Strengths and weaknesses of the Theory of Relativity

It's amazing how so many fools come on A2K to "disprove" Einstein, and just end up showing how stupid they are. They are a special category of loony. The people who look at submitted manuscripts for scientific journals know about them.

To contrex:
Einstein is not infallible. And besides, you have to respect others.
Just defend Relativity and period. No personal comments.

Thank you Sib. Your support if not concurrence is delightful in this otherwise procrustean redoubt of dispiriting dysphoria, this punic conflation of convoluted hermeneutics

Thank you Mark for that concise report, much appreciated, far more concise than my wordiness. With however my crazy speculation I had hoped a step beyond, showing the instance not unique but “now” plus or minus t =cd

(“d” of course representing that imaginary distance between the concentric circles mentioned in another thread)

...those mentioned in

http://able2know.org/topic/195798-1

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT SPACE-TIME

I don't want to sound pretentious, I just want to show my humble opinion.

The general relativity (1916) states that gravity and space are equivalent, that is, Einstein reduces the space to gravity. This is like saying that a liquid in a container is the container itself. But first, in special relativity (1905), Einstein had equated time as a dimension. Hence the concept of space-time. If time is a dimension, and space is gravity, the gravity modifies both time and distance.

The way I’ve heard it expressed, gravity is a distortion or crowding of space, as if the solid object “shoves” space out of the way; but I can’t equate them

Which (as verified by experiment, and routine satellite orbit measurements show) it does.

COMMON RELATIVITY

Common relativity is intrinsic or characteristic to clocks and rhythmic phenomena. It's common because it doesn't require high-speed or gravity to manifest.

1 - The types of becoming are: natural and artificial. Both types can be: uniform or regular rhythm and variable or irregular rhythm.

2 - Cycles are periodic phenomena that repeat continuously (day and night, seasons).

3 - For measuring time it requires a high precision clock. Currently, atomic clocks are the most precision.

4 - The calculation of elapsed time is an application of common relativity.

ELAPSED TIME "Z" METHOD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LafAMJ4TTJw&feature=player_embedded

Sib for the benefit of the intellectually challenged, the aged, and the Average Clod (me) you might clarify “becoming”

http://onelook.com/?w=become&ls=a

http://onelook.com/?w=*&loc=revfp2&clue=natural+and+artificial+becoming

You’ll have to forgive the interrupted link as a2k editing software leaves a little to be desired

Dale:
Becoming, in Philosophy, it's the continuous succession of changes. It's the continuity of a phenomenon or a event. In Spanish is DEVENIR.

Ouch! The French will be upset!

Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I've thought about that too. In fact, DEVENIR is a french word.
Henri Bergson is my favorite philosopher.

Thank you Sib

However Googling “natural and artificial becoming” yielded a half million hits and I suppose eventually I could make some sense out of it but it’s not immediately apparent just how the two adjectives apply

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=natural+and+artificial+becoming&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

Some examples of regular becoming are: the movements of the stars (natural), the work of clocks (artificial), music (art) and heartbeat (nat). Some examples of irregular becoming are the current and flow of a river (nat), ocean waves (nat), a noise (nat or art), a storm (nat), (rain, snow, sand) and the movement of a vehicle on the road (art).

Thanks for explaining that, Sib

I gather then that the humanoid is somehow considered artificial

NEWTON'S GRAVITY BENDS THE PATH IN THE SPACE-TIME GRAPH

Newton's theory of gravity:

1 - The propagation speed of gravity is infinite. (false)

2 - The Law of Universal Gravitation predicts that the force between two bodies and separated by a distance is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. (right)

Theory of General Relativity:

1 - For General relativity space-time is a flat object present throughout the universe. (false according my point of view)

2 - The gravity is produced for the curvature of space-time generated by the mass of a star. (false according my point of view)

Newton's gravity acts on the bodies and particles making their path in the space-time graph is a curve. The space-time graph is a geometric representation (abstract) to describe all events.


Try to visualize that if you jump up your path in the space-time graph is a curve called parabola (see figure), assuming, of course, that there is a gravitational force that "pulls" you down.

Thank you Sib for that rundown

I’m sure you’ve already explained why but to save The Average Clod (me) the trouble of reviewing the entire thread, a summary might be appreciated

I wonder, considering the following graph:



It isn't the Theory of Relavity exclusively optical: light, light speed, light curvature, light cone, etc?

Is it correct to explain all of physical phenomena with the light behavior?

What about the other phenomena? waves, atomic particles, forces ...

Thanks again Sib but you didn’t explain—at least to the satisfaction of a typical blockhead (me)--why you reject the idea that gravity is a curvature of space-time