Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 208

Thread: Einstein's Gravity

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125

    Einstein's Gravity

    INTRODUCTION

    People tend to think the speed of light is constant, and Einstein said it. It isn't exactly true. Yes, he started with this as a postulate in 1905, but in 1911 he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where you can see his ideas evolving as he talks about c = c0 (1 + Φ/c≤). Then in 1916 in section 22 of Relativity: The Special and General Theory he explains the limitations of the SR postulate:

    "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".

    People see the word "velocity" in the 1920 translation without seeing the context, and without seeing that Einstein wasn't talking about velocity as a vector quantity. He didn't speak English in 1920, it was a popular science book, this was the common usage of velocity, as in high-velocity bullet. What he said was die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. This translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. He was saying the speed varies with position, and so the light curves like a car veers when the near-side wheels encounter mud at the side of the road.

    It comes as something as a shock for people to realise Einstein was talking about the variable speed of light. It doesn't fit with the relativity they think they know. And that's the size of it. Relativity today is something different, and people don't know it. People think Einstein told us about curved spacetime, but when you read The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity it's just not there. Yes, he talks about geometry, but he also talks about the equations of motion, through space, because you can't move through spacetime. It's just where we plot our lines. There's other things that people don't know. They don't know that Einstein was derided by some theoreticians even in 1923. You can see a reference to this on page 53 of Graham Farmelo's The Strangest Man:

    "At that time, Cunningham and Eddington were streets ahead of the majority of their Cambridge colleagues, who dismissed Einstein's work, ignored it, or denied its significance".

    Many people don't know that despite the media accolades and public adulation, Einstein drifted out of the mainstream from 1927 when he fell out with Bohr and others over quantum mechanics. They don't know that General Relativity was a "cottage industry" until the sixties, when the Golden Age of General Relativity kicked in with paradigm shifts that changed it more than people know:

    "The Golden Age of General Relativity is the period roughly from 1960 to 1975 during which the study of general relativity, which had previously been regarded as something of a curiosity, entered the mainstream of theoretical physics. During this period, many of the concepts and terms which continue to inspire the imagination of gravitation researchers (and members of the general public) were introduced, including black holes and 'gravitational singularity'. At the same time, in closely related development, the study of physical cosmology entered the mainstream and the Big Bang became well established... A number of simultaneous paradigm shifts characterize the Golden Age of general relativity. First and foremost, the Big Bang became the canonical cosmological model. Other paradigm shifts included a growing appreciation of the: Role of curvature in general relativity; Theoretical importance of the black holes; Importance of geometrical machinery and levels of mathematical structure, especially local versus global spacetime structure; Overall legitimacy of cosmology by the wider physics community".

    Nor do they know how in 1949 Einstein and Godel worked out that time is cofounded with motion through space, not with space. It's there in A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein by Palle Yourgrau. But perhaps the signal most important thing people don't know, is that whilst aether is a taboo word which is most definitely out of the mainstream, Einstein's gave his Leyden address in 1920. And the title is Ether and the theory of relativity. There's Einstein, talking about inhomogeneous space and calling it an aether:

    "Machís idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that Ďempty spaceí in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty".

    All in all it adds up to something rather strange. It seems that Einstein's gravity has always been fighting against the mainstream, and still is. When you work it back all the way to the original electrodynamics and m=E/c≤ and look at what Einstein actually said, the realisation dawns that relativity is the Cinderella of modern physics, and she has some ugly sisters. What follows is a layman's overview of what I consider to be Einstein's gravity. See what you think.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    EINSTEIN'S GRAVITY

    You probably think of gravity as ďcurved spacetimeĒ, but that's the effect, not the cause. Take a derivative of that curved spacetime, and what you get is a gradient. That's the cause, a gradient in space, not curved spacetime. And this gradient in space is caused in turn by the central energy locked up in the matter of the planet or star.

    Think about the cannonball in the rubber sheet. The cannonball is heavy, and it makes a depression that will deflect a rolling marble, or even cause the marble to circle like an orbit. Itís a nice analogy, but itís wrong. Itís wrong because it relies on gravity to pull the cannonball down in the first place. Itís circular. It uses gravity to give you a picture of gravity.



    To get a better analogy, imagine youíre standing underneath the rubber sheet. Grab hold of the rubber around the cannonball and pull it down to give yourself some leeway. Now tie a knot underneath the cannonball, get rid of the cannonball, and let go. Now weíve got a flat rubber sheet with a knot in it. The knot is a stress configuration, and surrounding it is tension. The tension gradually reduces as you move away from the knot, so if you could measure it, you would measure a radial gradient. But measuring it is trickier than you think. Because in this analogy we canít use a marble. This rubber sheet represents the world, thereís no stepping outside of it. Our ďmarbleĒ has to be within the sheet, and a part of it. What we need is a ripple. A photon will do, because a photon is a transverse wave, also known as a shear wave. In mechanics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = √(G/ρ)

    The G here is the shear modulus of elasticity, to do with rigidity. The ρ is the density. The equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer, and slower if the density increases. You canít directly apply material concepts to space, but in electrodynamics the equation is somewhat similar: c = √(1/ε0μ0). Here ε0 is electric permittivity and μ0 is magnetic permeability. People don't quite understand these terms because they don't understand the electromagnetic field. They forget about the dualism of Jefimenko's equations, and about Minkowski's wrench, which is two pages from the end of Space and Time:

    "Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

    A moving electric field doesn't generate a magnetic field, it is a magnetic field, because Minkowski's wrench is describing a screw thread. Find a drill bit or reamer, grip it in your right hand, and put your left thumb on the bottom of it, and push upwards. It turns, just like the right-hand rule. That's because the electric field is in essence a "twist field", and the magnetic field is a "turn field" view of the self-same thing. Permittivity is telling you the twistability of space, and permeability is telling you how good it is at making things turn. Hence they are similar to stiffness and density, and the photon is similar to a ripple in a rubber sheet. But this analogy isn't perfect, because in a rubber sheet the speed increases as we approach the knot. For space, speed doesnít increase as we approach our central stress. Instead it reduces. It reduces because the pressure is outward rather than inward. Itís like pushing your fingers into a taut rubber sheet and then spreading them. The energy conditions the surrounding space to create a negative tension gradient, a pressure gradient. And even then the analogy still isn't perfect, because you can't tie a knot in two dimensions. You need three. So we need to extend our rubber sheet into a rubber block. Then instead of it being under tension like a sheet stretched over a frame, we need it to be under pressure, like a clear transparent jelly squeezed into a glass box. And to round it off, pair production tells us that an electron is quite literally "made of light". It has spin and angular momentum, there's something going round and round in there. What is it? Annihilation tells us the answer. It's a 511keV photon, somehow trapped by itself. It's like a knot, but a knot of stress-energy, a knot of "ripple", not a knot in the rubber itself.

    As to how it works in the real world, it's to do with vacuum impedance, which is Z0 = √(μ0/ε0). Impedance is like resistance, but for alternating current rather than direct current:



    You might wonder why alternating current is important here, but it's very simple. That's what a light wave is:



    There's an electromagnetic field variation, first one way, then the other, and you just can't have this field variation without some form of current. But because a photon conveys energy in a three-dimensional space, and the dimensionality of energy is pressure x volume, it's better to think of a photon in terms of a pressure pulse, shaped something like a lemon. Think of it as a "pulse of spacewarp", where the sinusoidal waveform is tracing a slope. It grows to a maximum a quarter of the way along the lemon, goes to zero half way along, increases to a negative maximum three-quarters of the way along, and then goes back to zero. But it's still a wave, and its rate of propagation is determined by impedance, because impedance is describing "the strength of space". If space is stronger, and youíre a photon, it's harder to twist and it turns you more easily. Impedance increases as we approach the central matter/energy stress, the photon is a quantum of alternating current, a higher vacuum impedance equates to more resistance, and that results in a lower velocity, hence a lower c because c = √(1/ε0μ0).

