A new interpretation of energy and matter

[Gerry Nightingale]

I really enjoy some of the "threads" I read, esp. the ones that deal with QM and "dark-mass" and "dark-energy". Why? Because there is NO proof whatsoever of "dark" anything.

This is an attempt to rationalize irrational "condition-sets" based on false observations and conclusions, using mathematical extrapolations as "proof"...numbers are never

wrong, and therefore a theoretical proposition is "right!" Or least "right" enough. Forty years of discourse, experiments, observations, extrapolations concerning energy and

matter have NEVER come to fruition...because there is no "tree to bear fruit". There never was any quantum "tree"...only a Cheshire cat's "grin".

How can I dare to write this? Do I "know some great secret?" Do I have some "overwhelming proof" that modern theoretical physics is "wrong?" No...I have no proof of anything,

nor am I privy to some "hidden secret". All I have done is read...a lot. And apply logic to whatever I read.

For instance, there is no proof to support the contentions of Hawking's "ultimate gravity"...and yet it is accepted as "Holy Writ" by many. Why? By what mechanisms of

action can "increasing the density of mass results in an exponential of gravity". The idea of this is completely untenable.

This concept-model of "ultimate gravity" seems a parallel of "The Emperor's New Clothes"...in that all of logic and proportion have been discarded.

(Never mind Einstein and "Relativity", just throw him and his quaint "know-nothing" ramblings into the "delete" file)

Am I saying I'm "smarter" than Hawking? That I should occupy the "Newton" chair at Cambridge? No...I wouldn't want to be seated there in any event. Einstein will object, and

rightfully so! The "Chair" has been his for a hundred years.

What Hawking and others cannot "explain" is just "how" does a mass of matter, however dense, increase gravity beyond that with which the matter started with?

If one atom possesses one "unit" of inherent gravity...then how can any circumstance dictate that an atom can have "more?" It is irrelevant "how many" atoms there are

in-place...each has an inherent threshold, a threshold that cannot be exceeded!

True enough, "more atoms equal more gravity"...yet Hawking and many others maintain that, at least from observation and supposition, that "gravity" is, in effect, being

"supercharged" into the same AMOUNT of atoms!!! The "dense mass" is creating MORE gravity from the same amount of atoms.

(the only way this could happen is to suspend every known "rule" of physics...relativity? Gone. Logic? Gone. Avogadro's "number?" Gone. The "Co-invariance Principle?" Gone.

Lorentz "Principles?" Gone...etc. Only mathematical "proofs" remain, based on false premises)

What do I offer as "proof?" That Hawking, et. al. are "wrong?"

I offer our Solar System. That is my "proof" or contention, or theory, or whatever the "scientists" choose to call it.

The Earth and the Moon are VALID "proofs" of gravity with regard to matter and mass. "Celestial Mechanics" is also a valid proof.

The fact that "everything in the known Universe has tendency to stay in the same place" is a valid proof. I have never read in fifty years of Stars, Planets or Moons becoming

deranged and heading off to Boca Raton for a vacation! There is NO proof of "exponential gravity", other than calculus formulas that prove you make any "assumption" a

"true thing" if you work the numbers right.

"All right" many will say. "How do you explain that "light" is being "bent back" by an immensely powerful gravimetric field from an "ultra-dense" body?" I have no explanation,

nor do I need one...and the reason is simple.

There is no light being emitted from a "blackbody" mass. There is NO LIGHT to see, and that is why none is seen.

It may well be that the compositional mass of a given structure is no longer able to "emit" light because the conditions necessary are no longer present...the state of

hyper-thermic excitation is not great enough to serve as a "causation for the emission of light".

The conditions that cause the emission of light are NOT present. Just that simple.

"But what of this...and that...and the other "thing"...how do you explain them?

I can't...and neither can anyone else.


(Thanks for reading!) ...in case someone wants to "ban" me for heresy...remember, this is supposed to be the "right place" for "woo".

 

[paddoboy]

It's not the forum for woo...It's the forum for "Alternative Theories"
But in most cases, as is excellently shown with your's, it obviously is woo.
Not much more to say...It would take far far too long.

