exist!

They're called virtual particles because the mathematical workings of Quantum Field Theory prevent them from ever appearing in the initial or final particle states where measurements are made. Thus whether virtual particles really exist or whether they're simply mathematical artifacts of the theory will continue to be open to personal interpretation until some sort of fundamental alteration is made to the theory. They're also called virtual particles because their rest masses don't need to match with the measured values that real particles are known to have- real photons measured in the lab never have a rest mass, nor can they be assigned any mass within the Standard Model without breaking its basic mathematical postulates, but virtual photons and all other virtual particles can have any mass value whatsoever, or even imaginary values.

There's an energy-time uncertainty relation in quantum mechanics that's generally but not always obeyed, in a weak analogy to the position-momentum uncertainty principle which, by contrast, is always obeyed. The energy-time uncertainty relation can then be used to give a rough estimate of a virtual particle's lifetime and the range of the force it carries, but it's only a rough estimate, and the approximation of treating virtual particles as spontaneous fluctuations in the energy of the vacuum doesn't give a completely accurate or precise picture of what actually happens.

 

[PhysBang]

Are you implying that there is no physics in Einstein's physics? Because that's what your rash opinion/statement implies; since my reading so far in this thread is that Farsight quotes Einstein and presents another interpretation based on what Einstein wrote.

Remember, however, that Farsight has admitted that he can't actually do any physics problems with Einstein's actual physics. This should be a red flag.

Remember, Einstein also made clear way back when:

Perhaps you have heard of modesty? Einstein was amazingly good at mathematics and helped invent a new form of mathematics when developing general relativity.

 

[river]

Grumpy

Time passes whether there are events or not

How so

 

[Grumpy]

river

Time passes whether there are events or not

How so

Rather, how not? Events do nothing but slow time's rate down. The most extreme events(lightspeed travel of mass, BH)cause time to stop. Is it not logical to accept that that slope(high event energy/slower time)also is true in reverse(less/no event energy/faster time)? Of course, both endpoints of that slope cannot be reached(no mass can travel at lightspeed/there is no such thing as empty space or absolute motionlessness), but it is clear that events do not cause time, they impede it's rate. And, of course, without events one cannot measure time's rate, but that's our problem, it does not affect time's existence or passage.

Grumpy

 

[Undefined]

Grumpy.

Still rushed mate, so please forgive any typos etc...

No, it is clear that time passes differently in frames moving in relation to each other, both see reciprocal slowing in the other frame.

Have you got up to date about the explanation of the (otherwise paradoxical) Twin scenario unless the acceleration profile of each (one remaining where he was and the other accelerating away and back)?

That SR-only maths abstraction RECIPROCAL ONLY view does NOT tell which clock is actually dilated and which not in reality. Only when the (as mainstreamer SR Relativists have long since admitted/employed) further NON-SR acceleration profiles information/context is included in the 'view' does that 'facile' SR 'take' make any real sense and paradox is avoided, since in reality there is no paradox unless one restricts oneself to the purely reciprocal' view/exercise in that SR 'example'.

Facile (and now become glib through constant repetition) SR 'purely mathematical/geometrical 'reciprocal view/treatments' like you use/offer as 'explanation' actually explains nothing except that purely ABSTRACT SR exercise. No more than that is contained/offered by that facile view.

Only the full reality picture including GR-equivalence-principle empirically-real info/effects prevent the confusions initiated/inherent by/in the math-only GIGO nonsense abstractions-only 'views/interpretations'.

Time also slows for acceleration/gravity fields. Time is variable. That variability is caused by events and by matter.

Again, you assume 'time' varies', and then go to the 'events change'. Can you see that you've effectively put the assumption before the reality...and then try to 'justify the assumption backwards' by a priori relegating the reality to secondary status in your obviously abstract-construct assumption to begin with? Careful.

Left alone, motionless in relatively empty space time passes at it's fastest possible rate(whatever that rate is in that nearly empty frame at a standstill(Relatively, anyway)).

If there is energy-space 'features' then some 'motion/change' etc evolutionary dynamics is taking place, hence the 'time rate' is directly associated and derived by US from the 'events' going on in that energy-space.

