Agreed!
Gravity Works Like This
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Agreed!
Farsight
Be VERY careful what you ask for. The trolls on this thread are you and yours.
Simple questions to determine who is trolling...
Is lightspeed always constant at the value c?
Does time exist independent of whether it is event free?
Does spacetime curve in the presence of matter?
If you answer anything but yes to these, you are at best ignorant. If you are militantly insistent on your ignorance being considered seriously you are delusional at best. If you act like an ass in addition, you are a troll. Your membership card is in the mail.
Grumpy
Be VERY careful what you ask for. The trolls on this thread are you and yours.
Simple questions to determine who is trolling...
Is lightspeed always constant at the value c?
Does time exist independent of whether it is event free?
Does spacetime curve in the presence of matter?
If you answer anything but yes to these, you are at best ignorant. If you are militantly insistent on your ignorance being considered seriously you are delusional at best. If you act like an ass in addition, you are a troll. Your membership card is in the mail.
Grumpy
There is a side issue, debating what is real.
post #366
Einstein writes:
"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."
He was stating time was subjective (observer dependent). Couple that with a finite light speed (Romer 1676), and anyone who thought about it, would realize while gazing at the night sky, all those points of light did not leave at the same time.
The observers perception is a composite image of events with varying spatial locations, and consequently varying light motions, aka 'time'. Except length contraction, objects retain their configuration at constant speed, since there are no forces acting on them. It's the human perception of those objects that gets distorted.
It's strange/ puzzling to me, that despite his in depth analysis, with focus on the observer, that Einstein didn't declare SR as a theory of perception, which it clearly is.
As an example, the anaut launching into space cannot cause space to contract in the direction of motion. How is it instantaneous, and what would be the cause, in terms of known rules of physics? Because the 4-vector rotated thru an angle, is not an answer, since that only happens on paper. All abstractions reside in the mind, and are therefore real, but they don't correspond to anything real in the physical world outside the mind.
The anaut experiences time dilation just like his clock, his computer, and anything else he takes with him. He arrives at his destination earlier than calculated (using a distance chart from earth). Since his sense of time agrees with his clock, and all other devices, he concludes his destination is closer. His altered perception of a contracted universe is the interpretation (by choice) of his own time dilation. Having knowledge of SR he could choose time dilation, which doesn’t require magic, over length contraction. This explanation uses no new factors other than those from SR.
post #366
Einstein writes:
"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."
He was stating time was subjective (observer dependent). Couple that with a finite light speed (Romer 1676), and anyone who thought about it, would realize while gazing at the night sky, all those points of light did not leave at the same time.
The observers perception is a composite image of events with varying spatial locations, and consequently varying light motions, aka 'time'. Except length contraction, objects retain their configuration at constant speed, since there are no forces acting on them. It's the human perception of those objects that gets distorted.
It's strange/ puzzling to me, that despite his in depth analysis, with focus on the observer, that Einstein didn't declare SR as a theory of perception, which it clearly is.
As an example, the anaut launching into space cannot cause space to contract in the direction of motion. How is it instantaneous, and what would be the cause, in terms of known rules of physics? Because the 4-vector rotated thru an angle, is not an answer, since that only happens on paper. All abstractions reside in the mind, and are therefore real, but they don't correspond to anything real in the physical world outside the mind.
The anaut experiences time dilation just like his clock, his computer, and anything else he takes with him. He arrives at his destination earlier than calculated (using a distance chart from earth). Since his sense of time agrees with his clock, and all other devices, he concludes his destination is closer. His altered perception of a contracted universe is the interpretation (by choice) of his own time dilation. Having knowledge of SR he could choose time dilation, which doesn’t require magic, over length contraction. This explanation uses no new factors other than those from SR.
It's far more then just some perception. Time dilation and length contraction, may not appear obvious in ones own FoR, but when observed from an outside FoR, it is subsequently verified.
Every FoR is valid as any other FoR.
That, in my opinion makes them real.
G'day, Grumpy.
Moreover Einstein himself said that when we think about 'time' we really mean 'our association of two separate but simultaneous events; like us 'connecting' in our observational construct "The hour hand on your watch pointing to 7 O'clock and the train arriving at the station'. The 'time' is our observational connection/convenience for analysis/comparison, not a 'thing' existing in itself independent of our connecting physical events.
