Warping of Spacetime

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by RajeshTrivedi, May 16, 2015.

  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Maybe I am just tired, but it seems to me it would help if you were a little more coherent about just what you mean to be pointing out.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    Since this thread is about the nature of spacetime, I tought it proper to import Q's quote from another (closed) thread to discuss here. Raj, I hope you don't mind.

    I asked Professors Hamilton & Everitt about the issue of whether GR could be considered a type of ''ether'' theory (among other questions not relevant to this discussion..). Here's what they said:

     
    brucep, Q-reeus and paddoboy like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    I am pretty coherent !! I have seen AR/NR (not that I have understood verbatim, but good enough), no where there is a cascading solution for GR equations.


    I will try to be clearer...........Sun is a big guy, it created some curvature/distortion in the spacetime around so venus, mars, Earth, Jupiter all found path (there is no explanation in GR for such gaps but we leave that for some other time)....but Jupiter has 60 moons, they are following the path as per curvature of Jupiter, and the entire Jupiter moon system is on Sun's curvature......and this entire solar system then on GC curvature. This cascading is beyond relativity equations........
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    That's simply the way the cookie crumbles...Earth could also have had 60 moons, if the early collision and the mess resulting had not coalesced to form our Moon.
    I'll say it again, GR covers all amounts of bodies but calculations get rather difficult and time consuming.
    You have already had one thread shifted to alternative sections because of your obvious dishonesty in trying to fool all and sundry, it seems you are trying to do the same with this one too.


    Thanks again to tashja for more great work.
     
  8. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    First, there are some acronyms that are common and thus self explanatory.., GR, SR, GP-B etc., even QTG and QGT are used enough that they are generally understood by all. Others are not as clear without at least an initial, in discussion definition, like AR and NR which I find no other reference to in this discussion, so it is not clear just what you mean!

    To your further point.., it may seem clear to you but, as far as I can tell you have not demonstrated that you understand GR well enough to lend any credibility to your claim that the orbital dynamics of moons and planets in our solar system are beyond explanation within the context of GR.

    I do not claim to understand the evolution of planetary dynamics sufficiently to claim any authority. I do know that GR describes what we observe of the current orbital dynamics and its continuing evolvolution, even if the specifics of why it is exactly as it is now is not certain. From what I do understand and accept of the work of others, your conclusion above appears baseless.., without a clear explanation of just why you believe the dynamics of our solar system is beyond explanation. If all you are saying is the GR does not tell us exactly why planets and moons have formed in the exact pattern they have, the question I would ask you is why do you believe that it alone.., should?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Your first step in trying to be clearer, is to stop being so obviously pretentious in a vain effort to impress....Stop making things up for starters....stop complicating issues unecessarily to impress.
    The solar system dynamics are reasonably easy to explain with and without GR. Here are some facts.
    We have retrograde orbits of planets and moons about planets, easily explained by gravitational capture or the fact that in the case of planets, [Venus and Uranus] catastrophic collisions in the early days of planetary formation. This obviously also included planetary inclination and axial tilt data.
    There are shepherd moons with regards to planetary rings.
    Orbital swap moons such as Epimetheus and Janus of Saturn easily explained via Newtonian mechanics.
    Planet/moon synchronous orbits and tidal gravity effects such as with Pluto/Charon.
    Cometary and asteroidal orbits, the Asteroid belt, the KBOs, the Oort cloud.

    GR easily explains the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.
    It explains the geodesic paths of light from distant stars that pass near our Sun.
    The Shapiro time delay effect is more support for GR.

    Or do you fore see another problem Rajesh with the solar system orbital mechanics, which all our giants of the present and past such as Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Hubble, Eddington, etc may have missed?
    Or are these people just fools in your eyes, and now you have come along to show the error in Einstein's ways and enlighten us all?

    In the old days the disease Leprosy was looked on with great fear and disgust.
    Now it can be treated and is near eradicated except for a few places.