If there is NO 'dynamics, and energy-space features are absent, and only ground state energy-space is present there, then NO 'time' concept or derivation is possible UNLESS you subscribe to some PHILOSOPHICAL concept of 'DURATION whether a universal phenomenon exists of not!

Sir Roger Penrose just recently pointed out that if the universe is expanding, and if it expands to the point that all energy-space is reduced to featureless groundstate condition, then no sense, scale of derivability of 'time' is possible in a physical real sense (again, unless you mix in your philosophical duration concept of 'time' and confuse it with physically derivable abstraction OF timing rate data/comparison in modeling).

Please beware mixing philosophical 'explanations/concepts' in with your mathematical/physical perspectives/models.

Time passes whether there are events or not,

Please see above about that 'philosophical' duration notion of 'time' concept. Not physical; nor mathematical, even. Just conflating philosophy 'entities' with mathematical 'timing' values/concepts DERIVED from real physical events, as explained by Einstein in earlier quote.

in fact events cause it to pass at slower rates, you don't get faster time with more events, you get slower time the more extreme those events are.

Why ignore like that what Einstein said? The mathematical meaning of 'time' is dependent on real EVENTS. Not the other way round. Do you disagree with Einstein on logical/physical/philosophical grounds, or what? If so, can you explain exactly CLEARLY and with empirical-reality supported arguments (not more 'insisting' and 'theoretical views' which do not address the whole reality) how and why you believe it is the opposite of what Einstein said it is/derived?

So why posit that it approaches a maximum with less extreme events(or no events at all), yet disappears entirely when the last event ceases? Does not make sense.

That's no 'posit'. It is straight GR predictions and empirically confirmed case/events. Again, even Penrose now has realized that without any matter-features 'events' energy-space DYNAMICS there IS NO 'timing' referencing base reality observations TO derive 'time values/comparisons' FROM.

Are you still unshakeable in your personal/facile conviction that your personal 'impressions and insistence' over-rides both Einstein and Penrose's understandings of 'time' and what it is and is not?

Events can DEFINE time, but they do not cause time.

No no no. It is WE that do the 'defining', not events or any other extant observable. The events may through their relative rates/processes interactions/motions etc through energy-space dynamics 'determine' what 'timing' INFORMATION we may DERIVE from such observables, but at NO STAGE has 'time/timing' ever been 'defined' except by us humans and our abstract maths constructs driving some convenient 'representational entity' for our graphing and analysis in our abstract constructs.

Again, take greater care about what you think is self-evident and real, as it will come back and bite you when you get such things back-to-front in both logics and hierarchy of 'treatment status' in your abstract models/explanations.

It is a dimension of space/time, we are always traveling toward the future at faster or slower rates depending on our frame's conditions/state. You could stop time by going lightspeed or standing on a BH, two of the most extreme events. So no, events occur in time, their occurrence does not create time, they dilate it.

No-one is 'traveling in time dimension'. The only 'time dimension' is the abstract axis/concept we mathematically use to denote the derived values and comparisons to other parameters in the dynamics of real motion/change across/in energy-space.

No, you only travel in/across energy-space as part of the ongoing dynamics. You do NOT 'travel' in a GRAPHIC GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCT where an ABSTRACTION of YOUR REAL DYNAMICAL EVENTS evolutions are included in that analysis construct. And then you only 'travel' along an abstract graphed AXIS concept, not in the energy-space from which the information/motion about you was sourced/derived via observation of real observables that did NOT include ANY 'time travel' DATA in itself....only the 'timing values/comparisons' abstracted and used in convenient maths modeling construct AFTER THE EVENTS of YOURS happened in/across energy-space ONLY.

Beware the insidious seduction of abstraction and maths away from reality and empirically observable/understandable reality. That's what Einstein was saying 'in jest' but at the same time as serious as could be. Believe Einstein, not your own 'impressions' and 'insistences' inculcated by abstraction upon abstraction overlain by the mathematicians who 'invaded' his theory such that he no longer recognized the REAL INSIGHTS he came up with anymore.

Er...no. When you compare two events you are only comparing their rates of time, you are not creating time.

