Could gravity be as simple as less dilated mass being attracted to more dilated mass? For this to be so the mathematical ratios would have to follow the ratios of gravity exactly. If not than math would prove this concept to be wrong.
The mathematics are well known by rpenner, An, trout and a few others about dilation and gravity. Does gravity and dilation effect space in the same ratio, in every aspect? Finding just one difference such as the inverse square of the distance falling off differently would disengage this concept. Can someone please find a difference in the ratio between gravity and dilation?
Hi 4Dguy,
This may not be any good but is the best I can do at this stage - see my feedback score for evidence of the (negative) stage I have reached.
Time dilation is 'respectable' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Gravitational time dilation is also respectable see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
The rest of your dilations (space,mass,?) are not 'respectable'.
If we imagine A at the top of a cliff (height h) viewing B at the bottom then:-
using 'V' to denote potentential :-
B is at a lower gravitational potential (V_B) than A (V_A) so
There is a gravitational field g between A and B given by
g= (V_A - V_B)/h
The gravitational field is your 'gravity', I don't think you (yet) have a name for 'gravitational potential'.
The equivalence principle claims that gravity (remember .. that's the field) is the same as acceleration so ..
the consequence is that B has a velocity with respect to A.
The observer (of mass m) at A feels a force (F) pulling him (or her) down where
F=mg (where g is still the field)
compare
F=ma .. which is Newton's second law of motion http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Staying with Newton's laws of motion ..
we know v^2 = u^2 + 2as (surely EVERYBODY knows that)
we can say that the observed difference in velocity 'twixt A and B will be
v^2 = 2gh
From SR we would expect a time dilation of
t' = t [sqrt(1-v^/2/c^2)]
which probably expands (for small v) as 1 + (1/2) v^2/c2 + .. ..[ no books and too tedious to check]
OR
t' = t [1+ (1/2) 2gh/c^2 = t[1 + gh/c^2]
which (happily) agrees with the result in wiki article on gravitational time dilation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation )
The consequence of all this is that we (both) could probably usefully devote the time that remains to us to understanding SR without the need to to get involved in the horrendous mathematical complexities of GR.
-C2.
If there is any merit in this post then it is owed entirely to Trout .. if no merit then no blame should be attached .. I have simply misunderstood 'reality'.
This may not be any good but is the best I can do at this stage - see my feedback score for evidence of the (negative) stage I have reached.
Time dilation is 'respectable' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Gravitational time dilation is also respectable see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
The rest of your dilations (space,mass,?) are not 'respectable'.
If we imagine A at the top of a cliff (height h) viewing B at the bottom then:-
using 'V' to denote potentential :-
B is at a lower gravitational potential (V_B) than A (V_A) so
There is a gravitational field g between A and B given by
g= (V_A - V_B)/h
The gravitational field is your 'gravity', I don't think you (yet) have a name for 'gravitational potential'.
The equivalence principle claims that gravity (remember .. that's the field) is the same as acceleration so ..
the consequence is that B has a velocity with respect to A.
The observer (of mass m) at A feels a force (F) pulling him (or her) down where
F=mg (where g is still the field)
compare
F=ma .. which is Newton's second law of motion http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Staying with Newton's laws of motion ..
we know v^2 = u^2 + 2as (surely EVERYBODY knows that)
we can say that the observed difference in velocity 'twixt A and B will be
v^2 = 2gh
From SR we would expect a time dilation of
t' = t [sqrt(1-v^/2/c^2)]
which probably expands (for small v) as 1 + (1/2) v^2/c2 + .. ..[ no books and too tedious to check]
OR
t' = t [1+ (1/2) 2gh/c^2 = t[1 + gh/c^2]
which (happily) agrees with the result in wiki article on gravitational time dilation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation )
The consequence of all this is that we (both) could probably usefully devote the time that remains to us to understanding SR without the need to to get involved in the horrendous mathematical complexities of GR.
-C2.
If there is any merit in this post then it is owed entirely to Trout .. if no merit then no blame should be attached .. I have simply misunderstood 'reality'.
C2 has the patience of a God! 
Good job, sir!
Good job, sir!
C2
All of this is just my opinion and may seem weird.
I have allot of respect for you. You are very well balanced. 3 or 4 individuals working to give you a negative score are the ones who are unbalanced. Some of the negative feedback is directly related to me. Now back to dilation and the gravity field.
Dilation's effect on time is only one of the aspects. Its definitely not the aspect relating to gravitation. Dilation increases the yard stick. This yard stick affects mass and space not just mass alone. This is the field that the photon follows around a planet. This is the curved space. Space with different densities of energy, dilated with the same amount of energy in a larger volume. The photon travels the longer volume in a longer time.
Dilation's effect on time is only one of the aspects. Its definitely not the aspect relating to gravitation. Dilation increases the yard stick. This yard stick affects mass and space not just mass alone. This is the field that the photon follows around a planet. This is the curved space. Space with different densities of energy, dilated with the same amount of energy in a larger volume. The photon travels the longer volume in a longer time.
If we imagine A at the top of a cliff (height h) viewing B at the bottom then:-
using 'V' to denote potentential :-
B is at a lower gravitational potential (V_B) than A (V_A) so
There is a gravitational field g between A and B given by
g= (V_A - V_B)/h
Dilation follows gravitational potential. B has a higher dilation than A. Mass is attracted to a higher dilation like it was just simply falling into a larger volume. Dilation increases to the center of a planet. When you are in the center of the planet you are in the most dilated position. No more gravitational potential.
What math gives us is the speed of attraction not the mechanism of attraction. Relativity is based on postulates not mechanisms
Difference in dilation would be your gravitational potential and the dilation creates a field that can be measured by atomic clocks.
Difference in dilation would be your gravitational potential and the dilation creates a field that can be measured by atomic clocks.
t' = t [sqrt(1-v^/2/c^2)]
t' and t are just differences in distance (or time) while "c" is constant. Distance times time vs. dilated time t' or a change in distance @ t.
Gravity of deceleration is the same as gravity of acceleration. Both are just a difference in dilation. F=mg or F=ma are relativity formulas without a mechanism for why the F (force) is there to begin with. Math for the ratio of gravity (F) to dilation. Are F=mg attraction to F=ma acceleration the ratio's always = to gravity being the same ratio as dilation? The curve of space is the dilation of mass and what Einstein called gravity. My opinion.
trout you went a little early and only the agent of 99
All of this is just my opinion and may seem weird.
I have allot of respect for you. You are very well balanced. 3 or 4 individuals working to give you a negative score are the ones who are unbalanced. Some of the negative feedback is directly related to me. Now back to dilation and the gravity field.
QUOTE
The rest of your dilations (space,mass,?) are not 'respectable'.
Dilation's effect on time is only one of the aspects. Its definitely not the aspect relating to gravitation. Dilation increases the yard stick. This yard stick affects mass and space not just mass alone. This is the field that the photon follows around a planet. This is the curved space. Space with different densities of energy, dilated with the same amount of energy in a larger volume. The photon travels the longer volume in a longer time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The rest of your dilations (space,mass,?) are not 'respectable'. |
Dilation's effect on time is only one of the aspects. Its definitely not the aspect relating to gravitation. Dilation increases the yard stick. This yard stick affects mass and space not just mass alone. This is the field that the photon follows around a planet. This is the curved space. Space with different densities of energy, dilated with the same amount of energy in a larger volume. The photon travels the longer volume in a longer time.
If we imagine A at the top of a cliff (height h) viewing B at the bottom then:-
using 'V' to denote potentential :-
B is at a lower gravitational potential (V_B) than A (V_A) so
There is a gravitational field g between A and B given by
g= (V_A - V_B)/h
Dilation follows gravitational potential. B has a higher dilation than A. Mass is attracted to a higher dilation like it was just simply falling into a larger volume. Dilation increases to the center of a planet. When you are in the center of the planet you are in the most dilated position. No more gravitational potential.
What math gives us is the speed of attraction not the mechanism of attraction. Relativity is based on postulates not mechanisms
QUOTE
The gravitational field is your 'gravity', I don't think you (yet) have a name for 'gravitational potential'.
Difference in dilation would be your gravitational potential and the dilation creates a field that can be measured by atomic clocks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The gravitational field is your 'gravity', I don't think you (yet) have a name for 'gravitational potential'. |
Difference in dilation would be your gravitational potential and the dilation creates a field that can be measured by atomic clocks.
t' = t [sqrt(1-v^/2/c^2)]
t' and t are just differences in distance (or time) while "c" is constant. Distance times time vs. dilated time t' or a change in distance @ t.
Gravity of deceleration is the same as gravity of acceleration. Both are just a difference in dilation. F=mg or F=ma are relativity formulas without a mechanism for why the F (force) is there to begin with. Math for the ratio of gravity (F) to dilation. Are F=mg attraction to F=ma acceleration the ratio's always = to gravity being the same ratio as dilation? The curve of space is the dilation of mass and what Einstein called gravity. My opinion.
trout you went a little early and only the agent of 99
If you understood my answer to the first mistaken idea you had on these lines, you would have understood that rescaling of rulers alone could not reproduce gravity, since massive objects and light follow different trajectories.
Rescaling mass and rulers alone can not result in the correct measurement of Shapiro delay.
And if you rescale rulers and time, and reproduce gravity, you have curved space-time.
Rescaling mass and rulers alone can not result in the correct measurement of Shapiro delay.
And if you rescale rulers and time, and reproduce gravity, you have curved space-time.
rpenner,
rpenner Posted on Today at 1:53 AM
I understood your answer but I disagree with your conclusion.
rpenner
Posted: Sep 20 2009, 02:47 AM
I understood your answer but I disagree with your conclusion.
rpenner
Posted: Sep 20 2009, 02:47 AM
Since the wavelength, when measured locally against translated rulers, is shorterlonger at higher altitudes the effect is real for the non-inertial reference frames tied to the surface of the Earth.
For the space like geodesic dilation is shorter and the radius is longer from r=0. Light does not create dilation, mass does. Light moves away from "gravity" in the space like geodesic following the concentric lines of dilation. Further out the radius is much longer but effects light much less. This can be observed in the lensing effect astronomers use to magnify galaxies behind the dilation sphere of the front galaxy. The further away from the galaxy center the less magnified the galaxy is behind it.
Mass has entropy because it creates dilated space and is attracted to other dilated space.
This is why I believe fundamental energy is of space and not mass so from my perspective and the fact that atomic clocks tick faster when they ascend, translated rulers are shorter at higher altitudes. Without the observations I would have to yield to the logic of your conclusions.
Two d thinking allows you to see one issue at a time so when you run across a second related issue a conclusion becomes obscure. Three d allows more of the connections to be observed. Like knowing the radius is greater but the dilation is smaller along with the observation that light has less magnification as r increases. The rescaling of rulers are shorter (you had it correct the first time) as r increases (by observation).
These of course are my beliefs and I do know the possible consequences of our disagreement.
rpenner Posted on Today at 1:53 AM
QUOTE
If you understood my answer to the first mistaken idea you had on these lines, you would have understood that rescaling of rulers alone could not reproduce gravity, since massive objects and light follow different trajectories.
I understood your answer but I disagree with your conclusion.
rpenner
Posted: Sep 20 2009, 02:47 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you understood my answer to the first mistaken idea you had on these lines, you would have understood that rescaling of rulers alone could not reproduce gravity, since massive objects and light follow different trajectories. |
I understood your answer but I disagree with your conclusion.
rpenner
Posted: Sep 20 2009, 02:47 AM
Since the wavelength, when measured locally against translated rulers, is shorterlonger at higher altitudes the effect is real for the non-inertial reference frames tied to the surface of the Earth.
For the space like geodesic dilation is shorter and the radius is longer from r=0. Light does not create dilation, mass does. Light moves away from "gravity" in the space like geodesic following the concentric lines of dilation. Further out the radius is much longer but effects light much less. This can be observed in the lensing effect astronomers use to magnify galaxies behind the dilation sphere of the front galaxy. The further away from the galaxy center the less magnified the galaxy is behind it.
Mass has entropy because it creates dilated space and is attracted to other dilated space.
This is why I believe fundamental energy is of space and not mass so from my perspective and the fact that atomic clocks tick faster when they ascend, translated rulers are shorter at higher altitudes. Without the observations I would have to yield to the logic of your conclusions.
Two d thinking allows you to see one issue at a time so when you run across a second related issue a conclusion becomes obscure. Three d allows more of the connections to be observed. Like knowing the radius is greater but the dilation is smaller along with the observation that light has less magnification as r increases. The rescaling of rulers are shorter (you had it correct the first time) as r increases (by observation).
These of course are my beliefs and I do know the possible consequences of our disagreement.
To disprove your first idea, I relied on that famous fact:
0 ≠ 1
Which is to say that a ball thrown upward at less than escape velocity reaches a point where it's wavenumber reaches zero, and another ball thrown harder or light does not reach zero at this same point. So obviously a rescaling of rulers alone cannot explain why wavenumber (which is proportional to momentum or inversely proportional to wavelength) goes to zero for some objects and not others.
But your "disagreement" is a lie, because you abandoned that rulers-only idea. And you are too cowardly to write the words which you know in your heart to be true.
So now you proposes two new concepts-only ideas. The Mass-changing and Ruler-changing one for which you offer no quantitative example of of how it might work for light and matter both, and the Ruler-changing and Clock-changing one, for which you offer not even a qualitative description of how it might be differentiated from Einstein's General Relativity.
