STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the THEORY OF RELATIVITY

Thanks for the warning I will be sure to miss it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CASES OF CONCEPTUAL MERGER

1 - Aristotle merged objectively ideas and things, which later Kant took to subjective plane.

2 - Electromagnetism merges electricity with the property of magnets of attracting iron.

3 - The Issac Newton's theory of universal gravitation merged the Earth with outer space.

4 - The Albert Einstein's concept of space-time is another case of conceptual merger, but reduced the four dimensions to just two: the mesh of space-time, which according to Einstein is curved by the action of gravity.

5 - The concept of becoming-time merges objectively these two important variables in the universe. Time is independent of space.

The first is a case of Philosophy; the second, third and fourth are cases of Physics and the fifth case corresponds to Philochrony. Physics describes motion in space and for this science time doesn't exist or is an illusion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

STATEMENTS OF PHILOCHRONY

1 - The existence of the becoming-time is an axiom.

2 - Time becomes (flows) from the future to the present. The continuous present or the now is the future becoming in reality which allows things to evolve.

3 - The sense of time from past to future is an illusion. In this illusion are based progress bars (a video) in Computer science. Think about the images and sound of a video are the continuous present. The circle of the progress bar seems to go from past to future.

A song to reflect. Frank Sinatra -1915/1998-. It was a very good year.

[video=youtube;j13JwniUs2A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j13JwniUs2A[/video]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time elapses continuously. That in itself has no direction such as past or future, because time is simply cumulative. If all measures of time were in units of seconds, then it is always true that the seconds always increases, and always at the same rate! It is impossible for a unit of measure such as a second to change its rate. The concept of the duration of a second of time is therefore absolute.

 

We remember the past and the future is presented to us in the continuity of present.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This so reminds me of Victor Spinoza.

 

Please, use arguments to refute my ideas. :shrug:

 

Ideas cannot be refuted -- rigorous conjectures about reality or a system of mathematical logic may be refuted with evidence or logic, respectively. But we are still waiting for you to connect with evidence and logic. Do you subscribe to the rule of discussion which Christopher Hitchens reminded us of: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." If you subscribe to this principle, then you necessarily accept that the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas and explain to us how they connect with reality, physics and logic. If you reject this principle, then you reject dialog with other people and are engaged in sterile solipsism to the point of requiring us to ignore you.

Throughout this thread, these are never physically motivated judgments, but based on untutored intuition and therefore valueless.

Just to be clear for future readers of this thread, the physical theory under discussion is the 1916 General Theory of Relativity. At the heart of this theory are 10 coupled polynomials in the space-time metric, its derivatives and the distribution of matter and energy. Naturally, if people are incapable of calculus, then they are very much incapable of working out any implications of the general theory of relativity for themselves.

Only a strength in that experiment shows in many fields that nothing yet transmits energy and momentum faster than light and verified in precision observation of binary neutron star systems over decades that these systems radiate energy and momentum exactly as predicted by relativity.

Poorly written -- empirically, the local speed of light is measured to be a constant. Various chemistry studies suggest this is true on distant stars and in remote times billions of years ago. But the coordinate speed of light -- the speed of light "over there" measured with the rulers and clocks of "here" is experimentally allowed to change in the manner supported by relativity.

the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas

These points are better summarizes as the kinematics of a free particle: \(E \vec{v} = c^2 \vec{p} \quad \textrm{and} \quad E^2 - \left( \vec{p} c\right)^2 = \left( m c^2 \right)^2\)

Called general invariance, this is a remarkable strength beloiging relativity, which turns out to be a statement of geometry of a curved manifold and not just a statement about coordinate systems. And it doesn't just apply to the speed of light in vacuum.

The flow of time is a metaphor. Metaphors are tricks of language and thought, but in this case convey no physics. Therefore you have not demonstrated that this is in fact a weakness (the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas).

the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas: You have not demonstrated that general relativity says time travel is possible in our universe, nor have you demonstrated that this alleged conclusion is contrary to the laws of this universe. Most of the time initial conditions in general relativity forbid one meeting one's past self.

Gravity is and isn't a force depending on the writer. All agree on the acceleration, therefore the use of the term "force" in this context is a trick of language and thought, but in this case conveys no physics.

