STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the THEORY OF RELATIVITY

[Aqueous Id]

At the conference of the discovery of the Higgs Boson, they said they have no intentions on looking for a graviton and they have not found anything that could be classified as a graviton. The leading scientist at the LHC don't even believe in them, so then the idea of a graviton field would be rather "moot".

I never mentioned gravitons, only the field nature of gravity, which is omnidirectional, a property which, if gravitons did appear feasible, would follow the nature of other particles known to emanate fields. That is, a static field attends the particle, and propagates omnidirectionally. For the same reason that it does not require an infinite number of electrons to propagate a field in every infinitesimal angle of azimuth and elevation, it would not require and infinite number of gravitons as you think. In other words, the requirement to have an infinite number of particles is non sequitur, so that would not be a reason for rejecting the hypothesis that a particular particle could be emanating the gravitational field.

Then gravitational bodies could slip between the cracks, and not feel a gravitational force at all whatsoever. That is why the number of gravitons on any surface would have to be infinite.

Omnidirectional fields do not have cracks. And what does this have to do with my statement I gave you this to illustrate that gravity is present at altitude, just weaker. (You were concerned about "dimming".) This was in relation to the 1/r² (square law) "dimming" of any field. It's unclear to me what you are trying to say.

The goal of science now is to find dark matter, more gravitational force than what is seen, not less. Your illustration is flawed.

You mean science is flawed. I merely gave you the particle-field side of the explanation, which is not my original idea, but that of science in general. You appear to either not understand it, or to not believe it. My goal was to explain it to you, to disabuse you of some of your errors, for example:

I have never heard of a graviton field, the force of gravity is thought of being the exchange of gravitons.
Gravity propagates as a field. This does not preclude the possibility of a particle, since particles emanate fields. Fields are omnidirectional.

and, especially:

If every gravitational body was to attract every other gravitational body no matter what the distance was, then there should be an infinite number of gravitons exchanging on the surface of a sphere, so that as they dispersed they wouldn't spread out and miss other objects that are far away from it.
By that reasoning it would require an infinite number of electrons to propagate the static electric field omnidirectionally. Propagation is not like a cue ball, but as an expanding bubble of constant total energy, even though interactions are something like colliding billiard balls. As a bubble thins, so thins the the energy associated with the particle. Nothing is missed, the total amount of energy merely spreads out over all of space.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Omnidirectional fields do not have cracks. And what does this have to do with my statement I gave you this to illustrate that gravity is present at altitude, just weaker. (You were concerned about "dimming".) This was in relation to the 1/r² (square law) "dimming" of any field. It's unclear to me what you are trying to say.

You make some good points, to be honest with you I never believed in gravitons from learning about them. It just didn't seem like there could be two causes for the force of gravity. I think gravity is caused by Einsteins spacetime, so then there is no need for a force carrier type of particle for the gravitational force. Now that they have discovered the Higgs Boson, I think the force of gravity in quantum mechanics would be determined by the Higgs Field, I think the Higgs Field fits in with a lot of descriptions of spacetime, and that it could actually be spacetime itself. There is dark matter that we cannot see, so then you couldn't prove that we can see light from every other body. But then there is really no way to prove that dark matter is just matter that is too dim, or just didn't send light our way. So I could see how gravity could be spacetime curvature and the Higgs field at the same time, but I don't see how it could be spacetime curvature and some graviton. One of the three has to be wrong, and I would still put my money on it being the graviton.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I agree with you. I had seen the video (Brian Greene's) in my mother tongue. The fact of being in the fourth dimension is only an assumption. I agree that high speed affects time, but that does not mean we can travel through time. My grandfather is dead, and to see him again he should be alive somewhere. The same with my grandchildren.

I think the only way there could be different nows if all instances of time did exist in some higher dimension. If your clock dialates you will still perceive your clock to tick at a normal rate. If you measure less time and still move along with your now at the same rate then your now will be different that the now of the observer that saw your clock tick slower and watch his clock tick at a normal rate as well.

 

[rpenner]

First of all, there is no one time dimension -- time is the measure of a ponderable body's worldline, and is path-dependent. But all such bodies are constrained so their futures lie within all the future-facing light-cones of their nows, so any four-dimensional vector which remains inside the light-cone $$c^2 \, ( \Delta t )^2 > ( \Delta x )^2 + ( \Delta y )^2 + ( \Delta z )^2$$ singles out a $$time-like$$ direction.

Being not free to independently choose your time coordinate is not evidence that time is not a dimension, anymore than being not free to arbitrarily choose your height above sea level is evidence that height (or radial distance) is not a dimension. The requirement that four coordinates are needed to specify where and when a rendezvous or an event happens means that we have 4 dimensions, and this breaks down naturally as three spatial and one temporal directions. Two null directions (light-like) and two spatial directions can also be used, but there is a certain unnatural arrangement of singling out the null directions in environments without spherical symmetry.