    Hence when a photon passes a massive body, it's travelling through local space where there's a gradient in c across the photon wavefront. Hence it veers towards the body a little. What weíre seeing is refraction. Itís not quite the same as refraction through a glass block, but itís similar. Itís so very similar that when we see it through our telescopes, we call it gravitational lensing:



    Hereís the crucial point: our real world is like ghostly transparent block of rubber containing ripples of stress, some of which are tied into knots called matter. And we are a part of it, we are ripples and knots too. We are painted into the bulk of the "rubber" that is space. Like Flatlanders, we stretch with it. We are made out of this insubstantial fabric. We are so totally immersed in it and so much a part of it that we cannot directly measure any change in vacuum impedance. And nor can we directly measure any change in the velocity of light, because we calibrate our rods and clocks using the motion of light:

    Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom...

    The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...

    So when we measure the motion, we're taking that measurements using units derived from... the motion of light. And as pair production is telling us, we are made of this stuff. Anything that affects the speed of light affects electrons, and we can say the same for protons and neutrons. It affects all processes. That's why we canít measure the change in c locally. It's like trying to measure the length of your shadow using the shadow of your ruler. It always measures the same, be it morning, noon, or dusk. But we can infer the change in c. We can measure it from afar, by comparison. Itís there in the gravitational time dilation, programmed into our GPS. The evidence is hiding in plain view, we can see it but we donít know what weíre seeing. For many of us c is set in stone, and to challenge the constancy of the speed of light would be to challenge relativity. But Einstein told us about the variable speed of light, and it's the forgotten legacy. That's what time dilation is. Gravity doesn't make "time to go slower". The second is defined using the motion of light. The light goes slower, the space is not homogeneous, there's a gradient in vacuum impedance and hence a gradient in c, and that's why things fall down.

    The bald truth is that a gradient in c is what a gravitational field is, and when you can appreciate this, you can allow yourself the epiphany of understanding gravitational potential energy. We know that E=mc≤, so a cannonball sitting quietly in space represents maybe 10^11 Joules of energy. If a planet now comes onto the scene, the cannonball will fall towards it, and just before impact will also have kinetic energy of say 10^8 Joules. Now, we ask, where did this kinetic energy actually come from? Has it been sucked out of the planet via some magical mysterious action at a distance? Let's ask an expert, somebody who was right on the money:

    ďThat gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into itĒ.

    That's a no from Sir Isaac Newton, and he should know. So, has it been magically extracted from the surrounding space? No, the energy density in the surrounding space is not reduced when a cannonball falls through it. The force of gravity is a pseudo force. A free-falling body is not accelerating, the body on the ground is the one accelerating. No acceleration means no force and no energy is being delivered. So the only source of that kinetic energy is the cannonball itself. It hasnít come from its mass because mass is ďinvariantĒ. So E=mc≤ and weíve got a cannonball kinetic energy that hasnít come out of the m. Thereís only one place left it can have come from: the c. The c up there is greater than the c down here, and thereís a gradient in between. The Pound-Rebka experiment backs this up. Thereís a gravitational blue-shift because the c is reduced so it looks like thereís more energy in the photon at the bottom of the tower. But the photon hasn't changed, the environment has changed, and the measuring devices, because of the gradient in c.

    Thereís always a gradient in c wherever thereís gravity. Yes, the gradient might be very small. But don't neglect it like the tidal gradient, which is a gradient in the gradient in c. Because without that local gradient in c, things don't fall down.

    Letís take a look at an electron to see why things fall down. It has spin and angular momentum, and electron-positron annihilation is telling us that the only thing there is a self-trapped 511keV photon. Stick this circle of light that looks like this: O, into a gravitational gradient, caused by a very large number of other electrons and protons some distance off. Whatís going to happen? Letís divide the circle into four flat quadrants and make it very simple:

    ..
    ....
    ..

    Starting from the left and going anticlockwise, at a given instant we have a photon travelling down like this ↓. Thereís a gradient in c from top to bottom, but all it does is make the photon look blueshifted. A little while later the photon is moving like this → and the lower portion of the photon wavefront is subject to a slightly lower c than the upper portion. So it bends, refracts, curves down a little. Later itís going this way ↑ and looksy redshifted, and later still itís going this way ← and bends down again. These bends translate into a different position for our electron. The bent photon path becomes electron motion. The electron falls down:




    The reducing speed of light effectively bleeds motion out of the component photon and into the electron. But only half the cycle got bent, so only half the reduced c goes into kinetic energy aka relativistic mass.

    Now you can understand why light is deflected twice as much as matter. Gravity is not some magical mysterious action-at-a-distance force. Itís not caused by "curved spacetime". There are no hidden dimensions, there's no blizzard of gravitons sleeting between the masses. Thereís no energy being delivered, so gravity isnít a force, and it isn't negative energy. There is no location in a gravitational field where the matter/energy of a planet, or the vacuum energy of space is negative. Itís just the gradient in the properties of space caused by the central stress-energy. That's why gravity waves are elusive. A gravity wave is a wave in space, and LIGO is trying to measure it with light, which are more waves in space. Maybe we need to look for transient desynchronisation of GPS clocks.

    You can also understand why gravity is so weak. The matter/energy stress is concentrated at one location, but the negative-tension gradient that balances it extends across the universe. The universe is expanding, so that's the Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis made simple. And that's another one of the greats who was, in the end, against the mainstream, But that's a story for another day, along with why gravity is a gradient in the relative strength of the strong force and the electromagnetic force, because of alpha, the fine structure constant. The ironic cosmic joke is that gravity is itself, an exhibition of the unification of the forces.
    Last edited by Farsight; 2009-Nov-15 at 03:54 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    INTRODUCTION

    People tend to think the speed of light is constant, and Einstein said it. It isn't exactly true. Yes, he started with this as a postulate in 1905, but in 1911 he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, where you can see his ideas evolving as he talks about c = c0 (1 + Φ/c≤).
    That was a mistake. Many years have passed and we now know the difference between coordinate speed of light and local speed of light.

    Q1: Is your ATM based on the theory that you don't know the difference between the two definitions of light speed?


    Then in 1916 in section 22 of Relativity: The Special and General Theory he explains the limitations of the SR postulate:

    "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)".

    People see the word "velocity" in the 1920 translation without seeing the context, and without seeing that Einstein wasn't talking about velocity as a vector quantity.
    Q2: Is your ATM based on the fact that you don't know that light velocity indeed varies in GR or is it based on the fact that you don't understand the difference between speed and velocity?


    Many people don't know that despite the media accolades and public adulation, Einstein drifted out of the mainstream from 1927 when he fell out with Bohr and others over quantum mechanics.
    Q3: Is your ATM a theory of disparaging Einstein?




    Nor do they know how in 1949 Einstein and Godel worked out that time is cofounded with motion through space, not with space.
    Q4: Is your ATM a theory of how time is "confounded" (!?) with motion through space? What if it isn't?



    All in all it adds up to something rather strange. It seems that Einstein's gravity has always been fighting against the mainstream, and still is.
    Q5: Is your ATM a collection of disparaging remarks based on your own misunderstandings about mainstream science?

    When you work it back all the way to the original electrodynamics
    Q6: So, can you "work back to the original electrodynamics"? What are the predictions of your ATM in this respect?


    and m=E/c≤
    Q7: Where did Einstein say m=E/c^2?

    and look at what Einstein actually said, the realisation dawns that relativity is the Cinderella of modern physics, and she has some ugly sisters.
    Q8: What are the "ugly sisters" according to your ATM?


