The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do We UNderstand Einstein  (Read 19629 times)

Offline amrit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
  • Power of science is uncompromised search for truth
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« on: 31/05/2004 23:05:34 »
[:I]Do We Understand Einstein ?

Amrit Sorli, Kusum Sorli, SpaceLife Institute,
Podere Petraiole, 53012 Chiusdino (SI), Italy
www.directscientificexperience.com
spacelife@libero.it

Abstract
In GR time represents a fourth dimension of space. In the universe one can observe only physical space and material change running into it. There is no experimental evidence of space and time being divided. One can conclude that space and time are one physical reality. This approach brings new view in understanding of gravitation, evolution of galaxies and of life.
Key words:  time, space, gravitation,  EPR experiment, dynamic equilibrium,  entropy, life
   
   Introduction    In Newtonian physics, physical time is an independent quantity (absolute time), running uniformly throughout the entire cosmic space (absolute space). For Newton’s definition of time there is no experimental evidence. In the universe we can observe only material change running in physical space. Einstein was fully aware of this fact. He linked time to space. In GR space-time is the “arena” in which universe run. So with clocks we do not measure time, we measure only duration and numerical order of irreversible change. Change A transforms into change B, B transforms into C and so on. When B is in existence A does not exist anymore, when C is in existence B does not exist anymore.
   On the basis of elementary perception (sight) one can conclude that time is an integral part of physical space in which irreversible change run. The question arises: Why is it that irreversible change is experienced as past, present and future? The answer is obtained by analysing the scientific way of experiencing. The human senses perceive a stream of irreversible change. Once elaborated by the mind, the stream of change is experienced through the Newton concept of linear time that exists only as a part of the human mind. Today science still understands time as Newton did. It seems that Einstein’s fusion of time and space is not fully accepted yet.
   Let's look at the relationship between physical change and concept of Newton’s time by carrying out an experiment. Take a ball and allow it to roll down an incline. You can perceive only the movement of the ball in space, but you experience that the ball has also moved through time. How come? Perception passes first through liner concept of Newton’s time and then the experience occurs. That's why you experience the movement of the ball in time. But on the basis of elementary perception (sight) one can only state  that the ball has changed position in physical space. (1)
    We are growing old in physical space only and not in time in sense of Newton, mother and son are born in the same physical space. Numerical order of mother birth is N, of son birth is N+1, of grand child is N+2. In the physical space there is no past, present and future, they belong to the linear concept of Newton’s time. That why there is no possible to travel into past.
   In formulas of physics symbol ( t ) means duration of change in physical space. This view brings new insights regarding gravitation, cosmology and evolution of life.
      
   
   Gravitation    Einstein emphasizes in his work (1918-1930) that space has its physical properties; gravitational force was attributed to space. He says: “No space or portion of space (can be conceived of) without gravitational potentials; for these give it its metrical properties without which is not thinkable at all. The existence of the gravitational field is directly bound up with the existence of the space”. (2) According to this understanding the "curvature of space-time" in GR is only a mathematical description of physical space and can not carry gravitational force. To carry gravitational force physical space must have some physical properties, a certain "density" that corresponds to the density of matter. “Density of physical space” is a missing element of GR. Introducing it, GR fully explains gravitation and dynamics between matter and space. The denser the matter, the denser the physical space. The "density of physical space" can be  described in GR with the curvature of space and with the gravitational acceleration (on the Earth 9,8 m/ss). The "areas" of higher density attract each other. Gravitational force is immediate, it acts directly via physical space. For gravitational force no travel of particle or wave is needed. Other three basic forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear force) are carried by some particle or wave that is moving through physical space. For example: duration of the movement of light wave from the Sun to the Earth is around 8 minutes. The light does not travel in time, only through the physical space. Duration of this travel we measure with clocks.

