Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: imatfaal on 19/01/2012 10:19:52
-
Mike - please stop with "light travels instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" - this is not accepted science. It is an extension of SR (to an impossible inertial light speed frame) that is completely against the postulates of SR itself. It is quite acceptable in its own thread (and it is fascinating) - but as an answer to another's question in the main forum it is not ok
-
imatfaal
We are talking about Time which mainline science does not seem to be happy discussing.
If I have misled anyone I apologise, that was not my intention.
"If light does not travel instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" What does it do? What does mainline science have to say about this?
-
Mike - scientists love discussing almost anything, an insatiable appetite for knowledge and incurable curiosity are pretty much prerequisites. However, when it comes to making statements, propounding theories, and coming up with hypotheses then the language of mathematics must be used - and it is very hard to encompass the human instinctual knowledge of time within maths, this is why much of the scientific discussion of time seems wanting.
the photon's local frame / what a photon "experiences" is not a valid question under special relativity - observation, experience, and measurement cannot be divorced from matter, which in turn has mass, this means it cannot go the speed of light, which means it cannot be in the photon's frame . more, it means the photon cannot have a local frame because frames are inertial. the more in depth explanations of the behaviour of light are in electromagnetics, quantum theory and qed. you might want to consider how gamma-gamma interaction (which I think is still theoretical - but might have been glimpsed) occurs for timeless particles
-
Clip
"the photon's local frame / what a photon "experiences" is not a valid question under special relativity - observation, experience, and measurement cannot be divorced from matter, which in turn has mass, this means it cannot go the speed of light, which means it cannot be in the photon's frame . more, it means the photon cannot have a local frame because frames are inertial."
Would you explain this please? A photon is not accelerating, why is its frame not inertial?
-
Ok, so the question does not make sense under special relativity but maybe that is a shortcoming of SR.
A photon experiences no passage of time (because it travels instantaneous [from its reference point etc]. It's a simple concept that seems to fail when you try to describe it using language or perhaps more precisely the recognised language of physics.
Let me phrase it another way. If you had a clock riding a photon in a light ray it would not register any passage of time. (yes, I know it is impossible as the clock has mass but hopefully it is the thought that counts.) Therefore, in some sense, the photon travels at infinite speed.
What I was trying to get at in this post above http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=378151;topic=42810.0;last_msg=378329
was that it seems to me
What we call 'Time' is the difference in the infinite speed of light and its measured finite speed. That delay represents 'Time'. The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.
-
Inertial implies mass. I wouldn't say it was a shortcoming of SR - merely a part of the physical world that isn't covered by SR; let's face it SR is strictly constrained in areas of application.
You still have not explained why you think the photon travels instantaneously - you cannot use SR! A clock cannot ride a photon - and the thought is impossible to extrapolate from; a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory.
The fact that time dilates when observed from a frame in relative motion - and the notion that you have extrapolated that the clock stops at c - is from special relativity. but SR requires that frames are inertial - those that can involve mass and acceleration; you are attempting to use a theory to show something that is outside the realms of application. light/light speed is special, it's weird, and we don't really know why - it might be ok to just extend normal inertial frames to mass-less frames but we just do not know.
-
Depending on how you look at it a photon either travels at infinite speed from its reference point
Or
A photon does not experience time or distance.
Note
A photon as it does not experience time or distance cannot carry times arrow. However as it follows the geodesic of curved space-time that gives time an arrow.
quote imatfaal
clip "The fact that time dilates when observed from a frame in relative motion - and the notion that you have extrapolated that the clock stops at c - is from special relativity. but SR requires that frames are inertial - those that can involve mass and acceleration; you are attempting to use a theory to show something that is outside the realms of application."
What you say is true but maybe this is just a limitation of SR.
The generally accepted view is a photons does not experience time or distance. The reason this is the accepted view is that a photon does not have an inertial reference frame under SR therefore; it cannot be described as traveling at infinite speed. SR no matter how good and accurate, does have limitations, so it is may not be complete.
On the one hand we have ‘a photon travels at infinite speed’
And on the other we have
‘a photon does not experience time or distance’.
Are these two aspects in conflict? No, a photon does not experience time because at the speed of light (in a vacuum) the clock has stopped and distance has shrunk to zero and this is equivalent to infinite speed. A photon does not experience time as it is traveling at infinite speed (from its reference point) [With apologies to SR but I need a way to describe it.] These two things aren’t actually in conflict, unless viewed strictly from the confines of SR.
In an earlier post I said this
“What we call 'Time' is the difference in the infinite speed of light and its measured finite speed. That delay represents 'Time'. The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.”