You miss the point. It takes TWO EVENTS to make a 'timing rates' COMPARISON between you chosen STANDARD 'timing rate' and your other event under study with respect TO the standard event and its associated locally real GR/SR affected timing rate PROCESSES in the energy-space conditions/velocities/accelerations etc etc applying at those local real 'clocking process' events/dynamics involved in your study/comparison/modeling.

That was a joke, not a complaint. And I don't think Einstein meant what you think he meant. But our math is an invention that is subject to being used incorrectly. I avoid it like poison. Until one groks what you are trying to apply math to, it's unlikely you will do it correctly or get an accurate result(though Einstein got lucky getting his Cosmological Constant almost right for the wrong reason). There are others here much better versed in Lorenz transforms or Malinowski space if the math helps you understand it. It just gives me headaches, nasty stuff.

Remember that old saying?..."Many a true word is said in jest". He was both jesting and serious 'simultaneously' (pun intended).

And his 'cosmological constant' was originally a maths 'fudge factor' to satisfy mathematical 'interpretations' of what the universal energy-space was and hypothesized to involve Big Bang Inflation/expansion etc etc abstract interpretations of astronomical CMB data. We now know that energy-space is flat o infinity (refer to my previous post about that), and that only local energy-space dynamics determine what 'condition' and 'events' take place in/across that energy-space.

No cosmological constant is necessary if the local reality and infinite flatness of the universal underlying energy-space substrate is what is (as per Sean Carroll et al proved). And all the interpretations about universal 'shapes' and whether it will contract again or expand forever etc etc are purely mathematical models using purely abstract NON-Euclidean notions that in reality apply to the DYNAMICAL INTERACTIONS/CONFIGURATIONS of the EVENTS/FEATURES... and NOT to the actual real underlying FLAT energy-space ITSELF in which these NOn-Euclidean observed/analyzed/modeled dynamics occur and then abstracted (via 'time' abstraction') into the NoON-Euclidean mathematics/geometries models that say nothing about the underlying energy-space that is FLAT and hence CANNOT contract/expand as the BB hypotheses/interpretations of CMB data would currently 'view' it as something that is actually 'really possible/happening'....just as you/they also view it as 'time travel' is really possible/happening'.

That's it for now. Good luck, and take care, Grumpy!

 

[river]

river

Rather, how not? Events do nothing but slow time's rate down.

Or speed them up , catalyst

The most extreme events(lightspeed travel of mass, BH)cause time to stop. Is it not logical to accept that that slope(high event energy/slower time)also is true in reverse(less/no event energy/faster time)? Of course, both endpoints of that slope cannot be reached(no mass can travel at lightspeed/there is no such thing as empty space or absolute motionlessness), but it is clear that events do not cause time, they impede it's rate. And, of course, without events one cannot measure time's rate, but that's our problem, it does not affect time's existence or passage.

Grumpy

Mathematical argument , while valid , mathematically , does not represent the true Nature of movement(s) by objects

To have an event , of any type , means that there has to be something either , energenic , light , or an object of mass

If I were to take away any form of energy and mass , where would the slope be ?

 

[Undefined]

Remember, however, that Farsight has admitted that he can't actually do any physics problems with Einstein's actual physics. This should be a red flag.

Perhaps you have heard of modesty? Einstein was amazingly good at mathematics and helped invent a new form of mathematics when developing general relativity.

Yeah, but Farsight is merely relying on the original Einstein maths/physics/insights/words and interprets them according to what he presents from Einstein himself as to what he said/meant. And the maths Einstein used were at first straightforward and reality-insight related. It's only after all that 'cosmological constant' and other maths overlays and fudges he tried in order to try to 'suit' all the abstract interpretations of data as to 'inflation/expansion' of 'spacetime' etc etc (pls also see my post above to Grumpy) did the maths start getting further and further from his initial reality-referencing insights and theory. The maths abstractions and fix upon fix to accommodate suspect 'interpretations' that would have the universe a certain 'shape' or other, or 'inflating' from some Big Bang 'beginning/condition' and accelerating expansion etc etc, has BURIED the Original theory and REAL insights under a maths-fest of fantasy unreal worlds and interpretations of real data.