    What follows is a layman's overview of what I consider to be Einstein's gravity. See what you think.
    Q9: What do you know about gravity?
    Q10: What is the connection between "Einstein's gravity(!?)" and your misconceptions about basic physics, like the behavior of light in a gravitational field?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    macaw: the difference between the coordinate speed of light and local speed of light is not generally understood. Hence the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "geometrical interpretation" that leads to a black hole singularity is wrong, and the Weinberg "field interpretation" that leads to a frozen star is right. The infinite time dilation at the black hole event horizon is a c=0 to observers in the universe at large.

    Q1: Is your ATM based on the theory that you don't know the difference between the two definitions of light speed?

    No.

    Q2: Is your ATM based on the fact that you don't know that light velocity indeed varies in GR or is it based on the fact that you don't understand the difference between speed and velocity?

    No.

    Q3: Is your ATM a theory of disparaging Einstein?

    No. Not at all.

    Q4: Is your ATM a theory of how time is "confounded" (!?) with motion through space? What if it isn't?

    Yes, I said cofounded. Time is cofounded with motion because a clock clocks up motion, not time. All measurements of time are measurements of motion.

    Q5: Is your ATM a collection of disparaging remarks based on your own misunderstandings about mainstream science?

    No.

    Q6: So, can you "work back to the original electrodynamics"? What are the predictions of your ATM in this respect?

    For starters, no FTL travel, no wormholes, no time travel, no energy-density singularities, no parallel worlds, a stable-pentaquark akin to a heavyweight proton, detection gravity waves via transient GPS clock desynchronisation.

    Q7: Where did Einstein say m=E/c^2?

    In DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?, see http://wien.cs.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabili...cles/e_mc2.pdf and note the footnote:

    The footnote is as it appeared in the 1923 edition. The 1923 English translation modified the notation used in Einstein’s 1905 paper to conform
    to that in use by the 1920’s; for example, c denotes the speed of light, as opposed the V used by Einstein in 1905. In this paper Einstein uses L to
    denote energy; the italicised sentence in the conclusion may be written as the equation “m = L/c≤” which, using the more modern E instead of L to
    denote energy, may be trivially rewritten as “E = mc≤”.


    Q8: What are the "ugly sisters" according to your ATM?

    String Theory, SUSY, and LQG.

    Q9: What do you know about gravity?

    See my second post, which I reserved with "editing" whilst checking the format.

    Q10: What is the connection between "Einstein's gravity(!?)" and your misconceptions about basic physics, like the behavior of light in a gravitational field?

    I have no misconceptions about basic physics or the behaviour of light in a gravitational field.
    Last edited by Farsight; 2009-Nov-15 at 04:41 PM. Reason: Typo re Misner/Thorne/Wheeler

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    You probably think of gravity as ďcurved spacetimeĒ, but that's the effect, not the cause. Take a derivative of that curved spacetime, and what you get is a gradient. That's the cause, a gradient in space, not curved spacetime. And this gradient in space is caused in turn by the central energy locked up in the matter of the planet or star.

    Think about the cannonball in the rubber sheet. The cannonball is heavy, and it makes a depression that will deflect a rolling marble, or even cause the marble to circle like an orbit. Itís a nice analogy, but itís wrong. Itís wrong because it relies on gravity to pull the cannonball down in the first place. Itís circular. It uses gravity to give you a picture of gravity.
    And guess what? This isn't how GR works. What you describe is the common misconception based on a picture used to explain GR to those people who are unfamiliar with differential geometry. The word "strawman" comes to mind. Is your argument with GR, or with an erroneous misconception of GR?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    EINSTEIN'S GRAVITY

    You probably think of gravity as ďcurved spacetimeĒ, but that's the effect, not the cause.
    Q10: What makes you say so? Do you have any proof?


    Take a derivative of that curved spacetime, and what you get is a gradient.
    Q11: derivatives and gradients are different things. What is the difference?
    Q12: Why don't you show us how you "take the derivative of curved spacetime"?

    That's the cause, a gradient in space, not curved spacetime.
    Q13: Prove it.

    And this gradient in space is caused in turn by the central energy locked up in the matter of the planet or star.
    Q14: Do you have any proof of that?



    You canít directly apply material concepts to space, but in electrodynamics the equation is somewhat similar: c = √(1/ε0μ0).
    Q15: Where does c = √(1/ε0μ0) come from?

    Here ε0 is electric permittivity and μ0 is magnetic permeability. People don't quite understand these terms because they don't understand the electromagnetic field.
    Q16: Do you have proof of that? Show it , please.


    They forget about the dualism of Jefimenko's equations, and about Minkowski's wrench, which is two pages from the end of Space and Time:
    Q17: What does the above have to do with all your basic misunderstandings about mainstream relativity?



    A moving electric field doesn't generate a magnetic field, it is a magnetic field,
    Q18: Really? Do you have the math to prove it?



    pair production tells us that an electron is quite literally "made of light". It has spin and angular momentum,
    Q19: Then how come that the electron spin is different from the photon spin?


    There's an electromagnetic field variation, first one way, then the other, and you just can't have this field variation without some form of current.
    Q20: What do em waves have to do with AC? The two propagate totally differently. Can you get AC propagate through vacuum? Is this one of the tenents of your ATM?


    the photon is a quantum of alternating current,
    Q21: really? Do you see the contradiction between the photon having zero charge and the current being made of charges?


    a higher vacuum impedance equates to more resistance, and that results in a lower velocity, hence a lower c because c = √(1/ε0μ0).
    Q22: What is the exact physical connection between vacuum impedance and light speed? You haven't established any in all the stuff you wrote.



    What weíre seeing is refraction.

    Nope, we are seeing something else.
    Q23: What really happens when light passes by a massive object?



    Itís not quite the same as refraction through a glass block, but itís similar.
    No, it isn't similar.

    Q24: Why isn't light bending by massive objects similar to refraction? Hint: it has to do with frequencies.



    And nor can we directly measure any change in the velocity of light,
    You are contradicting yourself, you just told us about gravitational lensing.
    Q25: Don't you know what velocity means?


    That's why we canít measure the change in c locally.
    Nope, this isn't why. Besides, you are contradicting yourself, there are certain "changes in c" (sic!) that we can and do measure.

    Q26: What are those changes?


    It's like trying to measure the length of your shadow using the shadow of your ruler.
    Q27: Don't you know that this is exactly how the Egyptians measured the height of their pyramids?




    Itís there in the gravitational time dilation, programmed into our GPS. The evidence is hiding in plain view, we can see it but we donít know what weíre seeing.
    Actually, we do. The fact that you don't is not affecting the rest of us.

    For many of us c is set in stone, and to challenge the constancy of the speed of light would be to challenge relativity.

    Nope, we know better. Answer Q1 and you will know yourself as well.


    But Einstein told us about the variable speed of light, and it's the forgotten legacy. That's what time dilation is.

    No connection (outside your misconceptions).
    Q28: What does variable light speed have to do with gravitational time dilation?


    The second is defined using the motion of light.
    No, it isn't.
    Q29: How is the second defined?

    The light goes slower, the space is not homogeneous, there's a gradient in vacuum impedance and hence a gradient in c, and that's why things fall down.
    Q30: Prove it. (experiment shows that you are wrong)



    We know that E=mc≤,
    Q31: What does this have to do with your (many) misconceptions about the nature of light ?



    So the only source of that kinetic energy is the cannonball itself.
    Really?
    Q32: So you don't need the planet for the cannonball to fall towards it, right?



