Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Yo


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:37 PM

Hello. My name's Warren (Wal) and I have a feeling that you're going to end up hating me judging by what's happened on other sites, but I'm going to make an effort to not rise to any provocation and nastyness this time. I don't agree with general relativity and I'm going to show you why, but I love special relativity.

#2 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:07 AM

Welcome to the forum Warren and thanks for the warning. :)

You will understand I greet your declared intention (implied) of showing general relativity to be wrong with much scepticism. Statistically it is unlikely that an individual with the intellect and knowledge to disprove GR is going to turn up randomly on some informal science forum. It is highly probable that to challenge GR you would require to be very well versed in all aspects of the theory, including the mathemataics and the validation. To reach that level you would almost certainly need to be embedded in the science community and would therefore be seeking publication of your ideas, en route to a Nobel prize. Still, I await your contributions with interest.

#3 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:25 PM

Welcome to hypography, A-wal. :)

I read you 2 thread-starters, and am impressed that you know Special Relativity. I can find no flaws in your Relativity Made Simple. It’ll take me some time to digest Can You Answer These Black Hole Questions?, especially as I recognized from a quick reading some pieces I’ve been partially digesting in my own directions for years.

As Eclogite says, we’re as a rule skeptical of folk who appear bearing alternatives to GR. I must say, however, you’re the first in my experience who shows a grasp of SR, so my response mode switch has passed through its usual “debunk crank” and “(attempt to) educate ill-educated person” detents to a less used and much more pleasant “this sound interesting” position.

I look forward to reading and discussing your ideas. If we are all friendly and respectful, I think we’ll have a good time, and learn.

#4 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

Of course I have no problem with scepticism. I'm making a very radical claim so it's completely expected. I don't know it on a mathematical level, that's true, but I don't think that's a requirement to build a logic based conceptual model. I have a very good imagination and I am capable of modelling the mathematical relationships without the use of equations, which I believe I can show. I can already tell that the people hear have much more open minds than I've been forced to deal with so far. I think I'm going to like it here. :)

#5 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:00 PM

I have a decent grasp of general relativity as well, I just don't think it's right.

General Relativity Made Simple
If you’re in a plane in free-fall and you shine a laser from one end to the other you would see the light move in a straight line since free-fall is equivalent to constant velocity. Someone on Earth would see the light move across the plane with the downward motion of falling as well. The light will be following a curved path from their perspective despite the fact that light always moves in a straight line. This is because gravitational pull is the equivalent to acceleration. So it distorts space-time, in this case through length contraction. So the beam takes longer to move from one end of the plane to the other from the fame of the accelerator on Earth because its downwards motion means it has further to go, and it can’t move faster to cover the extra distance because it always moves at c. This means the frame on Earth see the people in free-fall as moving quicker though time, because Earths frame is accelerating, causing gravitational time dilation.

Downwards momentum in free-fall is caused by unchallenged length contraction. That's why objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight. Gravity is length contraction and dime dilation, and we have to accelerate away from the source to avoid collapse, which we do through the fact that matter doesn’t share the same space (strong nuclear force), and it’s upwards acceleration that pulls us down. What we feel as our weight is actually due to the fact that when we are not in free-fall, we are constantly accelerating up at one g relative to a static free-fall frame. Time dilation and length contraction stop us from going anywhere. Gravity can’t be felt if it's distributed evenly throughout the observer. What we feel is really just the upwards acceleration of the strong nuclear force of the atoms resisting length contraction. When we accelerate, we feel a force pushing in the opposite direction. In the case of gravity, we experience this as a downward pull. We can’t actually feel gravity because it’s always zero relative to us. We could feel it if the difference in gravity where different enough in one part of our body to another part. A small enough singularity causes what’s known as spaghettification. It’s not the gravity (velocity) you feel, it’s the relative difference in its strength (acceleration). On Earth that difference is very small but in the region surrounding a black hole it can be emmense.

Imagine a very tall building. It’s so tall that height and time on the top floors are noticeably different to the lower floors. Gravity strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the mass. In zero dimensions (point) it’s infinite (singularity). In one spatial dimension (straight line) its strength would remain constant regardless of distance. In two dimensions (flat plane) it would be directly proportional to the distance. And in three the strength is divided by four if the distance is doubled and multiplied by four if the distance is halved. It’s always proportional to the volume it fills. The acceleration is determined by the difference in the gravitational field (how sharp the curve is), not its strength. The bottom of the building is in a stronger gravitational field and accelerating upwards faster than the top, but the building always remains a constant height. The reason why this works is because the acceleration rate is measured by time moving at different speeds. Anyone on the top floors would see the bottom ones as too short and moving too slowly through time, while those on bottom floors would see the top ones as too tall and moving too quickly through time.

"All experiments will give the same results in a local frame of reference in free fall and in a local frame of reference far removed from gravitational influences." -Einstein. I think this is wrong. Tidal force is proper acceleration, so free-fall is acceleration and isn't inertial.