A second way that the time coordinate is like spatial coordinates is that you swap between them when you change coordinate systems in a way that preserves physics. The simplest system that does this is the Lorentz transform, but it is apparent in general covariant transforms.
$$c^2 \, ( \Delta t )^2 - ( \Delta x )^2 - ( \Delta y )^2 - ( \Delta z )^2 = c^2 ( \Delta \tau )^2 = c^2 \, ( \Delta t' )^2 - ( \Delta x' )^2 - ( \Delta y' )^2 - ( \Delta z' )^2$$
which lead to:
$$E\vec{v} = c^2 \vec{p} \\ E^2 - ( c \vec{p} )^2 = ( m c^2 )^2$$

 

[Asexperia]

Speed relates the movement (traveled distance) with time. In a body at rest (relative) time doesn't stop. This body experiments internal changes (becoming) and from the environment. Time goes up even in the more imperceptible change.

Time is an uniform rhythm becoming that is taken as a reference to measure (to know) the duration of any phenomenon.

The speed depends on the rapidity in time and in the Relativity high speed affects the becoming what it results that intervals were longer (time dilation).

 

[Asexperia]

SPACE-TIME CONCEPT (a summary)

My interpretation of space-time is that each object or body (event for somebody) is a structure of space-time. The magnitude of the space-time depends on the mass and density of the object. These objects can be: a particle, a molecule, a table, a planet or a galaxy. The space-time consists of four dimensions.
The gravity of the stars is transmitted through photons or dark energy, distorting the space-time around them.

In a formula:

stu = m + (gΔb, x) p

A space-time unit or "object" is equal to the mass more the gradual increment of an uniform rhythm becoming since a moment x in a point of space p.

Albert Einstein was right.

Source of reference: video in Spanish about Unified Field Theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99UPbcQueSA

 

[Asexperia]

STRUCTURE OF SPACE-TIME

The formula stu = m + (gΔb, x) p relates the mass, the time law (tu = g∆b, x) and space. This is not an arithmetic sum but a combination of factors: mass, flowing time and space. Each object warps space-time around them, but this effect depends on the mass of the body and in the reality they are: macrocosm and microcosm. The effect of nuclear forces, weak and strong, is to an atom level.

Dark energy fills all space and is composed by photons. It is called dark because doesn't emit radiation. The term "dark energy" was coined by Michael Turner in 1998.

 

[rpenner]

The formula stu = m + (gΔb, x) p relates the mass, the time law (tu = g∆b, x) and space.

Even in philosophy, the goal is to communicate good ideas. This is not a good example of communication, and the idea has no relation with reality.

This is not an arithmetic sum but a combination of factors: mass, flowing time and space.

Then why use the language of math if you aren't doing math?

Each object warps space-time around them, but this effect depends on the mass of the body and in the reality they are: macrocosm and microcosm.

This claim starts off as a much weaker claim than that made by the best tested empirical theories and ends up as gibberish.

The effect of nuclear forces, weak and strong, is to an atom level.

This also conveys no meaning.

Dark energy fills all space and is composed by photons.

Dark energy is not composed of photons. If it was, it would neither be dark nor have the properties it does.

It is called dark because doesn't emit radiation.

It's called dark because it doesn't show up in any context other than cosmological studies of general relativity. It doesn't seem to do anything but tend to cause the universe to expand more. So the most correct reason it is called dark is because it exists and is largely unknown. This meaning of "dark" is found in larger dictionaries.

The term "dark energy" was coined by Michael Turner in 1998.

And yet, it is no more descriptive of current obeservations of reality than Einstein's original "cosmological constant" which shares all known properties of "dark energy." But since you advocate an understanding of space, time and gravity which is different than General Relativity, then you cannot simultaneously claim to address "dark energy" which is only found when analyzing observations in light of physical theory and that you have a replacement physical theory. Your position is self-contradictory and you wind up with nothing of value to communicate.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2007/a-tale-of-dark-energy
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/12/14/answering-all-your-questions/

22.) Will the Universe end in a Big Rip?

No. If dark energy is a cosmological constant — which it is, by all measurable indications — then no, there will be no Big Rip. There will be no turnaround, either, or a Big Crunch; there will be no cyclic behavior, or a Big Bounce. These all rely on a form of Dark Energy that changes over time, something that the suite of data we have about the Universe does not show. These are fun ideas to speculate about, and they come with interesting theoretical consequences, but let’s remember that the data is the ultimate arbiter of cosmology, and they best support a fate of indefinite expansion; no more, no less.

 

[Asexperia]

rpenner says:
Then why use the language of math if you aren't doing math?

I do mathematical Logic, also known as symbolic Logic.

And yet, it is no more descriptive of current observations of reality than Einstein's original "cosmological constant" which shares all known properties of "dark energy." But since you advocate an understanding of space, time and gravity which is different than General Relativity, then you cannot simultaneously claim to address "dark energy" which is only found when analyzing observations in light of physical theory and that you have a replacement physical theory. Your position is self-contradictory and you wind up with nothing of value to communicate.

From my point of view, the four fundamental forces are due to the variables involved in my formula. This formula explains the generation of the fundamental forces. The concept of dark energy is to explain the transmission of gravity. Also in the past it was thought in the ether for light. There is no contradiction in my ideas.

Very clear your statement about the dark energy. I liked it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I do mathematical Logic, also known as symbolic Logic.

Word salad. The logic is binary, and it is this: you either describe nature or you don't. So far, you don't.

From my point of view, the four fundamental forces are due to the variables involved in my formula.

Believing you have a formula that explains something fundamental is muy loco. Before you can hope to explain any fundamentals, you would first need to master the fundamentals. But what you are posting is not even touching on the fundamentals.

This formula explains the generation of the fundamental forces.

In the first place, you don't have a formula. You have gibberish that purports to be an equation. I can just as easily write something randomly and assert that it's my formula. Secondly, the units don't even match, a dead giveaway that the equation is at least incorrect. But this is deliberately invented to look like it means something, which is just fraud. Then to take this a step further and claim that it explains something fundamental is something akin to delusion. You just got through talking about force, yet you clearly intend to write an equation in units of mass, which is nonsensical. You seem to know about 4 fundamental forces, but even a cursory glance should tell you that mass will at best tell you something about gravity--if you would simply apply the universal law of gravitation (although obviously you are grappling with the meaning of relativity). Where do you think the "electric" and "magnetic" components of the "electromagnetic" force arise--from mass? That puts you in the state of ignorance with regard to the meaning of "mass" and "electromagnetism", as far as possible from the position of a person who could expound something meaningful about the roots of either one.

The concept of dark energy is to explain the transmission of gravity.

The propagation of the gravitational field is probably best left to explaining what a field is. Why not attempt to address these questions in the existing language and principles of elementary science? Then you don't have to struggle so hard trying to invent some way to explain what's already well known, already covered in all the introductory science classes.

Also in the past it was thought in the ether for light.

Ether/aether is an antiquated idea originating around the time of Newton, and becoming obsolete by the time of Maxwell. Dark energy has nothing to do with aether, nor with light propagation. Why not just learn a little about science first, then offer something actually scientific for conversation? Posting gibberish detracts from the quality of information exchanged. Asserting things to be a certain way, without any basis for saying it, merely projects a naively narcissistic persona. What good is that?

There is no contradiction in my ideas.

In effect, there are no ideas. Calling a dog a cat isn't much of an idea.

 

[Asexperia]

EVOLUTION OF THIS THREAD

FROM POST #1

STRENGHTS

1 - The speed of propagation of gravity is not infinite.
2 - The speed of light is absolute (in vacuum).
3 - The time is variable. (For us the becoming is absolute).
4 - The speed of light is the maximum value. (So ​​far registered).
5 - The energy and mass are equivalent.

WEAKNESSES

1 - All reference frames are equally valid. (Only applies to the speed of light in vacuum).
2 - Time is a dimension of space. (The time is flowing, the space is static, the bodies move in).
3 - It is possible the time travel.
4 - Gravity is not a force.
5 - The cosmological constant.

TO POST #291

I agree with all the following points:

1 - The speed of propagation of gravity is finite.
2 - The speed of light is constant (in vacuum).
3 - Time is relative.
4 - The speed of light is the maximum value. (So ​​far registered).
5 - The energy and mass are equivalent.
6 - All reference frames are equally valid.
7 - The curvature of space-time (essential element of the universe).

7 is the number of God.

 

[Asexperia]

Posted by Aqueous:
Believing you have a formula that explains something fundamental is muy loco. Before you can hope to explain any fundamentals, you would first need to master the fundamentals. But what you are posting is not even touching on the fundamentals.

It looks like you don't understand me or I don't explain myself well.

... IN OTHER WORDS

- The universe is made of 4D space-time.

- The mass is very dense space-time.

- The bodies with a lot of mass warp space-time (dark energy) around them.

- According to the Unified Field Theory photons are formed from the movement. Some photons are free (dark energy) and others unite to form atoms.

The formula uet = m + (Δgd, x) p explains the four fundamental forces (4FF) as follows: the magnitude of these forces depends on the mass of the body, internal changes and movement and outside, of the distance from the center of the body.