    It hasnít come from its mass because mass is ďinvariantĒ.
    Q33: What does it mean that mass is "invariant"?


    So E=mc≤ and weíve got a cannonball kinetic energy that hasnít come out of the m.
    Q34: What is the connection between E=mc^2 and the cannonball kinetic energy? (Hint: none)



    Thereís only one place left it can have come from: the c. The c up there is greater than the c down here, and thereís a gradient in between. The Pound-Rebka experiment backs this up.
    Actually, wrong.
    Q34: What does the PR experiment really show?

    Thereís a gravitational blue-shift because the c is reduced(!?)
    Incorrect. Try again. Maybe you should first read and understand the experiment.






    The reducing speed of light effectively bleeds motion out of the component photon and into the electron. But only half the cycle got bent, so only half the reduced c goes into kinetic energy aka relativistic mass.
    Q35: What does pair annihilation have to do with your basic misunderstandings about light speed in a gravitational field? Pair annihilation has nothing to do with gravitational fields.



    Now you can understand why light is deflected twice as much as matter.
    Really?
    Q36: Where did you read that?

    Itís not caused by "curved spacetime". There are no hidden dimensions, there's no blizzard of gravitons sleeting between the masses.
    Q37: Do you have any proof?



    A gravity wave is a wave in space, and LIGO is trying to measure it with light
    No, it isn't.
    Q37: How does LIGO really work?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    macaw: the difference between the coordinate speed of light and local speed of light is not generally understood.
    Clearly not by you. It is fully understood by us mere mortals who studied mainstream science instead of making up stories.


    Hence the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "geometrical interpretation" that leads to a black hole singularity is wrong, and the Weinberg "field interpretation" that leads to a frozen star is right. The infinite time dilation at the black hole event horizon is a c=0 to observers in the universe at large.
    Q38: What does this word salad have to do with your inability to tell the difference between coordinate and local light speed?


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Q1: Is your ATM based on the theory that you don't know the difference between the two definitions of light speed?

    No.
    Based on your posts, it is.


    Q3: Is your ATM a theory of disparaging Einstein?

    No. Not at all.
    Based on your posts, it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Q5: Is your ATM a collection of disparaging remarks based on your own misunderstandings about mainstream science?

    No.
    Based on your posts, it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Q6: So, can you "work back to the original electrodynamics"? What are the predictions of your ATM in this respect?

    For starters, no FTL travel, no wormholes, no time travel, no energy-density singularities, no parallel worlds, a stable-pentaquark akin to a heavyweight proton, detection gravity waves via transient GPS clock desynchronisation.
    This is not what I asked you, I asked you to work out the basics electrodynamics. So, please do so.

    Q40: What is "detection gravity waves via transient GPS clock desynchronisation."?


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Q7: Where did Einstein say m=E/c^2?

    In DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?, see http://wien.cs.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabili...cles/e_mc2.pdf and note the footnote:

    The footnote is as it appeared in the 1923 edition. The 1923 English translation modified the notation used in Einstein’s 1905 paper to conform
    to that in use by the 1920’s; for example, c denotes the speed of light, as opposed the V used by Einstein in 1905. In this paper Einstein uses L to
    denote energy; the italicised sentence in the conclusion may be written as the equation “m = L/c≤” which, using the more modern E instead of L to
    denote energy, may be trivially rewritten as “E = mc≤”.
    Einstein himself never said such a thing.
    Q41: What did Einstein really say in his paper?


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Q8: What are the "ugly sisters" according to your ATM?

    String Theory, SUSY, and LQG.
    Q42: How can you make any pronounciation on these advanced theories when you have just demonstrated that you don't understand basic physics?



    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Q10: What is the connection between "Einstein's gravity(!?)" and your misconceptions about basic physics, like the behavior of light in a gravitational field?

    I have no misconceptions about basic physics or the behaviour of light in a gravitational field.
    Your posts prove exactly the opposite.
    Last edited by macaw; 2009-Nov-15 at 05:22 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    And guess what? This isn't how GR works. What you describe is the common misconception based on a picture used to explain GR to those people who are unfamiliar with differential geometry.
    But it is in line with Einstein, who told us how gravity works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    The word "strawman" comes to mind. Is your argument with GR, or with an erroneous misconception of GR?
    My argument is that the modern interpretation of general relativity is no longer in line with Einstein. Peter M Brown wrote an interesting paper concerning this, see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 for details. And until you can counter the historical information and scientific evidence and the brute logic I gave above, the word "strawman" cuts no ice whatsoever.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Q10 (re You probably think of gravity as ďcurved spacetimeĒ, but that's the effect, not the cause): What makes you say so? Do you have any proof?
    Yes, it's a simple proof: we don't move through spacetime. Spacetime is a mathematical space where we plot motion through space. A photon moves through space, not through spacetime. So the cause of its curvilinear path is not curved spacetime.

    Q11: derivatives and gradients are different things. What is the difference?

    Don't be facile. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative



    Q12: Why don't you show us how you "take the derivative of curved spacetime"?

    Here's a plot of gravitational potential akin to the bowling ball analogy of curved spacetime. Take the slope at any point to assess the strength of gravity at that point.



    Q13: Prove it.
    See question 10. Now you prove that curved spacetime makes things fall down.

    Q14: (Re this gradient in space is caused in turn by the central energy locked up in the matter of the planet or star). Do you have any proof of that?

    Yes, energy causes gravity, hence a photon moves in a curvilinear path through space. We then plot this motion as curved spacetime.

    Q15: Where does c = √(1/ε0μ0) come from?

    It's a well known expression. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space or search elsewhere: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...%b50%ce%bc0%29

    Q16: Do you have proof of that? Show it , please.

    This is basic stuff, macaw. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_constant and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability and

    Q17: What does the above have to do with all your basic misunderstandings about mainstream relativity?

    I don't misunderstand mainstream releativity, but it seems you have no understanding of electrodynamics. The relevance is this: the electric field is curved space.

    Q18: Really? Do you have the math to prove it? Yes, as per my previous link, it's Jefimenko's equations, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations

    Q19: Then how come that the electron spin is different from the photon spin?

    The electron spin is in two dimensions.

    Q20: What do em waves have to do with AC? The two propagate totally differently. Can you get AC propagate through vacuum? Is this one of the tenents of your ATM?

    An electromagnetic wave is alternating current. You simply cannot have a field variation without a current. An electromagnetic wave does not propapagate because the electric field generates a magnetic field. There is only one field, the electromagnetic field.

    Q21: (re the photon is a quantum of alternating current), really? Do you see the contradiction between the photon having zero charge and the current being made of charges?

    That's a misconception. An electron and a positron is literally made from a photon using pair production. When you move the electron you observe current, but what you're moving is the component 511keV photon.

    Q22: What is the exact physical connection between vacuum impedance and light speed? You haven't established any in all the stuff you wrote.

    Go and read up on permittivity, permeability, and impedance, then ask me again.


    (Re What weíre seeing is refraction). Nope, we are seeing something else.
    Q23: What really happens when light passes by a massive object?


    Oh yes we are seeing a refraction. What really happens when a light passes by a massive object is that it bends. It refracts. That's why we gravitational lenses.

    Q24: Why isn't light bending by massive objects similar to refraction? Hint: it has to do with frequencies.

    It is similar.

    You are contradicting yourself, you just told us about gravitational lensing.
    Q25: Don't you know what velocity means?


    Yes, I know what velocity means, and I knew that Einstein told us light bends because the speed of light varies with the locality.

    Nope, this isn't why. Besides, you are contradicting yourself, there are certain "changes in c" (sic!) that we can and do measure.