PS: Oh, and it would help paddo a great deal if you or other 'expert' here would explain to paddo that purely abstract unreal 'co-ordinate frames' from purely SR views are only just that, abstract and unreal when viewing OTHER frames. That is why mainstreamers now always include the NON-Inertial accelerations profile info to make sense of what is actually happening for real in EACH FRAME according to LOCAL real situation and not just 'purely reciprocal frame views in the traveling TWIN scenario. It would also help paddo if you or some other 'expert' finally gave him the heads-up about that GR 'rider' Einstein attached to his SR 2nd Postulate to make clear the SR 'constancy of speed of light' view was NOT valid in GR/NON-Inertial locally real (ie, not 'remote coordinate/reciprocal view') case.
Unless you and paddo 'get' all that, your own stances will be obviously flawed, as Penrose, Einstein and others here have been pointing out to you. Cheers, mate!
Did you understand what I explained to you, Russ et al about HOW BOTH the 'constant c' and the 'invariant c' are used and 'arrived at' and what that actually implies in reality? If not, read my posts about that and you will have your answer and at the same time finally understand the subtle but important aspects involved.
Sir Roger Penrose and others point out that your idea/concept of 'time' in the absence of any physical event/process for comparing one processing rate with another is meaningless in PHYSICS. Such idea/concept of 'time' as 'duration per se' is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea/concept, not physically meaningful.
Moreover Einstein himself said that when we think about 'time' we really mean 'our association of two separate but simultaneous events; like us 'connecting' in our observational construct "The hour hand on your watch pointing to 7 O'clock and the train arriving at the station'. The 'time' is our observational connection/convenience for analysis/comparison, not a 'thing' existing in itself independent of our connecting physical events.
Something affects energy-space itself when a massive localized feature of energy-space somehow couples with the surrounding energy-space to effect that surrounding 'conditioning' in such a way that incoming masses also coupling with that energy-space are re-directed towards the greater source of energy-space 'gravity' effect. It's more real than just 'curved space-time' math/geom modeling abstraction 'explanation' would have it.
Your presumption that others are ignorant is a little rash, Grumpy, especially when your own 'understandings/impressions' seem a little too abstract and facile to be any sort of basis for real understanding at deeper more subtle level.
PS: Oh, and it would help paddo a great deal if you or other 'expert' here would explain to paddo that purely abstract unreal 'co-ordinate frames' from purely SR views are only just that, abstract and unreal when viewing OTHER frames. That is why mainstreamers now always include the NON-Inertial accelerations profile info to make sense of what is actually happening for real in EACH FRAME according to LOCAL real situation and not just 'purely reciprocal frame views in the traveling TWIN scenario. It would also help paddo if you or some other 'expert' finally gave him the heads-up about that GR 'rider' Einstein attached to his SR 2nd Postulate to make clear the SR 'constancy of speed of light' view was NOT valid in GR/NON-Inertial locally real (ie, not 'remote coordinate/reciprocal view') case.
Unless you and paddo 'get' all that, your own stances will be obviously flawed, as Penrose, Einstein and others here have been pointing out to you. Cheers, mate!
phyti
Actually, just like time is relative, so is length in the direction of travel. What you observe also depends on your relative frame and the differences between the observed frame and yours. In the frame of the traveler he would see no difference in length, but that is because the spacetime he in in is warped by his speed/acceleration. Which is what a stationary outside observer sees. As confirmed by studies of the cross section of density in colliding protons, the effect is seen to be actual fact, the proton changes physically from an >>O<< to an >>l>>. Using the same basic technique used to determine the double helix shape of DNA(but with better detectors and computer modelling)these shape changes are detected by the scattering patterns of millions of collisions. The spacetime contraction(length in direction of travel/acceleration)is a real, physical, observed fact in Relativistic collision between protons. In the same accelerators simply looking at the power needed to reach speed/accelerate to speed of anything with mass(and knowing that rest mass)is a direct measurement of Relativistic energy/mass gain. Add to that the precise data of particles streaming off these collisions whose time is so slowed down that they go much farther than they should(like the scatter of particles from Cosmic Rays reaches the ground, it shouldn't in the time those same particles are known to exist when not moving at Relativistic speeds).
Relativity is a description of how the Universe really operates and it's evident physical properties. It is a map of the territory(subject to revision), not the territory itself(which is reality, you must take it as you find it). But that real territory DOES behave exactly how Relativity says it does(IE the map does correspond with the territory), as far as we have been able to test it. Is it complete? Probably not, you can always add more detail to your map. Will it ever be shown to be as wrong as Newton(which was only a matter of a little at slow speeds, but clueless otherwise)? Also, probably not. Science is a process of the elimination of error, a never-ending process but the errors tend toward being smaller over time. But every effect that Relativity tells us to expect are real effects, not perceptions. Your perceptions change depending on your frame of reference, but the cause of that change in perception is the real effects speed and acceleration/gravity have on the structure of the real Universe. And every bit of it pivots around c.
