|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 21, 2005 23:42:44 GMT -5
Oh no - I did 5 hours studying today on General Relativity. In particular - I'm still searching for absolute evidence that spacetime is warped by Gravity. I'm getting a bit frustrated by examining the known effects of Gravity - which are indeed described perfectly even down to the precession of the elliptical orbital path of Mercury by 1 degree every 8000 years. But I still believe that theres no proof that spacetime is curved. Newton described his laws of motion without knowning what gravity actually was, and he was almost correct, then E comes along and builds on that and puts gravity down to the bending of space. His predictions are 100% correct and fit all observations to date. But I cannot read anywhere still what is physically being bent, and whether it is actually **being** bent. All I read about is effects. For an example of my problem, consider this. An apple falls from a tree. Ok, both N and E can see the apple fall, so can we. N says it falls, and this is how it falls. FINE E says it falls, and this is how it falls. FINE but, **and** it falls because space is bent. N clearly only says it falls. (and is correct - it does indeed fall - and N says it falls at this speed and this acceleration rate etc.) E says the same, but also he thinks he knows **why** it falls at this speed and acceleration rate etc.) However - both guys say virtually the same thing, (in the case of the apple), but I suggest that a) Newton admitted he had no idea what caused it to fall (he just said its down to "gravity" but I dont know what that is). b) Einstein says I know what it is - space is bent. Can you see what I mean? Both guys describe the same, one doesnt know how to describe the **force** which caused it, one says he does know - but neither has absolute proof. I maintain that Einstien only describes **effects** better than Newton, but does not **prove** that spacetime is bent. If anyone knows any papers which describe "gravity" in any way other than by **effect** I would appreciate a posting here. I'd like to discount in advance any papers on :- Gravitational Lensing Precession of orbital paths Time Dilation Light Cone Deviation As they are all just simple examples of **effect**. I would - believe it or not - like to be wrong, and I would like E to be correct, but E died unable to combine GR with Quantum Mechanics, and I firmly, at this time, believe that this was because he was barking up the wrong tree with his in grained ideas that spacetime is bent. In summary - at the moment. Spacetime is NOT BENT by gravity. The effects are caused by an unknown force acting on objects. I would like to believe Spacetime IS BENT as it makes things easy, but theres no proof.  All is smooth. |
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 22, 2005 0:03:54 GMT -5
The worse thing about GR and Space in general is that nobody is interested. I find it interesting in itself that noone wants to know how the universe works. Even my best friends have told me to shut up when it comes down to examining space (big bang, planets, stars, fusion, fission, quantum theory etc). I dont understand why they dont want to know whats going on around them. Oh well. I'm happy in my search anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by krazydiamond on Jan 22, 2005 17:20:24 GMT -5
apparently, Andy, there are a lot of people interested in just that (proof that spacetime is bent), in fact it's a bit of a Holy Grail for you GR types. i'm always skeptical of mathmatical convenience to be honest. perhaps instead of the word "warp", it's more of a density issue, though some would say that is just word play. do you subscribe to Scientific American, Andy? you may try this site for some in depth articles: www.sciamarchive.org/KD |
|
|
|
Post by cookie3rocks on Jan 22, 2005 23:31:58 GMT -5
I tend to lean more toward the string theory myself, the theory of everything. I don't claim to have a menza IQ, and can't even adequately restate what I have studied. But I have watched a butt load of Discovery Channel programs and done a little reading on the subject. I like that it brings theology and science together. For once and for all, both are made relavent. The string theory allows for other parallel deminsions that vibrate at a slightly different frequency from one another, thus explaining the "after life", "ghosts", near death experiences, ect. I think within this framework we are evolving. We are coming to use a part of brains at a higher level, to be able to recognise these dimentions.
But that's just me ;D
cookie
|
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Jan 24, 2005 7:40:01 GMT -5
Andy
M-theory seems to try to tie quantum mechanics and general relativity. Take a look at it.
I still get confused with the idea that 1)gravity is due to the bending of space/time, and 2) gravity is due to a yet undiscovered "graviton". Does the particle bend space/time?
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by docone31 on Jan 24, 2005 22:32:58 GMT -5
Andy, one of the reasons I believe people appear to not think about space is, it cannot be touched in a way that has depth and weight to most people.
Even reading your musings, you are trying to make clear what is not. It becomes an abstraction even though it is bounded on "valid" theories.
I have pondered, what is unique thought? How many thoughts and postulates are goverened by experience or visual, or tactile emotions? How pure is a concept? In the divination of string theories, relativity, space folding, how much is introduced by something said on TV.
Perhaps what we are not seeing is right in front of our eyes. We have been trained to see in a certain fashion. Life itself dictates a participation in material acquisition, this moderates pure thougth
What an amazing gift if someone breaks through. What a responsibility we would incur to such a person. That person would not be capable of existing such as we do in life.
I treasure your thoughts and musings. I have nothing to contribute though. My life has taken me away from the abstract hypothosis and put me up close and personal.
I do wonder though, if we are able to go to another world, have we learned enough yet?