[and I'm only a layman]

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Never mind Einstein and "Relativity", just throw him and his quaint "know-nothing" ramblings into the "delete" file ... in case someone wants to "ban" me for heresy...remember, this is supposed to be the right place for woo

It's not that it's heresy, it's just so completely ignorant. :huh:

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to AIP's this "topic".

Okay, paddoboy...you no like? I didn't anyone would...too simple. How about you, Arne (a "center of the Earth" fan, yes?) Want to elaborate on "why" it's "ignorant"...NO, it isn't ignorant.

It's a rebuttal of concepts that have NO foundation in reality, a rebuttal of "voodoo" physics of suppositional conditions that have never been proven, and never will!

There are NO such entities as "blackholes" or "wormholes" as "real" things...they are extrapolations of conjecture, based on "what we think we see" in the far depths of the Universe.

Of course, explaining things to me would take "far, far too long". I wouldn't want you or anyone else to try and "explain" 40+ years of conjecture!


"Gee...if only we could get more power to this accelerator! We could "prove" the existence of even more theoretical particles that might "mean something!"

The above is an excellent example of "physics research"...that has NEVER proved anything except how to spend billions on attempts to create something to make "bomb make bigger boom".

Or to prove a "thing" that has no true existence, and never will have a true existence.

Or the many attempts to create an actual, real self-sustaining "fusion" process right here, right now, on Earth...from a small amount of matter. (by all means good luck with that, as every

attempt has failed, and always will "fail"...a Rumpelstiltskin "fixation" of the highest order, only instead of "straw into gold", they seek unlimited energy from the same amount of matter)

You know something else that's for real "Woo?" Even better than mine could ever be? The "theory' of a "teeny-tiny itsy-bitsy particle" starting EVERYTHING! How's that for "Woo?"

I said I have no proof of my own conjectures or theories, only the reality of what is "here and now" within the Solar System...so you tell me with regard to what I wrote what is "woo".

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...what of it? How about "you" showing me some evidence that "gravity doesn't work the way you think it does, and here's why" type of response, instead of

telling me "you're completely wrong, and all the smart people know more than you, you should NEVER deviate from the accepted theories because they explain everything".

I would rather fail on a grand scale, then accept and be "accepted into the fold".

I have some ideas, some "concepts" and "you" don't agree...okay, fine.

Then tell me...is "Relativity" true and correct, or no? There is no "parsing of semantics" with regard to an answer, or seeking refuge into "special" conditions...just answer "yes" or "no" please.

If the answer is "no", then there is no point of reference for debate.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

I really enjoy some of the "threads" I read, esp. the ones that deal with QM and "dark-mass" and "dark-energy". Why? Because there is NO proof whatsoever of "dark" anything.

This is an attempt to rationalize irrational "condition-sets" based on false observations and conclusions,

One of the first observations indicating that there must be unobserved mass was the rotation of the galaxies. Are you saying this is a false observation?

For instance, there is no proof to support the contentions of Hawking's "ultimate gravity"...and yet it is accepted as "Holy Writ" by many. Why? By what mechanisms of

action can "increasing the density of mass results in an exponential of gravity".

What is ultimate gravity? Do you have a citation?

"All right" many will say. "How do you explain that "light" is being "bent back" by an immensely powerful gravimetric field from an "ultra-dense" body?" I have no explanation,

nor do I need one...and the reason is simple.

There is no light being emitted from a "blackbody" mass. There is NO LIGHT to see, and that is why none is seen.

It may well be that the compositional mass of a given structure is no longer able to "emit" light because the conditions necessary are no longer present...the state of

hyper-thermic excitation is not great enough to serve as a "causation for the emission of light".

The conditions that cause the emission of light are NOT present. Just that simple.

"But what of this...and that...and the other "thing"...how do you explain them?

I can't...and neither can anyone else.