Another way of stating the above (in trying to overcome the limitations of SR) would be
What we call ‘Time’ is the difference between zero travel time of a photon and its measured finite speed. That delay represents 'Time'. The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.”
The passage of time is therefore (I believe) represented by the relationship of energy (photons) and gravity.
-
Mike - I have split this topic off from the OP - it was a distraction. You are making unfounded and unreferenced claims that belong in new theories.
I would love to see any work on this topic as you do say that it is a generally accepted view
-
In various places I think I have tried the patience of a number of scientific posters with this sort of discussion. The fact is I have still not managed to get my head round it.
Mike asks a question to which I would really like to see an answer: "If light does not travel instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" What does it do? What does mainline science have to say about this?
a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory.
Didn’t Einstein start a gedanken by imagining himself keeping pace with light?
The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.
I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.
-
In various places I think I have tried the patience of a number of scientific posters with this sort of discussion. The fact is I have still not managed to get my head round it.
Mike asks a question to which I would really like to see an answer: "If light does not travel instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" What does it do? What does mainline science have to say about this?
It is a very difficult question. What we cannot do is extend SR - which is the commonest reason to assume that the photon does not experience time. Most physics educators would answer the initial question by starting "the photon does not have a valid inertial local frame..." ie assuming that the old chestnut had reared its head. Assuming you had persuaded them you weren't on these lines you would get some headscratching. It's a very hard question to ask let alone answer - it tends to get into areas of philosophy and ontology that cannot really be hard science because of the lack of testability and falsifiability. Way beyond my paygrade there is theoretical talk and hopeful experimental proof of gamma/gamma interaction - ie two-photon physics; does this imply a photon interacting whilst travelling at c and thus timeless? I don't know
a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory.
Didn’t Einstein start a gedanken by imagining himself keeping pace with light?
Dunno - possibly (would love to see it), he was slightly more subtle than the average forum poster and could probably get away with it; they didn't call him Einstein for nothing you know.
The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.
I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.
Agree completely.
-
In various places I think I have tried the patience of a number of scientific posters with this sort of discussion. The fact is I have still not managed to get my head round it.
Mike asks a question to which I would really like to see an answer: "If light does not travel instantaneously ... in its own reference frame" What does it do? What does mainline science have to say about this?
a gedanken that starts with an impossible scenario can generate any outcome with no reference to truth, logic or theory.
Didn’t Einstein start a gedanken by imagining himself keeping pace with light?
The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.
I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.
Bill, yes you are quite right but a curved line between two points is longer than a straight line between the same two points. It is still the shortest distance between two points in curved space-time. That's the point I was trying to make.
-
imatfaal
Please correct me if I am wrong (didn't really need to ask did I) but I understand you to be saying that mainline science, including SR and GR has no views on what a photon experiences on the subjects of either, time or distance?
-
The delay is caused by the curvature of space-time, the geodesic of which is longer than the straight line between any two points in space.
I thought the definition of a geodesic was that it represents the shortest distance between two points in curved spacetime.
Bill, yes you are quite right but a curved line between two points is longer than a straight line between the same two points. It is still the shortest distance between two points in curved space-time. That's the point I was trying to make.
No - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of manifolds. In a curved spacetime there is no "straight line"; there is the goedesic. The best way to understand the difference is back to our old friend the distance between London and New York - the quickest way is the great circle route - but the shortest distance is the tunnel through the earth. Now we switch to maths if we consider the surface of the earth as a mathematical sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere) and not as a ball then there is NO tunnel (there are no aircraft either) the shortest distance imaginable/calculable/do-able is the geodesic great circle. To make a tunnel you need to move into a 3rd spatial dimension and the sphere has only two.
The 2d surface (that we can understand might be embedded in 3d space, but does not need to be!) is all there is in this example - the difficult bit is understanding that our 3d space behaves the same way. Space is a 3d setup with x,y,z axes ie up/down right/left in/out etc. Spacetime is a 4d setup with time as a fourth dimension. There is no tunnel between two points in either space or spacetime without stepping to an additional space dimension.
Mike you are not alone by not being able to visualise this - practically no one can, I cannot. But I can visualise the 2d sphere - and the constraints you would be under in you were on that sphere a la Flatland. BTW I cannot recommend Flatland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) too highly. And from this I can almost get my head around curved 3d space. It is not that spacetime is a thingie which curves within something else (which would allow the straightline tunnel) but that the shortest distance between two points IS the curved geodesic - that is crucial.
imatfaal
Please correct me if I am wrong (didn't really need to ask did I) but I understand you to be saying that mainline science, including SR and GR has no views on what a photon experiences on the subjects of either, time or distance?
