Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What's Up With Gravity And Spacetime Curvature?

general relativity.

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#69 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1078 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 02:35 PM

As terrible as these discussions are, they are even more terrible on the expert forum because those people should know better. Everyone has their own definition of basic terms and don't even realize they're not arguing about the same thing. If this theory was settled science there wouldn't still be this much discussion about it. I thought I only didn't understand how relativity defines the cause of the twin paradox until I saw relativity's definition of time and then I realized this theory is a waste of my time. I don't possibly see any way all the contradictions of that definition could ever be explained away. I'm out.

 

P.S. Mass is both matter and energy where rest mass is matter (which doesn't increase as it approaches c and can only be converted into energy (also mass) in discrete quanta) and where massless particles both have mass (energy) and don't have mass because they don't ineract with the Higgs field but do interact with gravitational fields but not because of their mass. Makes perfect sense in relativity land. Even if this theory isn't a logical disgrace, the teaching of it must be.


Edited by ralfcis, 30 January 2019 - 08:25 PM.


#70 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:18 PM

Well, like I said, F=MA is can't be understood unless, at a minimum, you understand the concepts of force, mass, and acceleration.

 

As demonstrated in this forum, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion and uncertainty about all of these terms.  Same with the concept of inertia (which is basically what "mass" is).

 

 

 

And this is what I think it can be easy to overlook.  It is a simple matter to mechanically apply a math formula learned by rote.  All you need is some data input, and away you go.  You can be quite confident that you have arrived at the "correct" result in most cases. It's "easy."  But understanding the math is a completely different thing than understanding the content which you are manipulating with symbols when you perform your calculations.  The ease gives some a false confidence that they have to be  "right" and that their conclusions have been "proven."

 

As I said before, I could understand the math procedures which might lead one to assert that "time pointing downwards" causes gravity.  But even so, without more I could never understand the assertion being made.

 

I''m sure that's the point you were getting at, Popeye, when you said this:

 

Oh, I have seen many videos and I can derive the mathematical equivalency e=mc^2 in at least two different ways, and I have done so on this forum.

 

That still does not get at the fundamental property of mass and energy.

 


Edited by Moronium, 30 January 2019 - 03:33 PM.


#71 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:41 PM

 

That still does not get at the fundamental property of mass and energy.

 

 

 

Energy, as I understanding it, is "the capacity to do work."  Mass is not matter (although it is a concomitant of matter).  Mass is, technically speaking, "resistance to acceleration," at least in Newtonian terms.

 

So, to say e = m is basically saying that "the capacity to do work is resistance to acceleration."  What does that even mean?

 

It might make some sense if you're talking about potential energy.  But what is that, really?  Potential energy is not energy, it is potential.  And energy itself is a "potential" (to do work).  So now we have a potential potential.  Sounds kinda nebulous, eh?


Edited by Moronium, 30 January 2019 - 04:03 PM.


#72 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 07:42 AM

... this theory is a waste of my time. I don't possibly see any way all the contradictions of that definition could ever be explained away. I'm out.

 

 

 

So now you've decided to abandon SR altogether, eh, Ralf?  I can certainly understand that.  But if SR doesn't adequately explain things, what does, ya figure?


Edited by Moronium, 31 January 2019 - 07:43 AM.


#73 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1078 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 08:44 AM

Why the theory of ralfativity of course. There is no crazy subjective definition of time where past, present and future are all concurrent and time does not flow. Relativity of simultaneity between perspectives is not as important as the causality between an event and its effects on those perspectives delayed by c. While the relativity of simultaneity and perspective can change the order of events, it can't change the order of causality. Physics doesn't create information that we can use to understand it, the information itself is physics and the programming language of the information is mathematics (not philosophy). That's why I like only one thing about relativity, the Rindler/Minkowski metric definition of the cause of age difference because the math doesn't care what you call the physical term for it. Unfortunately, the one thing relativity got right isn't part of my theory. My math explanation doesn't go beyond basic algebra. This should make it quite easy for any high schooler to falsify my theory.

 

Unfortunately I just tried to upload a sample of one of my graphs and there is a 190kb upload limit and most of my graphs are between 500kb and 999kb.

 

Let's try a link.