    When you measure the local speed of light, you always measure 299,792,458 m/s.

    Q26: What are those changes?

    We measure the second to be different in a time-dilated environment, and so we know that the speed of light at that location is different to the speed of light at some other location, even though observers at both locations measure the local speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s.

    Q27: Don't you know that this is exactly how the Egyptians measured the height of their pyramids?

    It isn't. They knew the height of the ruler.

    Actually, we do. The fact that you don't is not affecting the rest of us.
    Nope, we know better. Answer Q1 and you will know yourself as well.
    No connection (outside your misconceptions).


    You don't know better.

    Q28: What does variable light speed have to do with gravitational time dilation?

    It causes it.

    (Re the second is defined using the motion of light) It isn't.
    Q29: How is the second defined?


    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second where you can read "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". You sit there with the microwaves coming at you, counting peaks. When you get to 9,192,631,770 you tick off a second. So if the light moves slower, your second is bigger. The second is defined using the motion of light.

    Q30: Prove it. (experiment shows that you are wrong)

    Experiment does not show I'm wrong. Experiment shows I'm right.

    Q31: (Re E=mc≤) What does this have to do with your (many) misconceptions about the nature of light?

    You don't understand the first thing about permeability, permittivity, or impedance, so spare me the abuse.

    Q32: So you don't need the planet for the cannonball to fall towards it, right?

    Yes, you need a planet, but it does not supply the kinetic energy.

    Q33: What does it mean that mass is "invariant"?

    Stop wasting my time with trivia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

    Q34: What is the connection between E=mc^2 and the cannonball kinetic energy? (Hint: none)

    It's in E≤ = m≤c^4 + p≤c≤. In pair production and annihilaiton we see a switch between the mass term and the momentum term.

    Wrong. Q34: What does the PR experiment really show?

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment where you can read "It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field". The point is that clocks are calibrated using the motion of light.

    Incorrect. Try again. Maybe you should first read and understand the experiment.

    I understand the experiment, you're missing what Einstein actually said, and you're missing the obvious. The speed of light is reduced near the surface of a planet, and clocks are calibrated using the motion of light.

    Q35: What does pair annihilation have to do with your basic misunderstandings about light speed in a gravitational field? Pair annihilation has nothing to do with gravitational fields.

    It demonstrates that electrons are made of light, and why light is deflected twice as much as matter.

    (Re Now you can understand why light is deflected twice as much as matter. Really?) Q36: Where did you read that?[/quote]

    Your ignorance is excrutiating. See http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people...ia/lclens.html

    Q37 re Itís not caused by "curved spacetime". There are no hidden dimensions, there's no blizzard of gravitons sleeting between the masses: Do you have any proof?

    See earlier re curved spacetime being an effect not a cause. Do I have any proof that there are no hidden dimensions and no blizzard of gravitons? No, but nor do I have any proof that there are no fairies and angels.

    [i]Q37: How does LIGO really work?[/QUOTE]

    Don't you know anything? See http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/LLO/overviewsci.htm

    "LIGO will detect the ripples in space-time by using a device called a laser interferometer, in which the time it takes light to travel between suspended mirrors is measured with high precision using controlled laser light. Two mirrors hang far apart, forming one "arm" of the interferometer, and two more mirrors make a second arm perpendicular to the first. Viewed from above, the two arms form an L shape. Laser light enters the arms through a beam splitter located at the corner of the L, dividing the light between the arms. The light is allowed to bounce between the mirrors repeatedly before it returns to the beam splitter. If the two arms have identical lengths, then interference between the light beams returning to the beam splitter will direct all of the light back toward the laser. But if there is any difference between the lengths of the two arms, some light will travel to where it can be recorded by a photodetector".

    Now please pick up your game, you're embarrassing yourself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    684
    Farsight,

    Personally I think your post is brilliant. Far better researched, illustrated and anotated than any (typical BAUT ATM) objections thus far posted. I think your insights on illustrating it are the best I've seen. Have you considered getting Wolfram's mathematica to further illustrate this? I think if you sent them your posts they might send you a free home version to use. You can use it to make animations of your illustrations. Their preview vide is very impressive. You can produce these illustration based on mathematic formulas. I think you can use it to produce volumetric illustrations of the idea. String theory was of course vibrations on strings and M theory was vibrations on a membrane. Space of course is volumetric not membaneous but M theory is not yet developed to volumetric although volumetric can in some cases be illustrated with the membrane distorted into the volumetric.

    You might consider using the distortion of the graphic lines in the illustration to illustrate the spacial distortion and color to illustrate the tension. You could use the animation function to illustrate how waves, including the high energy waves of "mass" concentrations, react to the changing coeficient of refraction in the changing tension and changing spacial distortions.

    You might have a good chance of developing a formula for how the distortion/tension factors could harmonize and so produce a whole new and self consistant description of matter, energy, space and gravity.

    Have you had the insight that the waves of matter are moving in place at the speed of light? If that's what you're thinking you would have to slow down your animated illustrations to show it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    This "discussion" could do with some more specifics in places rather than the "yes it is"/"no it isn't" argument it is turning into. For example:

    Q14: (Re this gradient in space is caused in turn by the central energy locked up in the matter of the planet or star). Do you have any proof of that?

    Yes, energy causes gravity...
    That isn't a "proof", it is just repeating the same assertion.

    I have a few questions, though:

    An electromagnetic wave is alternating current. You simply cannot have a field variation without a current. An electromagnetic wave does not propapagate because the electric field generates a magnetic field. There is only one field, the electromagnetic field.
    Aren't fields and currents completely different things? And, it seems to me that your last two sentences contradict the need for an alternating current to generate the field: the field just is. If you take the (quite reasonable) view that it isn't a changing electric field generating a magnetic field generating ... then there is no more need for an AC current than there is for a moving magnet.

    It demonstrates that electrons are made of light, and why light is deflected twice as much as matter.
    Are you saying that an electron is made of photons in the same way a proton, say, is made of quarks? But if pair production is your evidence for this, doesn't that mean an electron is made of half a photon? How does that work? And, why do you say it is that way round, rather than saying a photon is made up of an electron and a positron? And if any particle-antiparticle pair can be produced, doesn't this mean that all particles would be made of light?

    (Re Now you can understand why light is deflected twice as much as matter. Really?) Q36: Where did you read that?

    See http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people...ia/lclens.html
    That page just appears to say that the deflection calculated by Newtonian physics is half that calcucated by relativity. It doesn't say anything about light vs matter.
    Last edited by Strange; 2009-Nov-16 at 12:59 PM. Reason: fixed quote

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    Farsight, personally I think your post is brilliant. Far better researched, illustrated and anotated than any (typical BAUT ATM) objections thus far posted. I think your insights on illustrating it are the best I've seen.
    Thanks aastrotech, I'm honoured.

    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    Have you considered getting Wolfram's mathematica to further illustrate this? I think if you sent them your posts they might send you a free home version to use. You can use it to make animations of your illustrations. Their preview vide is very impressive. You can produce these illustration based on mathematic formulas. I think you can use it to produce volumetric illustrations of the idea.
    I haven't considered Wolfram at all, but thanks for the idea. I have tried to get people interested in computer simulations of say pair production, and am talking to a couple of guys, but it's not easy, and there is resistance to trying a new tack.

    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    String theory was of course vibrations on strings and M theory was vibrations on a membrane. Space of course is volumetric not membaneous but M theory is not yet developed to volumetric although volumetric can in some cases be illustrated with the membrane distorted into the volumetric.
    Yes, a line is better than a point, a membrane is better than a line, and I puzzle why people seem to have missed the fact that we talk about the stress-energy-momentum tensor, and the dimensionality of energy is stress x volume. I also wonder why Witten gave up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topolog...m_field_theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    You might consider using the distortion of the graphic lines in the illustration to illustrate the spacial distortion and color to illustrate the tension. You could use the animation function to illustrate how waves, including the high energy waves of "mass" concentrations, react to the changing coeficient of refraction in the changing tension and changing spacial distortions.
    That would be really something, aastrotech. I can almost see it, feel it, smell it.

    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    You might have a good chance of developing a formula for how the distortion/tension factors could harmonize and so produce a whole new and self consistant description of matter, energy, space and gravity.
    I didn't really think the maths would be any different to what we have already, maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstei...3Cartan_theory is part-way there. Maybe David Hestenes has something, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_algebra. I was thinking there's no way I can scratch the surface never mind do it all, and my time would be better spent getting others interested via a high-level overview that "points the way".

    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    Have you had the insight that the waves of matter are moving in place at the speed of light? If that's what you're thinking you would have to slow down your animated illustrations to show it.
    Yes, secondhand, and they're waves of light, hence the importance of pair production and annihilation. When they're trapped in some circular configuration, we call the result matter. See "Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology?" by Williamson and van der Mark. It appeared in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997) and you can access it from http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw. Also see "The nature of the electron" by Qui-Hong Hu Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004 which is at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265. I do wish more people knew about this sort of stuff.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    This "discussion" could do with some more specifics in places rather than the "yes it is"/"no it isn't" argument it is turning into. For example: (energy causes gravity) That isn't a "proof", it is just repeating the same assertion.
    I'm happy to discuss, Henna.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    I have a few questions, though: Aren't fields and currents completely different things?
    Yes, they are different things. A field is typically a region in space where we observe some kind of effect. A current is associated with some kind motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    And, it seems to me that your last two sentences contradict the need for an alternating current to generate the field: the field just is.
    If you could keep pace with a photon then yes, you would take that view. This is why I said the photon is better thought of as a pressure pulse. If however you're motionless as a photon passes you by, then you'd detect a rising electromagnetic field that then goes back to zero then negative then to zero again, and because the field is changing you would assert that some form of current is causing it. A field doesn't change on its own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    If you take the (quite reasonable) view that it isn't a changing electric field generating a magnetic field generating ... then there is no more need for an AC current than there is for a moving magnet.
    Imagine a single electron sitting in front of you. You might assert that there is no current present, merely field. You might say this field is isotropic and spherical. Now replace the single electron with a vertical stack of electrons. Again there is no current present, merely field, and now it has a cyclindrical aspect. But if you move down this vertical stack of electrons, you would say a current is present, as per the current in the wire. Motion is relative - there's no difference between you moving down the stack of electrons, or them moving up past you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    Are you saying that an electron is made of photons in the same way a proton, say, is made of quarks?
    Not quite, because we've never seen a free quark, and we can annihilate a proton with an antiproton to produce gamma photons. More typically we see mesons, but these have short lifetimes, and we can render them down to photons and neutrinos. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...es/hadron.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    But if pair production is your evidence for this, doesn't that mean an electron is made of half a photon?
    No, annihilation is the evidence, and the result is two 511keV photons, one from the electron, one from the positron.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    How does that work?
    Consider the photon to be a pulse of "spacewarp". If this encounters more of the same, its path is deflected. If this pulse of spacewarp is deflected so much that it encounters itself and then travels entirely through itself in a double-loop configuration, the result is the stable soliton or "vorton" that we call an electron. See the two papers I linked to in my reply to aastrotech. Note that this only occurs at 511keV, because of E=hf and Planck's constant of action. Action is momentum x distance, and this distance is a "Weyl gauge change" extension of 3.86 x 10ˉĻ≥ m. Look at any picture of the electromagnetic spectrum and note that the depicted amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform is constant. That's the quantum of quantum mechanics. God does not play dice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    And, why do you say it is that way round, rather than saying a photon is made up of an electron and a positron?
    Because photons are ubiquitous, and other particles can be annihilated to end up with photons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    And if any particle-antiparticle pair can be produced, doesn't this mean that all particles would be made of light?
    Neutrinos are a little different. But if you look at their properties they're arguably more like photons than electrons, so essentially, yes. We are made of light along with our rods and clocks. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    That page just appears to say that the deflection calculated by Newtonian physics is half that calculated by relativity. It doesn't say anything about light vs matter.
    I'll try to find a better reference. But not now, baby's woken up and is shouting for me.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    But it is in line with Einstein, who told us how gravity works.
    Post 14A. Where does Einstein repudiate the use of curved spacetime?

    Post 14B. How do you square this repudiation with everything Einstein ever wrote about general relativity, since all of these sources used curved spacetime?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    But if you move down this vertical stack of electrons, you would say a current is present, as per the current in the wire. Motion is relative - there's no difference between you moving down the stack of electrons, or them moving up past you.
    And what has that got to do with an electric or an electromagnetic field?

    Moving through a field can create (induce) a current but the field isn't a current.

    Not quite, because we've never seen a free quark, and we can annihilate a proton with an antiproton to produce gamma photons.
    So you are proposing that protons are made of photons not quarks, is that right? So why are electrons different from protons if they are both photons "in disguise"? And how do you account for the apparent internal structure of protons?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    This "discussion" could do with some more specifics in places rather than the "yes it is"/"no it isn't" argument it is turning into.
    All one has to do is a quick internet search on "Farsight" and "relativity+" to find out that this "discussion" is probably not going to get any better.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Yes, it's a simple proof: we don't move through spacetime. Spacetime is a mathematical space where we plot motion through space. A photon moves through space, not through spacetime.
    Q45: Textboooks disagre with your definition. Do you think that a plane that is in NY at 1am and arrives in London at 4pm has only moved through space and not through spacetime?


    So the cause of its curvilinear path is not curved spacetime.
    Q46:Really? So you are contradicting all your previous posts?


    Q11: derivatives and gradients are different things. What is the difference?

    Don't be facile. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative
    Q47: So, tell us, in your own words what is the difference between gradient and derviative. You haven't answered the question.




    Q12: Why don't you show us how you "take the derivative of curved spacetime"?

    Here's a plot of gravitational potential akin to the bowling ball analogy of curved spacetime. Take the slope at any point to assess the strength of gravity at that point.

    Q48: You were asked to produce the mathematical formula. So, please do so.


    Q13: Prove it.
    See question 10. Now you prove that curved spacetime makes things fall down.
    You haven't answered the question, nor are you allowed to answered with questions. So, please answer the challenge posed to you.


    Q14: (Re this gradient in space is caused in turn by the central energy locked up in the matter of the planet or star). Do you have any proof of that?

    Yes, energy causes gravity, hence a photon moves in a curvilinear path through space. We then plot this motion as curved spacetime.
    Q49: What proof do you have that "energy causes gravity"? Is this your core ATM? Because no one knows the cause of gravity.


    Q15: Where does c = √(1/ε0μ0) come from?

    It's a well known expression. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space or search elsewhere: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...%b50%ce%bc0%29
    Bad answer, it comes from elswhere. So, once again:

    Q15: Where does c = √(1/ε0μ0) come from?

    Q16: Do you have proof of that? Show it , please.
    This is basic stuff, macaw. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_constant and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability and
    You were asked to justify your claim that "most people do not understand em field". So, you produced a bunch of unrelated links and you avoided answering the question, so please go back and provide proof.


    Q17: What does the above have to do with all your basic misunderstandings about mainstream relativity?

    I don't misunderstand mainstream releativity, but it seems you have no understanding of electrodynamics. The relevance is this: the electric field is curved space.
    Really, what makes you think that I do not understand electrodynamics?