So, if Farsight is using EINSTEIN's ORIGINAL maths/physics and INTENTS/INTERPRETATIONS he started with, then the onus is up to you et al to justify all the later overlays and abstractions from maths which took Einstein's insights/theory so far from reality and comprehensibility.

While you're at it, you might also take a stab at demonstrating where ANY of the later 'mathematician fantasy games' have got us any nearer to the GRAVITY EXPLANATION in REAL PHYSICAL MECHANISM terms and not just more abstract interpretations and fanciful 'other dimensions' math-turbations in lieu of REAL COMPREHENSIBLE answers.

I'll be reading with interest. Cheers!

 

[river]

Yeah, but Farsight is merely relying on the original Einstein maths/physics/insights/words and interprets them according to what he presents from Einstein himself as to what he said/meant. And the maths Einstein used were at first straightforward and reality-insight related. It's only after all that 'cosmological constant' and other maths overlays and fudges he tried in order to try to 'suit' all the abstract interpretations of data as to 'inflation/expansion' of 'spacetime' etc etc (pls also see my post above to Grumpy) did the maths start getting further and further from his initial reality-referencing insights and theory. The maths abstractions and fix upon fix to accommodate suspect 'interpretations' that would have the universe a certain 'shape' or other, or 'inflating' from some Big Bang 'beginning/condition' and accelerating expansion etc etc, has BURIED the Original theory and REAL insights under a maths-fest of fantasy unreal worlds and interpretations of real data.

So, if Farsight is using EINSTEIN's ORIGINAL maths/physics and INTENTS/INTERPRETATIONS he started with, then the onus is up to you et al to justify all the later overlays and abstractions from maths which took Einstein's insights/theory so far from reality and comprehensibility.

While you're at it, you might also take a stab at demonstrating where ANY of the later 'mathematician fantasy games' have got us any nearer to the GRAVITY EXPLANATION in REAL PHYSICAL MECHANISM terms and not just more abstract interpretations and fanciful 'other dimensions' math-turbations in lieu of REAL COMPREHENSIBLE answers.

I'll be reading with interest. Cheers!

Undefined

You are far , far , better at this than me ( I think we are sort of on the same page , but you take it , to a higher level )

So I'll leave it to yeah .....

Cheers

river

 

[Maxila]

Maxila

Einstein was not perfect, some of what he thought(cosmological constant, quantum effects, entanglement)was wrong, nor is Relativity complete(any more than evolution is completely understood). That said, Relativity has passed every test
Grumpy

Yet, it really has not passed every test, we've had to create the existence of things called dark matter and dark energy for it to hold together.... That is the only way we can say it passed the test for the gravity holding Galaxy's together and the faintness of supernova regarding it's prediction of redshift for them at a given distance. This is not conclusive either way but supports my point, just like Mercury's precession for Newton they are possibly signs of a theory in need of modification, and in support of GR perhaps they show the greatness of the theory that it led us to vet out these mysterious forms of energy/matter? The best scientific practice is to consider all reasonable evidence for investigation and keep an open mind. The most important clue to me is not dark matter or dark energy but the compatibility of SR with QM, while GR is not.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Undefined

You are far , far , better at this than me ( I think we are sort of on the same page , but you take it , to a higher level )

Cheers

river

If your goal is to be better at this, you would need to take everything Reality Check says and flush it down the tubes. Open a thread asking how to solve for something that puzzles you, and kick back and enjoy the unfolding of facts and information that follows.

Drop all your fears and suspicions that people who enrolled in formal academic programs are some kind of robots. Embrace the beauty of the human intellect, that it only sees more clearly when polished by the emory cloth of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

There can be no science in the muddle of superstition. That's all Reality Check is peddling.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yet, it really has not passed every test, we've had to create the existence of things called dark matter and dark energy for it to hold together.... That is the only way we can say it passed the test for the gravity holding Galaxy's together and the faintness of supernova regarding it's prediction of redshift for them at a given distance. This is not conclusive either way but supports my point, just like Mercury's precession for Newton they are possibly signs of a theory in need of modification, and in support of GR perhaps they show the greatness of the theory that it led us to vet out these mysterious forms of energy/matter? The best scientific practice is to consider all reasonable evidence for investigation and keep an open mind. The most important clue to me is not dark matter or dark energy but the compatibility of SR with QM, while GR is not.