"...photon experiences..." that's the nub of the question. How does a massless, fundamental, stable boson experience anything? We know how the environment will affect the photon, how fast it goes, its energy and momentum - perhaps deep in qed there are concepts of what a photon actually is. As I have said previously there is lots of research on gammagamma interaction - which tries to probe a similar question. You seem to be asking what happens to a photon when it is not interacting with anything - how could we possibly tell, we can only observe, measure, theorize when there is an interaction.
-
imatfaal
I understand what you are saying about geodesics, I agree and that's what I said. The point I was trying to make, obviously not very successfully is that gravity has curved space-time (or vice versa) and introduced the concept of time. The curvature seems to represent both gravity and time. Without gravity and hence time there would be no curvature of space and the distance between the two points would be shorter. The difference in distance in space time from the length of the geodesic and a straight line distance between the same two points in flat space represents what we call time. That's how I see it.
-
Without gravity and hence time there would be no curvature of space and the distance between the two points would be shorter.
This would be true only if spacetime is stretched when it is curved; otherwise, when the distorting mass is removed the two points move apart so that the straight line between them remained the same. Try it with a flexible ruler.
-
Bill it is certainly possible to do what you said but that is not what I am talking about, see below.
We can't visualise the four dimensions of space-time so let's forget time for the moment. We can, however, visualise three dimensional space.
Let us visualise the universe, without gravity, as a sphere where its diameter represents the shortest distance between two points.
If we now visualise it with gravity, one half of the circumference equals the geodesic between the same two points.
The geodesic in the universe with gravity is longer than the straight line distance in the universe with no gravity.
To make the geodesic of the universe with gravity the same length as the straight line distance in the universe with no gravity, the diameter of the sphere has to be decreased. The universe with gravity is smaller (less diameter and less volume) than the universe with no gravity. This is exactly what we would expect. The difference in length (or longer path of light) is caused by gravity and represents what we call 'Time'
Energy, in the form of photons creates pressure to cause the universe to expand (the same principle that keeps stars inflated). Gravity limits that expansion and is trying to make the universe contract. The relationship between energy and gravity decides the time dilation factor. The passage of time is proportional to energy and inversely proportional to gravity.
We live in an energy dominated era of the universe hence the expansion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter-dominated_era (Stars are converting and have converted much of their nuclear fuel into energy. Ultimately there will be a time when the fuel runs out and there will be no more input of energy.)
Energy (photons) without the intervention of gravity travel infinitely fast or do not experience time [or distance] (take your pick). They are emitted and they arrive instantaneously. Therefore, causality does not exist. Times arrow does not exist. This would seem to be possibly the state of things before the start of the universe. Energy existed in the void but before the creation of time.
Without time quantum mechanics allows for an unlimited amount of energy to exist anywhere in the void. Its existence is not limited to any time duration as time does not yet exist. ('Anywhere' becomes meaningless as 'distance' is also meaningless without time.)
With the existence of energy and the creation of matter came gravity, time and the Universe.
-
You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.
Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.
Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass. Therefore time passes slower near to the Earths surface than it does further away. This difference is progressive. A way of visualizing this is to consider ‘the going rate of time’ or time dilation to be in shells around the Earth like layers of an onion. Each shell represents a particular time dilation factor with the greatest time dilation being closest to the Earth getting progressively less in each subsequent layer as you travel further from the Earth. The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface. It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size (added 01-02-2012. zero entropy). These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole.
-
You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.
of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.
Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.
Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.
Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious
Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.
Technically it is the gravitational potential
Therefore time passes slower near to the Earths surface than it does further away. This difference is progressive. A way of visualizing this is to consider ‘the going rate of time’ or time dilation to be in shells around the Earth like layers of an onion. Each shell represents a particular time dilation factor with the greatest time dilation being closest to the Earth getting progressively less in each subsequent layer as you travel further from the Earth.
The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface.
Nope - gonna have to explain that more.
It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)
You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole.
Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...
-
You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.
of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.
Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.
Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.[/color]
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.
Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious
Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.
Technically it is the gravitational potential
Therefore time passes slower near to the Earths surface than it does further away. This difference is progressive. A way of visualizing this is to consider ‘the going rate of time’ or time dilation to be in shells around the Earth like layers of an onion. Each shell represents a particular time dilation factor with the greatest time dilation being closest to the Earth getting progressively less in each subsequent layer as you travel further from the Earth.
The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface.
Nope - gonna have to explain that more.
It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)
You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole.
Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...
Imatfaal
Thanks for your feedback, I do appreciate it. I will try to address all of your queries.
We know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.
I did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?
Average acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?
I agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”
It is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.
The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?
I have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.
I should have added and near zero entropy.
I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.
Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.
As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above. If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel. It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable. This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever.
-
MikeS and his amazing technicolour dreampost
You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.
of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.