   #65532;
   
      
   Above interpretation of gravitation resolves the contradiction that brought up hypothetical gravitational fields which should propagate faster than light: "Modern physics has introduced the concept of “fields”, such as charge around a particle or gravitation around a mass. When the particle or mass moves, its entire field moves with it. However, this cannot happen acausally. For example, the mass may cause adjacent parts of its field to move, which in turn move more distant parts, and so on. This is what happens in any rigid body when one part of it is pushed: a pressure wave propagates through it, conveying the push to all parts of the rigid body. Therefore, fields are not a form of action at a distance. The fact that gravitational fields are seen to update faster than light can propagate is an argument for faster-than-light propagation of forces, not an argument for action at a distance". (3) The hypothetical gravitational waves violate the principle of “constant velocity of light”. According to gravitation presented here no hypothetical gravitational waves are needed to carry gravitational force. Gravitation is carried by density of physical space. Loinger considers that GR does not allow existence of gravitational waves. (4)
   The speed of change depends on the density of physical space. More physical space is dense, more the speed is slowing down. Living on the Moon one would grow old faster than on the Earth.    
   
   EPR  Experiment   This experiment shows that two quantum A and quantum B which have been together and than send in the space in opposite directions "know" for each other in an instant moment. When the spin of particle A is unilaterally changed, an astounding experimental result is that the other (B) particle’s spin “immediately” flips of its own accord.  Furthermore, the means by which the information of the first spin flip is transferred to the second particle (so that it too can flip) is information which is required to travel faster than the speed of light. While the information transfer may not be simultaneous (limits on the experimental apparatus prohibits any proof of simultaneity), it nevertheless -- within the time frame of the Planck constant or speeds in excess of the speed of light -- must connects the two particles in some fundamental manner.
   One could predict that in the EPR experiment the information medium between two particles is physical space itself. As gravitational force between Sun and Earth also information between particle A and particle B is immediate. Information between particle A and B is not carried by some article or wave, it is carried by  physical space itself.


 #65532;

   Physical Space and Matter  With the density of matter and density of space can be also explained astronomical observations which show that the Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) continuously emits fresh gases. These gases then form stars and planets. When the stars get "old" they shrink and the gravitational force of the AGN sucks them back in. In the AGN the density of space is so strong that the energy of matter disintegrates back into the energy of space. This keeps the density of space in the AGN high, so it continuously emits fresh gases. The transformation "matter--space--matter--space--matter" is permanent, the AGN  is the "rejuvenator" of matter.  Un the universe "singularities"  where matter "disappears" do no exist, in AGN matter transforms into space and vice versa.
   In the galaxy matter and space are in dynamic equilibrium. Dynamic equili.brium  (DE) is a basic universal law. DE between space and matter is recreating the universe, DE between gravitational and tangential forces make it possible for planets to orbit around the sun, for the sun to orbit around the centre of the galaxy, the water circulation "ocean--evaporation--clouds--rain--rivers--ocean" is in DE, life chains of fauna and flora are in DE.
   The majority of cosmologists still consider the "red shift" as proof of the expansion of the universe, but they accept that part of the "red shift" is a result of the light "escaping" out of the strong gravitational field of the galaxies from which it comes to reach Earth. Bolognesi and Van Flandern view is that the red shift is not proof for an expanding universe, moreover several discoveries confirm the opposite. (5,6)
   
   The Entropy of the Galaxy and the Evolution of Life   The galaxy is a "perpetual" system. It does not need energy to move with. It cannot be compared to the machines created by man where "for some work to be done some energy is needed". The second law of therodynamics cannot be applied to describe universal dynamics. It is valid only for machines. The total energy of the universe and of a single galaxy sums to zero.  An increase of the entropy of gas being produced in AGN does not influence a total entropy of the galaxy.  
   Also for the movement of an stellar object no energy is needed. For example the force of attraction between physical spaces of the Earth and Moon is equal to the centripetal force which pulls the Moon from the Earth [ F attraction (Fa) = F centripetal (Fc) ].  For the movement of the Moon around the Earth no energy is needed [ Fa - Fc = 0 ]. By moving the stars and planets the universe does not get "tired". Movement is its intrinsic property.
   In the self-renewing galaxy the evolution of life is a consistent part of the evolution of the galaxy. It can be understood as a process that is continuously developing towards a total entropy of the galaxy that sums to zero. The relationship between life as a continuous negentropic process and the zero entropy of the galaxy can be described with the following diagram:                            