I believe you think that Einsteins theory of general relativity is correct. That theory supports that the space can be bent enough from a massive oblect that it will not allow light to escape

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Wow! I can't decide if you're off your medication, haven't been properly prescribed any or are taking too much of it. I appreciate your appreciation of my username. Sure, I am a Jules Verne fan, although I admire H.G. Wells much more. I chose to borrow the name Arne Saknussemm for its obscurity -a 16th century Icelander who leaves cryptic messages on stones in tunnels far beneath the Earth's surface - who is fictional to boot. Love it! So I don't think any one else is using the name. It is unwise to reveal one's true identity online. I hope you are not doing so.

As for why I think your post is ignorant, well, I have very little scientific expertise; my expertise is in writing and the English language, so even though I may not always understand the science, especially the physics and mathematics that are discussed here I know very well when someone is talking through their hat.

I was going to reproduce your OP here and embolden all the parts I thought were 'woo', but after I clicked the 'reply with quote' button I saw that the only thing that wasn't nonsense was the final line where you politely thanked us for reading your post, although even there I sensed irony.

I read scientific articles especially about astronomical phenomena, and quite often they refer to Albert Einstein's theories, and every single time, they say, 'Einstein was right'! Or even, no one could ever see how before, but we now know that Einstein was right. Quite a man, old Albert. I believe you are the first person I have ever encountered anywhere who does not admire his genius.

So you toddle onto the scene, a person who cannot even write in English cogently or coherently (although I am certain it is your first language) and you tell us Einstein should be trashed!

Incidentally, English was not Einstein's first language, but he writes far more succinctly than you, and that alone convinces me that he was closer to the truth in the matters under discussion than you are. In short, I have never known Einstein to rant, and all you are doing here is going off on a good old-fashioned dilettantish, bug up the ass rant. Give it up already.

Albert Einstein in Long Island, 1939

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to Arne, re: my post.

You think it unwise to use my real name? (only if I'm afraid of someone...I'm not. I use it on the odd "one in a million" chance that someone who is also "for real" will perhaps contact me,

wanting to know more) My writing style? True, everything looks a mess! Why? I think it has something to do with this field...don't blame me for it. (I don't know all the "tricks of the trade"

regarding the operations of programs...I grew up with books, not computers. I never had any access to one until last year, so cut me some slack with regard to expertise. Like much in my life,

I have had to learn from an absolute beginner status.

How are your own "skills?" Nice photo! Not nice? Taking me completely out of context with regard to Albert...very naughty, and also very wrong. I am not in the "Let's put Einstein in the

corner with a dunce-cap on" QM crowd. Jeepers! Thanks for informing me that Albert learned to speak, read and write in English past the age of 40! I didn't know that! See...I got smarter

already! (He could also converse "en francaise", Yiddish, Latin, Swiss (dialect), Dutch (Nederlander) and others...want to tell me more about Einstein's linguistic capabilities?)

You think I write "nonsense?" Okay.

How about you respond to the contentions I wrote, instead of "tap dancing" around the issues I wrote and attempting to demean me personally. Going into "attack mode" and writing

insults regarding my writing skills proves nothing!


(thanks for reading!) P.S. "Gai cocknif en Yom"

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to "origin", re: my post topic.

"Rotation of Galaxies?" No...I have no true answer to "counter" the suppositional aspects of "dark matter" influence.

Do I have any answer at all? Yes...dimensional-gravity.

As for "false observation?" An observation is wholly dependent upon the observers...to "observe" carries with it that conclusions are "part and parcel" of the observation, as in "This is what I

think I see" and then extrapolating conclusions from the observed circumstance.

My argument is with many of the conclusions regarding the inherent nature of that which was "observed". I believe many of the "conclusions" are invalid.

As for "Relativity?" I have neither argument nor rebuttal...in fact, I support completely!

What I do NOT support is the "bending/twisting/distortions" of Einstein's masterwork...this being done every second of every day, by "rascals who think they know" ( A.E. quote)


Am I disputing that "gravity bends light?" Yes and No...I'm not being evasive or coy with this response.