That seems like an almost cynical retreading of the tires of discovery. A lot of stuff happens before someone realizes that the polynomial that fits the curve was one order too small to account for one more data point. No one ever said science isn't supposed to be recursive. The golden rule is to rely on best evidence, knowing full well that the trial isn't nearly over.

 

[Undefined]

If your goal is to be better at this, you would need to take everything Reality Check says and flush it down the tubes. Open a thread asking how to solve for something that puzzles you, and kick back and enjoy the unfolding of facts and information that follows.

Drop all your fears and suspicions that people who enrolled in formal academic programs are some kind of robots. Embrace the beauty of the human intellect, that it only sees more clearly when polished by the emory cloth of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

There can be no science in the muddle of superstition. That's all Reality Check is peddling.

Superstition? Yeah, if that helps you rationalize your ineffective opinionating and intimidatory posts. And all that but you haven't actually succeeded in answering what I have posed and argued from reality not abstract maths as is your wont and substitute for real answers from real things.



PS: Your post has been reported as the latest of a long series of troll/opinionating/insulting personal posts. If you have friends in the mods, then great for you. If you don't, then your obvious trolling will be brought home to you sooner or later. Good luck.

 

[Layman]

You're presenting a very distorted and inaccurate picture of virtual particles.

I just regurgitated information that I read in books about modern physics. You seem to always have a problem with that. Maybe you should take it up with them. I think it is far more likely that your views on them are the ones that are distorted. I know that there being infinitely many of them popping up all the time in every conceivable volume of space is a lie. If that was true we would have observed an infinite amount of energy that would put the Planck Scale to shame.

Then the only particles that are actually detected is light in particle accelerators. By your definition quarks would be virtual particles and a lot of other ones that are not. I really don't understand why you think you know something about anything really and that is supposed to be a better description. They are far from mathematical artifacts, they are the result of experiment, just the opposite of the other things you said.

You should email Fermilab and tell them all about your "findings". Either that or they have an evil genius that is working there trying to pump out false information to poor layman such as myself.

 

[Grumpy]

RC

That SR-only maths abstraction RECIPROCAL ONLY view does NOT tell which clock is actually dilated and which not in reality.

That's because neither is and both are. Sounds glib but it is true. With two spacecraft passing each other at a significant percentage of lightspeed the following things are true...

1. Both A and B see themselves as stationary. If there was no view to the outside neither could tell they were moving. No measurement of lightspeed would show light traveling at any other speed in any direction.

2. Each would see the time passing within the other as being slower than their own rate, but would measure all light coming from the other craft(whatever it's vector or relative speed)arriving in their own frame at light speed.

3. Both would see the other as being shorter in the direction of travel, the faster their relative speed the more flattened in the direction of travel. They would, however, see their own spacecraft as undistorted, even solid yardsticks would measure both craft as according to the blueprints in all dimensions. That same yardstick would appear to the other craft to alter it's length as it rotated through the dimensions.

You see, all motion is Relative, as is all time rates, in isolation it looks the same between just two objects and neither could claim to be the stationary one. But the distortion in length gives you a method of comparing frames because it would warp the image that you see of the rest of the Universe. Only the craft moving fast in relation to that Universe experiences the effect on everything, while the(relatively)stationary craft sees no such affect on anything EXCEPT the other craft. This and some frequency shifting effects would inform one of the craft that it was not stationary with the rest of the Universe(it's called an Einstein Rainbow), while the lack of that effect would tell the other craft that it was(relatively)stationary to the Universe as a whole(on average, kinda).

Again, you assume 'time' varies', and then go to the 'events change'.

I assume nothing, it is fact not open to argument. Nailed to the floor by over 100 years of intense scientific experiments. The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant, all other parameters have been seen to distort to the degree and in the direction necessary to conform to that fact. That includes time, length and mass/energy. You are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts. Nor can you blithely ignore those well established facts. Events, of whatever type, dilate time. More extreme events dilate time more. Extremely energetic events stop time. So by what logic do you NOT conclude that zero events would give you the fastest time? What mechanism stops time(which had been getting faster and faster(less dilated)as energy was removed)when the last bit of energy leaves? Just how much energy does it take to start it back up? How was that calculated?