Grumpy
Actually, just like time is relative, so is length in the direction of travel. What you observe also depends on your relative frame and the differences between the observed frame and yours. In the frame of the traveler he would see no difference in length, but that is because the spacetime he in in is warped by his speed/acceleration. Which is what a stationary outside observer sees. As confirmed by studies of the cross section of density in colliding protons, the effect is seen to be actual fact, the proton changes physically from an >>O<< to an >>l>>. Using the same basic technique used to determine the double helix shape of DNA(but with better detectors and computer modelling)these shape changes are detected by the scattering patterns of millions of collisions. The spacetime contraction(length in direction of travel/acceleration)is a real, physical, observed fact in Relativistic collision between protons. In the same accelerators simply looking at the power needed to reach speed/accelerate to speed of anything with mass(and knowing that rest mass)is a direct measurement of Relativistic energy/mass gain. Add to that the precise data of particles streaming off these collisions whose time is so slowed down that they go much farther than they should(like the scatter of particles from Cosmic Rays reaches the ground, it shouldn't in the time those same particles are known to exist when not moving at Relativistic speeds).
Relativity is a description of how the Universe really operates and it's evident physical properties. It is a map of the territory(subject to revision), not the territory itself(which is reality, you must take it as you find it). But that real territory DOES behave exactly how Relativity says it does(IE the map does correspond with the territory), as far as we have been able to test it. Is it complete? Probably not, you can always add more detail to your map. Will it ever be shown to be as wrong as Newton(which was only a matter of a little at slow speeds, but clueless otherwise)? Also, probably not. Science is a process of the elimination of error, a never-ending process but the errors tend toward being smaller over time. But every effect that Relativity tells us to expect are real effects, not perceptions. Your perceptions change depending on your frame of reference, but the cause of that change in perception is the real effects speed and acceleration/gravity have on the structure of the real Universe. And every bit of it pivots around c.
Grumpy
Unless you and paddo 'get' all that, your own stances will be obviously flawed, as Penrose, Einstein and others here have been pointing out to you. Cheers, mate!
You have not as yet answered my 6 statements as yet.
......It is in layman's language so you should understand. [Maybe that's the problem,
all this refutation of your nonsense/untruths from a little old layman] [1] The speed of light is constant in both SR and GR within any local FoR.
[2] The speed of light must by necessity remain constant, because it is massless.
[3] If it wasn't massless, it would not reach "c"
[4] Photons never go at any other speed then "ç"
[5] Light in a gravity well may appear to go slower from an outside FoR, but one must also account for the space/time curvature and increase distances that it has traveled.
[6]Space/time/Universe/gravity/mass/energy are all basically dependent on one another, and each are as real as one another.
[see Sten Odenwalds reference somewhere]
also worth noting the answers to the following questions again.....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Q: Are all the postulates in General Relativity accepted or does there exist room for alternatives to General Relativity with different outcomes?
A: Accepted is not really the right word. Many different tests that we are capable of performing IMPLY VERY STRONGLY that General Relativity in its most simple form, is the way that nature seems to work. This means that the underlying principles are also sound. Specific ones like the bending of light by gravitational fields and the equality between gravitational and inertial mass can be individually tested and have been found to be correct to within experimental error....one part in 10 trillion for the later test in fact. So far, there are simply no places to sneak a completely different theory that does better than General Relativity, and this is somewhat of a problem because without signs that General Relativity is in bad shape in some way, there is no maneuvering ground for introducing a 'better' theory. There would be nothing for the new theory to explain better at the current time. This also means that General Relativity as it stands is our best shot. But perhaps in the next century some new test will be discovered so that the field can progress further. Still..between curved space, black holes and the Big Bang, what more could you possible want to 'explain' by a better theory?
Q: Exactly why is the speed of light a constant in all reference frames?
A: Because it simply is, and this is an experimental fact of life that we have to deal with. It doesn't matter if you are on two cars moving in opposite directions flashing lights at one another, the total speed of the electromagnetic disturbance is the same, and is not augmented or reduced by your motion. The only thing that affects the speed of light is the refractive index of the medium through which it moves, and for empty space, this number is 1.000000 and gives you the maximum possible speed of light. In glass, it is 1.3333 times smaller since c/n = c/1.333 = 300,000 km/sec/1.333 = 225,000 km/sec.
