Gravities Mechanism

CptBork said:
Did you deduce these claims from looking at the Einstein field equations, or did you just make them up? General Relativity both takes pressure into account when calculating spacetime curvature, and it explains why pressure builds up at the centers of planets and stars in the first place. Spacetime curvature does more than simply alter the trajectories of moving bodies, it also produces relative motion where none existed to begin with.
Click to expand...
He just makes this stuff up and he ignores all attempts to help him understand his errors.
 
origin said:
He just makes this stuff up and he ignores all attempts to help him understand his errors.
Click to expand...

My guess is that, like most laymen, he's seen videos and articles about General Relativity and doesn't realize all the subtleties and technicalities involved when applying it in practice.
 
origin said:
No, the person on the moon ages faster because the one on the moon is in a lower graviational field.
Click to expand...
You are right but the principle is the same. Acceleration moves an observer into a new frame of reference not velocity. In the case of the two astronauts traveling near c and one decelerates to the original frame, his clock is running much faster than the one near c because the are in two completely different frames of reference not because one is moving faster than the other. That's my opinion and I'm stick'n to it..
 
Man, my brain is in a knot right now. For example this twin paradox thing. The travelling twin is younger and has travelled a certain distance one way and back. But what distance did he travel ?
Let’s assume the twins agree on the distance. Then they don’t agree on the speed because the younger twin thinks he covered the distance in a shorter time. If they agree on the speed then they can’t agree on the distance.
If you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There is a twin travelling 8 lightyears who aged 6 years. That’s an average speed of 1.33 c :confused:
I mean, they did agree at the start the distance was 4 lightyears there and back I assume?
 
Last edited:
HarryT said:
Man, my brain is in a knot right now. For example this twin paradox thing. The travelling twin is younger and has travelled a certain distance one way and back. But what distance did he travel ?
Let’s assume the twins agree on the distance. Then they don’t agree on the speed because the younger twin thinks he covered the distance in a shorter time. If they agree on the speed then they can’t agree on the distance.
If you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There is a twin travelling 8 lightyears who aged 6 years. That’s an average speed of 1.33 c :confused:
I mean, they did agree at the start the distance was 4 lightyears there and back I assume?
Click to expand...

They agree on the speed but don't agree on the distance. In the example given the relative velocity is 0.8 c. At that speed, the distance between the earth and the turn around point measured by the Earth twin as 4 lightyears is measured to be only 2.4 light years by the twin traveling between those points, due to length contraction. At 0.8 c it will take 3 years by the traveler's clock to travel 2.4 light years and 6 years to make the round trip.
 
Well, yes. If the traveler went 3 years at 0.8c then he is 2.4 light years away according to him. But according the twin on Earth he is 4 light years away. So what if the travelling twin after traveling for 3 years decides to take a break from travelling and stay at 0 relative speed from the twin om Earth for some time. How far away is he then? 2.4 light years, 4 light years or somewhere in the middle ?
Thanks by the way for not giving up on me :biggrin:
 
Try drawing a spacetime diagram. Then draw a series of lines at 45 degrees each intersecting the y axis (the time axis for the stay at home twin), These lines will also intersect the traveling twin's worldline.

If you're new to this, there are some other details to understand about what the diagram represents, and the significance of lines with a slope of 1.
But anyway, clearly if the series of parallel lines with a slope of 1 is regularly spaced on the vertical axis, the outward leg of the traveling twin's worldline will have fewer points of intersection with the series than the inward leg. This, in a nutshell explains the paradox (believe it or not).
 
HarryT said:
Well, yes. If the traveler went 3 years at 0.8c then he is 2.4 light years away according to him. But according the twin on Earth he is 4 light years away. So what if the travelling twin after traveling for 3 years decides to take a break from travelling and stay at 0 relative speed from the twin om Earth for some time. How far away is he then? 2.4 light years, 4 light years or somewhere in the middle ?
Click to expand...
He would be 4 light years away.
 
I see there is much more to it than I thought and I need to go do some more homework:rolleyes:
It is just that I am working on a hypothesis where I try to find an explanation for things bottom up. One of the essential axioms I am working with is that I have redefined the definition of time as being non-fundamental (or emergent from something else) and then try to see how far I can get with that in explaining things. It is still a philosophical approach at the moment but as far as time is concerned my view is as follows: If we assume the universe exists then we can assume the universe exists “now”. We can then define “now” as a moment where everything exists in a certain state and then declare that the following statement is true in “My universe”: Everything exists in this state simultaneous. Or in other words: in my universe simultaneity is absolute and time in my universe is always perceived time, nothing more. One could say time does not exist in my universe. The only thing that exists are state changes at various different rates. Now the puzzle is: Is it possible to fit all the things we know and have observed in my universe. Or in other words, can we find what the context is of the applicability of the accepted mainstream theories. In populist terms: How can we do to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton.
I you are interested in more detailed mind twists from me about this: http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0212
 
HarryT said:
It is just that I am working on a hypothesis where I try to find an explanation for things bottom up.
Click to expand...
If you are really interested then you should learn physics from the bottom up instead of starting from the top down.
 