So the sensible thing to do is to wait until you have a good quantitative description before you speak about gravity again, since you will make obvious mistakes if you don't check you math and arguments before airing them in public. One such mistake is giving support to two different ideas at the same time -- it strongly suggests that you are too lazy and ignorant to find any reason to support either other than they came from your own neurons.
But are you sensible? I suspect your next post will provide evidence that you are not.
This post, like this earlier post was written with your welfare in mind. But do not confuse suffering which may be a necessary cause for great art or advancement of science with a sufficient cause, and do not confuse opposition with persecution.
0 ≠ 1
Which is to say that a ball thrown upward at less than escape velocity reaches a point where it's wavenumber reaches zero, and another ball thrown harder or light does not reach zero at this same point. So obviously a rescaling of rulers alone cannot explain why wavenumber (which is proportional to momentum or inversely proportional to wavelength) goes to zero for some objects and not others.
But your "disagreement" is a lie, because you abandoned that rulers-only idea. And you are too cowardly to write the words which you know in your heart to be true.
So now you proposes two new concepts-only ideas. The Mass-changing and Ruler-changing one for which you offer no quantitative example of of how it might work for light and matter both, and the Ruler-changing and Clock-changing one, for which you offer not even a qualitative description of how it might be differentiated from Einstein's General Relativity.
So the sensible thing to do is to wait until you have a good quantitative description before you speak about gravity again, since you will make obvious mistakes if you don't check you math and arguments before airing them in public. One such mistake is giving support to two different ideas at the same time -- it strongly suggests that you are too lazy and ignorant to find any reason to support either other than they came from your own neurons.
But are you sensible? I suspect your next post will provide evidence that you are not.
This post, like this earlier post was written with your welfare in mind. But do not confuse suffering which may be a necessary cause for great art or advancement of science with a sufficient cause, and do not confuse opposition with persecution.
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 24 2009, 08:13 PM)
Hi 4Dguy,
This may not be any good but is the best I can do at this stage - see my feedback score for evidence of the (negative) stage I have reached.
Time dilation is 'respectable' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Gravitational time dilation is also respectable see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
The rest of your dilations (space,mass,?) are not 'respectable'.
If we imagine A at the top of a cliff (height h) viewing B at the bottom then:-
using 'V' to denote potentential :-
B is at a lower gravitational potential (V_B) than A (V_A) so
There is a gravitational field g between A and B given by
g= (V_A - V_B)/h
The gravitational field is your 'gravity', I don't think you (yet) have a name for 'gravitational potential'.
The equivalence principle claims that gravity (remember .. that's the field) is the same as acceleration so ..
the consequence is that B has a velocity with respect to A.
The observer (of mass m) at A feels a force (F) pulling him (or her) down where
F=mg (where g is still the field)
compare
F=ma .. which is Newton's second law of motion http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Staying with Newton's laws of motion ..
we know v^2 = u^2 + 2as (surely EVERYBODY knows that)
we can say that the observed difference in velocity 'twixt A and B will be
v^2 = 2gh
From SR we would expect a time dilation of
t' = t [sqrt(1-v^/2/c^2)]
which probably expands (for small v) as 1 + (1/2) v^2/c2 + .. ..[ no books and too tedious to check]
OR
t' = t [1+ (1/2) 2gh/c^2 = t[1 + gh/c^2]
which (happily) agrees with the result in wiki article on gravitational time dilation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation )
The consequence of all this is that we (both) could probably usefully devote the time that remains to us to understanding SR without the need to to get involved in the horrendous mathematical complexities of GR.
-C2.
If there is any merit in this post then it is owed entirely to Trout .. if no merit then no blame should be attached .. I have simply misunderstood 'reality'.
Not bad C2, perhaps you're not quite the botox brain therapy merchant I'd believed you to be.
....... even if you don't understand any of the regurgitated material you've lovingly stated here.
This may not be any good but is the best I can do at this stage - see my feedback score for evidence of the (negative) stage I have reached.
Time dilation is 'respectable' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Gravitational time dilation is also respectable see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
The rest of your dilations (space,mass,?) are not 'respectable'.
If we imagine A at the top of a cliff (height h) viewing B at the bottom then:-
using 'V' to denote potentential :-
B is at a lower gravitational potential (V_B) than A (V_A) so
There is a gravitational field g between A and B given by
g= (V_A - V_B)/h
The gravitational field is your 'gravity', I don't think you (yet) have a name for 'gravitational potential'.
The equivalence principle claims that gravity (remember .. that's the field) is the same as acceleration so ..
the consequence is that B has a velocity with respect to A.
The observer (of mass m) at A feels a force (F) pulling him (or her) down where
F=mg (where g is still the field)
compare
F=ma .. which is Newton's second law of motion http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Staying with Newton's laws of motion ..
we know v^2 = u^2 + 2as (surely EVERYBODY knows that)
we can say that the observed difference in velocity 'twixt A and B will be
v^2 = 2gh
From SR we would expect a time dilation of
t' = t [sqrt(1-v^/2/c^2)]
which probably expands (for small v) as 1 + (1/2) v^2/c2 + .. ..[ no books and too tedious to check]
OR
t' = t [1+ (1/2) 2gh/c^2 = t[1 + gh/c^2]
which (happily) agrees with the result in wiki article on gravitational time dilation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation )
The consequence of all this is that we (both) could probably usefully devote the time that remains to us to understanding SR without the need to to get involved in the horrendous mathematical complexities of GR.
-C2.
If there is any merit in this post then it is owed entirely to Trout .. if no merit then no blame should be attached .. I have simply misunderstood 'reality'.
Not bad C2, perhaps you're not quite the botox brain therapy merchant I'd believed you to be.
....... even if you don't understand any of the regurgitated material you've lovingly stated here.
rpenner,
rpenner Posted on Yesterday at 5:02 PM
In your example 0 does not =0 either I will refrain from calling it a lie. We are discussing different rulers, energy (frequency and wavelength) and time. Three different physical issues used in the concept of dilation causing attraction or gravity. Dilation include these concepts. To say I added a different concept is wrong because it is included in dilation. In your first example you throw a ball up. Time ticks faster, the electrons in the ball are moving faster and the ruler is getting shorter>dilation. The position at the crest you give the value of 0. As the ball ascends it gains energy (increased electron speed) at the cost of momentum. You may give the value of 0 for the wave number but what does that mean? Lets give the electron cycle an arbitrary number of say 9 trillion c/s with an arbitrary width of a yard. Not real numbers just a representation of the first ball. The second time you throw the same ball harder. As it ascends once again it gains energy (increased electron speed and decrease in dilation) at the cost of momentum. Now the dilation< is different for the second thrown ball. The cycles increased slightly and the width decreased slightly = to the value of Einstein's relativity. The wavelength ratio to its environment at the crest may go to 0 but the second ball has a different value than the first. But the wave number will reach the same point exactly where dilation is the greatest. You just threw the ball in the wrong direction. I said mass is attracted to the largest scale or dilation which is a gradient of dilation to the center of a planet. If you had a shaft through the center of a planet no matter how hard you threw the ball short of escape velocity and staying in the shaft all balls would end up in the center after many oscillations. Dilation is in space and mass with mass being the cause of increased dilation, increased wavelength and decreased ticks.
Photons neither changes speed nor wavelength and if they did it would cease to be a photon.
In your example 0 does not =0 either I will refrain from calling it a lie. We are discussing different rulers, energy (frequency and wavelength) and time. Three different physical issues used in the concept of dilation causing attraction or gravity. Dilation include these concepts. To say I added a different concept is wrong because it is included in dilation. In your first example you throw a ball up. Time ticks faster, the electrons in the ball are moving faster and the ruler is getting shorter>dilation. The position at the crest you give the value of 0. As the ball ascends it gains energy (increased electron speed) at the cost of momentum. You may give the value of 0 for the wave number but what does that mean? Lets give the electron cycle an arbitrary number of say 9 trillion c/s with an arbitrary width of a yard. Not real numbers just a representation of the first ball. The second time you throw the same ball harder. As it ascends once again it gains energy (increased electron speed and decrease in dilation) at the cost of momentum. Now the dilation< is different for the second thrown ball. The cycles increased slightly and the width decreased slightly = to the value of Einstein's relativity. The wavelength ratio to its environment at the crest may go to 0 but the second ball has a different value than the first. But the wave number will reach the same point exactly where dilation is the greatest. You just threw the ball in the wrong direction. I said mass is attracted to the largest scale or dilation which is a gradient of dilation to the center of a planet. If you had a shaft through the center of a planet no matter how hard you threw the ball short of escape velocity and staying in the shaft all balls would end up in the center after many oscillations. Dilation is in space and mass with mass being the cause of increased dilation, increased wavelength and decreased ticks.
Photons neither changes speed nor wavelength and if they did it would cease to be a photon.
But your "disagreement" is a lie, because you abandoned that rulers-only idea. And you are too cowardly to write the words which you know in your heart to be true.
Dilation is not rulers only and I did not abandon rulers only. I asked if gravity could be as simple as mass falling into more dilated space. How you can relate that to balls thrown into less dilated space and returning to more dilated space as proof against gravity being mass falling into more dilated space is beyond my understanding. Especially since the two balls thrown going to 0 were each different values of energy (dilation) for 0 so in your case 0 did not = 0. But they do at the center of a planet where 0=0 and where they would each eventually end up independent of momentum less than escape velocity.
It would be a cowardly lie if I were to do what you ask. You limited the properties of ruler only. I could not explain the energy of position asked by your question of the two balls with only the dilation property. This is what I meant by linear 2d thinkers that only allow one property at a time. The attraction property is the dilation or ruler. Gravity can be felt from more to less dilation and from less to more dilation. Gravity can be felt with a change in dilation rates.
The mass and ruler changing is one and the same. Mass increases the distance of space (dilation) for the same energy amount as un-dilated space. The wavelength of the electron is greater in more dilated space and this is related to the decrease in frequency for the slower tick rate. Light created in this higher wavelength is red shifted. This follows relativity.
The mass and ruler changing is one and the same. Mass increases the distance of space (dilation) for the same energy amount as un-dilated space. The wavelength of the electron is greater in more dilated space and this is related to the decrease in frequency for the slower tick rate. Light created in this higher wavelength is red shifted. This follows relativity.
and the Ruler-changing and Clock-changing one, for which you offer not even a qualitative description of how it might be differentiated from Einstein's General Relativity.
Its not different! Ruler changing and clock changing are part of relativity.
The quantitative description of relativity is pretty much done and confirmed. I agree with Relativity completely. I will not argue with the math portion. Now as far as airing concepts that have a possibility of changing postulates to mechanisms in public:
The quantitative description of relativity is pretty much done and confirmed. I agree with Relativity completely. I will not argue with the math portion. Now as far as airing concepts that have a possibility of changing postulates to mechanisms in public:
Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!
Forum Led by: rpenner
Your vision statement suggests that the ideas and thoughts might look weird at the moment but who knows in 100 years. Possible mechanical reasons for relativity is the next step needed. You can censer your own vision statement but ultimate power destructs ultimately. Nothing I have claimed is outside of relativity. I just put a focus on dilation as a cause of gravity and not gravitons. If you have a prejudice of there being gravitons I can see why you would want me banned. Do not delude yourself into thinking censorship of your vision statement is good for science. There is a real good chance my ideas are wrong but someone else's that might sound just as weird could have the answers to the mechanics of relativity, not just the postulates and math of relativity. Two out of three is not bad but three out of three would be better.
Mathematicians are good at what they do because of their linear thinking ability. Abstract thinking is necessary for mechanics where you need five or six conceptual ideas at once. How does one thing affect another for the finished effect. Dilation is one property, wavelength, frequency, energy and tick rate all change when the dilation is changed. They are all related mechanically and not different ideas.
Mathematicians are good at what they do because of their linear thinking ability. Abstract thinking is necessary for mechanics where you need five or six conceptual ideas at once. How does one thing affect another for the finished effect. Dilation is one property, wavelength, frequency, energy and tick rate all change when the dilation is changed. They are all related mechanically and not different ideas.
it strongly suggests that you are too lazy and ignorant to find any reason to support either other than they came from your own neurons.
They are all mentioned in relativity. I put them together in a way that goes against your prejudices and understanding. Show me one idea I used that has not been brought up by relativity. I do not mean conclusions just ideas used for my conclusions.
I got it shut up or I will ban you.
I got it shut up or I will ban you.
But do not confuse suffering which may be a necessary cause for great art or advancement of science with a sufficient cause, and do not confuse opposition with persecution.
I am not the one confused with the vision statement, I believe in relativity 100% and math will not discover the mechanics of relativity. If math could it would have already done so.
I do not confuse opposition with persecution, I have never given a negative feedback even to those that make it a weekly ritual. Give science its freedom or give it death the prejudice is in your hands!
Did you tell trout to quit being offensive with me and you would take care of me? Me being banned for him to stop his offensive posts is an equatable trade.
rpenner Posted on Yesterday at 5:02 PM
QUOTE
To disprove your first idea, I relied on that famous fact:
0 ≠ 1
Which is to say that a ball thrown upward at less than escape velocity reaches a point where it's wavenumber reaches zero, and another ball thrown harder or light does not reach zero at this same point. So obviously a rescaling of rulers alone cannot explain why wavenumber (which is proportional to momentum or inversely proportional to wavelength) goes to zero for some objects and not others.
0 ≠ 1
Which is to say that a ball thrown upward at less than escape velocity reaches a point where it's wavenumber reaches zero, and another ball thrown harder or light does not reach zero at this same point. So obviously a rescaling of rulers alone cannot explain why wavenumber (which is proportional to momentum or inversely proportional to wavelength) goes to zero for some objects and not others.
