Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Spacetime: More Hogwash From "fairy-Tale Physics"


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#18 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 06 June 2018 - 02:28 AM

Here's a video, called "gravity visualized," of a high school teacher using a rubber sheet to demonstrate how gravity works:

 

 

It addition to the fact that space does NOT curve significantly near earth, other questions about this "explanation" emerge.

 

Notice that when he puts a marble of the edge of the sheet, it immediately starts moving toward the depressed center where the weight is.  But why?  Because "space is curved?"  Why doesn't it just sit where he places it?  Because he is doing this whole experiment in earth's gravitational field, that's why.  That's the only reason the rubber sheet is stretched downward to begin with.  Like any other object on earth the marble heads "downhill" when it is not on a level plain.  Why?  Because it is attracted toward the center of the earth, not the center of the rubber sheet. "Spacetime" doesn't seem to be needed at all to explain this.


Edited by Moronium, 06 June 2018 - 02:41 AM.


#19 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 06:48 AM

The spacetime concept which I have been primarily questioning in this thread is Minkowski's spacetime, which applies to a theory of relative motion in flat space.

 

I am not familiar with the mathematical details of GR, which is a theory of gravity--a completely different thing.

 

GR is a beautiful theory of gravity, but I suspect that it is merely a product of mathematics, just as Newton's universal law of gravitation is.  Newton never tried to "explain" gravity and expressly refused to try to do so.  He regarded "action at a distance" to be a rational absurdity.  His "law" is not a theory, it is a mere mathematical law, a mechanistic formula, deduced from observation with no explanation of how or why things work out that way.

 

With respect to the "spacetime" of GR, Lee Smolin's observations come to mind, i.e.:

 

...the reason physicists have come to reject the reality of time is that they have been bewitched by the beauty and success of the mathematical models they use into mistaking those models for reality.  To think like this, Smolin claims, is to forget, or to deny, that the objects of mathematics – numbers, curves etc – do not exist, whereas physics concerns itself with what does exist,...

 

 

With respect to the spacetime of GR, I see physicists claim that gravity is not "caused" by a curvature of space, but rather by "time pointing downwards."   This is a proposition that strikes me as utterly nonsensical.  What could it even mean, as far as "reality" goes?  http://www.sciencefo...time-curvature/

 

As I have noted in other posts, GR cannot be reconciled with QM for the very same reason that (in theories of motion) SR can't be reconciled with LR, i.e.,  GR regards time as relative whereas QM, like Newton, Lorentz, and many others, treats time as an absolute.


Edited by Moronium, 07 June 2018 - 08:29 AM.


#20 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:46 AM

Many people seem to think that  by merely repeating their assertions is a slightly different form, they have proved the validity of their assumptions--i.e., classical circular reasoning.

 

A relativist might say, for example, that time dilation occurs because the speed of light in constant in every inertial frame of reference.  But this is totally backwards and merely begs the question.

 

In truth, SR first asserts, as a fundamental postulate, without proof and without compulsion by empirical observation, that the speed of light is constant. Once you say that then, by necessity, one must conclude that time varies.  Therefore to say that "time varies" for this reason is merely to repeat your original assumption.  You can never "prove" or "explain" your fundamental assumption by assuming that it is true.  Whether it's true or not is just a matter of faith.

 

Merely reiterating your assumptions ad infinitum cannot possibly "explain" them.  Yet that's the only type of supposed "explanation" that has been given by any poster here, that I've seen.


Edited by Moronium, 07 June 2018 - 08:15 AM.


#21 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 09:24 AM

Here's kinda the way this type of "argument" works.

 

1.  I assert that all cats are black

2.  We see a black cat and you ask me why it is black.

3.  I say "Because it is a cat."

 

Now we see a white cat, and you ask me why, if my assertion is correct, this cat is white.

 

I say:  "Because it's not a cat, obviously.  I already told you, all cats are black.  Are you deaf?"


Edited by Moronium, 07 June 2018 - 09:46 AM.


#22 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 06:55 PM

More magic from SPACETIME!!

 

There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light....The current recession velocity of the points from which the CMB was emitted is 3.2c. At the time of emission their speed was 58.1c, assuming (ΩM,ΩΛ) = (0.3,0.7). Thus we routinely observe objects that are receding faster than the speed of light and the Hubble sphere is not a horizon....Apparent superluminal motion is observed in many radio galaxies, blazars, quasars and recently also in microquasars....it is thought that galaxies which are at a distance of more than about 14 billion light-years from us today have a recession velocity which is faster than light.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ster-than-light

 

Well, hold on a minute here--this is quite disturbing...wouldn't all that faster than light travel kinda disprove special relativity? 

 

Not to fret--SPACETIME to the rescue!

 

Although the theory of special relativity forbids objects to have a relative velocity greater than light speed, and general relativity reduces to special relativity in a local sense (in small regions of spacetime where curvature is negligible), general relativity does allow the space between distant objects to expand in such a way that they have a "recession velocity" which exceeds the speed of light,

 

 

Turns out, none of those galaxies are moving at all, they say.  The distance between them just expands that's all!  It's magic, I tells ya!

 

A few minutes ago, I thought I walked down to the liquor store for a couple of jugs of wine.   Turns out I was deluded.  Motion doesn't exist at all--nothing ever moves.  In truth the space between me and the liquor store just shrunk and we came together for a spell without either one of us moving it all.  Then space expanded again, see?


Edited by Moronium, 09 June 2018 - 07:08 PM.


#23 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 03:03 AM

Well, it seems that few people here are able to think critically about the indoctrination they received at the hands of the priests of the Church of Scientism.  (a branch of the Church of  Relativism, and the minor god,  Einstein.

 

It does not seem to matter how much conflicting material you point to in Relativity, and how many times you explain why its nonsensical, they just wander off thinking that you are the one who understands nothing, however they cant explain why you are wrong.

 

Ive got two video on-line that I was hoping to have a discussion about, but I already know what they are going to say.  Something like, "you are an idiot, and you can't understand Inertial reference frames", your so ignorant that we cant begin to explain it, you should go do a course on it, but you are too stupid"

 

https://www.bitchute...o/9CK9E5J5pGwZ/

 

https://www.bitchute...eo/SRV45pZlWXYs