Sir Roger Penrose just recently pointed out that if the universe is expanding, and if it expands to the point that all energy-space is reduced to featureless groundstate condition, then no sense, scale of derivability of 'time' is possible in a physical real sense (again, unless you mix in your philosophical duration concept of 'time' and confuse it with physically derivable abstraction OF timing rate data/comparison in modeling).

Yes, time's rate will be hard for us to measure with no energy gradient or events. So? Dark Matter has shown that just because it's hard to see or measure does not mean it isn't there. Just because we cannot derive a value because no events are occurring to measure that rate by doesn't mean a thing to that rate's existence, it existed long before we made our first measurement and it will still be here long after we make our last. It is an integral part of the spacetime that is(with some contaminate matter)our Universe.

river

Or speed them up , catalyst

No, any energy/matter/speed will cause the rate of time's passage to dilate in proportion to that energy/matter/speed.

If I were to take away any form of energy and mass , where would the slope be ?

At the maximum rate possible. And if you added a stupendous amount of energy or mass(they are really the same thing)time would pass at a much slower rate, if enough it would even stop.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Maxila

Yet, it really has not passed every test, we've had to create the existence of things called dark matter and dark energy for it to hold together

Dark Matter has nothing to do with Relativity, it's the invisible mass we know is there and would know was there even using just Newtonian physics. The matter we can see is only about 1/4 of the mass the rotation of the galaxies requires, the rest is dark, thus Dark Matter. We don't yet know what it is, it does not interact with anything except through it's gravity.

Dark Energy is the energy pushing non-gravity bound matter apart over long distances. Einstein did not know that the Universe was expanding, he thought it was static and required the fudge factor of the Cosmological Constant to keep it from collapsing. When Hubble showed that the Universe was expanding that fudge factor was no longer necessary and Einstein himself took it out of his calculus. When deep field surveys started giving us a clear picture of the expansion history of the Universe we found that the expansion has been increasing in speed for the last few billion years. The energy required to accelerate the expansion represents 75% of the mass of the Universe. Should we just ignore it and hope it goes away? Again, not Relativity.

The best scientific practice is to consider all reasonable evidence for investigation and keep an open mind.

That "reasonable" word doesn't mean all theories are equally valid and I share Dyson's views on giving equal time to woo, science isn't "fair and balanced" about things. When a critic starts by denying a well established fact and proceeds from there, where he is going is not worth the trip.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

I just regurgitated information that I read in books about modern physics. You seem to always have a problem with that. Maybe you should take it up with them. I think it is far more likely that your views on them are the ones that are distorted.

I would be glad if Capt Bork happened to show me the errors in my thinking. He's just being generous with information, that's all.

I know that there being infinitely many of them popping up all the time in every conceivable volume of space is a lie.

That's pretty silly. No one could possibly know such a thing. Why not instead ask him to expand on what he meant by it?

If that was true we would have observed an infinite amount of energy that would put the Planck Scale to shame.

He wasn't referring to an infinity being created, but an infinity which are cycling. The net amount is the same.

Then the only particles that are actually detected is light in particle accelerators.

Why conclude that?

By your definition quarks would be virtual particles and a lot of other ones that are not.

What's the logic that leads to this conclusion?

I really don't understand why you think you know something about anything really and that is supposed to be a better description.

You don't notice a lot of refinement in Capt Bork's skills which would answer that question?

They are far from mathematical artifacts, they are the result of experiment, just the opposite of the other things you said.

I'm trying to figure out what your actual objection is. You seem to have cynical view of math. Why is that?

You should email Fermilab and tell them all about your "findings".

Why not simply ask him to explain what he meant. I'm sure he'd be glad to help you understand.

Either that or they have an evil genius that is working there trying to pump out false information to poor layman such as myself.

You seem to have a higher opinion of yourself than of experts. Why is that?

What are some of the facts you are taking issue with, and what is the evidence to the contrary? I think if you took that approach, then whatever is bothering you would probably be readily resolved.