In your example 0 does not =0 either I will refrain from calling it a lie. We are discussing different rulers, energy (frequency and wavelength) and time. Three different physical issues used in the concept of dilation causing attraction or gravity. Dilation include these concepts. To say I added a different concept is wrong because it is included in dilation. In your first example you throw a ball up. Time ticks faster, the electrons in the ball are moving faster and the ruler is getting shorter>dilation. The position at the crest you give the value of 0. As the ball ascends it gains energy (increased electron speed) at the cost of momentum. You may give the value of 0 for the wave number but what does that mean? Lets give the electron cycle an arbitrary number of say 9 trillion c/s with an arbitrary width of a yard. Not real numbers just a representation of the first ball. The second time you throw the same ball harder. As it ascends once again it gains energy (increased electron speed and decrease in dilation) at the cost of momentum. Now the dilation< is different for the second thrown ball. The cycles increased slightly and the width decreased slightly = to the value of Einstein's relativity. The wavelength ratio to its environment at the crest may go to 0 but the second ball has a different value than the first. But the wave number will reach the same point exactly where dilation is the greatest. You just threw the ball in the wrong direction. I said mass is attracted to the largest scale or dilation which is a gradient of dilation to the center of a planet. If you had a shaft through the center of a planet no matter how hard you threw the ball short of escape velocity and staying in the shaft all balls would end up in the center after many oscillations. Dilation is in space and mass with mass being the cause of increased dilation, increased wavelength and decreased ticks.
Photons neither changes speed nor wavelength and if they did it would cease to be a photon.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To disprove your first idea, I relied on that famous fact: 0 ≠ 1 Which is to say that a ball thrown upward at less than escape velocity reaches a point where it's wavenumber reaches zero, and another ball thrown harder or light does not reach zero at this same point. So obviously a rescaling of rulers alone cannot explain why wavenumber (which is proportional to momentum or inversely proportional to wavelength) goes to zero for some objects and not others. |
In your example 0 does not =0 either I will refrain from calling it a lie. We are discussing different rulers, energy (frequency and wavelength) and time. Three different physical issues used in the concept of dilation causing attraction or gravity. Dilation include these concepts. To say I added a different concept is wrong because it is included in dilation. In your first example you throw a ball up. Time ticks faster, the electrons in the ball are moving faster and the ruler is getting shorter>dilation. The position at the crest you give the value of 0. As the ball ascends it gains energy (increased electron speed) at the cost of momentum. You may give the value of 0 for the wave number but what does that mean? Lets give the electron cycle an arbitrary number of say 9 trillion c/s with an arbitrary width of a yard. Not real numbers just a representation of the first ball. The second time you throw the same ball harder. As it ascends once again it gains energy (increased electron speed and decrease in dilation) at the cost of momentum. Now the dilation< is different for the second thrown ball. The cycles increased slightly and the width decreased slightly = to the value of Einstein's relativity. The wavelength ratio to its environment at the crest may go to 0 but the second ball has a different value than the first. But the wave number will reach the same point exactly where dilation is the greatest. You just threw the ball in the wrong direction. I said mass is attracted to the largest scale or dilation which is a gradient of dilation to the center of a planet. If you had a shaft through the center of a planet no matter how hard you threw the ball short of escape velocity and staying in the shaft all balls would end up in the center after many oscillations. Dilation is in space and mass with mass being the cause of increased dilation, increased wavelength and decreased ticks.
Photons neither changes speed nor wavelength and if they did it would cease to be a photon.
But your "disagreement" is a lie, because you abandoned that rulers-only idea. And you are too cowardly to write the words which you know in your heart to be true.
Dilation is not rulers only and I did not abandon rulers only. I asked if gravity could be as simple as mass falling into more dilated space. How you can relate that to balls thrown into less dilated space and returning to more dilated space as proof against gravity being mass falling into more dilated space is beyond my understanding. Especially since the two balls thrown going to 0 were each different values of energy (dilation) for 0 so in your case 0 did not = 0. But they do at the center of a planet where 0=0 and where they would each eventually end up independent of momentum less than escape velocity.
It would be a cowardly lie if I were to do what you ask. You limited the properties of ruler only. I could not explain the energy of position asked by your question of the two balls with only the dilation property. This is what I meant by linear 2d thinkers that only allow one property at a time. The attraction property is the dilation or ruler. Gravity can be felt from more to less dilation and from less to more dilation. Gravity can be felt with a change in dilation rates.
QUOTE
So now you proposes two new concepts-only ideas. The Mass-changing and Ruler-changing one for which you offer no quantitative example of of how it might work for light and matter both
The mass and ruler changing is one and the same. Mass increases the distance of space (dilation) for the same energy amount as un-dilated space. The wavelength of the electron is greater in more dilated space and this is related to the decrease in frequency for the slower tick rate. Light created in this higher wavelength is red shifted. This follows relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So now you proposes two new concepts-only ideas. The Mass-changing and Ruler-changing one for which you offer no quantitative example of of how it might work for light and matter both |
The mass and ruler changing is one and the same. Mass increases the distance of space (dilation) for the same energy amount as un-dilated space. The wavelength of the electron is greater in more dilated space and this is related to the decrease in frequency for the slower tick rate. Light created in this higher wavelength is red shifted. This follows relativity.
and the Ruler-changing and Clock-changing one, for which you offer not even a qualitative description of how it might be differentiated from Einstein's General Relativity.
Its not different! Ruler changing and clock changing are part of relativity.
QUOTE
So the sensible thing to do is to wait until you have a good quantitative description before you speak about gravity again, since you will make obvious mistakes if you don't check you math and arguments before airing them in public.
The quantitative description of relativity is pretty much done and confirmed. I agree with Relativity completely. I will not argue with the math portion. Now as far as airing concepts that have a possibility of changing postulates to mechanisms in public:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So the sensible thing to do is to wait until you have a good quantitative description before you speak about gravity again, since you will make obvious mistakes if you don't check you math and arguments before airing them in public. |
The quantitative description of relativity is pretty much done and confirmed. I agree with Relativity completely. I will not argue with the math portion. Now as far as airing concepts that have a possibility of changing postulates to mechanisms in public:
Discuss here the most attractive and mysterious physics areas. Post here your ideas and thoughts, which might look weird at the moment. Who knows how it's going to be 100 years from now!
Forum Led by: rpenner
Your vision statement suggests that the ideas and thoughts might look weird at the moment but who knows in 100 years. Possible mechanical reasons for relativity is the next step needed. You can censer your own vision statement but ultimate power destructs ultimately. Nothing I have claimed is outside of relativity. I just put a focus on dilation as a cause of gravity and not gravitons. If you have a prejudice of there being gravitons I can see why you would want me banned. Do not delude yourself into thinking censorship of your vision statement is good for science. There is a real good chance my ideas are wrong but someone else's that might sound just as weird could have the answers to the mechanics of relativity, not just the postulates and math of relativity. Two out of three is not bad but three out of three would be better.
QUOTE
One such mistake is giving support to two different ideas at the same time
Mathematicians are good at what they do because of their linear thinking ability. Abstract thinking is necessary for mechanics where you need five or six conceptual ideas at once. How does one thing affect another for the finished effect. Dilation is one property, wavelength, frequency, energy and tick rate all change when the dilation is changed. They are all related mechanically and not different ideas.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One such mistake is giving support to two different ideas at the same time |
Mathematicians are good at what they do because of their linear thinking ability. Abstract thinking is necessary for mechanics where you need five or six conceptual ideas at once. How does one thing affect another for the finished effect. Dilation is one property, wavelength, frequency, energy and tick rate all change when the dilation is changed. They are all related mechanically and not different ideas.
it strongly suggests that you are too lazy and ignorant to find any reason to support either other than they came from your own neurons.
They are all mentioned in relativity. I put them together in a way that goes against your prejudices and understanding. Show me one idea I used that has not been brought up by relativity. I do not mean conclusions just ideas used for my conclusions.
QUOTE
This post, like this earlier post was written with your welfare in mind.
I got it shut up or I will ban you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This post, like this earlier post was written with your welfare in mind. |
I got it shut up or I will ban you.
But do not confuse suffering which may be a necessary cause for great art or advancement of science with a sufficient cause, and do not confuse opposition with persecution.
I am not the one confused with the vision statement, I believe in relativity 100% and math will not discover the mechanics of relativity. If math could it would have already done so.
I do not confuse opposition with persecution, I have never given a negative feedback even to those that make it a weekly ritual. Give science its freedom or give it death the prejudice is in your hands!
Did you tell trout to quit being offensive with me and you would take care of me? Me being banned for him to stop his offensive posts is an equatable trade.
How exactly would dilation be the cause of gravity? Sorry if u already answered this I havent been keeping up with ur posts that well.
Sorry - wrong destination
magpies
Basically very simple dilation follows gravity. I have been asking the community if and where it does not follow gravity. I believe it does. Dilation is an increase in space volume along with reduction of energy as seen by an atomic clock. Could gravity be as simple as mass falling into more expanded space?
Basically very simple dilation follows gravity. I have been asking the community if and where it does not follow gravity. I believe it does. Dilation is an increase in space volume along with reduction of energy as seen by an atomic clock. Could gravity be as simple as mass falling into more expanded space?
This is one of those ideas which are very hard to think. And it also 'may' not be true.
It is true in certain QG and QC models but these models must be tested (by predicting observable features in the early universe).
This is plausible in my mind for the start. There are various different approaches to QG.
It is true in certain QG and QC models but these models must be tested (by predicting observable features in the early universe).
This is plausible in my mind for the start. There are various different approaches to QG.
O_o
That is why it is in the speculation thread.
That is why it is in the speculation thread.
It is true in certain QG and QC models but these models must be tested (by predicting observable features in the early universe).
More energy and less mass in the early universe. The big bang is not necessary if energy and mass are interchangeable. Time for the universe > than the current 13 billion year limitation.
Exactly speculation is just that speculation. Indirect evidence to the unobservable will always remain speculation.
QUOTE
This is one of those ideas which are very hard to think. And it also 'may' not be true.
That is why it is in the speculation thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is one of those ideas which are very hard to think. And it also 'may' not be true. |
That is why it is in the speculation thread.
It is true in certain QG and QC models but these models must be tested (by predicting observable features in the early universe).
More energy and less mass in the early universe. The big bang is not necessary if energy and mass are interchangeable. Time for the universe > than the current 13 billion year limitation.
QUOTE
This is plausible in my mind for the start. There are various different approaches to QG.
Exactly speculation is just that speculation. Indirect evidence to the unobservable will always remain speculation.
QUOTE (4Dguy+)
... F=mg or F=ma are relativity formulas ..
(my emphasis)
Hmmm .. either we have two sets of physics running concurrently or you are right. My first thought is that a massive particle sits in its own field .. during (classical) acceleration the 'work done' by the force goes into the field. It has a three (or more) dimensional look to it and I max out after one dimension - it doesn't look (to me) like something so complicated could produce such a simple result (E=m_r c^2). Comments welcome.
-C2.
Hmmm .. either we have two sets of physics running concurrently or you are right. My first thought is that a massive particle sits in its own field .. during (classical) acceleration the 'work done' by the force goes into the field. It has a three (or more) dimensional look to it and I max out after one dimension - it doesn't look (to me) like something so complicated could produce such a simple result (E=m_r c^2). Comments welcome.
-C2.
Hello Confused2
I have a similar idea. GR for a rest mass provides for a time gradient field about said mass. SR for a moving mass provides for a starting time rate for the time gradient generated by the mass itself.
Just something to think about.
QUOTE
My first thought is that a massive particle sits in its own field .. during (classical) acceleration the 'work done' by the force goes into the field
I have a similar idea. GR for a rest mass provides for a time gradient field about said mass. SR for a moving mass provides for a starting time rate for the time gradient generated by the mass itself.
Just something to think about.
C2 and montec,
I believe time dilation and space dilation are one in the same. The yard stick increases with dilation. If just for example time was reduced by 10%. The proton we will call it a marble on a football field the electron ~1/1800 of the marble. Increase the marble the electron and the electron path by 10%. The ratio remains the same so physics remain the same. Now the proton and electron 10% increase is negligible to the extra 10 yards of cycle distance. Cycle time of the clock and dilation are effected much with a little change in percentage. Mass would want to fall into expanded space. Same with electron shells while its convenient to use charge its probably just unbalanced dilated space until the shell is filled up making the shell a uniform dilation. Just speculation on my part.
I believe time dilation and space dilation are one in the same. The yard stick increases with dilation. If just for example time was reduced by 10%. The proton we will call it a marble on a football field the electron ~1/1800 of the marble. Increase the marble the electron and the electron path by 10%. The ratio remains the same so physics remain the same. Now the proton and electron 10% increase is negligible to the extra 10 yards of cycle distance. Cycle time of the clock and dilation are effected much with a little change in percentage. Mass would want to fall into expanded space. Same with electron shells while its convenient to use charge its probably just unbalanced dilated space until the shell is filled up making the shell a uniform dilation. Just speculation on my part.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 26 2009, 11:27 AM)
magpies
Basically very simple dilation follows gravity. I have been asking the community if and where it does not follow gravity. I believe it does. Dilation is an increase in space volume along with reduction of energy as seen by an atomic clock. Could gravity be as simple as mass falling into more expanded space?