General relativity admits a non-zero cosmological constant as completely consistent and equivalent to a distribution of exotic substance. Physical observation points to a well-bounded result consistent with either.

Reality isn't usefully distinguished from that thing that gives rise to all observations, so your point is unclear (the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas).

This conclusion does not follow from the stated assumptions(the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas).

You have asserted this, but have not argued for this. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

The picture demonstrates no evolution of space-time, nor does the mesh correspond to a principle object of general relativity. Your point is unclear (the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas).

You are playing games with the multiple meanings of words therefore the use of the terms "force" and "dynamic" in this context is a trick of language and thought, but in this case conveys no physics.

the burden is on you to elucidate your own ideas

False dilemma. Also are the options of:

• understanding, saying that you agree, being delusional
• understanding, saying that you disagree, not being delusional
• understanding, saying that you disagree, being delusional
• not understanding, saying that you agree, not being delusional
• not understanding, saying that you agree, being delusional
• not understanding, saying that you disagree, not being delusional

But I think you make a very strong case for people to believe that you do not understand general relativity and do not agree with it. The case you make for being delusional on the subject of whether or not you understand relativity is somewhat weaker.

For one, you begin by defining speed relative to what, distance from what and elasped time starting from when? I think you make a very strong case for people to believe that you do not understand general relativity and do not agree with it.

I think you make a very strong case for people to believe that you do not understand Nobel Prizes, academic scholarship, logic and debate.

You are playing games with the multiple meanings of words therefore the use of the term "understand" in this context is a trick of language and thought, but in this case conveys no physics.

 

rpenner you didn't get to here.

WEAKNESSES (new edition) Message #124
Note: I changed the order

1 - All reference frames are equally valid. (strength)

2 - The curvature of space-time. (weakness)

3 - The gravity force doesn't exist. (weakness)

4 - It's possible the time travel. (no effect)

5 - The unification of all forces (EM, G, SF, WF) in a single equation. (searching)

I've edited various times the previous list.

In several posts I have explained my ideas but from a philosophical standpoint. It is true I have not brought any evidence against Relativity or in favor of mines.

 

EVOLUTION AND PROCESSES

The becoming-time flows from future to present (evolution) and continues to the past in our mind. Obviously the past is first than the future, but the future is a reality that is directed towards us or objects without considering any spatial direction. It is in our mind which creates the illusion that "time" flows from past to future (processes). The future comes to us, not we to the future.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the hourglass, the upper bulb represents the future and lower the past. In this device match the evolution and the process in the same sense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The movement of the hands is the process, in this case, the time 2:00 is directed to present, is the evolution. We hope to be two o'clock.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

These are the stages of the process of human development (Manny). The evolution is present (future) in Manny at the time of conception.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The process of transformation from monkey to human. The conditions for the evolution were present in the monkeys that became humans, feature that current monkeys lack.

In summary, the sense of the processes (from past to future) is an illusion and sense of evolution is real (future to the present).

 

Metaphors don't have consequences like these: aging, the sequence of events and the irreversibility of phenomena.

Becoming-time is real and flows from future to present.

 

None of that is evidence that time literally flows. Physics already explains those without the need for the metaphor of time "flowing." And precision experiment shows that position and motion affect these consequence in a way that is not explained at all by the metaphor of time "flowing."

 

How can you make such a ridiculous statement? Gravity experiments are the first and easiest experiments to perform. Take off you shoe, pick up a rock and hold it over your foot. If the gravity force does not exist, then release the rock and it will just float above your foot. Since you are delusional and have somehow overlooked gravity, the rock will fall on your foot and it will hurt, a lot.

Maybe philosophy achieves exactly nothing. Get a job.

 

Change and movement are concrete ways of becoming-time. Time is the physical quantity that indicates that much has changed or become something (being, phenomenon or period).

 

For God Mazulu !!! I've said the opposite. For Relativity gravity is not a force. You're lost. :wallbang:

That's your personal opinion.

 

Indicative of nothing. You are describing change, not time.

 

Drop a rock on your foot and then tell me there is no force of gravity.

 

Here is something easier to argue. Argue that there is no Higgs field and no Higgs particle.

 

Extension of changes = time

Ah!!!, I understand, you're talking to the forum, aren't you?

I've said that gravity is a force.

????????????