The invariance of the speed of light in all uniformly moving reference frames is a postulate of special relativity, it does not derive from special relativity, which only then states how observers will experience/measure space and time given the invariance of the speed of light.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...ity/q1917.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
Q:What does the word 'spacetime' mean?
A: It means that in our universe, 3-dimensional space and time form a single indivisible new physical object which has 4 dimensions. All physical laws and phenomena seem to require thinking about space and time as this blended object. That's what Einstein's relativity theories were all about.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...ty/a10385.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you agree with the answers to those questions?
RC
Was that a yes or a no. It's not complicated and the sentence above is a distraction, not an answer.
Nope, couldn't get either a yes or a no to that question. Just more misunderstanding and word salad.
:facepalm: I lost brain cells readying that reply, it was that stupid. Do you call energy-space matter-space? Because they are the same thing. Oh, never mind. I don't care. I guess you know which side of the troll/logic border that puts you on.
Grumpy:wallbang:
Was that a yes or a no. It's not complicated and the sentence above is a distraction, not an answer.
Nope, couldn't get either a yes or a no to that question. Just more misunderstanding and word salad.
:facepalm: I lost brain cells readying that reply, it was that stupid. Do you call energy-space matter-space? Because they are the same thing. Oh, never mind. I don't care. I guess you know which side of the troll/logic border that puts you on.
Grumpy:wallbang:
Too late with more lame BS, lame troll. You had your chance and made a mess of it with your mindless trolling. You lost to Farsight. Live with it.
You're ignorant enough. The red letters pronouncing your ignorance is unnecessary.
A professional GR expert once told me a while back, that the first commandment for anyone attempting a scientific paper, is to use familiar proper terms. Energy/space is a doozy!
HI Grumpy.
For your (and your hanger-on troll mates) further FYI, the whole QM framework is also the Quantum Vacuum which is essentially an ENERGY-SPACE with 'virtual processing/features' inherent in that concept/construct.
And for your (and your hanger-on troll mates) even further FYI, even the 'mainstreamers' are now coming round to using that VERY SAME real 'energy-space' terminology when referring to the REAL things that underlie the observed real universal phenomena.
So maybe you can retrieve those 'braincells' you said you 'lost' mate, if you are quick enough on the uptake of the real facts not fictions and abstractions which you insist on holding fast to despite all new reality points to the contrary.
Mate, it's time to put away childish stubbornness, and just take in new reality information/constructs which is increasingly superseding the previously useful but still 'domain of applicability' limited 'abstraction of 'space-time', as the physics moves forwards in reality context more and more. As it must, if the reality complete and consistent ToE is to arrive. The prior approaches doomed theories to 'partial' and abstract' and incomplete/inconsistent across domains of applicability/concepts.
I wish you luck in the new reality physics/maths world opening up more and more even as we speak, Grumpy. Cheers, mate!
How can you be so 'certain' of anything you think you 'know' about it while you still haven't indicated any knowledge/understanding of the subtle but important difference/usage/meanings etc distinctions I already explained to you needed to be made between 'constant c' and invariant c' before you pretend to understand the QUESTION, let alone the answer?
So Sir Roger Penrose and Einstein's understandings and explanations of what 'time' is when we 'speak of time', doesn't budge you one inch from your 'impressions' that are based on pure philosophical concepts of 'time' as 'duration per se' even in the absence of process/events to 'tell/compare time' with/by?
An FYI about the term 'energy-space', Grumpy. I coined that over a decade ago when my complete and consistent REALITY-REFERENTIAL ToE clearly indicated the universal 'fabric' was REAL and objectively observable 'energy-space' and not some maths abstraction 'space-time' analytical construct.
For your (and your hanger-on troll mates) further FYI, the whole QM framework is also the Quantum Vacuum which is essentially an ENERGY-SPACE with 'virtual processing/features' inherent in that concept/construct.
And for your (and your hanger-on troll mates) even further FYI, even the 'mainstreamers' are now coming round to using that VERY SAME real 'energy-space' terminology when referring to the REAL things that underlie the observed real universal phenomena.
So maybe you can retrieve those 'braincells' you said you 'lost' mate, if you are quick enough on the uptake of the real facts not fictions and abstractions which you insist on holding fast to despite all new reality points to the contrary.
Mate, it's time to put away childish stubbornness, and just take in new reality information/constructs which is increasingly superseding the previously useful but still 'domain of applicability' limited 'abstraction of 'space-time', as the physics moves forwards in reality context more and more. As it must, if the reality complete and consistent ToE is to arrive. The prior approaches doomed theories to 'partial' and abstract' and incomplete/inconsistent across domains of applicability/concepts.
I wish you luck in the new reality physics/maths world opening up more and more even as we speak, Grumpy. Cheers, mate!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time
Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Forum/Moderator: Yet again that troll posts mindlessly while ignoring the information posted to him and Grumpy, Russ and PhysBang about what Einstein said as a rider to his 2nd SR postulate that makes all paddo's repeated stuff MOOT. But will he stop cluttering and being the 'empty noise' troll to bury the discussion proper between those who actually understand what they are discussing? Please make clear to the paddo-noisemaker troll to cease and desist for the sake of the genuine science discoursers and the forum. Thanks.
The relativity INTERPRETATIONS you are working from and still 'believing' are abstract interpretations, not reality. Until you disabuse yourself of those 'religious strength' beliefs and abstract interpretations OF the Relativity, you will miss the real relativity interpretations as better informed by the context of the new reality-based construct of 'energy-space' and its implications/advantages for theory CONSISTENT COMPLETION. If you think your current 'beliefs stage' can lead to consistent completion of the physics ToE, then you are in for continuing disappointment, mate...as many decades of professional 'space-time' based theorizing has shown. Why deny all the facts in reality and opt still for abstraction/assumption about what relativity REALLY is and what it tells IF one is prepared to take the next step back to reality context?
Even Einstein 'saw the writing on the wall" for his poor theory once the mathematicians and fantasists (probably on acid in the 60s and 70s!) got hold of it and ran amok as fast and as far from the reality as possible...
Prophetic of Einstein, as usual, wasn't it! Good luck, Grumpy.
That just about sums it up for you.
I mean you are so obsessed with what you see as abstractions, while others see reality.
Please read what Albert wrote in post 452.
Your other seemingly problem seems to be me being a layman, and having the audacity of defying what you erronously claim.
Yep, I'm a layman, read plenty and able to sort the wheat from the chaff in most instances.
On the other hand, I don't know what you are. :shrug:
Forum/Moderator: There again 'me too' paddo-noisemaking and empty posts at its silliest. Just mindless uncomprehending opinions about his 'beliefs' without any actually addressing anything to do with the points made and facts presented to him. How is that patent 'me too' ninny troll any benefit to the discussions or the forum? Please do the necessary to be rid of his paddo-noise. Thanks.
[1] The speed of light is constant in both SR and GR within any local FoR.
The speed of light is constant in SR, but not in GR. If it was, a light beam wouldn't curve and your pencil wouldn't fall down. The local frame of reference relates to the principle of equivalence and a region of infinitesimal extent. A region of no extent. Look up coordinate speed of light, which varies in a "non-inertial reference frame". A gravitational field is a non-inertial reference frame.
[2] The speed of light must by necessity remain constant, because it is massless.
Look up photon effective mass. When you slow down light in say glass it travels at less than c, and the light has an effective mass.
[3] If it wasn't massless, it would not reach "c"
Light has no rest mass because it's never at rest, but it has an inertial mass and an active gravitational mass. And when you trap light in a mirror box, it adds mass to that system. When you open the box it's a radiating body that loses mass.
[4] Photons never go at any other speed then "ç"
False. Again look up photon effective mass.
[5] Light in a gravity well may appear to go slower from an outside FoR, but one must also account for the space/time curvature and increase distances that it has traveled.
It just goes slower. Read the OP. Light clocks don't go slower because your plot of light-clock rates is curved. And they don't go slower because distances increase, otherwise distances would have to be infinite at the black hole event horizon.
[6]Space/time/Universe/gravity/mass/energy are all basically dependent on one another, and each are as real as one another.
[see Sten Odenwalds reference somewhere]
Again that's false. You can say space is real by holding up your hands and indicating the very real gap between them. You can do the same for motion by waggling your hands. You can't do the same for time. Anything you show features something moving. You cannot demonstrate time flowing or time passing.
All in all your physics knowledge is on a par with a schoolboy who has been reading too much popscience.
Gee, abuse from someone who just berated me for abuse in another thread...How hypocritical!
[1] The speed of light is constant...and a photon has no rest mass.
As a layman, I'm not arguing the point with you, suffice to say, most are a theoretical concept you naturally adhere to to support whatever you are pushing, in others you are plain wrong [reality of space/time]
I'll stick to my pop science as you so very cleverly label, and see it far more beneficial than accepting the word of an arrogant anti mainstreamer who takes Einstein quotes out of context.
And of course like undefined, until you get whatever model/beliefs it is that you have, peer reviewed, you are pissing in the wind.....
I thought that might be less offensive to you then pushing shit up hill.
ps: Your record of course speaks for itself.