Yes, good you’re on the right track. Hi all. I just found this place. Wondering heads like mine cool. Gravity is all things surrounding the earth pulling pushing against and with the earth's movement + mass + the matter of the mass.
if I travel away from earth for one second at the speed of light I would be traveling with the light refracting and reflected off the earth = traveling at the same time I left earth. If I stop and reverse direction and return to earth at the same speed I left then one second plus the time it took me to stop and head the opposite direction have passed. Time dissipation has taken its place because the light reflected and refracted has dispersed into space.
this was thought up in 1973 by me researching the proprieties of gravity and the way it works. i give credit too Max Planket, Hertz, and Edison for their work in this field.
Basically very simple dilation follows gravity. I have been asking the community if and where it does not follow gravity. I believe it does. Dilation is an increase in space volume along with reduction of energy as seen by an atomic clock. Could gravity be as simple as mass falling into more expanded space?
Yes, good you’re on the right track. Hi all. I just found this place. Wondering heads like mine cool. Gravity is all things surrounding the earth pulling pushing against and with the earth's movement + mass + the matter of the mass.
if I travel away from earth for one second at the speed of light I would be traveling with the light refracting and reflected off the earth = traveling at the same time I left earth. If I stop and reverse direction and return to earth at the same speed I left then one second plus the time it took me to stop and head the opposite direction have passed. Time dissipation has taken its place because the light reflected and refracted has dispersed into space.
this was thought up in 1973 by me researching the proprieties of gravity and the way it works. i give credit too Max Planket, Hertz, and Edison for their work in this field.
QUOTE (hammered_again+Sep 28 2009, 04:04 AM)
Yes, good you’re on the right track. Hi all. I just found this place. Wondering heads like mine cool. Gravity is all things surrounding the earth pulling pushing against and with the earth's movement + mass + the matter of the mass.
if I travel away from earth for one second at the speed of light I would be traveling with the light refracting and reflected off the earth = traveling at the same time I left earth. If I stop and reverse direction and return to earth at the same speed I left then one second plus the time it took me to stop and head the opposite direction have passed. Time dissipation has taken its place because the light reflected and refracted has dispersed into space.
this was thought up in 1973 by me researching the proprieties of gravity and the way it works. i give credit too Max Planck, Hertz, and Edison for their work in this field.
please excuse my misspelling of Max Planck.
if I travel away from earth for one second at the speed of light I would be traveling with the light refracting and reflected off the earth = traveling at the same time I left earth. If I stop and reverse direction and return to earth at the same speed I left then one second plus the time it took me to stop and head the opposite direction have passed. Time dissipation has taken its place because the light reflected and refracted has dispersed into space.
this was thought up in 1973 by me researching the proprieties of gravity and the way it works. i give credit too Max Planck, Hertz, and Edison for their work in this field.
please excuse my misspelling of Max Planck.
QUOTE (4Dguy+)
Mass would want to fall into expanded space.
Unfortunately 'want' isn't really a mechanism.
@Montec
A suggestion .. an approaching mass will have a spherical equipotential field around it (by analagy with a flash of light emitted from the same mass) .. but is the (moving) mass at the centre of that sphere? There is the possibility of the moving mass being 'uphill' in its own field. Just a thought.
One of the few snippets of GR I happen to have picked up is that if a fission bomb goes off in a sealed container .. the product (photons etc) weigh just as much as the original mass .. so the E=m_0 c^2 energy probably isn't in the gravitational field. As to whether the (1/2)mv^2 part [is/is not] in the field .. remains to be shown.
-C2.
Unfortunately 'want' isn't really a mechanism.
@Montec
A suggestion .. an approaching mass will have a spherical equipotential field around it (by analagy with a flash of light emitted from the same mass) .. but is the (moving) mass at the centre of that sphere? There is the possibility of the moving mass being 'uphill' in its own field. Just a thought.
One of the few snippets of GR I happen to have picked up is that if a fission bomb goes off in a sealed container .. the product (photons etc) weigh just as much as the original mass .. so the E=m_0 c^2 energy probably isn't in the gravitational field. As to whether the (1/2)mv^2 part [is/is not] in the field .. remains to be shown.
-C2.
In reply,
Well, that's not something that's usually predicted.
to the OP,
Unfortunately, the precise value of the Hubble parameter when the universe stopped decelerating and started accelerating is not known to much precision it's a rather noisy measurement.
It is also worth mentioning that our known universe was decelerating for most of its history, from the end of inflation to relatively recently ( when dark energy took over ). This then covers an incredibly wide range of Hubble parameters.
Well, that's not something that's usually predicted.
to the OP,
Unfortunately, the precise value of the Hubble parameter when the universe stopped decelerating and started accelerating is not known to much precision it's a rather noisy measurement.
It is also worth mentioning that our known universe was decelerating for most of its history, from the end of inflation to relatively recently ( when dark energy took over ). This then covers an incredibly wide range of Hubble parameters.
O_o,
If dark energy was not there and then there what was the mechanism to produce dark energy?
C2
When you jump from a airplane the space between the molecules are much larger then the space in your molecules similar to space increasing in dilation. You fall whether you want to or not.
F=ma , F=mg then a=g
Granouille Now what am I going to get for trouts birthday?
If dark energy was not there and then there what was the mechanism to produce dark energy?
C2
When you jump from a airplane the space between the molecules are much larger then the space in your molecules similar to space increasing in dilation. You fall whether you want to or not.
F=ma , F=mg then a=g
Granouille Now what am I going to get for trouts birthday?
@4Dguy,
When holding a pebble at (say) the top of a cliff - your hand exerting force F (against mg) is the same as a pebble in field-free space having a little rocket motor at the back exerting a force F=ma. Letting go of the pebble (or turning the little rocket motor off) puts the pebble in a state of inertial motion .. no forces acting on it.
-C2.
When holding a pebble at (say) the top of a cliff - your hand exerting force F (against mg) is the same as a pebble in field-free space having a little rocket motor at the back exerting a force F=ma. Letting go of the pebble (or turning the little rocket motor off) puts the pebble in a state of inertial motion .. no forces acting on it.
-C2.
C2,
Let stay with just the Earth for a second. You hold the pebble and you have gravity. You let go and you have acceleration. F=mg , F=ma g=a the acceleration rate = the force of gravity. In this case you are going from a less dilated space to a more dilated space in the gradient. Gravity is being reduced all the time you are accelerating. If you had a shaft through a planet the acceleration would be slowing down and stop at the center. You would continue to oscillate until you reached equilibrium at the highest dilation point. You absorb the dilation from your position because the higher dilation is waiting for you so you feel no force. It is sucking you down. In this case acceleration is the effect of gravity and = to gravity.
In space gravity is the effect of acceleration and = to acceleration just the opposite. You are staying in the same dilation all the time you are accelerating or decelerating but you are causing you and your ship to dilate in a lesser stable dilation of space. Deceleration is going from more dilated to less dilated. In both conditions in space you feel gravity and not acceleration.
So the only way GR and SR can be equivalent is if a=g. And they both are caused by a difference in dilation.
Let stay with just the Earth for a second. You hold the pebble and you have gravity. You let go and you have acceleration. F=mg , F=ma g=a the acceleration rate = the force of gravity. In this case you are going from a less dilated space to a more dilated space in the gradient. Gravity is being reduced all the time you are accelerating. If you had a shaft through a planet the acceleration would be slowing down and stop at the center. You would continue to oscillate until you reached equilibrium at the highest dilation point. You absorb the dilation from your position because the higher dilation is waiting for you so you feel no force. It is sucking you down. In this case acceleration is the effect of gravity and = to gravity.
In space gravity is the effect of acceleration and = to acceleration just the opposite. You are staying in the same dilation all the time you are accelerating or decelerating but you are causing you and your ship to dilate in a lesser stable dilation of space. Deceleration is going from more dilated to less dilated. In both conditions in space you feel gravity and not acceleration.
So the only way GR and SR can be equivalent is if a=g. And they both are caused by a difference in dilation.
I don't see how gravity can decrease as the pebble nears the center of the planet, when gravity increases in a gradient between outer space and sea level.
Oh wait, weightlessness in space may not be caused by reduced gravity. It may be the product of free-fall, insofar as orbit constitutes eternal free-fall.
So there is basically a vector-gradient between orbital motion and the motion of falling (or collision).
Orbit is a sustainable form of dynamic potential energy, while a collision-trajectory is a means of consuming potential energy.
So 4Dguy, is the tendency of mass toward more dilated space an entropic tendency? Is space-dilation absolute at the center of the Earth, for example? What would happen to matter/energy in totally dilated space-time? Total disintegration?
Also, how far could the dilation gradient go in the direction away from the center? Does dilation continue to decrease as altitude increases, or would there be a point where it would begin to increase again? If so, what determines the crossover point from increasing to decreasing dilation back to increasing as you move from center toward outer space?
Oh wait, weightlessness in space may not be caused by reduced gravity. It may be the product of free-fall, insofar as orbit constitutes eternal free-fall.
So there is basically a vector-gradient between orbital motion and the motion of falling (or collision).
Orbit is a sustainable form of dynamic potential energy, while a collision-trajectory is a means of consuming potential energy.
So 4Dguy, is the tendency of mass toward more dilated space an entropic tendency? Is space-dilation absolute at the center of the Earth, for example? What would happen to matter/energy in totally dilated space-time? Total disintegration?
Also, how far could the dilation gradient go in the direction away from the center? Does dilation continue to decrease as altitude increases, or would there be a point where it would begin to increase again? If so, what determines the crossover point from increasing to decreasing dilation back to increasing as you move from center toward outer space?
light in the tunnel,
Some of my answers are known and some speculation of known properties. Gravity increases from outer space to the center of a planet r=0. As the pebble gets closer to the center of the planet it becomes more dilated and takes on the dilation of its position until it gets to the center of a planet (mass) where the dilation is the greatest for that mass and is weightless after some oscillations of course due to the momentum.
Some of my answers are known and some speculation of known properties. Gravity increases from outer space to the center of a planet r=0. As the pebble gets closer to the center of the planet it becomes more dilated and takes on the dilation of its position until it gets to the center of a planet (mass) where the dilation is the greatest for that mass and is weightless after some oscillations of course due to the momentum.
Oh wait, weightlessness in space may not be caused by reduced gravity. It may be the product of free-fall, insofar as orbit constitutes eternal free-fall.
There is a bubble around the earth that follows the inverse square law for gravity. A truly good position for s large space station would be between the Earth and the moon 1/6 the distance from the moon. The dilation is greater there and if the station is big enough it should stay in that position without any external power. I went off track. In space you are in a sea of dilation that does not have much of a gradient so you are in free fall.
Yes with momentum determining whether you fly away or crash.
Yes with momentum determining whether you fly away or crash.
Orbit is a sustainable form of dynamic potential energy, while a collision-trajectory is a means of consuming potential energy.
Difference in dilation gives you potential energy in this case.
Yes.
Yes.
Is space-dilation absolute at the center of the Earth, for example?
If GR and SR are truly equivalent then mass can only get to a certain size. The Earth is far,far to small for that size. rpenner can calculate that size. I could also with a little study into the math of relativity.
I think atomic bombs meet that criteria.
I think atomic bombs meet that criteria.
Also, how far could the dilation gradient go in the direction away from the center? Does dilation continue to decrease as altitude increases, or would there be a point where it would begin to increase again?
It goes away with the inverse square rule after mass stops. Depending on viscosity of mass it could have longer and shorter dilation gradients. To be a truly uniform gradient the material would have to be uniform. The dilation reduces until there is other mass. There might be a limit to the smallest dilation. That might be beyond our universe.
The next closest mass.
QUOTE
I don't see how gravity can decrease as the pebble nears the center of the planet, when gravity increases in a gradient between outer space and sea level.
Some of my answers are known and some speculation of known properties. Gravity increases from outer space to the center of a planet r=0. As the pebble gets closer to the center of the planet it becomes more dilated and takes on the dilation of its position until it gets to the center of a planet (mass) where the dilation is the greatest for that mass and is weightless after some oscillations of course due to the momentum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't see how gravity can decrease as the pebble nears the center of the planet, when gravity increases in a gradient between outer space and sea level. |
Some of my answers are known and some speculation of known properties. Gravity increases from outer space to the center of a planet r=0. As the pebble gets closer to the center of the planet it becomes more dilated and takes on the dilation of its position until it gets to the center of a planet (mass) where the dilation is the greatest for that mass and is weightless after some oscillations of course due to the momentum.
Oh wait, weightlessness in space may not be caused by reduced gravity. It may be the product of free-fall, insofar as orbit constitutes eternal free-fall.
There is a bubble around the earth that follows the inverse square law for gravity. A truly good position for s large space station would be between the Earth and the moon 1/6 the distance from the moon. The dilation is greater there and if the station is big enough it should stay in that position without any external power. I went off track. In space you are in a sea of dilation that does not have much of a gradient so you are in free fall.
QUOTE
So there is basically a vector-gradient between orbital motion and the motion of falling (or collision).
Yes with momentum determining whether you fly away or crash.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So there is basically a vector-gradient between orbital motion and the motion of falling (or collision). |
Yes with momentum determining whether you fly away or crash.
Orbit is a sustainable form of dynamic potential energy, while a collision-trajectory is a means of consuming potential energy.
Difference in dilation gives you potential energy in this case.
QUOTE
So 4Dguy, is the tendency of mass toward more dilated space an entropic tendency?
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So 4Dguy, is the tendency of mass toward more dilated space an entropic tendency? |
Yes.
Is space-dilation absolute at the center of the Earth, for example?
If GR and SR are truly equivalent then mass can only get to a certain size. The Earth is far,far to small for that size. rpenner can calculate that size. I could also with a little study into the math of relativity.
QUOTE
What would happen to matter/energy in totally dilated space-time? Total disintegration?
I think atomic bombs meet that criteria.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What would happen to matter/energy in totally dilated space-time? Total disintegration? |
I think atomic bombs meet that criteria.
Also, how far could the dilation gradient go in the direction away from the center? Does dilation continue to decrease as altitude increases, or would there be a point where it would begin to increase again?
It goes away with the inverse square rule after mass stops. Depending on viscosity of mass it could have longer and shorter dilation gradients. To be a truly uniform gradient the material would have to be uniform. The dilation reduces until there is other mass. There might be a limit to the smallest dilation. That might be beyond our universe.
QUOTE
If so, what determines the crossover point from increasing to decreasing dilation back to increasing as you move from center toward outer space?
The next closest mass.
Hello Confused2
Being "uphill" would slow down said mass. Since this has not been observed (to my knowledge) then the "possibility" is not likely.
Of course if there is some sort of delay in the mass reacting to the "uphill" condition then all bets are off.
QUOTE
There is the possibility of the moving mass being 'uphill' in its own field. Just a thought.
Being "uphill" would slow down said mass. Since this has not been observed (to my knowledge) then the "possibility" is not likely.
Of course if there is some sort of delay in the mass reacting to the "uphill" condition then all bets are off.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 29 2009, 03:00 PM)
Gravity increases from outer space to the center of a planet r=0.
The inverse square law seems to assume straight-line distances between two bodies. If a body attaining high altitude begins falling at a trajectory greater than a straight line toward the center of the planet, its radial distance would be the length of the spiral/curved path it takes, wouldn't it?
If orbit is actually a spiral free-fall trajectory, then the speed of an orbit would be the result of gravitational acceleration in a relatively horizontal direction, wouldn't it? If this is the case, that gravity pulls objects along curved radii toward the center, how does this relate to the constant 9.8m/s2? For example, does a satellite accelerate in the path of a spiral orbital descent at a rate corresponding with 9.8m/s2 proportionally in some kind of gradient? It the number determined by the inverse square law, based on radial distance measured in straight lines, even though the actual path of descent is a decaying spiral orbit?
But then how does a body or particle in non-decaying orbit around another get affected by dilation differential? If it stays at the same radial distance from the fulcrum, isn't it moving through a dilation-constant space? Plus, what attracts it through the dilation gradient? Only its own momentum and trajectory?
Is velocity directly proportional to dilation? I.e. are velocity changes caused by gravity merely apparent, and they would not exist if dilation changes are controlled for in observations?
But then how does a body or particle in non-decaying orbit around another get affected by dilation differential? If it stays at the same radial distance from the fulcrum, isn't it moving through a dilation-constant space? Plus, what attracts it through the dilation gradient? Only its own momentum and trajectory?
Is velocity directly proportional to dilation? I.e. are velocity changes caused by gravity merely apparent, and they would not exist if dilation changes are controlled for in observations?
If GR and SR are truly equivalent then mass can only get to a certain size. The Earth is far,far to small for that size. rpenner can calculate that size. I could also with a little study into the math of relativity.
I thought you said that dilation continues to increase until a no-gravity space is reached. It sounded like you were saying that the center of a planet would be such a space. So how is it that dilation is relative to the amount of mass-gravity at the beginning of the gradient? Is maximum dilation higher at the center of a more massive planet? If so, why?
But does mass really ever "stop" with increasing altitude? I read that there is no clear boundary between the atmosphere and outerspace. It is a continuous gradiant of decreasing density/pressure.
So if dilation is great at the center of the planet, because of decreasing gravity, and it is great in outer space, because of decreasing gravity, then there should logically be some point in between the center and outer space where it stops increasing and starts decreasing again.
What would determine this point? It must have to do with the density of matter, because less dense matter, such as atmosphere adds mass below you, as you increase altitude, at a rate less than your distance is increasing. So probably the point where gravity/dilation gradiates from increasing to decreasing is sea level, since this is where the atmosphere starts. Did I answer my own question?
So, if I was good at setting up math equations, I could make one that takes into account the acceleration rate of gravity decreasing linearly as an object falls through a hollow tunnel through the Earth. The velocity of the object would start accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and continue to accelerate at a decreasing rate until it reached the center, where its momentum, based on the maximum velocity it had reached, would propel it upward toward the surface on the other side of the tunnel. Then, the distance it would travel upward toward the surface could be predicted using the same equation, since the object would decelerate at the same increasing rate as it initially fell, reaching full stop at a lower altitude than sea-level, depending on friction of air-resistance. Then it would start falling again back in the direction it started, beginning the series of "oscillations" described by 4Dman. Correct?
So, if you had a tunnel through the center of the Earth, you could fly most of the way through it by just falling through toward the other side and catching hold of something before falling backward in the direction you came?
But does mass really ever "stop" with increasing altitude? I read that there is no clear boundary between the atmosphere and outerspace. It is a continuous gradiant of decreasing density/pressure.
So if dilation is great at the center of the planet, because of decreasing gravity, and it is great in outer space, because of decreasing gravity, then there should logically be some point in between the center and outer space where it stops increasing and starts decreasing again.
What would determine this point? It must have to do with the density of matter, because less dense matter, such as atmosphere adds mass below you, as you increase altitude, at a rate less than your distance is increasing. So probably the point where gravity/dilation gradiates from increasing to decreasing is sea level, since this is where the atmosphere starts. Did I answer my own question?
So, if I was good at setting up math equations, I could make one that takes into account the acceleration rate of gravity decreasing linearly as an object falls through a hollow tunnel through the Earth. The velocity of the object would start accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and continue to accelerate at a decreasing rate until it reached the center, where its momentum, based on the maximum velocity it had reached, would propel it upward toward the surface on the other side of the tunnel. Then, the distance it would travel upward toward the surface could be predicted using the same equation, since the object would decelerate at the same increasing rate as it initially fell, reaching full stop at a lower altitude than sea-level, depending on friction of air-resistance. Then it would start falling again back in the direction it started, beginning the series of "oscillations" described by 4Dman. Correct?
So, if you had a tunnel through the center of the Earth, you could fly most of the way through it by just falling through toward the other side and catching hold of something before falling backward in the direction you came?
The dilation reduces until there is other mass. There might be a limit to the smallest dilation. That might be beyond our universe.
Wouldn't dilation be relative to the mass and distance of the next significant body, i.e. "the next closest mass?" So, for example, in the center of the Earth, dilation of space would be determined by the distance from the sun, or rather the position within the solar system, to the extent that the entire body of matter orbiting the sun acts as a concerted body of matter with integrated gravitation.
Likewise, at the center of the sun, dilation would be relative to the gravitation of the galaxy, etc. etc. So if the universe is finite, there is an ultimate center with absolute dilation, and if it is infinite, every gravitational center is a point within another, larger mass-complex. I.e. galaxies forming galaxies in galaxies to infinity. Does big-bang theory contradict this by postulating a finite quantity of matter/energy/space in the universe?
The inverse square law seems to assume straight-line distances between two bodies. If a body attaining high altitude begins falling at a trajectory greater than a straight line toward the center of the planet, its radial distance would be the length of the spiral/curved path it takes, wouldn't it?
If orbit is actually a spiral free-fall trajectory, then the speed of an orbit would be the result of gravitational acceleration in a relatively horizontal direction, wouldn't it? If this is the case, that gravity pulls objects along curved radii toward the center, how does this relate to the constant 9.8m/s2? For example, does a satellite accelerate in the path of a spiral orbital descent at a rate corresponding with 9.8m/s2 proportionally in some kind of gradient? It the number determined by the inverse square law, based on radial distance measured in straight lines, even though the actual path of descent is a decaying spiral orbit?
QUOTE
Difference in dilation gives you potential energy in this case.
But then how does a body or particle in non-decaying orbit around another get affected by dilation differential? If it stays at the same radial distance from the fulcrum, isn't it moving through a dilation-constant space? Plus, what attracts it through the dilation gradient? Only its own momentum and trajectory?
Is velocity directly proportional to dilation? I.e. are velocity changes caused by gravity merely apparent, and they would not exist if dilation changes are controlled for in observations?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Difference in dilation gives you potential energy in this case. |
But then how does a body or particle in non-decaying orbit around another get affected by dilation differential? If it stays at the same radial distance from the fulcrum, isn't it moving through a dilation-constant space? Plus, what attracts it through the dilation gradient? Only its own momentum and trajectory?
Is velocity directly proportional to dilation? I.e. are velocity changes caused by gravity merely apparent, and they would not exist if dilation changes are controlled for in observations?
If GR and SR are truly equivalent then mass can only get to a certain size. The Earth is far,far to small for that size. rpenner can calculate that size. I could also with a little study into the math of relativity.
I thought you said that dilation continues to increase until a no-gravity space is reached. It sounded like you were saying that the center of a planet would be such a space. So how is it that dilation is relative to the amount of mass-gravity at the beginning of the gradient? Is maximum dilation higher at the center of a more massive planet? If so, why?
QUOTE
It goes away with the inverse square rule after mass stops.
But does mass really ever "stop" with increasing altitude? I read that there is no clear boundary between the atmosphere and outerspace. It is a continuous gradiant of decreasing density/pressure.
So if dilation is great at the center of the planet, because of decreasing gravity, and it is great in outer space, because of decreasing gravity, then there should logically be some point in between the center and outer space where it stops increasing and starts decreasing again.
What would determine this point? It must have to do with the density of matter, because less dense matter, such as atmosphere adds mass below you, as you increase altitude, at a rate less than your distance is increasing. So probably the point where gravity/dilation gradiates from increasing to decreasing is sea level, since this is where the atmosphere starts. Did I answer my own question?
So, if I was good at setting up math equations, I could make one that takes into account the acceleration rate of gravity decreasing linearly as an object falls through a hollow tunnel through the Earth. The velocity of the object would start accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and continue to accelerate at a decreasing rate until it reached the center, where its momentum, based on the maximum velocity it had reached, would propel it upward toward the surface on the other side of the tunnel. Then, the distance it would travel upward toward the surface could be predicted using the same equation, since the object would decelerate at the same increasing rate as it initially fell, reaching full stop at a lower altitude than sea-level, depending on friction of air-resistance. Then it would start falling again back in the direction it started, beginning the series of "oscillations" described by 4Dman. Correct?
So, if you had a tunnel through the center of the Earth, you could fly most of the way through it by just falling through toward the other side and catching hold of something before falling backward in the direction you came?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It goes away with the inverse square rule after mass stops. |
But does mass really ever "stop" with increasing altitude? I read that there is no clear boundary between the atmosphere and outerspace. It is a continuous gradiant of decreasing density/pressure.
So if dilation is great at the center of the planet, because of decreasing gravity, and it is great in outer space, because of decreasing gravity, then there should logically be some point in between the center and outer space where it stops increasing and starts decreasing again.
What would determine this point? It must have to do with the density of matter, because less dense matter, such as atmosphere adds mass below you, as you increase altitude, at a rate less than your distance is increasing. So probably the point where gravity/dilation gradiates from increasing to decreasing is sea level, since this is where the atmosphere starts. Did I answer my own question?
So, if I was good at setting up math equations, I could make one that takes into account the acceleration rate of gravity decreasing linearly as an object falls through a hollow tunnel through the Earth. The velocity of the object would start accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and continue to accelerate at a decreasing rate until it reached the center, where its momentum, based on the maximum velocity it had reached, would propel it upward toward the surface on the other side of the tunnel. Then, the distance it would travel upward toward the surface could be predicted using the same equation, since the object would decelerate at the same increasing rate as it initially fell, reaching full stop at a lower altitude than sea-level, depending on friction of air-resistance. Then it would start falling again back in the direction it started, beginning the series of "oscillations" described by 4Dman. Correct?
So, if you had a tunnel through the center of the Earth, you could fly most of the way through it by just falling through toward the other side and catching hold of something before falling backward in the direction you came?
The dilation reduces until there is other mass. There might be a limit to the smallest dilation. That might be beyond our universe.
Wouldn't dilation be relative to the mass and distance of the next significant body, i.e. "the next closest mass?" So, for example, in the center of the Earth, dilation of space would be determined by the distance from the sun, or rather the position within the solar system, to the extent that the entire body of matter orbiting the sun acts as a concerted body of matter with integrated gravitation.
Likewise, at the center of the sun, dilation would be relative to the gravitation of the galaxy, etc. etc. So if the universe is finite, there is an ultimate center with absolute dilation, and if it is infinite, every gravitational center is a point within another, larger mass-complex. I.e. galaxies forming galaxies in galaxies to infinity. Does big-bang theory contradict this by postulating a finite quantity of matter/energy/space in the universe?
As you see, 4D fails to account for the behavior of gravity. At the center of a planet, gravity has to be zero, because gravity is a force and a force has to have a direction, and 4D fails to tell us which direction that force should be. But 4D fails to be taken seriously, not because he is wrong, but because he is not even capable of being merely wrong. His ideas don't connect with the universe that is known and they point at no future experiments to be done.
A little historical excursion into what is known about gravity might shed some light.
Empirically, if a small body, unaffected by air resistance falls near the surface of the earth through 3 equal time periods, in the second time period it falls 3 times as much as in the first, and in the third period it falls 5 times as much as in the first. Galileo established this ratio of 1:3:5 and from it we now say that the distance of a body which starts at rest and falls near the Earth's surface is about -½g(Δt)².
About this time, Kepler was solving the motion of Mars in the sky and determined that the orbits of the planets looked like ellipses and each ellipse had one of it's two focii at the Sun, and that the planets sped up near the sun and got slower away from the sun, such that a line between the sun and a certain planet would sweep out equal areas in equal times, and that the size of the orbits of the planets and the time they needed to go around the Sun was given by a simple power law.
Newton gave us the equations of motion for a body with constant force as s = ½a(Δt)² + v₀Δt +s₀ and v = aΔt + v₀. And Newton defined F = ma. So in the absence of force there is an absence of acceleration, and v is constant.
So from Galileo's experiments, we conclude a = -g (or 9.81 m/s² in the downward direction).
But down in Australia is (famously) not the same direction as down in England. So this "constant" is an illusion caused by the smallness of laboratories compared with the radius of the Earth. And since it is not constant, then it is possible that some observation of how it is not constant will allow one to describe it better.
Newton turned his attention to the heavens, and Kepler's discovery. While constant acceleration gives the simple expressions above, Newton figured out if all the force on a body originates in a straight line from a given point, then a line between that point and the body will sweep out equal areas in equal times. So Kepler's celestial discovery was consistent with Newton's description of Galileo's terrestrial experiments. The fact that Kepler's orbits are ellipses and are fixed in orientation suggested that the acceleration in the direction of the Sun got stronger in inverse proportion to the square of the distance to the sun. And since the simple power-law was found by Kepler, this let Newton demonstrate that exactly one law controlled all the planet's orbits: F ∝ m/r² in the direction of the Sun for all the planets, throughout the solar system.
But Newton knew that in terrestrial experiments forces on bodies in a closed system were balanced. If A put a force on B, then B put an equal and opposite force on A. So it seemed reasonable that the planets which were pulled in the direction of the Sun were being pulled by the Sun and that the Sun was pulled by them an equal amount. naturally a bigger planet would have to pull the sun more to balance out, all other things being equal. So the acceleration of the Sun should be a ∝ ∑ r̂ m/r². But the two forces are part and parcel of the same phenomenon, it would be simpler to write this as F ∝ Mm/r². Adding in a constant of proportionality and the distance, we get F = -r̂ GMm/r² as the theory for the solar system.
But Newton asked himself why must this law only apply to the solar system. What if it were a universal law, and applied to all matter everywhere.
It it were a universal law, then Newton's Shell Theorem showed the gravity of any spherically symmetric object would on the outside look like all the force came from the center of the sphere with the total mass of the sphere. So that the force on the Earth's surface would be "down" and roughly constant. In which case, if the moon were the right distance away, it would describe an ellipse about the Earth with a period of one lunar month. Hurray.
But Newton didn't publish his idea since the astronomer's of his day told him the Moon was at the wrong distance. When they found a mistake and published the new distance, it matched Newton's theory. And so the principle of Universal Gravitation -- that all mass pulls on all mass everywhere came to light of human discovery in the seventeenth century.
It corresponded to what people knew about gravity and the motion of celestial bodies, and it made predictions:
* The moon was the correct distance from the Earth
* High tide happens twice a day, and is a function of the position of the Sun and Moon
* Tiny corrections to Kepler's laws are caused by the pull of planets on each other.
* Comets may move like ellipses, parabolas or hyperbolas
* Planets are necessarily roundish
* It is possible to put a body in orbit about the Earth, etc.
Later, Einstein would close the gap between theory and experiment even more with General Relativity which states in part:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/
Remarkably, this statement reproduces Newton's Universal gravitation for small masses moving slowly and is better than Newton for fast objects, light and very heavy objects. In the former case it corresponds to reality, and in those latter cases it makes predictions that also turn out to correspond to reality.
a Acceleration of a body, measured in m/s²
F A force upon a body, measured in N = kg m/s²
G Newton's constant, about 0.0000000000667 N m²/kg²
g Standard acceleration of gravity on the Earth's surface, about 9.81 m/s²
M Large central mass, like that of the Sun or Earth, depending on context, measured in kg
m Mass of a body, like an apple, or a planet or the moon, measured in kg
r The distance of an object from the center of a central body, measured in m
r̂ The direction (as a unit vector) of a object from a central body
s Position of a body, measured in m
s₀ Position of a body at time Δt = 0
Δt Elapsed time, measured in s
v Velocity of a body, measured in m/s
v₀ Velocity of a body at time Δt = 0
A little historical excursion into what is known about gravity might shed some light.
Empirically, if a small body, unaffected by air resistance falls near the surface of the earth through 3 equal time periods, in the second time period it falls 3 times as much as in the first, and in the third period it falls 5 times as much as in the first. Galileo established this ratio of 1:3:5 and from it we now say that the distance of a body which starts at rest and falls near the Earth's surface is about -½g(Δt)².
About this time, Kepler was solving the motion of Mars in the sky and determined that the orbits of the planets looked like ellipses and each ellipse had one of it's two focii at the Sun, and that the planets sped up near the sun and got slower away from the sun, such that a line between the sun and a certain planet would sweep out equal areas in equal times, and that the size of the orbits of the planets and the time they needed to go around the Sun was given by a simple power law.
Newton gave us the equations of motion for a body with constant force as s = ½a(Δt)² + v₀Δt +s₀ and v = aΔt + v₀. And Newton defined F = ma. So in the absence of force there is an absence of acceleration, and v is constant.
So from Galileo's experiments, we conclude a = -g (or 9.81 m/s² in the downward direction).
But down in Australia is (famously) not the same direction as down in England. So this "constant" is an illusion caused by the smallness of laboratories compared with the radius of the Earth. And since it is not constant, then it is possible that some observation of how it is not constant will allow one to describe it better.
Newton turned his attention to the heavens, and Kepler's discovery. While constant acceleration gives the simple expressions above, Newton figured out if all the force on a body originates in a straight line from a given point, then a line between that point and the body will sweep out equal areas in equal times. So Kepler's celestial discovery was consistent with Newton's description of Galileo's terrestrial experiments. The fact that Kepler's orbits are ellipses and are fixed in orientation suggested that the acceleration in the direction of the Sun got stronger in inverse proportion to the square of the distance to the sun. And since the simple power-law was found by Kepler, this let Newton demonstrate that exactly one law controlled all the planet's orbits: F ∝ m/r² in the direction of the Sun for all the planets, throughout the solar system.
But Newton knew that in terrestrial experiments forces on bodies in a closed system were balanced. If A put a force on B, then B put an equal and opposite force on A. So it seemed reasonable that the planets which were pulled in the direction of the Sun were being pulled by the Sun and that the Sun was pulled by them an equal amount. naturally a bigger planet would have to pull the sun more to balance out, all other things being equal. So the acceleration of the Sun should be a ∝ ∑ r̂ m/r². But the two forces are part and parcel of the same phenomenon, it would be simpler to write this as F ∝ Mm/r². Adding in a constant of proportionality and the distance, we get F = -r̂ GMm/r² as the theory for the solar system.
But Newton asked himself why must this law only apply to the solar system. What if it were a universal law, and applied to all matter everywhere.
It it were a universal law, then Newton's Shell Theorem showed the gravity of any spherically symmetric object would on the outside look like all the force came from the center of the sphere with the total mass of the sphere. So that the force on the Earth's surface would be "down" and roughly constant. In which case, if the moon were the right distance away, it would describe an ellipse about the Earth with a period of one lunar month. Hurray.
But Newton didn't publish his idea since the astronomer's of his day told him the Moon was at the wrong distance. When they found a mistake and published the new distance, it matched Newton's theory. And so the principle of Universal Gravitation -- that all mass pulls on all mass everywhere came to light of human discovery in the seventeenth century.
It corresponded to what people knew about gravity and the motion of celestial bodies, and it made predictions:
* The moon was the correct distance from the Earth
* High tide happens twice a day, and is a function of the position of the Sun and Moon
* Tiny corrections to Kepler's laws are caused by the pull of planets on each other.
* Comets may move like ellipses, parabolas or hyperbolas
* Planets are necessarily roundish
* It is possible to put a body in orbit about the Earth, etc.
Later, Einstein would close the gap between theory and experiment even more with General Relativity which states in part:
QUOTE
Given a small ball of freely falling test particles initially at rest with respect to each other, the rate at which it begins to shrink is proportional to its volume times: the energy density at the center of the ball, plus the pressure in the x direction at that point, plus the pressure in the y direction, plus the pressure in the z direction.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/
Remarkably, this statement reproduces Newton's Universal gravitation for small masses moving slowly and is better than Newton for fast objects, light and very heavy objects. In the former case it corresponds to reality, and in those latter cases it makes predictions that also turn out to correspond to reality.
a Acceleration of a body, measured in m/s²
F A force upon a body, measured in N = kg m/s²
G Newton's constant, about 0.0000000000667 N m²/kg²
g Standard acceleration of gravity on the Earth's surface, about 9.81 m/s²
M Large central mass, like that of the Sun or Earth, depending on context, measured in kg
m Mass of a body, like an apple, or a planet or the moon, measured in kg
r The distance of an object from the center of a central body, measured in m
r̂ The direction (as a unit vector) of a object from a central body
s Position of a body, measured in m
s₀ Position of a body at time Δt = 0
Δt Elapsed time, measured in s
v Velocity of a body, measured in m/s
v₀ Velocity of a body at time Δt = 0
light in the tunnel
Its been fun talking with you. rpenner is correct I can only get you in more trouble than it is worth. Go for the math, my ideas are not the same as main stream. I do not believe in the big bang because rotation and gravitational red shift could also give us what we view. My opinion. I believe that space time is real (a form of ether only with motion) and energy is of space and not mass because the photon goes faster than mass. My opinion. I believe the photon is strictly a transferred wave of space time particles and not a particle moving through empty space maintaining "c" and always in ratio with the electron. It my opinion that space time energy keeps them in sync.
Even associating with me is as bad. Its like talking to a crazy person but like I said there are observations and then speculations. Math can work for more than one speculation on the same observation. E-mail if you are interested but remember speculation is just that for me or main stream.
Oh yea, relativity is based on postulates because the mechanics have not been discovered. Some mathematicians believe math to be mechanics. It is not, its relative precision.
rpenner
You are the one who is limiting gravity by definition. The force at the center is attractive. By being at the center you are no longer attracted you become an attractive force. The force is to the center as attraction. I have said this over and over, you haven't listened. Its the most dilated space.
You are the one who is limiting gravity by definition. The force at the center is attractive. By being at the center you are no longer attracted you become an attractive force. The force is to the center as attraction. I have said this over and over, you haven't listened. Its the most dilated space.
But 4D fails to be taken seriously, not because he is wrong, but because he is not even capable of being merely wrong.
I guess that's math for two wrongs don't make a right.
That is because I am following relativity with mechanics. You can be accurate without the need for the precision of math.
I keep asking without an answer from you. Does the wavelength change for light or is it the position where it is detected determine the wave shift due to the positions clock speed? The math would be the same for both and the observed effect would be the same. What say ye main stream?
Its been fun talking with you. rpenner is correct I can only get you in more trouble than it is worth. Go for the math, my ideas are not the same as main stream. I do not believe in the big bang because rotation and gravitational red shift could also give us what we view. My opinion. I believe that space time is real (a form of ether only with motion) and energy is of space and not mass because the photon goes faster than mass. My opinion. I believe the photon is strictly a transferred wave of space time particles and not a particle moving through empty space maintaining "c" and always in ratio with the electron. It my opinion that space time energy keeps them in sync.
Even associating with me is as bad. Its like talking to a crazy person but like I said there are observations and then speculations. Math can work for more than one speculation on the same observation. E-mail if you are interested but remember speculation is just that for me or main stream.
Oh yea, relativity is based on postulates because the mechanics have not been discovered. Some mathematicians believe math to be mechanics. It is not, its relative precision.
rpenner
QUOTE
As you see, 4D fails to account for the behavior of gravity. At the center of a planet, gravity has to be zero, because gravity is a force and a force has to have a direction, and 4D fails to tell us which direction that force should be.
You are the one who is limiting gravity by definition. The force at the center is attractive. By being at the center you are no longer attracted you become an attractive force. The force is to the center as attraction. I have said this over and over, you haven't listened. Its the most dilated space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As you see, 4D fails to account for the behavior of gravity. At the center of a planet, gravity has to be zero, because gravity is a force and a force has to have a direction, and 4D fails to tell us which direction that force should be. |
You are the one who is limiting gravity by definition. The force at the center is attractive. By being at the center you are no longer attracted you become an attractive force. The force is to the center as attraction. I have said this over and over, you haven't listened. Its the most dilated space.
But 4D fails to be taken seriously, not because he is wrong, but because he is not even capable of being merely wrong.
I guess that's math for two wrongs don't make a right.
QUOTE
His ideas don't connect with the universe that is known and they point at no future experiments to be done.
That is because I am following relativity with mechanics. You can be accurate without the need for the precision of math.
I keep asking without an answer from you. Does the wavelength change for light or is it the position where it is detected determine the wave shift due to the positions clock speed? The math would be the same for both and the observed effect would be the same. What say ye main stream?
Im with 4d on the fact that the force of gravity is not zero at the center... that is pretty retarded to think it is imo. If you do think its zero at the center I dont think you can really grasp any concept in physics honestly...
What I read about time dilation as described by Einstein is that two clocks would each appear to go slower from the perspective of the other clock.
How is math going to solve that?
How is math going to solve that?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 30 2009, 09:36 AM)
What I read about time dilation as described by Einstein is that two clocks would each appear to go slower from the perspective of the other clock.
You have a habit of oversimplifying something to the point where it is completely wrong.
Really?
You have a habit of oversimplifying something to the point where it is completely wrong.
QUOTE
How is math going to solve that?
Really?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 01:44 PM)
You have a habit of oversimplifying something to the point where it is completely wrong.
From Wikipedia: "(1) In the case that the observers are in relative uniform motion, and far away from any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock"
From Wikipedia: "(1) In the case that the observers are in relative uniform motion, and far away from any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock"
The charge is fair, since you stripped out the part "in relative motion"
light in the tunnel,
Actually math can explain it very easy because of the finite speed of light. Think of it this way. You take a picture of your clock put it in a ship and take it to the other ship and compare it to theirs that kept ticking and they will view your ships clock to be slower than theirs and visa versa. You have to add in the time it took to compare clocks. Which is the speed of light. Since you are at relative speeds clocks run at the same rate so the only thing you have to add is the distance that light had to travel since you know its speed.
QUOTE
From Wikipedia: "(1) In the case that the observers are in relative uniform motion, and far away from any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock"
Actually math can explain it very easy because of the finite speed of light. Think of it this way. You take a picture of your clock put it in a ship and take it to the other ship and compare it to theirs that kept ticking and they will view your ships clock to be slower than theirs and visa versa. You have to add in the time it took to compare clocks. Which is the speed of light. Since you are at relative speeds clocks run at the same rate so the only thing you have to add is the distance that light had to travel since you know its speed.
No, that would render the effect an illusion based on finite signal propagation. Such illusions exist, but are not the proper subject of relativity theory. Minkowski space is the best geometrical way to see it is not an illusion.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 30 2009, 02:02 PM)
The charge is fair, since you stripped out the part "in relative motion"
I just mentioned the minimum of the idea that I assumed would be necessary to make it recognizable. I don't understand the idea, and I'm all but certain no one anywhere, traveling at any speed, in the universe can meet themselves or someone else at an earlier point in time. I don't even believe that two people could travel away from each other and return to the same point after different durations had passed for both, according to their own clocks.
The photograph from the ship example didn't make sense to me either. Supposedly you just have to add the distances light travels or something like that. I see how if you would travel at the speed of light, the image of your position one light-year behind you would appear as the present, if you had a powerful enough telescope to see that far with such minute detail. But, still, that doesn't mean that time stopped for you. It still took you a year to travel a light-year. And a year also elapsed at your point-of-origin. So it's just an issue of the IMAGE of the clocks, right, not the actual time that has elapsed.
And I don't make the connection of how adding the distances is simple math that explains the theory. A simple formula would give you a ratio of how much time elapsed for one position relative to another traveling away at a given speed. Then, there would be a correction factor for the travel-time of light, so that the ratio would be an ACTUAL comparison of simultaneous times in the two places/clocks.
This is based on the assumption that two places one light-year away from each other are actually occurring simultaneously, even though from either perspective, the other appears through a telescope to be a year behind the present. Time elapses simultaneously for both places, only the images produced by the light they emit travel at the speed of light.
What am I missing?
I just mentioned the minimum of the idea that I assumed would be necessary to make it recognizable. I don't understand the idea, and I'm all but certain no one anywhere, traveling at any speed, in the universe can meet themselves or someone else at an earlier point in time. I don't even believe that two people could travel away from each other and return to the same point after different durations had passed for both, according to their own clocks.
The photograph from the ship example didn't make sense to me either. Supposedly you just have to add the distances light travels or something like that. I see how if you would travel at the speed of light, the image of your position one light-year behind you would appear as the present, if you had a powerful enough telescope to see that far with such minute detail. But, still, that doesn't mean that time stopped for you. It still took you a year to travel a light-year. And a year also elapsed at your point-of-origin. So it's just an issue of the IMAGE of the clocks, right, not the actual time that has elapsed.
And I don't make the connection of how adding the distances is simple math that explains the theory. A simple formula would give you a ratio of how much time elapsed for one position relative to another traveling away at a given speed. Then, there would be a correction factor for the travel-time of light, so that the ratio would be an ACTUAL comparison of simultaneous times in the two places/clocks.
This is based on the assumption that two places one light-year away from each other are actually occurring simultaneously, even though from either perspective, the other appears through a telescope to be a year behind the present. Time elapses simultaneously for both places, only the images produced by the light they emit travel at the speed of light.
What am I missing?
According to relativity theory, you cannot validly say two separated events happen simultaneously without speaking of the observer who considers them so. And that is because another observer at the same place, who is in motion will see them happen one before the other, and a third observer might see them the other way around.
Geometrically, events which are separated by a space-like separation and be transformed into simultaneous events or either ordering by a space-time boost which corresponds closely to an ordinary Euclidean rotation in the plane.
Geometrically, events which are separated by a space-like separation and be transformed into simultaneous events or either ordering by a space-time boost which corresponds closely to an ordinary Euclidean rotation in the plane.
Light in a tunnel,
You are mixing up two different issues. One is two ships side by side or crossing seeing the clock of the different ship running slower and the other is the twin paradox. In the twin paradox it is the metabolism slowing down. No time travel involved.
In the slower clock paradox you need the A^2 + B^2 = C^2. The ships traveling are A^2 the light direction for the ships are B^2 and the light direction for the outside observer would be C^2. No matter what
You are mixing up two different issues. One is two ships side by side or crossing seeing the clock of the different ship running slower and the other is the twin paradox. In the twin paradox it is the metabolism slowing down. No time travel involved.
In the slower clock paradox you need the A^2 + B^2 = C^2. The ships traveling are A^2 the light direction for the ships are B^2 and the light direction for the outside observer would be C^2. No matter what Minkowski space is the best geometrical way to see it is not an illusion.
QUOTE
I just mentioned the minimum of the idea that I assumed would be necessary to make it recognizable. I don't understand the idea, and I'm all but certain no one anywhere, traveling at any speed, in the universe can meet themselves or someone else at an earlier point in time. I don't even believe that two people could travel away from each other and return to the same point after different durations had passed for both, according to their own clocks.
You are mixing up two different issues. One is two ships side by side or crossing seeing the clock of the different ship running slower and the other is the twin paradox. In the twin paradox it is the metabolism slowing down. No time travel involved.
In the slower clock paradox you need the A^2 + B^2 = C^2. The ships traveling are A^2 the light direction for the ships are B^2 and the light direction for the outside observer would be C^2. No matter what
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I just mentioned the minimum of the idea that I assumed would be necessary to make it recognizable. I don't understand the idea, and I'm all but certain no one anywhere, traveling at any speed, in the universe can meet themselves or someone else at an earlier point in time. I don't even believe that two people could travel away from each other and return to the same point after different durations had passed for both, according to their own clocks. |
You are mixing up two different issues. One is two ships side by side or crossing seeing the clock of the different ship running slower and the other is the twin paradox. In the twin paradox it is the metabolism slowing down. No time travel involved.
In the slower clock paradox you need the A^2 + B^2 = C^2. The ships traveling are A^2 the light direction for the ships are B^2 and the light direction for the outside observer would be C^2. No matter what Minkowski space is the best geometrical way to see it is not an illusion.
way you look its the finite speed of light that show each clock as being slower. If you could send the information of your clock instantly they would be the same. Minkowski space uses a block universe where time is a 4th dimension. In that setting time is timeless. If you view time as motion it is not really an illusion that each clock runs slower. It is merely the finite motion of light. You can not send a frozen signal (timeless picture) fast enough before each of the clocks move forward.
Simultaneous in relativity means when the light hits two observers at the same instent not when the event happened. For that you need instantaneous which can never be viewed in our reality.
All you can send is an image.
All you can send is an image.
And I don't make the connection of how adding the distances is simple math that explains the theory. A simple formula would give you a ratio of how much time elapsed for one position relative to another traveling away at a given speed. Then, there would be a correction factor for the travel-time of light, so that the ratio would be an ACTUAL comparison of simultaneous times in the two places/clocks.
Using the A^2 + B^2 = C^2 you can see the photon is traveling the speed of the ship A^2 the view from the ship B^2 and the real speed of light is the combination of the two as C^2. The ship automatically subtracts A^2 when it views the light traveling at B^2. The electrons in the clock automatically subtract A^2 also. So your clock reads light as "c" on the B^2 line. The electrons and photon is confounded with the observation no matter what your speed.
Thats the reality of simultaneity but not instantaneous. If we are viewing 13 billion years and expansion is as suggested, faster than light the instantaneous view is > 26 billion years. But that goes against the big bang theory. So 26 billion years must be timeless Minkowski space which brings us back to 13 billion years. Mathematical disillusion. Isn't math great!
My belief only.
Simultaneous in relativity means when the light hits two observers at the same instent not when the event happened. For that you need instantaneous which can never be viewed in our reality.
QUOTE
So it's just an issue of the IMAGE of the clocks, right, not the actual time that has elapsed.
All you can send is an image.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So it's just an issue of the IMAGE of the clocks, right, not the actual time that has elapsed. |
All you can send is an image.
And I don't make the connection of how adding the distances is simple math that explains the theory. A simple formula would give you a ratio of how much time elapsed for one position relative to another traveling away at a given speed. Then, there would be a correction factor for the travel-time of light, so that the ratio would be an ACTUAL comparison of simultaneous times in the two places/clocks.
Using the A^2 + B^2 = C^2 you can see the photon is traveling the speed of the ship A^2 the view from the ship B^2 and the real speed of light is the combination of the two as C^2. The ship automatically subtracts A^2 when it views the light traveling at B^2. The electrons in the clock automatically subtract A^2 also. So your clock reads light as "c" on the B^2 line. The electrons and photon is confounded with the observation no matter what your speed.
QUOTE
This is based on the assumption that two places one light-year away from each other are actually occurring simultaneously, even though from either perspective, the other appears through a telescope to be a year behind the present. Time elapses simultaneously for both places, only the images produced by the light they emit travel at the speed of light.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
Thats the reality of simultaneity but not instantaneous. If we are viewing 13 billion years and expansion is as suggested, faster than light the instantaneous view is > 26 billion years. But that goes against the big bang theory. So 26 billion years must be timeless Minkowski space which brings us back to 13 billion years. Mathematical disillusion. Isn't math great!
My belief only.
4Dguy,
What does it mean to be "Not Main Stream?"
You seem to think that it means that you are taking an alternate route to the facts.
Do you expect some kind of recognition? How is your "Not Main Stream" approach different from those who believe that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were faked? They are certainly "Not Main Stream."
What does it mean to be "Not Main Stream?"
You seem to think that it means that you are taking an alternate route to the facts.
Do you expect some kind of recognition? How is your "Not Main Stream" approach different from those who believe that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were faked? They are certainly "Not Main Stream."
flyingbuttressman,
Not viewing the current observations with the same speculation. Although relativity is absolutely correct within the confines of relativity.
Not viewing the current observations with the same speculation. Although relativity is absolutely correct within the confines of relativity.
You seem to think that it means that you are taking an alternate route to the facts.
You have shown you have a closed mind by speculating beyond known facts. Alternate speculation for instance I do not believe light changes frequency in a gravity well. The illusion is that it does change frequency. But it is the time dilation where it is detected vs where it was created that produces the shift. 26 billion years vs 13 billion years is a second. 26 billion years is outside of the relativity box due to simultaneity.
Yes I expect to see science recognize a medium of space that controls relativity. No personal recognition many believe as I do.
Yes I expect to see science recognize a medium of space that controls relativity. No personal recognition many believe as I do.
How is your "Not Main Stream" approach different from those who believe that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were faked? They are certainly "Not Main Stream."
Main stream used to believe the earth was flat but not that the moon landings were faked. Main stream changes over the years based on new and novel understandings. To think we know everything and we are correct about everything is foolish. I might not be correct or I might be. That does not in any way threaten main stream as this section is for new ideas as a vision statement. Mathematicians come in and do a feeding frenzy and neg parties but have no vision themselves. Relative simultaneity says the universe is 13 billion years old. Relative instantaneous would suggest the universe is > than 26 billion years old if the speed of expansion is greater than than speed of light. Where do you stand on the actual age?
My belief only
QUOTE
What does it mean to be "Not Main Stream?"
Not viewing the current observations with the same speculation. Although relativity is absolutely correct within the confines of relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What does it mean to be "Not Main Stream?" |
Not viewing the current observations with the same speculation. Although relativity is absolutely correct within the confines of relativity.
You seem to think that it means that you are taking an alternate route to the facts.
You have shown you have a closed mind by speculating beyond known facts. Alternate speculation for instance I do not believe light changes frequency in a gravity well. The illusion is that it does change frequency. But it is the time dilation where it is detected vs where it was created that produces the shift. 26 billion years vs 13 billion years is a second. 26 billion years is outside of the relativity box due to simultaneity.
QUOTE
Do you expect some kind of recognition?
Yes I expect to see science recognize a medium of space that controls relativity. No personal recognition many believe as I do.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you expect some kind of recognition? |
Yes I expect to see science recognize a medium of space that controls relativity. No personal recognition many believe as I do.
How is your "Not Main Stream" approach different from those who believe that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were faked? They are certainly "Not Main Stream."
Main stream used to believe the earth was flat but not that the moon landings were faked. Main stream changes over the years based on new and novel understandings. To think we know everything and we are correct about everything is foolish. I might not be correct or I might be. That does not in any way threaten main stream as this section is for new ideas as a vision statement. Mathematicians come in and do a feeding frenzy and neg parties but have no vision themselves. Relative simultaneity says the universe is 13 billion years old. Relative instantaneous would suggest the universe is > than 26 billion years old if the speed of expansion is greater than than speed of light. Where do you stand on the actual age?