 

[CptBork]

I just regurgitated information that I read in books about modern physics. You seem to always have a problem with that. Maybe you should take it up with them. I think it is far more likely that your views on them are the ones that are distorted.

I think it's far more likely that you simply have no clue what you're talking about, either by misinterpreting vague layman explanations for complex abstract phenomena, or else your layman plain English texts are simply incorrect (possible but less likely). When you avoid dealing with the math, tons of things end up getting lost in translation.

I know that there being infinitely many of them popping up all the time in every conceivable volume of space is a lie. If that was true we would have observed an infinite amount of energy that would put the Planck Scale to shame.

Why don't you show us mathematically how an infinite number of virtual particles adds up to an infinite amount of measured energy? Hint: you're wrong, don't waste your time.

Then the only particles that are actually detected is light in particle accelerators.

Rubbish. What would be the point of drift chambers and silicon vertex trackers, then?

By your definition quarks would be virtual particles and a lot of other ones that are not.

Absolutely no idea why you conclude that, but it's not true. Quarks can come in both real and virtual forms just like all the other fundamental particles.

I really don't understand why you think you know something about anything really and that is supposed to be a better description.

And you'll never understand until you've actually used the mathematics of quantum field theory to calculate scattering probabilities and particle decay rates, where virtual particles become essential to the calculation.

They are far from mathematical artifacts, they are the result of experiment, just the opposite of the other things you said.

You don't even know what the mathematics actually say. If you could detect virtual particles directly, you'd smash the Standard Model to pieces. Calling them a math artifact makes no difference to the predicted outcomes in any experiment we can possibly perform.

You should email Fermilab and tell them all about your "findings". Either that or they have an evil genius that is working there trying to pump out false information to poor layman such as myself.

Funny that all the people I've ever met from Fermilab seemed to learn the same things that I did. Why don't you email them yourself, if you're so confident that they'd disagree with me?

 

[Aqueous Id]

A pin drops.

 

[Farsight]

So? It didn't make it into the theory, however. The theory is based on a constant speed of light as it's main premise, whatever juicy quote-mined nuggets you come up with. Einstein said a lot of things that can be taken out of context by dishonest critics, kind of reminds me of Trapped's conflation of UFO and alien spacecraft.

I'm not dishonest. He said repeatedly from 1911 onwards that the speed of light isn't constant in a gravitational field. Everybody who knows about general relativity knows that the coordinate speed of light varies in a gravitational field. And they also know that the locally-measured speed of light is constant. But they don't all know that the latter is a tautology.

It was neither, it was exactly lightspeed. Every photon from that era(and all others)and from all sources arrives at Earth at that exact speed. Even galaxies receding from us at significant fractions of lightspeed deliver every photon to us at lightspeed and at no other.

Because waves in space travel at the speed of waves in space!

These are observed facts, not theories. In fact the very first time a photon is shown to travel at any other speed in a vacuum won't be announced by you on an obscure internet forum, it will be in all the papers and the news shows because such a thing has never been seen. There is no valid evidence of light travelling at any other speed. That's not a tautology, it's a simple fact, whatever metric you invent to describe that value.

That's right. Waves in space travel at the speed of waves in space. Only in some places in space, those waves travel at a different speed to the speed they travel in other places in space.

It may be true that Einstein actually said it (just as it is true that some people actually see UFOs). He often played Devil's Advocate in his argumentation(Darwin did, too. Creationists quote-mine him in exactly the same way you are quote-mining Einstein. With equal validity. And equal understanding). But that is all irrelevant to what Relativity(the final product of all that argumentation)says. Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the Universe." about uncertainty. Einstein didn't believe in a god, first of all. And not only is there dice involved, but they are thrown where no-one can see them...until they do(I think that was Schrodinger's observation). Whatever Einstein said during the development of Relativity is moot, given what he actually said in his completed theory. And the theory is based on a constant speed of light. And while a lot of things Einstein said might be wrong, his theory has stood the test of time, it is the way we see the Universe is, in fact, behaving. And no nugget from some deep vein in that quote-mine is going to change that.

He said what he said. He said it when he completed general relativity, and you are fooling yourself, old man.