    Perhaps one day as we progress via real science from those at the coal face, [and not the fraudulent brigade we have on science forums, that pretend to know all], we may even have a cure for "delusions of Grandeur" and other inflated ego problems.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It is a finite distance to r_s. The integration removes the coordinate singularity. I learned that in the first chapter I ever read on GR. It's commonly ignored by cranks. In my experience. I think it upsets the crank woo factor on the Schwarzschild event horizon. A coordinate singularity. A consequence of the Schwarzschild spherically symmetric non rotating geometry.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Nice posts from the Professors. Thanks for making the query Tashja.
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If you look at a blackhole, in our galaxy, this is a finite thing, relative to our galaxy and the universe. The space-time well of the BH is finite. At the same time, it is connected to a space-time background, that exists beyond itself. How does this space-time background impact the blackhole and vice versa? The BH is often treated like it is in isolation, when it is really part of a larger system of space-time.

    For example, since time moves faster as space-time expands, what is inside and beyond the blackhole, is loosely analogous to a compounding twin paradox. Outside the BH, the twins are getting older, faster, while inside BH the twins are aging slower. There is a potential in time and space that is growing. What was connected, remains connected, but with a space-time drift.

    As a visual analogy, say we had a large forest and place a wall down the middle. On one side of the wall, time is moving faster, allowing life on that side of the wall to evolve quickly; relative terms. On the other side of the wall, time is moving much slower such that life evolves at a much slower rate, relative to the first. These two sides have common DNA, but they are drifting apart, because there is a wall that prevents equilibrium. The radioactive isotopes one side is changing faster; side-by-side, so even matter is shifting.

    If we knock down the wall, there will be no steady state between them. They can only be in an equilibrium is there are cracks in the wall that allow each to balance out the other.

    In terms of the BH and cracks in the wall to the background, the impact of the BH on the space-time background would be to add extra life to it; CMBR. While the impact of the background on the BH would to speeds things up so some extent inside the blackhole; prevent singularity?
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well at least you haven't linked black holes with your machinations related to political liberalism.
     
  14. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,937
    I think this has lost any semblance of "science" at this point... any reason not to shunt this into Alternative Theories?
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    No
     
  16. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    Yes.
    And yet, you think the thread “Gravitational Time Dilation” contains “Science” ? Your letting that run to 21 + pages.
    Another example of the strange modding on this crank reservation site.
     
    brucep likes this.
  17. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    I had to read prof : Everett's reply a couple of times to make some sense of it, I didn't see the word "non" in " non-rotating aspect of the Earth," part at first.

    Ok folks...we now know a mod has taken interest in closing this thread,what's your guess, I say it closes in two posts from this one, and that includes the mod's post informing of the lockdown. how many posts from now folks?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Interesting perspective, sweetpea...
     
  19. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Move it!
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    The fact is that this thread was started to push an alternative hypothesis without doubt.
    All one needs to do is go through the seven or eight threads that have been started by this bloke.
    He has no interest in established accepted science, only to push his paper/s, that have been totally rebuked and are against the accepted GR principals.
     
    brucep likes this.
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    As far as having somebody with the tools to moderate a science and math thread this forum ........ has issues separating the wheat from the stuff not worth reading. One way to help with raising standards is to moderate thread opening posts for content before placing them on the board. This would mean you need moderation that have the tools to recognize the content for what it is.
     
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Threads get degenerated when members start cutting each other, rather than contributing on the subject.

    Gravitational Time Dilation and warping of spacetime....are least understood and throws so many issues. But in the very beginning both the threads got screwed by one over enthusiastic member...that both these are proven theories well established and any one who raises any kind of question is crank or agenda pusher.........and then this self claimed illiterate advocate of mainstream get further support from some other so called literate members. Where is the discussion in scientific manner......this violates GR/SR so it is farce...thats the argument from these snobby fellas.
     
  23. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,937
    Which we have admitted to having a lack of - I tend to shy away from some of the heavier science stuff because I recognize it is way over my head. I tend to err on the side of caution when controversial science is involved, as there is a fine line between woo/crankpottery, a legitimate alternative theory, and simple theoretical science.
     

Share This Page