My belief only
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 1 2009, 10:21 AM)
Main stream used to believe the earth was flat but not that the moon landings were faked.
You seem to forget that science and the church are two different things. No scientist since the age of the Greeks has claimed that the Earth is flat.
Unfounded assumptions are replaced with facts. Incomplete theories are amended. Newton's theories of motion were not thrown out, they were amended.
Unfounded assumptions are replaced with facts. Incomplete theories are amended. Newton's theories of motion were not thrown out, they were amended.
I might not be correct or I might be.
You have been shown to be incorrect on numerous occasions.
There are numerous mathematics-based theories about the nature of the universe, including String Theory. You seem to forget that idle speculation produces few results. Successful theories are the result of years if not decades of hard work. You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
There are numerous mathematics-based theories about the nature of the universe, including String Theory. You seem to forget that idle speculation produces few results. Successful theories are the result of years if not decades of hard work. You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
Relative simultaneity says the universe is 13 billion years old. Relative instantaneous would suggest the universe is > than 26 billion years old if the speed of expansion is greater than than speed of light. Where do you stand on the actual age?
a ) Your dichotomy asks me to choose between your theory and a straw man. I choose neither.
b ) The age of the universe is calculated by extrapolating the rate of expansion with the current density of the universe backward until density reaches infinity. I'm pretty sure that all known factors have been considered.
You seem to forget that science and the church are two different things. No scientist since the age of the Greeks has claimed that the Earth is flat.
QUOTE
Main stream changes over the years based on new and novel understandings. To think we know everything and we are correct about everything is foolish.
Unfounded assumptions are replaced with facts. Incomplete theories are amended. Newton's theories of motion were not thrown out, they were amended.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Main stream changes over the years based on new and novel understandings. To think we know everything and we are correct about everything is foolish. |
Unfounded assumptions are replaced with facts. Incomplete theories are amended. Newton's theories of motion were not thrown out, they were amended.
I might not be correct or I might be.
You have been shown to be incorrect on numerous occasions.
QUOTE
That does not in any way threaten main stream as this section is for new ideas as a vision statement. Mathematicians come in and do a feeding frenzy and neg parties but have no vision themselves.
There are numerous mathematics-based theories about the nature of the universe, including String Theory. You seem to forget that idle speculation produces few results. Successful theories are the result of years if not decades of hard work. You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That does not in any way threaten main stream as this section is for new ideas as a vision statement. Mathematicians come in and do a feeding frenzy and neg parties but have no vision themselves. |
There are numerous mathematics-based theories about the nature of the universe, including String Theory. You seem to forget that idle speculation produces few results. Successful theories are the result of years if not decades of hard work. You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
Relative simultaneity says the universe is 13 billion years old. Relative instantaneous would suggest the universe is > than 26 billion years old if the speed of expansion is greater than than speed of light. Where do you stand on the actual age?
a ) Your dichotomy asks me to choose between your theory and a straw man. I choose neither.
b ) The age of the universe is calculated by extrapolating the rate of expansion with the current density of the universe backward until density reaches infinity. I'm pretty sure that all known factors have been considered.
flyingbuttressman,
It was your example of how far to go back to main stream.
It was your example of how far to go back to main stream.
Unfounded assumptions are replaced with facts. Incomplete theories are amended. Newton's theories of motion were not thrown out, they were amended.
And within the confines of relativity simultaneity the corrections were legitimate. But relativity of simultaneity produces a fixed picture of the universe at roughly 13 billion years. Simultaneity is not when the event happened, Its when the light reaches you that it is simultaneous. Do you believe the Universe just stopped while the light took 13 billion years to reach us? That is your straw man.
I have been shown that my speculation is not the same as main stream. being incorrect is something for the future.
I have been shown that my speculation is not the same as main stream. being incorrect is something for the future.
There are numerous mathematics-based theories about the nature of the universe, including String Theory. You seem to forget that idle speculation produces few results. Successful theories are the result of years if not decades of hard work. You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
Where do you get your facts that you can not come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet? Just because you dont think Einstein full of crap? He might have done his best thinking on the toilet.
No 13 billion years was an option that main stream agrees with. You had that option.
No 13 billion years was an option that main stream agrees with. You had that option.
The age of the universe is calculated by extrapolating the rate of expansion with the current density of the universe backward until density reaches infinity. I'm pretty sure that all known factors have been considered.
Your pretty sure gives you faith in the answer that the current knowledge is enough to know that all mass was once just a seed to the Universe. WOW!
You have security in numbers just like a church does.
My belief only.
QUOTE
You seem to forget that science and the church are two different things. No scientist since the age of the Greeks has claimed that the Earth is flat.
It was your example of how far to go back to main stream.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You seem to forget that science and the church are two different things. No scientist since the age of the Greeks has claimed that the Earth is flat. |
It was your example of how far to go back to main stream.
Unfounded assumptions are replaced with facts. Incomplete theories are amended. Newton's theories of motion were not thrown out, they were amended.
And within the confines of relativity simultaneity the corrections were legitimate. But relativity of simultaneity produces a fixed picture of the universe at roughly 13 billion years. Simultaneity is not when the event happened, Its when the light reaches you that it is simultaneous. Do you believe the Universe just stopped while the light took 13 billion years to reach us? That is your straw man.
QUOTE
You have been shown to be incorrect on numerous occasions.
I have been shown that my speculation is not the same as main stream. being incorrect is something for the future.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have been shown to be incorrect on numerous occasions. |
I have been shown that my speculation is not the same as main stream. being incorrect is something for the future.
There are numerous mathematics-based theories about the nature of the universe, including String Theory. You seem to forget that idle speculation produces few results. Successful theories are the result of years if not decades of hard work. You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
Where do you get your facts that you can not come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet? Just because you dont think Einstein full of crap? He might have done his best thinking on the toilet.
QUOTE
Your dichotomy asks me to choose between your theory and a straw man. I choose neither.
No 13 billion years was an option that main stream agrees with. You had that option.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your dichotomy asks me to choose between your theory and a straw man. I choose neither. |
No 13 billion years was an option that main stream agrees with. You had that option.
The age of the universe is calculated by extrapolating the rate of expansion with the current density of the universe backward until density reaches infinity. I'm pretty sure that all known factors have been considered.
Your pretty sure gives you faith in the answer that the current knowledge is enough to know that all mass was once just a seed to the Universe. WOW!
You have security in numbers just like a church does.
My belief only.
If I am understanding relativity right, the image of something (traveling as photons) is taken as the thing itself, because that is the empirical aspect of that thing present in the frame of the observer. So an observer looking at a clock is not described as seeing the clock, but rather as seeing the image of the clock, which has traveled from the clock to the observer. So the clock and the observer are not occurring simultaneously. Rather they are occurring in separate frames with the clock separated from the image of the observer and vice versa by the time it takes light to travel between the two. Does this sound right?
What I would call "positivism," normally, would be science that looks at matter via light, without considering light/photons/images as part of the material universe studied by positivism. If light is treated as a thing that travels through space, non-instantaneously, the light can be added to the rest of the matter being studied, and treated as such, resulting in another positivism in which data of physical matter is dependent on the behavior or photon 'matter,' which itself has behavior that must be taken into account to understand the effect this behavior has on the study of the physical matter (presumed) to be represented by it. This is further complicated by the assumption that physical matter and gravity are affecting the behavior of the light that is taken to represent the same matter that is affecting it.
My impression is that the inability to establish the assumption of fixity for either light or matter independent of the other has made absolute observation and measurement impossible. This practically requires you to deal with qualitative concepts to make sense of the mutual interdependence of light and matter, with no medium for observing the behavior of light other than the light itself, as it appears as the result of its own behavior, as influenced by matter, which is only observable according to the light-images it's gravity manipulates.
Is my language overexagerating the messiness of this interdependence?
What I would call "positivism," normally, would be science that looks at matter via light, without considering light/photons/images as part of the material universe studied by positivism. If light is treated as a thing that travels through space, non-instantaneously, the light can be added to the rest of the matter being studied, and treated as such, resulting in another positivism in which data of physical matter is dependent on the behavior or photon 'matter,' which itself has behavior that must be taken into account to understand the effect this behavior has on the study of the physical matter (presumed) to be represented by it. This is further complicated by the assumption that physical matter and gravity are affecting the behavior of the light that is taken to represent the same matter that is affecting it.
My impression is that the inability to establish the assumption of fixity for either light or matter independent of the other has made absolute observation and measurement impossible. This practically requires you to deal with qualitative concepts to make sense of the mutual interdependence of light and matter, with no medium for observing the behavior of light other than the light itself, as it appears as the result of its own behavior, as influenced by matter, which is only observable according to the light-images it's gravity manipulates.
Is my language overexagerating the messiness of this interdependence?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 02:34 PM)
You can't paint a masterpiece in one evening, and you can't come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet.
Whilst it's mind-slaughteringly apparent, 4-D's got a special talent for generating conjecture akin to that which *sits within the toilet.
* possibly a freudian typo of the letter omission variety.
Whilst it's mind-slaughteringly apparent, 4-D's got a special talent for generating conjecture akin to that which *sits within the toilet.
* possibly a freudian typo of the letter omission variety.
light in the tunnel,
I understood it quite well. You can only view things relatively.
I understood it quite well. You can only view things relatively.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 1 2009, 11:09 AM)
Where do you get your facts that you can not come up with a scientific theory while sitting on the toilet? Just because you dont think Einstein full of crap? He might have done his best thinking on the toilet.
He didn't. He did his best thinking with a pencil, paper and a slide-rule.
Congrats, you win the "dumbest quote of the day" award.
He didn't. He did his best thinking with a pencil, paper and a slide-rule.
QUOTE
You have security in numbers just like a church does.
Congrats, you win the "dumbest quote of the day" award.
flyingbuttressman,
I did not know you knew him personally.
I did not know you knew him personally.
QUOTE
You have security in numbers just like a church does.
Congrats, you win the "dumbest quote of the day" award.
From you that does not mean much.
QUOTE
He didn't. He did his best thinking with a pencil, paper and a slide-rule.
I did not know you knew him personally.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He didn't. He did his best thinking with a pencil, paper and a slide-rule. |
I did not know you knew him personally.
QUOTE
You have security in numbers just like a church does.
Congrats, you win the "dumbest quote of the day" award.
From you that does not mean much.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 1 2009, 04:26 PM)
I did not know you knew him personally.
Do you actually know anything about Einstein beyond E=MC^2 and relativity?
Do you actually know anything about Einstein beyond E=MC^2 and relativity?
flyingbuttressman
Lets see he was a patten clerk and spent allot of time at Princeton. He left his brain to science. He failed a math course. He was forced to concede his belief in a static Universe. He died in the fifties. He butted heads with a few of his piers. But no where have I been privy to his toiletry habits as you profess to be.
Lets see he was a patten clerk and spent allot of time at Princeton. He left his brain to science. He failed a math course. He was forced to concede his belief in a static Universe. He died in the fifties. He butted heads with a few of his piers. But no where have I been privy to his toiletry habits as you profess to be.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 1 2009, 06:21 PM)
Lets see he was a patten clerk and spent allot of time at Princeton. He left his brain to science. He failed a math course. He was forced to concede his belief in a static Universe. He died in the fifties. He butted heads with a few of his piers. But no where have I been privy to his toiletry habits as you profess to be.
I can't rule out the toilet, but I know that most of his breakthroughs involved the proactive use of mathematics. If he could do math in the bathroom, then that's his business. You don't seem to grasp the concept of theoretical DEVELOPMENT. Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. I don't see pontificating anywhere in that pie chart. You seem to think that it's 1% inspiration, 99% pontification.
I can't rule out the toilet, but I know that most of his breakthroughs involved the proactive use of mathematics. If he could do math in the bathroom, then that's his business. You don't seem to grasp the concept of theoretical DEVELOPMENT. Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. I don't see pontificating anywhere in that pie chart. You seem to think that it's 1% inspiration, 99% pontification.
flyingbuttressman
First you speak for Einstein now your speaking for me. WOW!
First you speak for Einstein now your speaking for me. WOW!
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 1 2009, 09:32 PM)
First you speak for Einstein now your speaking for me. WOW!
Don't worry, it was easy.
Don't worry, it was easy.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 1 2009, 10:21 PM)
flyingbuttressman
Lets see he was a patten clerk and spent allot of time at Princeton. He left his brain to science. He failed a math course. He was forced to concede his belief in a static Universe. He died in the fifties. He butted heads with a few of his piers. But no where have I been privy to his toiletry habits as you profess to be.
My hypothesis would be that Einstein did NOT spend time on the toilet thinking. Supposedly all his clothes matched so he wouldn't have to spend time picking out outfits. He probably held everything in until the exact perfect moment to take a seat and let it go. He probably envisioned this moment akin to a planetary alignment or the perigee of gravitational attraction between his former food and the center of the Earth.
Lets see he was a patten clerk and spent allot of time at Princeton. He left his brain to science. He failed a math course. He was forced to concede his belief in a static Universe. He died in the fifties. He butted heads with a few of his piers. But no where have I been privy to his toiletry habits as you profess to be.
My hypothesis would be that Einstein did NOT spend time on the toilet thinking. Supposedly all his clothes matched so he wouldn't have to spend time picking out outfits. He probably held everything in until the exact perfect moment to take a seat and let it go. He probably envisioned this moment akin to a planetary alignment or the perigee of gravitational attraction between his former food and the center of the Earth.
light in the tunnel
LOL
LOL
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.