We know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.
you can have an instantaneous force - although not a perceived action or consequence. gravity, to be seen or observed needs the passing of time, but does not have time as a component in the classical newtonian formulation F=GMmr^-2. that time is dilated by differing gravitational potentials is different in a subtle way - the difference needs alternate positions of observation to be obvious - ie you cannot look at your watch and say Oh Time is dilated here. time has a clear direction without gravity and there is spacetime without gravity - the whole of Special relativity is based on flat space time with non-accelerating frame of reference - ie there is no gravity there.
-
part the second
Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.
Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.
I did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?
I think the best way to think about it is the principle of least action - that without an outside impetus a particle will follow a path that minimizes certain combinations/calculations of potential and kinetic energy. It could go around the houses and do loop-the-loops but the simplest, least energetic way is for it to follow the geodesic. Einstein reversed the question to - why would it do anything else?
-
part the third
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.
Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious
Average acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?
OK - I See what you mean. Will have to think and make sure there isn't a problem with that - it is very complicated
-
Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.
Technically it is the gravitational potential
I agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”
[\quote]
The devil is in the details - in a complicated subject you are best advised to stick to the letter of law rather than try and expand it, unless you need to expand it.
-
The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface.
Nope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]
It is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.
The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?
that sounds like a 3d object changing in time - rather than a 4d spacetime. a shell of a sphere or ball is a 2d/3d object. I understand your problems - they are universal not unique. I am sure you understand how to transform an object around the line y=x on a cartesian plane. you need to be able to think of that level of transformation between space and time - it isnt an object in space that changes in time, it is an object in spacetime. This is one of the areas where maths actually help visualise the reality - will see if there is a nice webpage. check out hyperphysics whilst I am looking - that is always good.
-
It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)
You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]
I have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.
My problem with this is that I already have a mathematically sound (that means that all the maths agrees with itself and there are no logical screw-up) and empirically good (by that I mean that nothing has been shown to be outside the predictions and calculations of the model) theory to work on - and it does not involve the extras and add-ons.
It isn't that there isn't room for improvement - but more that any improvements must be at least as good and must be more basic and simple. ie they must have the same (or better predictive power), be logically and mathematically sound, AND have some little bit more insight to the lower fundamental concepts of what the hell is going on.
-
part the almost last
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...
I should have added and near zero entropy.
I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.
Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.
.
By complementary I meant they don't fit together - they do not complement each other - and they don't. BUt I had not really grasped what you were getting at - I thought you were using the black hole as an example of the conditions - but you are saying that a universal black hole is the end state. hmmm - interesting - problem is that that we have superclusters that we are pretty certain are not gravitationally bound.
-
part the last
As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above. If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel. It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable. This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever.
Is it truly a ground state if it will never reach it? It is a stable end-state - and there are many stable end-states to the universe that have been postulated; but we do have to make a passing acquaintance with experimental observation, and things are not slowing, stopping and reversing
-
MikeS and his amazing technicolour dreampost
You cannot talk about ‘Time’ without considering ‘Gravity’ as the two are intertwined in space-time.
of course you can. Gravity is an artefact of warped spacetime - but space time does not require gravity. Many theories rely on flat space - SR for one.
We know that time is affected by gravity or gravitational potential, if you like, so gravity has to be considered when talking about time. You say “gravity is an artifact of warped space-time” but I think this is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. In the normal universe, not a black hole, you can’t have gravity without time and you can’t have time without gravity. You say that “space-time does not require gravity” It does, without gravity time has no arrow. There is no space-time without gravity. No mass equals no gravity which is essentially the condition probably prevailing prior to the birth of the universe. Whether or not time existed prior to the birth of the Universe may be debatable but it probably did not.
you can have an instantaneous force - although not a perceived action or consequence. gravity, to be seen or observed needs the passing of time, but does not have time as a component in the classical newtonian formulation F=GMmr^-2. that time is dilated by differing gravitational potentials is different in a subtle way - the difference needs alternate positions of observation to be obvious - ie you cannot look at your watch and say Oh Time is dilated here. time has a clear direction without gravity and there is spacetime without gravity - the whole of Special relativity is based on flat space time with non-accelerating frame of reference - ie there is no gravity there.
As you say “. gravity, to be seen or observed needs the passing of time, but does not have time as a component in the classical newtonian formulation F=GMmr^-2.”
So gravity, to be seen or observed does need the passing of time.
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time.
You say “time has a clear direction without gravity and there is spacetime without gravity”.
In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity? Please give examples.
SR is a special case of Relativity that purposely does not take into account gravity. Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration
-
part the second
Einstein showed us that gravity is the same as acceleration but to the best of my knowledge he did not elaborate upon that.