Einstein knew full well what would happen during a Solar eclipse...and he used it to "bolster" the "General Theory of Relativity". He knew that the ions of magnetically "charged" particulates

would give the appearance that "light passing through" is BENDING in response to a gravitational field...in fact, light cannot be made to "bend". There is no matter, no "substance" for gravity

to exert influence over...it just "looks that way" when observed by us.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[origin]

In reply to "origin", re: my post topic.

"Rotation of Galaxies?" No...I have no true answer to "counter" the suppositional aspects of "dark matter" influence.

The point is for the outside of the galaxy to rotate almost as fast as the inner parts of the galaxy the most logical solution is that there is much more mass there than can be seen, hence it is dark. What exactly this dark matter is isn't known, experimentation is closing in on it's nature. You make the idea of dark matter sound like wild speculation which it hardly is.

Do I have any answer at all? Yes...dimensional-gravity.

Please explain how (I assume you mean higher) dimensional gravity would result in the observed rotation.

As for "false observation?" An observation is wholly dependent upon the observers...to "observe" carries with it that conclusions are "part and parcel" of the observation, as in "This is what I think I see" and then extrapolating conclusions from the observed circumstance.

So you dispute the observations? Please look at picture of a spiral galaxy and explain it's shape.

My argument is with many of the conclusions regarding the inherent nature of that which was "observed". I believe many of the "conclusions" are invalid.

Please explain why this particular conclusion is invalid.

Einstein knew full well what would happen during a Solar eclipse...and he used it to "bolster" the "General Theory of Relativity". He knew that the ions of magnetically "charged" particulates would give the appearance that "light passing through" is BENDING in response to a gravitational field...in fact, light cannot be made to "bend".

Wow! So you think Einstein was tricking the world into believing something that was not true. And yet you support relativity completely. Strange.
So you are further saying that light passing thru "ions of magnetically 'charged' particles appear to bend light. How is that possible? What is an ion of magnetically charged particle?
You go on to say light cannot be made to bend. No kidding. Einstein did not think light bent. Relativity says that space bends; the light travels in a straight line thru space, but the SPACE is bent. That is what relativity says and as you said you "support relativity completely".

There is no matter, no "substance" for gravity to exert influence over...it just "looks that way" when observed by us.

So what was really happening during that solar eclipse? There was a star that was behind the the sun during the eclipse but we could see that star and photograph it, even though it was behind the sun.

According to General Relativity the mass of the sun warped the spacetime around the sun. The apparent location of the star agreed with the mathematical predictions of relativity on the amount that space would be warped by the mass of the sun.

 

[Layman]

Don't Newtons equations predict that the same number of atoms can produce a larger gravitational force as well by something being more dense?

Saying that the same number of atoms produce a larger gravitational field shouldn't break any kind of scientific principle.

I find it ironic that your proof is the solar system, when Newtons Laws had trouble with accurately describing the entire solar system, and Einsteins theory of gravity accurately predicts all the movement inside of the solar system. It is just when you go outside of the solar system, does Einsteins Theory go astray with things like dark matter.

Then Black Holes have been discovered through observation. They have been detected by seeing the movements of other bodies orbiting them so quickly that it would have to be a black hole. Then it has been found that there is a suppermassive black hole at the center of almost every galaxy.

It really doesn't sound like you have read much up on it at all, and you may not know enough about it to even sit in a chair of someone that goes to that school, never mind Newtons.

 

[AlexG]

Don't Newtons equations predict that the same number of atoms can produce a larger gravitational force as well by something being more dense?

Saying that the same number of atoms produce a larger gravitational field shouldn't break any kind of scientific principle.

I find it ironic that your proof is the solar system, when Newtons Laws had trouble with accurately describing the entire solar system, and Einsteins theory of gravity accurately predicts all the movement inside of the solar system. It is just when you go outside of the solar system, does Einsteins Theory go astray with things like dark matter.

Then Black Holes have been discovered through observation. They have been detected by seeing the movements of other bodies orbiting them so quickly that it would have to be a black hole. Then it has been found that there is a suppermassive black hole at the center of almost every galaxy.