#65532;

X  stands for a total entropy of the galaxy that sums to zero
Y  stands for the evolution of life
Z  stands for increasing of the entropy of matter
R stands  for the renewing process of "old" stars into fresh gas in AGN
A stands for creation of stars
B stands for creation of planets
D stands for old stars
C-E stands for chemical evolution
E-F stands for biological evolution
F--     stands for evolution of conscious being
   
   According to this understanding evolution of life on the planet Earth is part of the evolution of the galaxy "Milky Way". This idea is supported by the discovery of basic organic molecules necessary for the development of life in the whole of observable space. Universal space is in the phase of chemical evolution which on the Earth and similar planets has continued into biological evolution. Astronomers discover many planets similar to the Earth. Life could also develop there. All over our galaxy and also in other galaxies life is developing towards conscious species. Probably we are not alone in this vast universe. (7)
   Several experiments confirm that functioning of living organism is related to the gravitational field, which means to the physical space. Spaceflight induces a cephalad redistribution of fluid volume and blood flow within the human body and space motion sickness, which is a problem during first few days of spaceflight, could be related to these changes in fluid status and in blood flow of the cerebrum and vestibular system. (8)
   In weightlessness there is a decreased activity of spinal ganglia neurons of the hypothalamic nuclei producing arginine, vasopressin and growth hormone releasing factor. Structural changes of the somatosensory cortex and spinal ganglia suggest a decreased afferent flow to the somatosensory cortex in microgravity. The results characterise the mechanisms of structural adaptation to a decreased afferent flow in microgravity by the neurons in the hemisphere cortex and brain stem nuclei. So, under microgravity there is a neuron hypoactivity. (9)  
    Penrose and Hameroff's research suggests that the gravitational force of physical space is a basis for human consciousness: the force of quantum gravity acting on the mass of neurones within the brain may be responsible for the emergence of consciousness. The process is fundamentally related to the influence of quantum gravity on microtubule networks within the neurones. (10,11)
   Experiment carried out at the University of Lubiana, Slovenia in 1987-1988 with Californian worms (Latin name is: Lumbricus Teresticus) shows that the weight of living Californian Worms is greater than of the same dead ones; gravitational force is stronger on the living worms than on the same dead ones. This means that physical space is more dense around a living organism than around a dead one. Physical space plays an active role in the functioning of the living organisms. This means  that  also in the evolution of life physical space presents an active component (12).  
   
   Conclusions   Scientific understanding of time and space should be revised on the basis of elementary perception. As there is no experimental evidence of time existing as a physical reality in which change run, this idea should be not present any more in modern scientific thought. Scientist should trust more his/her eyes than his mind.     

References:
 
1.Sorli A. (2004). Physical Time And Psychological Time.
Frontier Perspectives, Vol 13, Num 1
2.  Einstein A. (1920). Ather and Relativitatstheorie. J. Springer, Berlin, 4.
3. Van Flandern T. (2004). Physics Has Its Principles.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
4. Loinger A. (2004). Non-Existence of Gravitational Waves The Stage Of The Theoretical Discovery,  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0312/0312149.pdf
5. Bolognesi A. (2004). Cosmologia al bivio, Episteme, Perugia, Italy, Number 8,   http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8-bologn.htm
6. Van Flandern T. (2004). Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
7. Sorli A., Sorli K. (2004). Evolution As A Universal Process.
Frontier Perspectives, Vol 13, Num 1
8.US Army (1993). Madigan Army Medical Centre, Tacoma, Washington “ Cerebral blood velocity and other cardiovascular responses to 2 days head down tilt. Journal of Applied Physiology. 74 (1): 319-25.
9. Krasnov IB.(1994). Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia. “Gravitational neuromorphology”,
Advances in Space Biology and Medicine 4: 85-110.
10. Penrose R. (1994). 'Shadows of the Mind' (Oxford), 377-391.
11. Hameroff S. (1994). 'Quantum Coherence in Microtubules: A Neural Basis for Emergent Consciousness?'  Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (1), 91-118.
12. Sorli A.(2001). Additional Roundness of Space-Time and Unknown Vacuum Energies in Living Organisms, Frontier Perspectives. 10 (2)