 

[Asexperia]

THEORY OF MOVEMENT

Mechanics is the branch of Physics that studies and analyzes the motion and rest of bodies, and their evolution in the time, under the action of forces. Mechanics is divided into: Dynamic that studies the movement and the causes that produce it; Kinematics that studies the motion of bodies without considering the cause that produces it and neither the mass of the moving body. Etatics studies the balance of forces. Einstein's Relativity studies the effects of traveling at a speed close to c. The Philochrony studies the movement -change or activity- considering only the time. The components of the movement are: a body or a particle, the acting force, traveled space and elapsed time.

BRANCH ................. FORMULA (LAW)
Dynamics ................. F = m.a
Kinematics ............... s = d / t
Relativity ................. Δt ≈ d / c
Statics ..................... ΣFx = 0
Philochrony ............. tu = (g∆b, x) n. (n times). For an irregular rhythm becoming (not periodic) is used: t = ∆b, x.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

BRANCH ................. FORMULA (LAW)
Dynamics ................. F = m.a
Kinematics ............... s = d / t
Relativity ................. Δt ≈ d / c
Statics ..................... ΣFx = 0
Philochrony ............. tu = (g∆b, x) n. (n times). For an irregular rhythm becoming (not periodic) is used: t = ∆b, x.

Do you really think that is a good overview of those areas of physics? Do you think those are somehow the central equations of those areas of physics? Clearly you have no idea about them.

Further more why do you persist in that list of strengths and weaknesses? Most things you consider weaknesses are considered strengths by physicists. You don't seem to know anything about them, never mind have a unified concept of them.

 

[Asexperia]

Do you really think that is a good overview of those areas of physics? Do you think those are somehow the central equations of those areas of physics? Clearly you have no idea about them.
Further more why do you persist in that list of strengths and weaknesses? Most things you consider weaknesses are considered strengths by physicists. You don't seem to know anything about them, never mind have a unified concept of them.

Relativity has no weaknesses except those imposed by the verification of their predictions. Go to post #291 of this thread. If it were me I would change the title to this thread for Philochrony and the becoming-time Duality.

Waves are other forms of movement and are studied by the Acoustic (sound), Optics (light) and Electronics (signals). In Quantum Mechanics we study the particles motion and Astronomy studies the movement of the stars. But still lack the explanation of gravity.
The goal of Physics is to unify all these explanations in a single theory.

 

[Asexperia]

This thread continues in the new thread: Reference Frames according to Philochrony.
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133165-Reference-Frames-according-to-Philochrony

 

[JJM]

Howdy.....Hello....How fast would a rock attracted by a galaxy cluster 13 billion light years from here be travelling by the time it got there? A simple one pound rock. Cluster, one hundred galaxies each approx. 10^45 tons. It's amazing. It's beautiful and it's simple.

 

[Asexperia]

I didn't know the controversy between Einstein and Lenard until this week. That reminds me the controversy between Newton and Leibniz for the one first discovered infinitesimal calculus.

Lenard thought that the Theory of general relativity was a matter of Philosophy.

"Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard (June 7, 1862 – May 20, 1947), was a German physicist and the winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1905 for his research on cathode rays and the discovery of many of their properties. He was also an active proponent of Nazi ideology."

Philipp Lenard

 

[Asexperia]

The space-time in Philochrony

- When I refer to the time I think about the becoming-time or the objective flowing time.
- Space is the means that allows objects to acquire a certain shape. Space is more understandable than time.
- The philochron space-time is the combined means of three dimensions more the change (movement) that is present in the entire universe. The mass of a celestial body bends the philochron space-time around it causing gravity. This idea is a hypothesis taken from the Theory of relativity.
- The relativistic space-time is a four-dimensional object, because Relativity considers time as a dimension of space.

Figure 1:
There is only space and matter. The body "c" receives a force, but this does not move because there is no time.

Figure 2:
Where there is time there is movement. "c" moves from "a" to "b".

Figure 3:
Imagine a planet in a universe where there is no time. The space is not bent by the action of the star.

Figure 4:
Where there is time the star curves space.

I speculate saying that the big bang originated the time. Before the big bang, only the matter and the space existed.

 

[paddoboy]

-The mass of a celestial body bends the philochron space-time around it causing gravity. This idea is a hypothesis taken from the Theory of relativity..

This idea has been validated many times especially with the data from GP-B.

- The relativistic space-time is a four-dimensional object, because Relativity considers time as a dimension of space.
.

That's simply because there is no universal "NOW"....You look at Alpha Centauri toninght, you are seeing it as it was 4.3 years ago.

.

-
I speculate saying that the big bang originated the time. Before the big bang, only the matter and the space existed.

Yep the BB initiated [I prefer evolve] space and time, as we know them....
Matter certainly did not exist until a short time after.

We can all speculate....But speculation remains speculation, at least until we have some observational and/or experimental evidence to show it has some basis.
I speculate that the BB is actually the arse end of a BH in another Universe [we call them White Holes] and that BHs in our Universe will lead to other WHs and new Universes.