Classic kookery!
Originally posted by Joeblow93132
Thed,
I'm very dissapointed with your responses. I would have expected a more logical response to my questions. I hardly know where to start. Here I go:
Then you will be really disappointed with these
I can understand your confusion. People who have not fully researched and studied Relativity often do not fully understand it's implications. Maybe after you have sat a course in it you will understand and learn of the overwhelming evidence supporting it.
"The evidence is against you I'm afraid. Countless experiments have shown spacetime to be curved. You can believe what you want, the Universe does not care."
Please explain these so-called experiments. I have never heard of any experiment that proves that space can be curved. How exactly was the curvature of space measured??
You want to me to explain the findings of hundreds upon hundreds of experiments supporting Relativity? Go read a book on it, plenty about. Start with "Gravitation" by Misner, Wheeler and Thorne.
To help you along your quest I'll give you a few pointers. You can of course dismiss these, I suspect you will, but what the heck.
During a Solar eclipse the position of a star near the suns limb was deflected from it's expected position by an amount predicted by Relativity. This was the defining proof that brought Relativity into the spotlight. Only possible if the mass of the Sun curved space near it.
Shine a laser down a gravitational well (from a large crane will do) onto the floor. It is redshifted in accordance with gravitational redshift.
The observed precession of the perihelion of mercury.
The tidal bulge of the Earth follows the gravitational potential of our gravitational field. Notice it's shape. Tides are a direct consequence of Relativity.
The retardation of the period of binary pulsars. Exactly as Relativity says.
The cosmic mirowave background. Predicted from Cosmology using Relativity as a base theory.
Redshift of Galaxies. Observed first, modelled in Relativity later.
Many, many objects observed that have properties of Black holes. First predicted as a result of Relativity.
Please explain all the above without Relativity. No hand waving arguments and do so in accordance to Occams Razor. That is, use less assumptions than GR. I.E. Only one assumption or Axiom.
"Last I heard Einstein did not say EM was completely different to gravity."
According to Einstein, gravity is the result of curved space. Einstein never bothered to explain the electric/magnetic interaction because it would then prove that attractive forces ARE possible WITHOUT curved space.
Which part of "Maxwell explained Electromagentism first" are you unaware of and do not understand?
Einsteins work came out of a problem making EM work in a Newtonian universe.
So if the attractive forces between negatively and positively charged objects are NOT the result of curved space, then why would gravity be???
Different causes maybe?
Using this specious argument can you also explain the weak and strong nuclear forces. They are attractive and repulsive as well and do not rely on curved space to a first approximation.
""If I give you a rock to throw, can you change the momentum of the rock without changing it's speed???"
Yes, by changing it's velocity. Can you see the difference. "
Momentum is the result of mass and velocity. You claimed that momentum is independent of mass.
Indeed momentum is a result of the product of mass and velocity in a purely Newtonian universe. Relativity shows us that momentum can exist without mass. You would do well to understand this.
Explain Photodissasociation and Compton Scattering without this please?
I asked you to change the momentum of a rock without changing it's speed. You avoided the question by saying you would change it's velocity. Nice Try.
Your ignorance of vectors is showing. You can not propose a modification to Relativity and basic Physics without first understanding the absoute basics needed to understand this.
The answer I gave is a perfectly accurate one. Your inability to understand it is at issue. Speed is the modulus of velocity I.E. s=|
V|. Change velocity (which includes direction) and you change momentum.
"You are the one claiming light has some mass based one several points as above. You have not put a limit on that mass so using the above example as a counter proof is also specious."
I didn't think that I would have to explain that the mass of a photon would be very small. I thought that would be obvious.
You are making a claim against fully tested Physics without qualifying your statements. Are you know backpedalling against an internal inconsistency of your claims?
"I'll say again, if light has mass a sufficiently strong source will attract a mass. Is the Sun not strong enough?"
The light from our sun hitting a football field on Earth has the force equivalent to the weight of one marble. As you can see, the suns light is not sufficiently strong.
Yet gravitometers routinely measure smaller deviations than this and no anomalous affects are seen. How do you explain this.
""Inertia is also a resistance to change in speed."
No it is not.
Inertia is the resistance to a force, an acceleration. Speed is a purely scalar quantity. Acceleration includes change of direction, a vector quantity."
"Change in speed" IS acceleration as well.
Make your mind up. I said Inertia is resistance to a change in speed, you say it's not then agree with me. Inertia is a resistance to force, which can also be a a change in speed.
You see, you do understand the difference.
Funny how we suddenly decide to invoke vectors here and not before. This is a classic kook trick of selective argument and choosing which facts to argue with to support a weak position.
""The force experienced by objects hit by light is the result of photons resisting their change in speed."
It could also be due to a change in momenum a expleained. F=dp/dt after all. Note the use of vectors here. "
There you go again saying that a photon has no mass, but has momentum. As I asked you before, change the momentum of a rock without changing it's velocity(or it's mass).
No, you asked me to change it's momentum without changing speed. There's a world of difference.
Given the new question I'll answer, I can't.
But this has nothing to do with massless objects having momentum. Which part of p=E/c do you not understand?
"How do you classify and measure mass?
[qoute]Normal way, with a scale."
Again you avoided the question!! A scale measures gravitational interaction. The same interaction that causes a photons path to curve.
[/quote]
Now you are the one changing things.
You're argument is that space is not curved and photons have mass. Are you know agreeing with me?
""What can you do to illustrate that a rock has mass but a photon doesn't??
In a way, very simple. A photon travels at lightspeed, mass does not. It's not that simple really, I'll admit to that. A full description requires a full book and then some.""
And how do you know that mass can't travel at light speed??? Let me guess, Einstein told you!!!!
No, I've spent considerable time in the past in Labs doing experiments and analysing data. I've yet to see any evidence that light has mass.
What is your proof that a photon has mass. I'm waiting.