Quite a lot of his work was based on the fact that in a local and small enough frame that acceleration and gravity were equivalent.
I did say “to the best of my knowledge”. Did Einstein actually explain in what way a massive object is accelerating?
I think the best way to think about it is the principle of least action - that without an outside impetus a particle will follow a path that minimizes certain combinations/calculations of potential and kinetic energy. It could go around the houses and do loop-the-loops but the simplest, least energetic way is for it to follow the geodesic. Einstein reversed the question to - why would it do anything else?
I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”
-
part the third
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. We normally think of this as a progressive change in distance covered, with time but it is equally valid to think of it as a change in the ‘going rate or dilation of time’ with distance.
Acceleration is the second time derivative of position - your first sentence had it spot on. Your second definition is dubious
Average acceleration is the change in velocity (Δv) divided by the change in time (Δt). There are two factors that affect acceleration, the change in velocity and time. Changing either will affect the acceleration. Normally we think of acceleration as being the change in velocity. That is, an increase in the distance covered in a given time. However by keeping the distance constant but contracting time (speeding up) we still have acceleration. Have I made that clear?
OK - I See what you mean. Will have to think and make sure there isn't a problem with that - it is very complicated
I do not think it is complicated at all it is very straightforward. It is however totally alien to experience and not something that under normal circumstances we ever have to consider.
Lets look at what is happening from a different perspective.
Speed = distance/ time. Speed is affected by two variables distance and time. If you travel 10km in 1hour then your speed is 10km/h.
If time contracts by 50% then you are still traveling at 10km/h but you have actually accelerated. The acceleration being purely due to time contraction (time flowing faster).
-
Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.
Technically it is the gravitational potential
I agree the but the result is “Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass.”
[\quote]
The devil is in the details - in a complicated subject you are best advised to stick to the letter of law rather than try and expand it, unless you need to expand it.
I take you point.
Perhaps it would have been better if I had said
“Time gravitationally dilates near to a large mass due to the gravitational potential caused by that mass”.
-
The Earth, like all objects is continually passing through space-time. If we think of these shells of time as continually collapsing on the Earth, each shell of time dilates as it approaches the Earths surface.
Nope - gonna have to explain that more.[/color]
It is not easy to either visualize or explain but here goes.
The Earth is continually passing through space time. The easiest way for me to visualize this is to consider time as being concentric shells surrounding the Earth. The closest shell being the most time dilated (due to gravity), becoming progressively less dilated further away. The Earth is passing through time or you could think of it as time flowing over the Earth. Each shell has a different time dilation factor. The Earth passes through them, (it is easier to think of the shells as collapsing upon the Earth) As the shells collapse upon the Earth, you can picture this as time passing more slowly as it approaches the Earth. From the Earths reference frame time passes faster as it passes from its existing time shell (reference frame) into the next. In other words, the Earth is accelerating. I hope that made it clear?
that sounds like a 3d object changing in time - rather than a 4d spacetime. a shell of a sphere or ball is a 2d/3d object. I understand your problems - they are universal not unique. I am sure you understand how to transform an object around the line y=x on a cartesian plane. you need to be able to think of that level of transformation between space and time - it isnt an object in space that changes in time, it is an object in spacetime. This is one of the areas where maths actually help visualise the reality - will see if there is a nice webpage. check out hyperphysics whilst I am looking - that is always good.
Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways.
It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.
As I understand it Einstein believed it to be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time. If this is correct then the Earth is an object in space that changes in time, in as much as it passes through time. The examples of time shells is a way of visualizing this. Although there are many time shells, each one being one plank time thick, you only have to visualize two. One at the surface of the Earth and the next one out. As the Earth passes from a dilated time shell (or reference frame) into the next less dilated time shell (or reference frame) it is accelerating in space-time. This process is continuous.
I agree the math’s would help.
-
It is perhaps easiest to visualize it by considering space to be filled by something, say aether. This aether is continually being sucked into the Earth like a waterfall but all over the Earths surface . The aether may or may not exist, the important point is it carries shells of time with it and these shells of time dilate more as they approach the Earth. As shells of time dilate approaching the Earth so the Earth accelerates through these shells of time. This is where the acceleration comes from; it is an acceleration in time. All massive bodies produce a gravitational ‘field’ as they accelerate through time. The aforementioned also explains why bodies fall within a gravitational field. As the aether or shells of time fall upon the Earth so do other bodies that are within that sphere of influence. They are swept along with the changing rate of time dilation. As any object (mass) approaches the Earth (or any massive body), it enters shells of more and more dilated time. This reduces all of the useful energy of the object as entropy increases. The increased entropy represents a state of increased stability within the system. (When any two objects combine, time for them dilates, entropy increases and they reach a state of greater stability. For example a book on a table has more usable energy than the same book on the floor. The book on the floor is more stable as it can't fall off the table)
You might want to give some more concrete examples, be more specific and do some maths to back that up[/color]
I have elaborated on much of the above elsewhere in this reply and hope that has clarified matters. I would be happy to explain in more detail anything still unclear. I do not think there is much that is new in all of this. It is more like assembling known pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, I am not a mathematician, I wish I was.