It really doesn't sound like you have read much up on it at all, and you may not know enough about it to even sit in a chair of someone that goes to that school, never mind Newtons.

It's amazing that you've got everything backwards. Newtons equation say nothing about the number of atoms. The same number of atoms of the same substance will produce the same gravitational field.

Newton's equations of motion are quite accurate within the solar system. Black holes are a predicted consequence of Einstein's field equations.

It really doesn't sound like you have read much up on it at all, and you may not know enough about it to even sit in a chair of someone that goes to that school, never mind Newtons.

Ah, irony.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to "origin" and AIP's re: my "post".

Cheers! You ask valid questions, and I will answer as best as I can...bearing in mind that that I am writing speculation in the form of a "posit" (If I believe a "thing" can be proved valid, then I

write as "valid", subject to review, as all things are)




First...Einstein and "Relativity" as it pertains to the Solar eclipse.

What do I mean by "charged" ions? I mean that most, if not all of a luminous Stars mass is in a constant state of hyper-excitation, the "ions" being elements, mainly Hydrogen and Helium along

with all the other elements (iron, oxygen, neon, argon, etc.) A constant state of hyper-thermic excitation manifests the elements as a "plasma" state (gaseous) and produces a very strong

magnetic field that shifts rapidly as a result of the Star's "spin". Gravity will not allow the "ions" to break free of the parent-mass, unless an escape velocity can be achieved by the mechanism

of "storm" formations...the plasma of magnetically charged ions "dip and sway' in response to shifting paradigms of gravitational and magnetic forces.


Second..."What do I mean by light doesn't "bend?" It surely does, and there are thousands of experiments and photos that "prove" that it does".

Am I implying that the famous prediction by Einstein was some form of hoax...a "trick?" NO.

I wrote specifically that the light APPEARS to "bend" without any physical bending occurring, and A.E. knew in advance that this would happen...he predicted the "degree of arc/curvature" by

means of calculation, as in "1.8 arc/sec"...a long enough interval so a photograph would demonstrate a recorded "proof". And it worked, as he knew it would.

The key phrase is "appears to bend". Of course it "bends"...?

Here is an easy way to "see the bend of light" with regard to a "mass-in-place. Fill a water glass 3/4 full and place it on a surface, position a flashlight about 2 ft. from the glass of water, and

darken whatever room you're in...get at "eye level" with the glass, and take a good look...then place a glass rod of equal clarity to the water glass at an oblique angle...and take a look.

The "light" appears BENT! (I'm sure you've seen a picture of this before) At least it seems that way, because the "rod" seems distorted where it's in the water...and the rest of it above the

surface looks the same! How can this be! The rod can't be bent!?. It must be a "trick of the light". The light is being bent, somehow.


The answer to this question of the "rod" is a "visual distortion" is occurring, nothing else. The difference in density of the glass-rod in relation to the water density (greater over lesser) creates

the illusion that the "light must bent, because the rod can't be" is an example of a "false/positive" observation.

The greater density of the rod can "hold" more energy in place than the water, making it appear "brighter" than the surrounding water, thus creating a visual misinterpretation of what is

actually occurring...the light just "seems" bent. (no gravitational effect needed here...just light and some logic)


Three...Relativity predicts the "warping of spacetime".

If this appears somewhere as quotations or writings directly from Einstein...I've never seen it. I am certain I can find many sources attributing this concept to him...but I would only accept it

if it came directly from the man himself (no "interpretations" allowed) What of "special conditions of relativity...the STR?"

This issue is so complex I cannot begin to deal with it except on a "case by case" level...the issue of "spacetime" is the single greatest "bone of contention" in all of physics, and I think it has been

"interpreted" to DEATH. I think Einstein himself would be completely confounded by many of the current "models".


No...I don't think light is being "bent". Are there examples of "right angle deflection?" Are they false? NO, they're not false...this is an example of "straight-line direction".

A laser directed to a mirror shows this perfectly...the deflected laser is still "straight" and coherent, no matter the number of mirrors. A bend/curve is not the same as "angular".


(By the way, before I forget...the photos that were used to verify Einstein's prediction where MANY in number...one "shot" would not verify anything. Comparitive analogies were used to

establish the degree of arc, not to verify that the "light came from the stars". The movement of the Sun was the important factor, as in "could the light from a distant star still be observed even

if the actual Star has been occluded by the mass of the Sun?")


Also, since this "post" was not deleted, I will write more concerning my concepts of energy/matter relationships...they pertain to much of what you asked me.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to AlexG...Thanks!

I never expect anyone not to "question" what I write...If they don't like it, okay. (even I think my concepts are likely "junk" at some point...but, still...)

Why do trolls always resort to comments like "you're an idiot?" If I am an idiot, how would telling me make any difference?


(Cheerio!)

 

[Quantum Quack]

In reply to "origin", re: my post topic.

"Rotation of Galaxies?" No...I have no true answer to "counter" the suppositional aspects of "dark matter" influence.

Do I have any answer at all? Yes...dimensional-gravity.

Can I ask?

1. What do you mean by dimensional gravity?
2. What do you consider is the source of gravity?
3. How is the universality of this constant [Gravity] uni-formally maintained in an expanding/contracting universe?

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

I never expect anyone not to "question" what I write...If they don't like it, okay. (even I think my concepts are likely "junk" at some point...but, still...)

Why do trolls always resort to comments like "you're an idiot?" If I am an idiot, how would telling me make any difference?

:yawn: Finally, you are right about something. Telling you anything apparently won't make any difference. I danced around nothing. I told you my expertise is in language, not physics, and I showed everyone (not that they needed to be shown) that you were talking nonsense.

Now you've done it again. You're first statement above is so convoluted and self-contradicting as to be literally not worth saying. Then you use quotation marks, which outside of the woo woo world mean someone actually said what was between the quotes. No one has - I've checked. So, I gather that "you're an idiot" is how you characterize yourself as you are the only one to have said it.

Good bye. I have no more time to waste on you.

 

[origin]

First...Einstein and "Relativity" as it pertains to the Solar eclipse.
What do I mean by "charged" ions? I mean that most, if not all of a luminous Stars mass is in a constant state of hyper-excitation, the "ions" being elements, mainly Hydrogen and Helium along
with all the other elements (iron, oxygen, neon, argon, etc.) A constant state of hyper-thermic excitation manifests the elements as a "plasma" state (gaseous) and produces a very strong
magnetic field that shifts rapidly as a result of the Star's "spin". Gravity will not allow the "ions" to break free of the parent-mass, unless an escape velocity can be achieved by the mechanism
of "storm" formations...the plasma of magnetically charged ions "dip and sway' in response to shifting paradigms of gravitational and magnetic forces.

Fine. You are saying the sun is plasma and the movement of the plasma creates a magnetic field.

Second..."What do I mean by light doesn't "bend?" It surely does, and there are thousands of experiments and photos that "prove" that it does".

Quite a quandary for you.

Am I implying that the famous prediction by Einstein was some form of hoax...a "trick?" NO.

That’s good.

I wrote specifically that the light APPEARS to "bend" without any physical bending occurring, and A.E. knew in advance that this would happen...he predicted the "degree of arc/curvature" by means of calculation, as in "1.8 arc/sec"...a long enough interval so a photograph would demonstrate a recorded "proof". And it worked, as he knew it would.

This is odd. First you say it was not a trick and in the next paragraph you say it was a trick (you even put proof in quotation marks). The mathematics of General Relativity predicts that space-time is warped by a mass and this actual bending of space-time by the mass of the sun will allow us to see a star that is behind the sun. So when you say it only appears to bend you are saying that Einstein’s field equations are wrong and he knew it.

The key phrase is "appears to bend". Of course it "bends"...?
Here is an easy way to "see the bend of light" with regard to a "mass-in-place. Fill a water glass 3/4 full and place it on a surface, position a flashlight about 2 ft. from the glass of water, and
darken whatever room you're in...get at "eye level" with the glass, and take a good look...then place a glass rod of equal clarity to the water glass at an oblique angle...and take a look.
The "light" appears BENT! (I'm sure you've seen a picture of this before) At least it seems that way, because the "rod" seems distorted where it's in the water...and the rest of it above the surface looks the same! How can this be! The rod can't be bent!?. It must be a "trick of the light". The light is being bent, somehow. The answer to this question of the "rod" is a "visual distortion" is occurring, nothing else.

Yes I am sure the vast majority of the people on this forum know what refraction is.

The difference in density of the glass-rod in relation to the water density (greater over lesser) creates the illusion that the "light must bent, because the rod can't be" is an example of a "false/positive" observation.

Huh? What do you mean the illusion that the light is bent? Do you actually believe that refraction is just an illusion? Pretty good illusion! The Hubble space telescope uses that illusion to produce some pretty stunning pictures!

The greater density of the rod can "hold" more energy in place than the water, making it appear "brighter" than the surrounding water, thus creating a visual misinterpretation of what is actually occurring...the light just "seems" bent. (no gravitational effect needed here...just light and some logic).

What?! The reason that the rod appears bent because the speed of light in the air is faster than the speed of light in water and the interface between the 2 mediums cause the photons to change their direction at a very specific angle (bend). You realize a wooden stick will show the same bending as a glass rod? Does it also "hold" more energy than water making it "brighter" (whatever that means)?

Three...Relativity predicts the "warping of spacetime".
If this appears somewhere as quotations or writings directly from Einstein...I've never seen it. I am certain I can find many sources attributing this concept to him...but I would only accept it if it came directly from the man himself (no "interpretations" allowed).

Einstein’s field equations are direct quotes in the form the mathematics, the language of physics, that explicitly state that space-time is warped or bent by a mass.

Here are quotes from Einstein’s original paper on General Relativity:

“We easily recognize that the course of the light-rays must be bent with regard to the systems of co-ordinates..”
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing by a mass M at the distance…”

Don't take my word for it look at the paper.
General Relativity

What of "special conditions of relativity...the STR?"

Special Relativity is a special case of general relativity – ie a nonaccelerating frame or flat space-time.

This issue is so complex I cannot begin to deal with it except on a "case by case" level...the issue of "spacetime" is the single greatest "bone of contention" in all of physics, and I think it has been "interpreted" to DEATH. I think Einstein himself would be completely confounded by many of the current "models".

What in the world makes you think that the concept of space-time is a “bone of contention” in the physics comunity?

No...I don't think light is being "bent". Are there examples of "right angle deflection?" Are they false? NO, they're not false...this is an example of "straight-line direction". A laser directed to a mirror shows this perfectly...the deflected laser is still "straight" and coherent, no matter the number of mirrors. A bend/curve is not the same as "angular".

Oh good, now we are moving onto semantics. A 45 deg angle is not a bend. Really this is where you are going to go?

(By the way, before I forget...the photos that were used to verify Einstein's prediction where MANY in number...one "shot" would not verify anything. Comparitive analogies were used to establish the degree of arc, not to verify that the "light came from the stars". The movement of the Sun was the important factor, as in "could the light from a distant star still be observed even if the actual Star has been occluded by the mass of the Sun?")

So the results of the experiment were:
1. It was only an illusion.
2. The results were from refractions and it was only an illusion.
3. The results can be dismissed anyway because the Sun moved, they couldn't measure accurately, etc, etc...

Tell me again how you fully support relativity. Do you know what relativity is???

 

[wellwisher]

Dark matter and energy is an artifact of relative reference. Since there is no absolute reference, we cannot do an absolute universal energy balance, or that would make that reference, the absolute reference. The result is the observed energy does not always match between references.

Let me give a loose example. Say we have one man on a train, and another man standing at the train station. The train is in motion, relative to the train station, since the train started from a stop and is in motion due to fuel consumption. If we do an energy balance, the man at the station sees the train in motion. He calculates this energy based on the mass of the train and its velocity. This is the same as the fuel used.

The man on the train has a different relative reference. He not only sees the stationary man moving, but he also the train station is moving. But beyond that he also sees all the hills on the horizon are moving. He has a big window out of the train. When he does his energy balance, his calculated/needed energy is much higher, since the hills are very heavy. After the conductor tells him how much fuel he has used, the guy on the train needs to add dark energy, since the fuel burnt by the train is not enough to move all the hills.

What makes his dark energy so convincing, is anyone on the train can see the hills are moving from the train reference. What else could cause the hills to move since we did not use that much fuel? Since this is a reference illusion, we will only be able to infer the need for dark energy on the train, but will not be able to see dark energy in the lab, since it is not really there in terms of an absolute energy balance.

 

[origin]

Dark matter and energy is an artifact of relative reference. Since there is no absolute reference, we cannot do an absolute universal energy balance, or that would make that reference, the absolute reference. The result is the observed energy does not always match between references.

Let me give a loose example. Say we have one man on a train, and another man standing at the train station. The train is in motion, relative to the train station, since the train started from a stop and is in motion due to fuel consumption. If we do an energy balance, the man at the station sees the train in motion. He calculates this energy based on the mass of the train and its velocity. This is the same as the fuel used.

The man on the train has a different relative reference. He not only sees the stationary man moving, but he also the train station is moving. But beyond that he also sees all the hills on the horizon are moving. He has a big window out of the train. When he does his energy balance, his calculated/needed energy is much higher, since the hills are very heavy. After the conductor tells him how much fuel he has used, the guy on the train needs to add dark energy, since the fuel burnt by the train is not enough to move all the hills.

What makes his dark energy so convincing, is anyone on the train can see the hills are moving from the train reference. What else could cause the hills to move since we did not use that much fuel? Since this is a reference illusion, we will only be able to infer the need for dark energy on the train, but will not be able to see dark energy in the lab, since it is not really there in terms of an absolute energy balance.

As far as I can tell there is absolutely no information in that entire post that remotely applies to dark energy. That was a big swing and a miss!

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to Arne Saknussemm, re: ?

I don't recall asking you to write anything to me. Also, I don't care what you "checked"...and you "showed everyone" nothing. Your derisive implications concerning my writing are to be expected

from someone who enjoys science FICTION as if it were the "real thing"...by all means, continue digging to the center of the Earth!

Oh....WAH!!! "Good-bye". My feelings are so hurt!

(Also...regarding linguistics expertise. Please notice the CORRECT spelling of "Good-bye", even if it is rarely used...because "Good-bye" is a compound word, a contracture of "God be with you"

from archaic English. And don't forget "Woo-woo". <(this is proper, not woo woo) Are there no "hyphens" where you are from?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to "origin" re: replies to my "Topic".

Okay...I spent a great deal of time and thought trying to answer your questions to me...was your real intent just to "set me up" for a few sucker-punches? You just wanted to "show-off" that

you "know more" than me? Why? To what end? To prove me wrong? Because your last response, #16,...well...you just want to fight? (I got a sore shoulder just trying to answer you, I spent so

much time writing! And all you really wanted was to "bash and humiliate?") I'm kinda bummed out now.


Okay then...LET'S ROCK!

Did you actually write (#16) that c varies according to a relative media? Because I'm sure that you did! "The speed of light varies in different media" (paraphrase)

Now just "who is zooming who?" The "speed" of light (c) NEVER VARIES...ever. Period.

This one statement of yours is completely wrong. It just is. You like quoting references? You tell me then...which reference have you found that states "the speed of light varies".

I NEVER wrote that the results of the famous "eclipse photos" where an illusion, or a refraction, or that everything resultant from the observations could be "dismissed".

I DID write that the results may not "show a proof" that "light bends".

(Want some good advice? If you want to debate with someone...don't resort to "Goebbels" type of rhetoric or "I know you are but what am I?" schoolyard bully tactics)

You mentioned a "45dgr. angle is not a bend"...you're right, it IS NOT a bend...it is straight.

Yes, I fully support "Relativity" posits.



(Thanks for reading...why don't you and "krash" get together and compare notes)