    Q50: Show proof that "the electric field is curved space" (Hint: it ain't)


    Q18: Really? Do you have the math to prove it? Yes, as per my previous link, it's Jefimenko's equations, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations
    Bad answer, you were asked to prove your statement that "A moving electric field doesn't generate a magnetic field, it is a magnetic field,"
    Citing an irrelevant wiki link doesn't prove it,

    Q51: Use your own words to answer the question.


    Q19: Then how come that the electron spin is different from the photon spin?

    The electron spin is in two dimensions.
    Q52: You haven't answered how come that the electron has a different spin from the photon, while, according to you "it is made of photons". Try answering the questions without diversions, ok?


    Q20: What do em waves have to do with AC? The two propagate totally differently. Can you get AC propagate through vacuum? Is this one of the tenents of your ATM?

    An electromagnetic wave is alternating current.
    No, it isn't. You don't understand basic electromagnetism.
    Q52: In your own words what are the equations of the em wave?
    Q53: In your own words what are the equations of the AC current
    Q54: Why can't you be electrocuted by an em wave?
    Q55: Why can you get electrocuted by AC current?



    . An electromagnetic wave does not propapagate because the electric field generates a magnetic field.
    Q56: But em waves do propgate. How do you think you receive your radio transmissions where you live?


    Q21: (re the photon is a quantum of alternating current), really? Do you see the contradiction between the photon having zero charge and the current being made of charges?

    That's a misconception. An electron and a positron is literally made from a photon using pair production.
    Actually both the electron and the positron, according to the SM aren't mahe of photons, they are made of something else

    Q57: What are the electrons and positrons made of?




    Q22: What is the exact physical connection between vacuum impedance and light speed? You haven't established any in all the stuff you wrote.

    Go and read up on permittivity, permeability, and impedance, then ask me again.
    Q58: You have not answered the question, so I am asking you again. Please don't get fresh and answer the challenges.

    (Re What we’re seeing is refraction). Nope, we are seeing something else.
    Q23: What really happens when light passes by a massive object?


    Oh yes we are seeing a refraction. What really happens when a light passes by a massive object is that it bends. It refracts. That's why we gravitational lenses.
    Bad answer, so let me ask you a leading question:

    Q59: Is optical refraction frequency dependent or not?


    Q24: Why isn't light bending by massive objects similar to refraction? Hint: it has to do with frequencies.

    It is similar.
    Wrong answer.
    Q60: Is gravitational lensing frequency dependent or not?

    You are contradicting yourself, you just told us about gravitational lensing.
    Q25: Don't you know what velocity means?


    Yes, I know what velocity means, and I knew that Einstein told us light bends because the speed of light varies with the locality.
    Nope , please answer the question:

    Q61: What is velocity? What is speed?




    Q26: What are those changes?

    We measure the second to be different in a time-dilated environment,

    Nope, we always measure the second to be exactly one second.

    and so we know that the speed of light at that location is different to the speed of light at some other location,
    You just finished telling us that light speed is always c locally and now you are contradicting yourself.



    Q27: Don't you know that this is exactly how the Egyptians measured the height of their pyramids?

    It isn't. They knew the height of the ruler.
    So? We know the value of c locally. We also know that clocks run exactly at the rate of 1s/sec locally.


    Actually, we do. The fact that you don't is not affecting the rest of us.
    Nope, we know better. Answer Q1 and you will know yourself as well.
    No connection (outside your misconceptions).


    You don't know better.
    You didn't answer the question, so please do so.


    Q28: What does variable light speed have to do with gravitational time dilation?

    It causes it.
    Q63: Prove it. Use math.


    (Re the second is defined using the motion of light) It isn't.
    Q29: How is the second defined?


    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second where you can read "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". You sit there with the microwaves coming at you, counting peaks. When you get to 9,192,631,770 you tick off a second. So if the light moves slower, your second is bigger. The second is defined using the motion of light.
    First off, atomic clocks don't use light. Second off, even if they did, your reasoning is contradicted by the fact that light always move at c, locally.

    Q64: So, how is the second defined?



    Q30: Prove it. (experiment shows that you are wrong)

    Experiment does not show I'm wrong. Experiment shows I'm right.
    Q65: Provide the experiments that show you are correct.


    Q31: (Re E=mc≤) What does this have to do with your (many) misconceptions about the nature of light?

    You don't understand the first thing about permeability, permittivity, or impedance, so spare me the abuse.
    Q66: Personal attacks are not valid answers, so please answer the question.


    Q32: So you don't need the planet for the cannonball to fall towards it, right?

    Yes, you need a planet, but it does not supply the kinetic energy.
    You just finished saying that the planet is not needed so:

    Q67: Are you contradicting yourself again?


    Q33: What does it mean that mass is "invariant"?

    Stop wasting my time with trivia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass
    Q68: Answer in your own words.


    Q34: What is the connection between E=mc^2 and the cannonball kinetic energy? (Hint: none)

    It's in E≤ = m≤c^4 + p≤c≤. In pair production and annihilaiton we see a switch between the mass term and the momentum term.
    Q69: What is the connection between E=mc^2, the caannoball kinetic energy and pair production/annihilation?

    Q70: Write the mathematical proof of the "switch between the mass term and the momentum term".


    Wrong. Q34: What does the PR experiment really show?

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment where you can read "It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field". The point is that clocks are calibrated using the motion of light.
    Nope, they aren't. You keep getting this one wrong.

    Q71: How is gravitational redshift measured in the PR experiment?



    Q35: What does pair annihilation have to do with your basic misunderstandings about light speed in a gravitational field? Pair annihilation has nothing to do with gravitational fields.

    It demonstrates that electrons are made of light,
    Q72: Prove it (Hint: SM shows you are way off).



    and why light is deflected twice as much as matter.
    Q73: Is it? Under what circumstances?


    (Re Now you can understand why light is deflected twice as much as matter. Really?) Q36: Where did you read that?

    Your ignorance is excrutiating. See http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people...ia/lclens.html
    This is not what the website says.

    Q74: What does the website really say?





    I know a lot, I am just trying to establish what you know. So

    Q75: In your OWN words, how does LIGO work? What does it detect?


    Now please pick up your game, you're embarrassing yourself.
    Last edited by macaw; 2009-Nov-17 at 01:30 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Neutrinos are a little different. But if you look at their properties they're arguably more like photons than electrons.
    No, they are not. Photons are bosons, neutrinos and electrons are leptons, and so far more similar to each other than to photons.

    I'd add that despite the greater detail that you present, at root your theory still seems too vague to discuss in much depth. You are going to need to actually formalise it if you wish to make progress, I feel, as at the moment you seem to be using analogy in the place of mathematics a little too often.

    For example, when looking at the effect of a changing electric field in classical electrodynamics, I'd look at what Maxwell's equations say, and they certainly suggest that in the absence of current, we still get a magnetic field induced. If you disagree with this interpretation, it might help if you were to detail why it does not work for you.
    Last edited by NorthernBoy; 2009-Nov-16 at 07:41 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,147
    Analogy, diagrams and guessing what Einstein meant is all very well. How about sgowing us some Math.
    Einstein could claim anything in his writings but if his Math is the same then it can only work as it does.

    How do you get round that?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Yes, it's a simple proof: we don't move through spacetime. Spacetime is a mathematical space where we plot motion through space. A photon moves through space, not through spacetime. So the cause of its curvilinear path is not curved spacetime.

    ...

    Now please pick up your game, you're embarrassing yourself.
    All I see is Farsight linking wiki definitions and no indication that he/she understands the concepts him/her self.

    A bunch of wiki definitions and hand waving.