My problem with this is that I already have a mathematically sound (that means that all the maths agrees with itself and there are no logical screw-up) and empirically good (by that I mean that nothing has been shown to be outside the predictions and calculations of the model) theory to work on - and it does not involve the extras and add-ons.
It isn't that there isn't room for improvement - but more that any improvements must be at least as good and must be more basic and simple. ie they must have the same (or better predictive power), be logically and mathematically sound, AND have some little bit more insight to the lower fundamental concepts of what the hell is going on.
You seem to be saying that you already have a mathematically sound model or theory of ‘Time’ and ‘Gravity”. There is no mainstream theory of Time and Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far. What I have attempted to do is fill in some of the ‘holes’.
In a nutshell.
What we know as Time is the delay in light between traveling instantaneous and its measured finite speed. This is due to the relationship between energy and gravity (energy/gravity) and manifests itself in the speed of light.
Gravity is acceleration in time caused by the warping of space by mass. The warping of space by mass results in a graduated gravitational potential that accelerates mass by increasing the passage of time.
I fail to see how it could be any simpler than that.
The above model on Gravity and Time is very simple, consistent and fits in with what we think we know. If you disagree, please be specific so that I may address the points you raise.
What predictions does this model make that require experimental verification.
Basically this model relies on the time dilation factor being the relationship of energy/time. We already know that the gravitational potential gradient of mass dilates time (slows it down). The model predicts that energy (photons) contracts time (speeds it up).
We need an experiment to verify that a large input of energy can contract time.
If we knew the mass of the sun, we could theoretically calculate its time dilation factor. The sun radiates a lot of energy and if this model is correct then that energy should contract the passage of time reducing the time dilation factor due to mass. This could be experimentally tested by flying a probe containing an atomic clock either directly into the sun or in an inward spiral into the sun. The probe should last long enough before it overheated to give a meaningful result. If a similar experiment could be done on Earth then it would overcome most of the problems of correcting for red-shift etc. Perhaps placing the atomic clocks sensor in a high temperature source would work. It may well not work, as no matter how high the temperature, it may just be on too small a scale to have any affect on the passage of time. This is similar to; too small a mass will not have any effect on gravitational potential. A lot of mass is required to have any noticeable effect. Likewise, it is probable that a lot of energy will be required to have a noticeable effect.
If this were to be verified then I believe the rest of the model just slots into place.
-
part the almost last
Gravity then is the Universes way of returning to its ground state, which ideally would be zero useable energy, near zero temperature, near zero passing time and near zero size. These conditions represent the Universes most stable configuration and these conditions are best met within a black hole Your conditions are not complementary; in a situation of zero gravitational potential where is the time dilation coming from? Near zero size would mean that any radiation is constrained to short wavelength, high frequency ...
I should have added and near zero entropy.
I believe the conditions are indeed complementary and consistent with a black hole. The time dilation is an artifact of the intense gravitational field of the black hole.
Whilst radiation still exists, the universe reflects this in its size. It is only with the absorption of all radiation could the universe deflate to zero size.
.
By complementary I meant they don't fit together - they do not complement each other - and they don't. BUt I had not really grasped what you were getting at - I thought you were using the black hole as an example of the conditions - but you are saying that a universal black hole is the end state. hmmm - interesting - problem is that that we have superclusters that we are pretty certain are not gravitationally bound.
Yes, they are complimentary.
Zero useable energy is the same as zero entropy and these are the conditions you expect at zero temperature. These are the conditions you find at a black hole along with zero passage of time and zero size.
I would be interested to know in what way you think they are not complementary???
Sorry I did not make it clear that I was talking about a black hole being the end state of the Universe.
I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe. The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.
A simple analogy would be an explosion in a balloon (balloon - the universe). The explosion inflates the balloon but ultimately gravity/entropy allows the balloon to deflate.
-
part the last
As a side issue, I believe the ground state of the Universe is as described above. If, as believed by many the Universe is doomed to expand forever and ultimately die through lack of fuel. It will never reach its ground state despite the ground state being more stable. This is one reason that makes me believe it is not doomed to expand forever.
Is it truly a ground state if it will never reach it? It is a stable end-state - and there are many stable end-states to the universe that have been postulated; but we do have to make a passing acquaintance with experimental observation, and things are not slowing, stopping and reversing
I did say that as many believe the Universe to expand forever then it would never (under those conditions) reach its ground state. That is one reason why I think they are wrong.