I think the answer is there, we have yet to have eyes to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 26, 2005 9:55:03 GMT -5
P-Branes I hear now....in Hawkings Universe in a Nutshell.
Dam I think theres more reading to do.
I havent got a clue what its all about - the blue lace is almost done though - back to earth - one or two more days, you know how it is when you think maybe that "just one extra" day could be worth it........
|
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Jan 28, 2005 7:30:38 GMT -5
Hey Andy, are you majoring in physics by any chance?
ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 28, 2005 12:36:33 GMT -5
Wish I were - agatenut - maybe i'd get a clearer clue of whats around me. As it is - I'm just treading water - but the search is fun. Should be a bit clearer after my friday night beers and contemplations (probably not ) |
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Jan 31, 2005 7:10:30 GMT -5
I really thought you WERE a physics major the way you study the subject. Good for you, buddy! My hat's off to anyone who keeps on learning for the love of it! |
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Jan 31, 2005 7:44:08 GMT -5
Cheers Agatenut,
Just to let you know, I watched a program the other night - all about e=mc2.
Fission etc.
I real blinder about how much energy can be obtained from such a small amout of matter.
(note we call it "matter").
Anyway - the program went and focussed on the atom bomb and Einstiens part in it (which was minimal beyond the letter to the president (rosevelt spx10)
Shame really as i was more desperate to learn about nuclear fission than why Nagasaki got the whack.
Think I understood it though - a neutron with no charge makes the plutonium atom unstable. The Neutron doesnt want anything to do with the plutonium atom, but it has no choice in the matter.
There is no deflective magnetic field between the neutron and the plutonium atom, as there is when you use an electron, so the bugger sticks to the atom and makes it unstable, breaks it open, and releases two more neutrons in the process (which then go off and slam into more atoms thus the Chain Reaction).
I was left wondering about the famous "E=MC2" equation though by the end of the program. I wish I could take it as "red" but I cant.
I cannot quite see why Energy has to be equavalent to anything to do with the speed of light.
E=M - well I can sit with that, fine.
But I cannot and indeed I **hate** the inclusion of the speed of light in problems relating to mass and energy.
I will probably get laughed at, but c is an EFFECT in my view. It isnt the be all and end all, it just cant go any faster because X will stall it.
See where Im coming from?
And X we know nothing about - just like we know nothng about what happened before the big bang.
Yes - I can see and indeed - have proof - of the amount of energy released in a chain reaction inside an unstable quantity such as uranium or plutonium.
Where does C come in? There is no mention if C in an atomic chain reaction is there?
Einstien was clever for sure - but Im sorry - what the heckers has C got to do with anything?
He challenged everything he was ever asked. So will I, and in doing so i challenge him.
He focussed too much on C. Way too much.
C IS AN *****EFFECT*****. THATS ALL. ITS NOT THE RULER.
I wish he was alive today so I could question him and contradict him.
|
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Feb 1, 2005 7:51:57 GMT -5
Mark, what if you looked at energy in purely mechanical terms? The "Joule" (kilogram meter squared /second squared). In other words energy = mass multiplied by distance squared/time squared. And distance squared/time squared = velocity squared. all photons (energy) travel at "c". I don't know if this makes any sense.
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller 
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Feb 10, 2005 14:11:50 GMT -5
Ahh Yes but when the apple falls- and nobody is there to see it does it really fall- See the problem is that you are all trying to get a firm grasp on this from Human perspective- Why do we only use like 5% of aour brains? What does the other 95% do? See you can not possible comprehend that the apple does not fall unless there is some kind of human perception!
Oh here they come with my shot- I'll be ok!
|
|
agatenut
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since August 2004
Posts: 127
|
Post by agatenut on Feb 11, 2005 6:48:04 GMT -5
Stefan,
That sounds like something a quantum physicist would say! Very perceptive of you! ;D
ralph
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Feb 11, 2005 9:03:20 GMT -5
I spent a summer collecting fossils many years ago and I was workin a shale bank when I notices that the falling shale only made noise when I was around- It was always falling- but it was only noisy for me- Made me feel special till a chunk hit me in the head- well after that I have never been right in the head!  |
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Feb 11, 2005 10:29:06 GMT -5
Isnt that something to do with like - a cat - schrodingers (not sure about the spelling).
The cat in the box is allowed to be both dead and alive, until the box is opened, and then the onlooker makes it what it is by seeing it.
It is neither dead or alive until the box is opened.
I made a new window frame for the garage earlier in the week - VERY VERY relaxing to be away from the PC for a couple of days.
Sawing up the wood and banging round the garage - I didnt think about space once - makes a change.
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Feb 11, 2005 12:30:06 GMT -5
Now you got it
|
|
|
|
Post by Original Admin on Feb 11, 2005 13:09:47 GMT -5
I reckon so Stefan. Basically just chill out and get on with it. |
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Feb 16, 2005 9:39:31 GMT -5
Now you got it- In the end we are all still worm fodder  |
|
|
|
Post by krazydiamond on Feb 16, 2005 16:10:11 GMT -5
soon you will be able to buy (authentic) Worm Fodder on eBay! right next to the 6000 year old water and container of antique (toxic) air.
KD
|
|