 

http://www.sciencech...=6063&mode=view

 

My IP is banned from this forum so I can't see what I linked to. Is it a huge graph that looks like a satellite dish from Arecibo?


Edited by ralfcis, 31 January 2019 - 09:16 AM.


#74 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 09:50 AM

That's why I like only one thing about relativity, the Rindler/Minkowski metric definition of the cause of age difference because the math doesn't care what you call the physical term for it. 

 

All the geometrical "metric" mumbo jumbo does nothing to explain the "cause" of age difference.  It merely spells out the constructs supposedly used to predict it.

 

2 + 2 = 4 may explain why you end up with $4 if you add $2 to an existing bank account which already has $2 in it, but it doesn't "cause" 2 + 2 to equal 4.

 

Likewise the pythagorean theorem doesn't cause right triangles to have the particular trigonometric properties that they do.  It merely "codifies," in mathematical form, a pre-existing relationship.

 

Best we can tell, absolute motion causes time dilation, which in turn results in an age difference.  The "metric" does not cause it.


Edited by Moronium, 31 January 2019 - 10:07 AM.


#75 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1077 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 09:56 AM

Why the theory of ralfativity of course. There is no crazy subjective definition of time where past, present and future are all concurrent and time does not flow.

 

My IP is banned from this forum so I can't see what I linked to. Is it a huge graph that looks like a satellite dish from Arecibo?

 

It can't be any worse than some of the other theories posted here.

 

I can see your graph OK.



#76 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1078 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:25 AM

I can't post blind and I can't post graphs from my own files so I can't post my theory here. Even if I did, it would not be understood, Moronium doesn't read, he just posts so there would be constant distraction, and even if there were experts here that could put the theory through the ringer, no expert would waste his time doing that. It would make even less sense if I had to post in alternative theories, then there'd be no chance an expert could stumble across it. I need to get back on thescienceforum.com somehow. Can anyone tell the forum Nazi I promise to behave and not ruffle the feathers of his ignorant parrots anymore? That apology should do the trick.


Edited by ralfcis, 31 January 2019 - 11:29 AM.


#77 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1078 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 12:08 PM

I just thought of a great example why time can't be likened to a spatial dimension (even if you call time ct). Let's assume the fourth spatial dimension is temperature instead of time. Each point in space has its own temperature just like it has its own time coordinate. But temperature doesn't have a fixed direction; you can turn down the thermostat but you can't go back in time. Temperature is a valid 4th space-like dimension. Temperature does not have to be continuously flowing at a rate of temperature. Time is always flowing at the normal rate of time in your own frame and it only stops flowing from someone else's perspective of you if you are going at c relative to him. Space only "flows" if you apply time to it, otherwise it is static and immutable (I have many reasons why the idea of length contraction is a mathematical construct that is not required to explain anything, even the constancy of c.) The number one reason length contraction is not real but an illusion of perspective is that there is a twin paradox for time but none for space (although it would a boon for the diet industry if the travelling twin could come back permanently thinner due to some permanent form of length contraction).


Edited by ralfcis, 31 January 2019 - 12:18 PM.


#78 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 08:48 AM

OK, I've said it elsewhere, but I'll just come out with it again here.

 

I don't believe in "spacetime."  I'll concede that it can be very useful as a strictly fictitious mathematical tool, but I can't see where it has any correspondence to physical reality.

 

 

 

I made this post in another thread, but it's equally relevant here, too:

 

I'm no expert on GR, by any means, but I understand that the fundamental sourrce of the conflict between QM and GR is that QM, contrary to GR, presupposes a flat, Euclidean, space consisting of 3 + 1 dimensions.

 

For this reason, John S. Bell (of Bell's theorem notoriety), among others, has suggested that the simplest way to resolve the conflict is to revert to a Lorentzian conception of relative motion, which presumes absolute simultaneity and eschews SR's concept of "relative simultaneity."

 

As far as I know, there is no known phenomena which are purportedly "explained" by "spacetime" which cannot be adequately explained without invoking the notion of "spacetime."  The concept of spacetime is a postulated notion that can never be empirically verified

 

... I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether—a preferred frame of reference—but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light. ... Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant... [This] pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare, Larmor and Fitzgerald (sic), was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. (J. S. Bell)

 

 

https://pdfs.semanti...40f9c00d541.pdf


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 10:07 AM.


#79 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:16 AM

For this reason, John S. Bell (of Bell's theorem notoriety), among others, has suggested that the simplest way to resolve the conflict is to revert to a Lorentzian conception of relative motion, which presumes absolute simultaneity and eschews SR's concept of "relative simultaneity.

 

https://pdfs.semanti...40f9c00d541.pdf

 

 

How does your "math" resolve that issue, I wonder, eh, GAHD?  Does the math "explain it all?"

 

I imagine that modern day members of the Pythagorean cult, as you appear to be, have an answer to this, but, like I said, they wouldn't let my sorry *** join.

 

Chem most certainly has the answer, too, so I'm asking him the same question.


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 09:30 AM.


#80 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:34 AM

As Einstein himself clearly stated, the math does not formulate, or dictate, the theoretical hypothesis.  To the contrary, the (unverifiable) hypothesis dictates the math that needs to be employed.

 

The fundamental theoretical issues cannot be resolved by "learning the math," sorry, GAHD (and Chem).

 

Incidentally, as Einstein also pointed out, empirical observations do not, and cannot, dictate the theoretical hypothesis either.  That is the product of what Einstein called "the voluntary choice of a creative mind" (paraphrasing, at this point, because I haven't bothered to retrieve his words verbatim).

 

I took the time to look at Chem's profile.  Given that he lists "the philosophy of science" as one of his major interests, I'm kinda surprised that he never seems to have anything to contribute on that topic.


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 09:48 AM.


#81 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1077 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:41 AM

 (although it would a boon for the diet industry if the travelling twin could come back permanently thinner due to some permanent form of length contraction).

 

I know I'd be standing sideways the whole trip!



#82 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:30 AM

Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. (Hermann Minkowski, 1908)

 

So, time, "by itself," is a "mere shadow," eh?

 

Oooooh, how mystical.

 

Unfortunately, the esteemed Minkowski was a mathematician, not a physicist, and was not particularly qualified to ascertain much about an "independent reality."

 

Just as unfortunately, since his time, many so-called "physicists" have seemingly adopted the view that physics is math.  It aint.



#83 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:52 AM

Speed is a ratio, i.e., distance traveled divided by time elapsed.  It is a concept which requires that you first ascertain both the amount of distance involved and the amount of corresponding time.

 

But, of course, once you postulate that a certain speed is always known, a priori, then you can simply mathematically deduce one of the other components.  They will be forced, by your postulate, to vary in accordance with your preordained determination of speed.  You no longer have to empirically establish time and distance.  This is the basis of Minkowski's conclusions about "independent reality."  If the facts don't fit the theory, well, then, so much the worse for the facts, as some theorist (Hegel) once said.

 

SR postulates that the speed of light is invariant (at least in a vacuum and in all inertial frames).  It is not invariant in an accelerating frame, as SR acknowledges.  But this is merely an unproven premise.  It seems odd that you can supposedly somehow "know" the speed, without ever knowing the (true) time and distance involved.  Interestingly, GR abandons the notion that the speed of light is invariant in all  inertial frames. In GR the gravitational time dilation is absolute, not relative.

 

As J.S. Bell, among many others, noted, there are perfectly coherent theories which postulate that the speed of light is not invariant in all inertial frames.  Such theories reject Minkowski's notion of "spacetime." This rejection allows QM to become compatible with gravity, which GR, with it's postulation of "curved spacetime," doesn't.


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 02:41 PM.


#84 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 02:35 PM

Einstein's clock synchronization procedure presupposes a  certain "one way" speed of light.  He himself said this was not a "fact" or a deduction, but merely an arbitrarily chosen dictum.

 

Physicists agree that there is no way to actually determine the one way speed of light, so any conclusion one makes about it cannot come from empirical observation.

 

SR posits that the average speed of light measured on a "round trip" can be "cut in half" to arrive at it's one-way speed in each direction, and is therefore the same, each way.

 

Other completely viable theories posit that the speed of light is not the same in each direction.  Such a theory (i.e. not SR) is used by the GPS



#85 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1078 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 07:43 PM

Take 2 clocks, slowly separate them both very slowly. Use 1 to trigger a laser and the other to measure when it arrives. Subtract t1-t2 and you have the speed of light over the separation between them. That's a 1 way speed of light measured.