There may be many (postulated) stable end states to the Universe but the one I have mentioned is the ultimate ground state as it is the only one that is Totally stable. It carries the arrow of time but the clock never ticks. It is also probably the closest to the start conditions of the Universe.
If, matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive, as I believe, then it is the end condition of our universe and the start condition of the next universe cycle but that's another story.
-
imatfaal?
Anyone?
-
The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time.
your implication - not necessarily true
In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity? Please give examples.
Clearly done in other thread.
Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration
No - not clearly true that everything is affected by gravity and acceleration
I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”
Yes it does - but it is very involved and not understandable in hand-wavy terms.
Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways. It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.
Space time - for most stuff and models to work must be able to be transformed and related mathematically with each other. Maths is all that is needed to describe spacetime in these cases - the model is not less good because it is not transcribable into a language that is insufficient to convey its complexities (ie it is english that is lacking not the model)
Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far
Barring the quantum level it is amazingly accurate and few feel it has many holes.
In a nutshell....
How does it do on the precession of mercury?
I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe. The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.
Understand now - but again this is not what is observed or calculated.
-
The law does not mention time but it is implied as nothing can happen outside of time.
your implication - not necessarily true
Yes it is true. The Laws of Nature or Physics apply to the Universe. Therefore, anything that happens has to happen within time. Time is a measure of change and for something to ‘happen’ it does so within time. If you have any examples of anything ‘happening’ (changing) outside of time I would be very interested to see them.
In what way does time have a clear direction without gravity? Please give examples.
Clearly done in other thread.
I do not agree the issue has been resolved to show that time has a clear direction without gravity.
Fact remains everything that happens within SR takes place in time and is affected by gravity and acceleration
No - not clearly true that everything is affected by gravity and acceleration
In the sense that SR applies in a special case to the Universe and everywhere in the Universe is affected by gravity then SR itself must be affected by gravity. Likewise, everywhere, therefore everything in the Universe is affected by gravity, as everywhere in the Universe has a gravitational potential.
I agree about the path of lease action but that does not explain, “in what way a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity)?”
Yes it does - but it is very involved and not understandable in hand-wavy terms.
That does not explain it. Mathematics is only a language that is sometimes more applicable than normal language. Initially the thoughts to be expressed have to be formulated in words prior to being transcribed into the language of maths. Therefore, it should be relatively easy to describe in terms of Relativity why a massive object is accelerating (in the context of gravity).
My relativistic explanation is quite simply that the object is accelerating in time as explained in detail elsewhere in this thread.
Different people interpret 4d space-time in different ways. It can be the 3d of familiar space plus the 1d of time or it can be that they are intertwined in such manner that we can neither visualize or adequately describe it.
Space time - for most stuff and models to work must be able to be transformed and related mathematically with each other. Maths is all that is needed to describe spacetime in these cases - the model is not less good because it is not transcribable into a language that is insufficient to convey its complexities (ie it is english that is lacking not the model)
How can you be sure that you have accurately transcribed something into mathematics if you cannot visualize it in the first place? If you can visualize something then you can describe it in language. I do however agree that certain subjects are difficult to adequately describe in language.
Einsteins theory on gravity only goes so far
Barring the quantum level it is amazingly accurate and few feel it has many holes.
I did not say it was not accurate. I only said “Einstein’s theory on gravity only goes so far”. This is true, as you say it does not include quantum gravity.
In a nutshell....
How does it do on the precession of mercury?
Fine thanks. All I have attempted to do is explain what I believe to be, further detail or consequences of Relativity. I am in no way denying the underlying truths contained therein
I believe the conditions I have mentioned do represent the ground state of the Universe. The Universe will ultimately attempt to reach its ground state and regardless of what we think it is doing or should do, it will do what it has to do.
Understand now - but again this is not what is observed or calculated.
This is true but I am sometimes less than convinced that what we think we are observing is necessarily being interpreted in the correct manner. The cosmological red-shift for example. Our knowledge is still very limited and I suspect that the Universe will ultimately find a way of reaching its true ground state. It still has many billions of years to go.
MikeS replies in green.
-
Without quotes cos it would get too long
1. Which law of physics are you talking about?
2. It has to mine. A box of two gases in the intergalactic void will mix and will almost certainly not unmix.
3. The explanation of the box of gases will not include gravity
4. Sorry - but Maths isn't just helpful, it is essential. English is merely useful and maths is necessary when it comes to physical laws. Much of modern physics is not visualizable - everything from complex numbers, thru length contraction, to wave/particle duality are completely non-instintive and non-realizable in the human brain; we overcome this using maths. Now matter how many wordy handwaving popularisations of science are produced the crux of the matter is that science in the last century is mathematical first and heuristic later.