    Farsight, do you think your Wikipedia cut and pastes impress anyone? Please, when some one asks you if you know what topic X is then we want to see a definition in your own words on that topic. This shows you how much you understand about a topic. All you've done is shown that you know how to copy a term into the wikipedia search box and cut out a burb from the article. Any 7 year old can do that.

    Now stop embarrassing yourself and answer in your own words the questions asked.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    684
    Farsight,

    You're wasting your time here. You've said enough for anyone with the prerequisites in string and M to understand what you're getting at. I'd say you're done. Arguing with the above opposition is just going to confuse those who are genuinely interested. There have already been unfounded aspersions cast against your intelligence just for posting links to wikipedia. It's a common tactic here. In fact this ATM forum is considered a trap by many vocal posters and moderators here. Some of us have been trying to get it onto a more rational footing but it's not going well.

    Until anyone comes up with a formula for modeling the nuclear coupling of distortions we're all at an impass. I think that by illustrating what we already have it might inspire insight into the coupling mechanism. That's why I suggested your using the wolfram mathematica. I'm leaning toward a viscosity coeficient in the high energy "mass" concentration flow causing possibly a transient shear change in the coeficient of refraction in the high flow volume to cause the coupling. Obviously too small to see directly. It would have to be detected by inferrance and by the elegance of the formula.

    Discussing it and "helping" develop it, some vocal participants here assert, is against the rules here.
    Last edited by aastrotech; 2009-Nov-17 at 03:21 AM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    I'm leaning toward a viscosity coeficient in the high energy "mass" concentration flow causing possibly a transient shear change in the coeficient of refraction in the high flow volume to cause the coupling.
    Q: what is the above word salad supposed to mean?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post

    Discussing it and "helping" develop it, some vocal participants here assert, is against the rules here.
    Rather than continuing to carp about such injustices here, why not raise your objections with those who are empowered to act?

    Now back to our regularly scheduled programme.

    Some questions for Farsight: You seem to be resurrecting Maxwell's (or Maxwell and Heaviside's) mechanical aether model, with a twist. Is this a generally correct assessment?

    And how are you defining "current?" (Please, no wiki articles -- I am only interested in what it means to you.) Specifically, is Maxwell's displacement current not a current in FS-theory?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    Farsight,

    You're wasting your time here. You've said enough for anyone with the prerequisites in string and M to understand what you're getting at. I'd say you're done. Arguing with the above opposition is just going to confuse those who are genuinely interested. There have already been unfounded aspersions cast against your intelligence just for posting links to wikipedia. It's a common tactic here. In fact this ATM forum is considered a trap by many vocal posters and moderators here. Some of us have been trying to get it onto a more rational footing but it's not going well.
    ...
    There is nothing wrong with using wikipedia but when a question is asked with the purpose of seeing how well someone knows a given topic cut and paste from wikipedia is equivalent to opening your science book and rewriting a paragraph as an essay answer on a final.

    It would be like if I asked you do you know how to multiply 5x6 and you pick up a calculator and type press "5" "x" "6" "="
    That doesn't show you know how to multiply. It shows you know how to use a calculator.

    If wikipedia is wrong then cut and pasting isn't going to give the right answer. But if you put into words your understanding of a topic then we get an idea if you understand the concept at hand or not.

    The issue is he/she keeps making statements that contradict what we know and at times contradicts what he/she is saying in another part of the same post.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
    Post 14A. Where does Einstein repudiate the use of curved spacetime?
    He doesn't repudiate it, he just didn't talk about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
    Post 14B. How do you square this repudiation with everything Einstein ever wrote about general relativity, since all of these sources used curved spacetime?
    But he doesn't talk about curved spacetime. People say he does, but he doesn't. See http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 for more information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
    All one has to do is a quick internet search on "Farsight" and "relativity+" to find out that this "discussion" is probably not going to get any better.
    I offer what I can, KK. If you can find an issue with what I said in my opening posts, I'm happy to discuss it. If you can't but prefer to dismiss it anyway, that's your choice.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    Re But if you move down this vertical stack of electrons, you would say a current is present, as per the current in the wire. Motion is relative - there's no difference between you moving down the stack of electrons, or them moving up past you. And what has that got to do with an electric or an electromagnetic field?
    If you're motionless with respect to an electron, all you can describe is its field. If you aren't motionless with respect to an electron, you describe the motion of the electron as a current.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    Moving through a field can create (induce) a current but the field isn't a current.
    As above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    So you are proposing that protons are made of photons not quarks, is that right? So why are electrons different from protons if they are both photons "in disguise"? And how do you account for the apparent internal structure of protons?
    It's a different type of knot. The electron is top left, the proton is the next one on the right.


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Q45: Textboooks disagre with your definition. Do you think that a plane that is in NY at 1am and arrives in London at 4pm has only moved through space and not through spacetime?
    I don't care what your anonymous textbook says, I care what the scientific evidence tells us. We move through space. We can see that motion through space. We don't move through spacetime, we plot motion in spacetime, and the result is world lines. If you think we do move through spacetime, show me some.

    Apologies, I have to go to work. I'll carry on later. The above is a crucial point, please give it some priority.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    There have already been unfounded aspersions cast against your intelligence just for posting links to wikipedia.
    I don't think there is anything wrong with links to wikipedia per se. The problem is when someone is asked if they know something or if they can explain something, there is no point just posting a link to someone else's explanation (wikipedia or otherwise).

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,147
    Quote Originally Posted by aastrotech View Post
    Farsight,

    You're wasting your time here. You've said enough for anyone with the prerequisites in string and M to understand what you're getting at. I'd say you're done. Arguing with the above opposition is just going to confuse those who are genuinely interested. There have already been unfounded aspersions cast against your intelligence just for posting links to wikipedia. It's a common tactic here. In fact this ATM forum is considered a trap by many vocal posters and moderators here. Some of us have been trying to get it onto a more rational footing but it's not going well.

    Until anyone comes up with a formula for modeling the nuclear coupling of distortions we're all at an impass. I think that by illustrating what we already have it might inspire insight into the coupling mechanism. That's why I suggested your using the wolfram mathematica. I'm leaning toward a viscosity coeficient in the high energy "mass" concentration flow causing possibly a transient shear change in the coeficient of refraction in the high flow volume to cause the coupling. Obviously too small to see directly. It would have to be detected by inferrance and by the elegance of the formula.

    Discussing it and "helping" develop it, some vocal participants here assert, is against the rules here.

    Aastrotech, you are aware of the rules regarding the ATM forum and also the rules regarding complaints in thread and META discussions and civility and decorum. Consider this a strong warning to stop, I am also giving you an infraction point.

    Farsight I also strongly advise you to read the rules for posting in the ATM forum and also the rules on civility and decorum, I al also giving you an infraction point
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    He doesn't repudiate it, he just didn't talk about it.
    Post 30A. What is Einstein doing all the time that he uses the mathematics of Riemannian geometry if not using curved spacetime?

    Post 30B. Can you provide a concrete example of a standard general relativistic problem (say calculating the perihelion advance of Mercury) showing how the Riemannian geometry used in the example is not curved spacetime?
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It's a different type of knot. The electron is top left, the proton is the next one on the right.
    Post 30C. What is the mathematical description of the electron and the proton that corresponds to the image presented?

    Post 30D. How do those mathematical descriptions of the electrion and the proton correspond to the images presented?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-May-04, 07:10 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-18, 04:29 AM
  3. Einstein theory of gravity
    By joshbu42 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-30, 05:17 PM
  4. Gravity Probe B Will Tell Us If Einstein Was Right
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-23, 10:10 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2002-Aug-22, 10:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •