1
   

Relativity revisited once more still again

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 01:42 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
If it were infinite yes but some of us seriously doubt it is.

The pattern in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is strong evidence that the universe is truly infinite.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 01:43 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
assuming that somehow when we three meet for the first time that you and I are passing by A (I'd supposed in opposite directions) when we're all three still 20, regardless where you and I came from. It's at that instant you fire your retros so that both of you then watch me pass, nearly at c, though apparently motionless

The q is, Ora, assuming a finite Universe whether or not at my return I'm still 20 at our second meeting

Admittedly I'm simplifying; though it's the "same spot" of course you and A (as well as Earth probably) are long gone by millions or maybe billions of generations

In your hypothetical, do the two travelers start out at rest with respect to the rest of the universe, and then accelerate up to light speed when they begin their journey towards each other?

Or were the two travelers traveling at light speed all along, never before having been at rest relative to the rest of the universe?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 01:44 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The pattern in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is strong evidence that the universe is truly infinite.


why?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 01:46 am
There is really no evidence for relativity!

Or can someone show me some?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 05:22 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
why?

Various models of the universe cause different patterns in the microwave background energy, such as the size of the blobs when the temperature variations are shown as different colors.

Note:
"The model most theorists currently use is the so-called Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. According to cosmologists, on this model the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat,[3] but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space[4][5] and the Picard horn.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

(Bold emphasis added by me.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 05:24 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
There is really no evidence for relativity!
Or can someone show me some?

When atomic clocks are subjected to differing gravitational loads, they run at different speeds.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 05:51 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
When atomic clocks are subjected to differing gravitational loads, they run at different speeds.


oh that one eh?! Already considered invalid.

oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 05:57 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
Already considered invalid.

That is incorrect. It is considered a valid proof of the theory.

Now, only Special Relativity is considered absolutely true for all time. Everyone acknowledges that one day General Relativity will be superseded by a successful unified field theory.

But until someone comes up with that successful unified field theory, General Relativity is pretty darn good.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 06:01 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Not if I travelled for some time near the speed of light. In this case, A might be much older, depending on the particulars.
I'm assuming you and A are both 20 at the instant you fire your retros, at which moment all three of us are of course still 20

Perhaps owing to the curvature of space, my movement slowly resumes, reversing at the "halfway" mark, in which case upon my return we're all three the same old age. Just wild speculation

If A (on Earth) and I were both 20 at the time when I left for Earth, and if I travelled at 99.999% the speed of light for a week to reach Earth, A would be between 24 and 25 when I arrived. Curved space has nothing to do with it. You don't know what you're talking about. Read a book, for God's sake.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 06:09 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
That is incorrect. It is considered a valid proof of the theory.


By whom? It really is very incorrect.

Quote:
Now, only Special Relativity is considered absolutely true for all time. Everyone acknowledges that one day General Relativity will be superseded by a successful unified field theory.


There already IS a unified field theory.

Quote:
But until someone comes up with that successful unified field theory, General Relativity is pretty darn good.


Why is General Relativity 'pretty darn' good? It is an idiotic and crazy theory!

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 02:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
In your hypothetical, do the two travelers start out at rest with respect to the rest of the universe, and then accelerate up to light speed when they begin their journey towards each other?
Ora that's really a good q. However Ora since all motion is presumably relative anyway I am wondering whether it matters

Thus we've assumed Earth and A to be "stationary." Assume however that Earth and A are situated in a "visible subuniverse" in motion at nearly c with respect to the rest (headed probably in the direction from which you were headed) so that I had been "stationary" throughout the experiment, and when you supposed you were decelerating to join A by firing your retros you were merely slowing down a bit

Quote:
...then accelerate up to light speed...
Which we all know they didn't. In my skewed version three velocities are involved: (1) that of A and our subuniverse relative to the rest of it all, which is presumably "at rest," (2) yours before you fire your retros (higher still); and (3) mine (at "rest" with the "rest") considered by A as speeding away in the opposite direction

You'll have to forgive the pun. But incidentally perhaps you can now grasp how the idea of a fixed reference" keeps poking in its unwanted nose





This doesn't resolve your q's at all; you might be right in your implication that how we achieved that starting speed might be a critical issue but I'm just not smart enough to address it
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 03:16 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
This doesn't resolve your q's at all; you might be right in your implication that how we achieved that starting speed might be a critical issue but I'm just not smart enough to address it


You are smarter than what you give yourself credit for!

It is all non-sense, but you think you are the wrong one! YOU ARE NOT!

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 03:30 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
….the universe is truly infinite
Sorry Ora but it still leaves something to doubt

http://able2know.org/topic/260015-1
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 03:33 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
You are smarter than what you give yourself credit for!
Que I'm deeply flattered

Quote:
It is all non-sense, but you think you are the wrong one! YOU ARE NOT!
But in what specific regard, pray
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 06:40 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
By whom?

By the scientists of the world.


Quehoniaomath wrote:
It really is very incorrect.

It predicts the results of experiments accurately.


Quehoniaomath wrote:
There already IS a unified field theory.

Not one that has succeeded in displacing General Relativity.


Quehoniaomath wrote:
Why is General Relativity 'pretty darn' good?

Because it models the universe with a high degree of accuracy.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 06:40 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Ora that's really a good q. However Ora since all motion is presumably relative anyway I am wondering whether it matters

It matters greatly. The outcome of your hypothetical changes markedly depending on which starting values you choose.


dalehileman wrote:
But incidentally perhaps you can now grasp how the idea of a fixed reference" keeps poking in its unwanted nose

I do not perceive any fixed reference poking its nose in. However, I can't tell you the outcome of your scenario if I do not know the starting values.


dalehileman wrote:
This doesn't resolve your q's at all; you might be right in your implication that how we achieved that starting speed might be a critical issue but I'm just not smart enough to address it

It's your hypothetical scenario. Set it up any way you want to.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 09:14 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
In your hypothetical, do the two travelers start out at rest with respect to the rest of the universe, and then accelerate up to light speed when they begin their journey towards each other?

Or were the two travelers traveling at light speed all along, never before having been at rest relative to the rest of the universe?

There is no such thing as "at rest with respect to the rest of the universe." Things in the universe are moving at lots of different speeds. Perhaps the single most important tenet of the Theory of Relativity is that there is no absolute reference frame.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 09:26 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
There is no such thing as "at rest with respect to the rest of the universe." Things in the universe are moving at lots of different speeds.

Chalk it up to sloppy language. I'm referring to the condition of "not traveling anywhere near the speed of light".

I was asking if he was envisioning these travelers accelerating to light speed, or whether he was envisioning them already traveling at light speed from the start.

I think I might propose my own hypothetical tomorrow or sometime. I think I know the question he is trying to answer, and there is probably a better way to construct a hypothetical to explore his question.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2014 09:39 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
There is no such thing as "at rest with respect to the rest of the universe." Things in the universe are moving at lots of different speeds.

Chalk it up to sloppy language. I'm referring to the condition of "not traveling anywhere near the speed of light".

I was asking if he was envisioning these travelers accelerating to light speed, or whether he was envisioning them already traveling at light speed from the start.

I think I might propose my own hypothetical tomorrow or sometime. I think I know the question he is trying to answer, and there is probably a better way to construct a hypothetical to explore his question.

Okay. Please bear in mind that when we say that an object is travelling at near light speed, we also mean with respect to some particular object. There is also no absolute "near light speed" either.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2014 12:58 am
@oralloy,
Ok here we go:

Quote:
By the scientists of the world.


Who? Not all of them! That is for sure.

Quote:
It predicts the results of experiments accurately.


This one is a bit vague, isn't it? Whicj experimenst exactly?

Quote:
Not one that has succeeded in displacing General Relativity.


Not in mainstrem science yet. But for other reasons then you think.
There really is a unified field theory. But you have to look outside the
very stupid 'modern physics'. But it is here.


Quote:
Because it models the universe with a high degree of accuracy.


Bit vague again and it is circular reasoning. It works because it works is all you are saying. Now, explain how it does what you wrote!

Wating for your answers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 09:08:50