5. Because the mathematical model is tight, self-referential, constrained, and doesn't contradict itself. You will have seen me defending SR on many occasions from accusations that "something is wrong within it", "it doesn't work out", "this thought-experiment shows it to be false" etc. Because SR is so constrained - it has only two axiomata and the model is simple - the only way to show that SR is incorrect is experimentally, which will show one of the two axiomata to be false. SR cannot be wrong in any other way. GR is much more complicated and the maths is so much more involved that it is possible for faults to be found and improvements made. Some of the extreme parts of QM rely on maths that is sometimes quite unusual and thus the theory holds only as long as the maths does - at present the experimental proof shows that the maths is correct. And at the far end of the spectrum String Theory has created maths to further the search for physical laws.
6. So it doesn't. GR does not concern itself with underlying truths - that is the problem of philosophy and pop science, it concerns itself with modelling and predicting.
7. But your knowledge of the means of interpretation is so biased by the fact that you cannot do the actual sums and are relying on gut instinct which does not work.
-
Without quotes cos it would get too long
1. Which law of physics are you talking about?
Thermodynamics, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
2. It has to mine. A box of two gases in the intergalactic void will mix and will almost certainly not unmix.
True
3. The explanation of the box of gases will not include gravity
False. If the same experiment is done in a high gravitational potential more energy will be required to mix the gases. This may manifest itself as the gasses mixing at a different speed. Even if they mix at the same speed in their own local time frames they will be seen to mix at different speeds according to a distant observer. The experiment will show that gravity does play a part and that part defines the arrow of time.
4. Sorry - but Maths isn't just helpful, it is essential. English is merely useful and maths is necessary when it comes to physical laws. Much of modern physics is not visualizable - everything from complex numbers, thru length contraction, to wave/particle duality are completely non-instintive and non-realizable in the human brain; we overcome this using maths. Now matter how many wordy handwaving popularisations of science are produced the crux of the matter is that science in the last century is mathematical first and heuristic later.
I agree with most of what you say but still have difficulty in imagining how you can mathematically model what you can't visualise in some manner.
5. Because the mathematical model is tight, self-referential, constrained, and doesn't contradict itself. You will have seen me defending SR on many occasions from accusations that "something is wrong within it", "it doesn't work out", "this thought-experiment shows it to be false" etc. Because SR is so constrained - it has only two axiomata and the model is simple - the only way to show that SR is incorrect is experimentally, which will show one of the two axiomata to be false. SR cannot be wrong in any other way. GR is much more complicated and the maths is so much more involved that it is possible for faults to be found and improvements made. Some of the extreme parts of QM rely on maths that is sometimes quite unusual and thus the theory holds only as long as the maths does - at present the experimental proof shows that the maths is correct. And at the far end of the spectrum String Theory has created maths to further the search for physical laws.
I agree
6. So it doesn't. ? GR does not concern itself with underlying truths - that is the problem of philosophy and pop science, it concerns itself with modelling and predicting.
But you mentioned the precession of mercury which is a SR affect and it was therefore SR and not GR that I commented upon.
7. But your knowledge of the means of interpretation is so biased by the fact that you cannot do the actual sums and are relying on gut instinct which does not work.
It is true that I can't do the maths I wish I could. I am relying on far more than gut instinct and most of what I have said in this thread is only building upon what we think we know a little. This model is very simple, consistent, based upon what we think we know and easily explained even without maths.
-
Mike - sorry but you are out of your depth. you aren't even getting the bits about grav potential correct and you are failing to understand the relative bit of relativity. you just need to go and read up on this rather than wading blindly on.
Physics is awesome and will provide endless entertainment for the enlightened mind - but what you are doing is not physics.
-
Mike - sorry but you are out of your depth. you aren't even getting the bits about grav potential correct and you are failing to understand the relative bit of relativity. you just need to go and read up on this rather than wading blindly on.
Physics is awesome and will provide endless entertainment for the enlightened mind - but what you are doing is not physics.
This kind of comment is just not helpful, being specific would be. Where you have been specific, I have answered your queries.
I really cannot agree. I have answered all of your queries which is far more than you have done. At no time do I feel that you have come up with any argument to make me believe that I could be wrong. I am a reasonable person with an open mind and open to new ideas. Yes, my knowledge, like everyone's, is limited but I always try to work with what is generally believed to be known. I never offer ideas, models or theories that are outside of what is certainly possible, indeed even probable. Although this is in the new theories section it is still physics.
I would have replied earlier but my PC demonstrated the arrow or time by dying and I have only just got it back.