Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I myself don't.The reason It "wasn't enough" was that there were already "chinks' showing up in Newton's Theories by the time Einstein began to formulate his theory.Do you recognize any "chinks" in Einstein's theories?
Einstein's theories criticized a multitude of dead geniuses that came before him...I'm sure a few were honest...Not at all. Einstein's theories either explained that which was as of yet unexplained or provided a more precise description of what had already been explained.
An argument can always be made that that which can't be detected doesn't exist.That's a bad argument since it can't be known what can and can't be detected unless by their nature they can't be detected. In that case we call them virtual like in virtual particle. But we did detected gravity waves.
I thought Einstein predicted gravitational waves...just thought we would never detect them.That's true.
Einstein could discover no mechanism for gravity's influence across space...It was never the purpose of GR to do so. No scientist to date has ever discovered a mechanism for gravity.
So he theorized that matter warps space...Warps spacetime as well as space, not just space.
Seriously though. Einstein knew that the presence of mass generates a gravitational field. That was demonstrated by Newton. What Einstein showed that not just mass by any kind of energy does also as does stress and momentum. My equation specifically ''asks'' about the linear momentum of light and the physical reasoning behind lights speed .The physical meaning of the speed of light comes from Maxwell's equations. and shown to be a function of u_o and e_0, the permeability and permativity of free space. The constancy of light is a postulate and has no derivation.
The original equation was E/X = c "where....X is a vector". We know that X = h/λ. Unfortunately h/λ is not a vector.If E is energy and X is the magnitude of momentum (a vector) then that expression is true.
Interesting collection of sciency words.Great answer. Exactly right. Its all nonsense.
The answer to the original question is "no".
Just to stir the pot and add to acsin's confusion, it is worth noting that the charge carriers in aluminium travel on the opposite direction to those in copper.Since when? What are you suggesting that the charge carriers are?
Rakesh reached out with a couple of questions on electric current:The electrons in a conductor exist in sea of electrons. They aren't bound to particular atoms.
What is the speed of electric current? When elections flow - do they come out from the atoms and flow as electric current? Is it not true that when electrons come out from atoms, light and energy is released? So why don't electric wires change their color?
Can you help?
I would appreciate the link to Feynman. Thanks for the other info.Sorry. I just recallke4d that I lost that volume. It's in V-II
This is all I wanted. A definitive answer. Thanks Pete. The reason I asked was because F = GMm/r^2 cannot work with a photon since it has no rest mass (m). I was wondering if, since energy has an equivalent mass, the photon's energy could be used to derive this mass term. However, it is moot point. The equivalence principle and the photon's constant speed in vacuum rule out any deviation in the geodesic. Thanks for clearing it up.You're most welcome my friend. A photon is deflected by a gravitating body because it has inertial mass (aka rel-mass). This is how Feynman explains it in his Lectures. Ever read that part? Want the reference?
Unclear to what 'this' refers.The statement that precedes it.
As for luxons (and quantum scale tardyons for that matter), per the principle of locality, any quantum scale objects do not have a position until said position is measured, and hence it is meaningless to speak of its path.Same holds for geodesics.
This is not obvious when playing with bricks and feathers, but it does very much become obvious with larger things.A feather will only fall faster than a brick if there's a non-gravitational force acting on it like air pressure. Put the two in a vacuum and they will fall at the same rate. It's an odd thing to watch.
Can science prove God exists?No. Something that is important to understand is that science is not about proving things. Science has never actually proved any theory in fact. It's just not geared to do anything like that. Science is about observing nature and coming up with theories that can be used to make predictions about the phenomena it was designed to observe, i.e. to "explain." Religion is much worse at this, infinitely worse in fact. No religion on Earlh can prove God exists. All religions postulate that God exists and not one of them have a good reason for doing so. Does God exist? Maybe. Keep seeking - That's the best thing to do.