HarryT said:
In populist terms: How can we do to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton.
I you are interested in more detailed mind twists from me about this: http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0212
Click to expand...

Newton's traditional version of gravity included gravitational pressure; weight of a rock, which impacts the physical properties of materials. If we take iron at 7000C it is a gas. If we apply gravitational pressure, at the level of the earth's core, the iron becomes a solid. This is an example of gravity impacting the electromagnetic forces of iron atoms; change into different EM wave phases. Gravitational pressure unites gravity to EM and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

The laws of physics are the same in all references according to Einstein. If we could factor out pressure, and have only space-time change, such as with SR, iron will not change phase, as space-time changes. Space-time does not unite all the forces, like pressure can.

The bias of the new traditions lack common sense; put space-time ahead of mass. Mass can generate pressure which units the forces. When relativity replaced Newtonian, they threw out gravitational pressure, since this was old fashion. This would have allowed Einstein to unite the forces. The catch 22 was to be modern, they needed to get rid of the old, but threw out the baby (gravitational pressure) with the bath water.
 
wellwisher said:
Newton's traditional version of gravity included gravitational pressure; weight of a rock, which impacts the physical properties of materials
Click to expand...
Pressure as a result of gravity is part of every theory of gravity, not just Newton.
If we take iron at 7000C it is a gas. If we apply gravitational pressure, at the level of the earth's core, the iron becomes a solid. This is an example of gravity impacting the electromagnetic forces of iron atoms; change into different EM wave phases.
Click to expand...
Huh? Why make such sillty stuff up? What in the hell is 'different EM wave phases' suppose to mean? Gravity is not making the gas into a solid it is pressure, the same can be done in a laboratory with just pressure, no gravity needed!
Gravitational pressure unites gravity to EM and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
The laws of physics are the same in all references according to Einstein.
Click to expand...
The idea that physical laws are the same in all inertial frames started with Galileo about 350 years ago!
If we could factor out pressure, and have only space-time change, such as with SR, iron will not change phase, as space-time changes. Space-time does not unite all the forces, like pressure can.
Click to expand...
You are a lost ball in high weeds my friend! So, you are saying if there is no pressure we will not see the effect of pressure. Gee, no kidding?
The bias of the new traditions lack common sense; put space-time ahead of mass. Mass can generate pressure which units the forces.
Click to expand...
It may seem that way to you because you have no idea what you are talking about.
When relativity replaced Newtonian, they threw out gravitational pressure, since this was old fashion.
Click to expand...
I hate to burst your bubble but that is completely untrue. I can't even fathom how you came up with such a bizarre idea.
This would have allowed Einstein to unite the forces. The catch 22 was to be modern, they needed to get rid of the old, but threw out the baby (gravitational pressure) with the bath water.
Click to expand...
Wrong and wrong.
If you keep posting illogical and demostrably wrong pseudo science, you may never get back into the science sections.
 
HarryT said:
valid point.
Click to expand...
If you find these discussions interesting then you would like real physics. Most community colleges have physics courses that are calculus based and are the same ones that engineers take in a 4 year program.
 
origin said:
If you find these discussions interesting then you would like real physics. Most community colleges have physics courses that are calculus based and are the same ones that engineers take in a 4 year program.
Click to expand...

I think it's positive that HarryT shows a willingness to learn new things and candidly admits being exposed to several technicalities he wasn't previously aware of. This is complicated stuff; the famous Nobel prize winners of history were each surrounded by thousands of brilliant but ultimately unrecognized scientists working in multiple disciplines, and there's a good reason humanity didn't simply figure this all out 100,000 years ago.

The problematic pseudoscience posters are the ones who either insist on lying about their obvious lack of background knowledge, or ignorantly dismiss the methods and facts of real science with arguments you'd expect to hear from Homer Simpson.
 
CptBork said:
I think it's positive that HarryT shows a willingness to learn new things and candidly admits being exposed to several technicalities he wasn't previously aware of. This is complicated stuff; the famous Nobel prize winners of history were each surrounded by thousands of brilliant but ultimately unrecognized scientists working in multiple disciplines, and there's a good reason humanity didn't simply figure this all out 100,000 years ago.

The problematic pseudoscience posters are the ones who either insist on lying about their obvious lack of background knowledge, or ignorantly dismiss the methods and facts of real science with arguments you'd expect to hear from Homer Simpson.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It does my heart good to see people who want to learn.
 
origin said:
If you find these discussions interesting then you would like real physics. Most community colleges have physics courses that are calculus based and are the same ones that engineers take in a 4 year program.
Click to expand...
Tempting. Will have to wait for about 15 years though when I retire because at the moment my business takes up to much free time. I got enough feedback here and info on the web to keep me busy in the mean time. Would welcome some more detailed feedback on my paper by the way besides it being fart like.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top