 

Offline Broca

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #1 on: 05/06/2004 02:54:35 »
Wow eh?  What a well written and documented post! I see that many people have read your post but no one has replied to it. I guess I will be the brave one and answer your question.

yes...yes we do.
Thank you.
 

Offline OmnipotentOne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #2 on: 08/06/2004 22:30:26 »
Wow, i wish i could write like that.  That must have tooken you a while, and to get a fresh debate going just for the heck of it....No, no we dont [:p]
 

Offline sprite190582

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #3 on: 06/07/2004 13:24:37 »
I'm lost but it was very interesting I think. Wish I coul write like that and understand what I had written!

Alex
 

Offline PETStech

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #4 on: 31/05/2010 19:40:20 »
Quote
The majority of cosmologists still consider the "red shift" as proof of the expansion of the universe, but they accept that part of the "red shift" is a result of the light "escaping" out of the strong gravitational field of the galaxies from which it comes to reach Earth. Bolognesi and Van Flandern view is that the red shift is not proof for an expanding universe, moreover several discoveries confirm the opposite.

Halton Arp certainly took a lot of flack and paid a big price for challenging the red shift evidence for the Big Bang Theory. See his website < newbielink:http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred [nonactive]> and his book, Seeing Red, < newbielink:http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905 [nonactive]> for details.

- Tom
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #5 on: 01/06/2010 13:04:54 »
Wow eh?  What a well written and documented post!
You clearly have a very, very low standard for writing and documentation.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #6 on: 01/06/2010 13:23:43 »
Amrit, you really should just post the reference to your paper and I see there are plenty on the web. Here is one...

www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-4/commentary6-4.pdf

 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #7 on: 01/06/2010 13:38:53 »
Your comparison of a light ray speed with Gravity is strange and misleading. If you compare the light to a gravitational wave or electrostatic field to gravity then this would be better. Gravitational fields do not propagate faster than light as far as I know - where did you get that idea? Your whole criticism is based on a false understanding.

I will say this again - your basic philosophical concept is worth pursuing but before you start trying to tear down more conventional physics, you need to get a better understanding of it. At least get some better physicists to peer review your work.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #8 on: 01/06/2010 13:40:54 »
You misunderstand the EPR experiment too. I give up.
 

Offline katesisco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #9 on: 11/05/2011 18:27:25 »
well, H Arp's while holes (AGN) release compressed matter as burps according to Rochester U, GB.  And it seems to me the ancient Egyptians got it right.  The Abyss is nothingness, no charcteristics, Nun.  The creative principle, Atun, parts the abyss to push out the sun.  This is almost word for word according to the Rochester U release.  He/She breaths out creating Ma at, breaths in creating Shu.  See the twists here of the Birkeland current?  Shu is space and next is Tefnut, moisture.  This is exactly what Halton Arp's while holes, AGN, create:  water.
Masers are now quite the thing.  See: 2008 release water drops act like black holes. 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #10 on: 01/06/2011 08:47:18 »
"If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two.

There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.

On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type." is the full quote Amrit :)

And that suits me well.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do We UNderstand Einstein
« Reply #10 on: 01/06/2011 08:47:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums