5
   

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sun 23 Feb, 2020 04:39 pm
@maxdancona,
And now, a Public Service Announcement.

Nothing that JustaFool and LivingLava are saying has anything to do with actual science (other than a superficial parroting of pop-science phrases). By actual science, I mean the science that is taught in universities and is understood and practiced by actual scientists.

JustaFool and LivingLava are attacking the scientific community and are suggesting that science is controlled by "Science Nazis" and "socialists".

Of course, anyone on the internet is free to state their own opinions about what science should be. But I want to make sure that no one is fooled into thinking that LivingLava has any real expertise on the subject, or any interest on how science is actually done.

Now... back to the thread.
justafool44
 
  -1  
Sun 23 Feb, 2020 04:39 pm
@livinglava,
And indeed, today's top Physicists all agree that the vacuum of empty space is actually not empty at all, it full of virtual particles. So there is the Aether everyone was looking for. (the virtual particles pop in and out of existence by magic)
justafool44
 
  -1  
Sun 23 Feb, 2020 05:07 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm waiting for your reply to my post #6,964,360
Go ahead, destroy me with the awesome power of the entire cult of the Scientific Community behind you, I'm standing alone, an easy target surely.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Sun 23 Feb, 2020 09:20 pm
@justafool44,
When you start calling people "Nazis" you lose the ability to have a reasonable discussion with them.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:46 am
@justafool44,
justafool44 wrote:

And indeed, today's top Physicists all agree that the vacuum of empty space is actually not empty at all, it full of virtual particles. So there is the Aether everyone was looking for. (the virtual particles pop in and out of existence by magic)

My understanding is that the 'luminiferous aether' debate was raging at the time Einstein came out with relativity, and that he solved it by just using the word, 'space,' but saying that space curves/bends/dilates/etc.

I think it is a byproduct of Newton's modeling that people want to assume there is empty/neutral space containing all these particles that move around within a 3D grid of straight lines. It's mathematically very attractive to look at the universe that way, but Einstein's relativity exposes that Cartesian grid as unrealistic.
justafool44
 
  -2  
Mon 24 Feb, 2020 03:43 pm
@livinglava,
you are totally stuffed up with you thinking.
Einstein destroyed real physics, we live in a world run by deception and lies.
"Spacetime" has nothing to do with Special relativity.
Curved spacetime is as real as Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
You really need to get your thinking straight, do some study. Stop reading mainstream crap.
justafool44
 
  -1  
Mon 24 Feb, 2020 04:32 pm
This forum is useless. Only one guy tried to respond but as he is a juvenile and cant think clearly, his replies were inadequate.
He then gave up because he could not give any sort of reasonable reply to my questions.
That's it? only one or two guys are reading this?
I waste my time.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Tue 25 Feb, 2020 04:24 pm
@justafool44,
justafool44 wrote:

you are totally stuffed up with you thinking.
Einstein destroyed real physics, we live in a world run by deception and lies.
"Spacetime" has nothing to do with Special relativity.
Curved spacetime is as real as Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
You really need to get your thinking straight, do some study. Stop reading mainstream crap.

So basically you are here to put down the idea that there are curved inertial paths governing motion and assert that everything takes place within a pin-straight 3D Cartesian grid?
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 25 Feb, 2020 07:18 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Is it possible that a brilliant, knowledgable Physicist with a firm grasp of mathematics and a complete understanding of modern Physics might overturn our understanding of General Relativity the way that Einstein overturned our understanding of Newton? The Physicist in question would have to present and defend her ideas mathematically in a way that can be confirmed experimentally. But of course this is possible (and in fact some really good Physicists are already on it).

It is possible that two uneducated people with no mathematical background, no understanding of Physics, and a general dislike of how science is done will overturn Special Relativity by insulting the scientific community as a bunch of "cultists".

No. It's not possible.


For myself even as a fairly young teenager playing around with my father wooden slide ruler an a log log table book and an adding machine I love the nice and straight forward Newtonian universe model an when I found out that Newton equations was just a special case of special relativity that was good enough for most every day calculations such as the orbits of planets I was very unhappy.

But that fact did not drive me to denial Special Relativity once I began to understand it.

Asimov was my hero as a matter of fact.

justafool44
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Feb, 2020 11:25 pm
@livinglava,
As I said, You really have your head fuc#ked up with nonsense.

Those "curved Paths" and "pin straight Cartesian grids", are BOTH IMAGINARY.
They are math, geometry fantasies that assist men to do some basic calculations about what might happen under differing conditions.
The irrational use of curved geometry for space, when ordinary Cartesian coordinates are perfectly good, is a mystery. Its fun if you love playing with numbers.

You really believe that a Math function of curved geometry is able to make planets orbit other planets?

And anyway, where exactly does the curved space begin and the perfectly adequate Cartesian co-ordinate system we use on Earth end? 5 miles up?

justafool44
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Feb, 2020 11:27 pm
@BillRM,
You don't understand how SR is deceiving you.
You were on the right track with Newton.
But Math is not Physics, and you are a self confessed Math nut, so I cant blame you for getting sucked in by BS.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 07:30 am
@justafool44,
justafool44 wrote:

As I said, You really have your head fuc#ked up with nonsense.

Don't use this kind of provocative/offensive language. It does no good.

Quote:
Those "curved Paths" and "pin straight Cartesian grids", are BOTH IMAGINARY.

Except that there are actual magnetic fields that guide the paths of charged particles, and light itself is a moving electromagnetic field; so it's worth considering that all these electromagnetic fields combine form a topographical system of directional/speed tendencies that appear to us as gravitational fields.

Quote:
They are math, geometry fantasies that assist men to do some basic calculations about what might happen under differing conditions.
The irrational use of curved geometry for space, when ordinary Cartesian coordinates are perfectly good, is a mystery. Its fun if you love playing with numbers.

I don't like playing with numbers any more than necessary. I also dislike that math is used to model reality in ways that renders them abstract and makes it harder for people to look beyond the math at the realities masked by mathematical simulations.

Quote:
You really believe that a Math function of curved geometry is able to make planets orbit other planets?

No, but I think it is interesting that planets stay in orbit around the sun instead of continuing along their own trajectories either straight past the sun or curved by its gravity.

Quote:
And anyway, where exactly does the curved space begin and the perfectly adequate Cartesian co-ordinate system we use on Earth end? 5 miles up?

A better question is to ask if you begin with a single dipolar molecule and start adding others to it whose momentum isn't sufficient to carry them away from the first and/or each other, at what point does the system of coagulated molecules become a gravity well (gravitational body) instead of being just a collection of charged particles stuck together without sufficient energy to escape each other's electromagnetic attraction?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 08:00 am
@livinglava,
Lava,

You might want to know that your play partner in this is expressing some rather troubling antisemitic views. This might be relevant in a thread attacking Einstein.

justafool44 wrote:
Its a well known fact that forums worldwide are monitored by watchdog shills from the Zionist state of Israel, and they have a large permanent band of workers who attack anyone who tries to show that 911 was an inside job, run by Mossad and CIA.


You and I disagree on science. I don't think either one of us should be playing with this type of hateful crap.


BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 05:09 pm
@maxdancona,
Max you seems to be well up with this subject so perhaps you would be kind enough to address a question of mine.

As the sun is roughly 8 light minutes from the earth and many light hours from the outer planets how can the planets orbits around the sun, over long time periods, be stable as the center of attraction of the moving sun gravity field does not match the current sun location by the factor of the speed of light between the sun and the planets?

I know I am missing something here but if you could explain it I would be graceful to you for doing so.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 06:22 pm
@BillRM,
I am not sure why it wouldn't be stable?

Even under Newtonian Physics, orbital systems don't need to have any one body occupying the center of mass. The center of mass can be empty space ... in fact in the Earth Moon system it is. Still all of the bodies in the system will orbit with this at a focus.

Under GR, we still need to show this mathematically... and honestly it has been decades since I have done this seriously. But this is one case where, at least for me, intuition still leads to a stable system.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 06:29 pm
@BillRM,
Of course, you can always do the calculation from the Frame of Reference where the Sun isn't moving. This means that the gravity field isn't moving, and the delay doesn't affect the calculation.
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 27 Feb, 2020 07:22 pm
@maxdancona,
Max once more I am getting a headache when dealing with in this case general relativity an in researching it I am slowly an in part only getting an understanding of why orbits are stable when Newtonian laws demand the speed of gravity to be infinite for orbits to be stable an relativity demand a speed of light limit.

Here what I found

Quote:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/24/this-is-why-the-speed-of-gravity-must-equal-the-speed-of-light/#7a8031be2fc0

If the Sun were to spontaneously cease emitting light, we wouldn't know about it for about 8 minutes and 20 seconds. The light that's arriving here on Earth, right at this very moment, was emitted from the Sun's photosphere a finite amount of time in the past, and is only being seen now after a journey across the 150 million km (93 million miles) separating the Sun from the Earth. If the Sun were to go dark right now, we wouldn't find out until the light stopped arriving.

But what about gravitationally? If the Sun were spontaneously (somehow) removed from existence, how long would Earth remain in its elliptical orbit before flying off in a straight line? Believe it or not, the answer to this must be exactly the same amount of time as it was for light: 8 minutes and 20 seconds. The speed of gravity not only equals the speed of light to an incredibly precise degree observationally, but these two constants must be exactly equal theoretically, or General Relativity would fall apart. Here's the science behind why.

Newton's law of Universal Gravitation has been superseded by Einstein's General Relativity, but... [+] WIKIMEDIA COMMONS USER DENNIS NILSSON
Before General Relativity came along, our most successful theory of gravity was Newton's universal law of gravitation. According to Newton, the gravitational force between any two objects in space defined by just four parameters:

The gravitational constant of the Universe, G, which is the same for everyone.
The mass of the first object, m, which experiences the gravitational force. (By Einstein's equivalence principle, this is the same m that goes into the laws of motion, like F = ma.)
The mass of the second object, M, which attracts the first object.
The distance between them, r, which extends from the center-of-mass of the first object to the center-of-mass of the second.
Keep in mind that these are the only four parameters that are allowable in Newtonian gravitation. You can perform all sorts of calculations from this force law to derive, for example, elliptical planetary orbits around the Sun. But the equations only work if the gravitational force is instantaneous.

The orbits of the eight major planets vary in eccentricity and the difference between perihelion... [+] NASA / JPL-CALTECH / R. HURT
This might puzzle you a little bit. After all, if the speed of gravity is only equal to the speed of light, rather than an infinitely fast force, then the Earth should be attracted to where the Sun was 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago, not where the Sun is right now, at this particular instant in time. But if you do that calculation instead, and allow Earth to be attracted to the Sun's past position rather than its current position, you get a prediction for its orbit that is so thoroughly wrong that Newton himself, with quality observations going back less than 100 years (to the time of Tycho Brahe), could have ruled it out.

In fact, if you used Newton's laws to calculate the orbits of the planets and demanded that they match modern observations, not only would the speed of gravity have to be faster than the speed of light, it would have to be a minimum of 20 billion times faster: indistinguishable from an infinite speed.

An accurate model of how the planets orbit the Sun, which then moves through the galaxy in a... [+] RHYS TAYLOR
The problem is this: if you have a central force, where a bound particle like (for example) the Earth is attracted to the Sun but moves around the Sun (orbiting, or propagating) at a finite speed, you will only get a purely elliptical orbit if that force's propagation speed is infinite. If it's finite, then you don't just get a radial acceleration (towards the other mass), but you also get a component that accelerates your particle tangentially.

This would make orbits not only elliptical, but unstable. On the scale of a mere century, orbits would shift substantially. By 1805, Laplace had used observations of the Moon to demonstrate that the speed of Newtonian gravity must be 7 million times greater than the speed of light. Modern constraints are now 20 billion times the speed of light, which is great for Newton. But all of this placed a great burden on Einstein.

One revolutionary aspect of relativistic motion, put forth by Einstein but previously built up by... [+] CURT RENSHAW
According to Einstein, there's a big problem, conceptually, with Newton's gravitational force law: the distance between any two objects is not an absolute quantity, but rather is dependent on the motion of the observer. If you're moving towards or away from any imaginary line you draw, distances in that direction will contract, depending on your relative velocities. For the gravitational force to be a calculable quantity, all observers would have to derive consistent results, something that you cannot get by combining relativity with Newton's gravitational force law.

Therefore, according to Einstein, you'd have to develop a theory that brought gravitation and relativistic motions together, and that meant developing General Relativity: a relativistic theory of motion that incorporated gravity into it. Once completed, General Relativity told a dramatically different story.


An animated look at how spacetime responds as a mass moves through it helps showcase exactly how,... [+] LUCASVB
In order to get different observers to agree on how gravitation works, there can be no such thing as absolute space, absolute time, or a signal that propagates at infinite speed. Instead, space and time must both be relative for different observers, and signals can only propagate at speeds that exactly equal the speed of light (if the propagating particle is massless) or at speeds that are below the speed of light (if the particle has mass).

In order for this to work out, though, there has to be an additional effect to cancel out the problem of a non-zero tangential acceleration, which is induced by a finite speed of gravity. This phenomenon, known as gravitational aberration, is almost exactly cancelled by the fact that General Relativity also has velocity-dependent interactions. As the Earth moves through space, for example, it feels the force from the Sun change as it changes its position, the same way a boat traveling through the ocean will come down in a different position as it gets lifted up and lowered again by a passing wave.

Gravitational radiation gets emitted whenever a mass orbits another one, which means that over long... [+] AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
What's remarkable, and by no means obvious, is that these two effects cancel almost exactly. The fact that the speed of gravity is finite is what induces this gravitational aberration, but the fact that General Relativity (unlike Newtonian gravity) has velocity-dependent interactions is what allowed Newtonian gravity to be such a good approximation. There's only one speed that works to make this cancellation a good one: if the speed of gravity equals the speed of light.

So that's the theoretical motivation for why the speed of gravity should equal the speed of light. If you want planetary orbits to be consistent with what we've seen, and to be consistent for all observers, you need a speed of gravity that equals c, and to have your theory be relativistically invariant. There's another caveat, however. In General Relativity, the cancellation between the gravitational aberration and the velocity-dependent term is almost exact, but not quite. Only the right system can reveal the difference between Einstein's and Newton's predictions.

When a mass moves through a region of curved space, it will experience an acceleration owing to the... [+] DAVID CHAMPION, MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RADIO ASTRONOMY
In our own neighborhood, the force of the Sun's gravity is far too weak to produce a measurable effect. What you'd want is a system that had large gravitational fields at small distances from a massive source, where the velocity of the moving object is both fast and changing (accelerating) rapidly, in a gravitational field with a large gradient.

Our Sun doesn't give us that, but the environment around either a binary black hole or a binary neutron star does! Ideally, a system with a massive object moving with a changing velocity through a changing gravitational field will showcase this effect. And a binary neutron star system, where one of the neutron stars is a very precise pulsar, fits the bill exactly.

When you have a single object, like a pulsar, orbiting in space, it will pulse every time it... [+] ESO/L. CALÇADA
A pulsar, and in particular, a millisecond pulsar, is the best natural clock in the Universe. As the neutron star spins, it emits a jet of electromagnetic radiation that has a chance of being aligned with Earth's perspective once every 360 degree rotation. If the alignment is right, we'll observe these pulses arriving with extraordinarily predictable accuracy and precision.

If the pulsar is in a binary system, however, then moving through that changing gravitational field will cause the emission of gravitational waves, which carry energy away from the gravitating system. The loss of that energy has to come from somewhere, and is compensated by the decay of the pulsar's orbits. The predictions of pulsar decay is highly sensitive to the speed of gravity; using even the very first binary pulsar system ever discovered by itself, PSR 1913+16 (or the Hulse-Taylor binary), allowed us to constrain the speed of gravity to be equal to the speed of light to within only 0.2%!

The rate of orbital decay of a binary pulsar is highly dependent on the speed of gravity and the... [+] NASA (L), MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RADIO ASTRONOMY / MICHAEL KRAMER (R)
Since that time, other measurements have also demonstrated the equivalence between the speed of light and the speed of gravity. In 2002, chance coincidence caused the Earth, Jupiter, and a very strong radio quasar (known as QSO J0842+1835) to all align. As Jupiter passed between the Earth and the quasar, its gravitational effects caused the starlight to bend in a fashion that was speed-of-gravity dependent.

Jupiter did, in fact, bend the light from the quasar, enabling us to rule out an infinite speed for the speed of gravity and determine that it was actually between 255 million and 381 million meters-per-second, consistent with the exact value for the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s) and also with Einstein's predictions. Even more recently, the first observations of gravitational waves brought us even tighter constraints.

Illustration of a fast gamma-ray burst, long thought to occur from the merger of neutron stars. The... [+] ESO
From the very first gravitational wave detected and the difference in their arrival times at Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA, we directly learned that the speed of gravity equaled the speed of light to within about 70%, which isn't an improvement over the pulsar timing constraints. But when 2017 saw the arrival of both gravitational waves and light from a neutron star-neutron star merger, the fact that gamma-ray signals came just 1.7 seconds after the gravitational wave signal, across a journey of over 100 million light years, taught us that the speed of light and the speed of gravity differ by no more than 1 part in a quadrillion: 1015.

As long as gravitational waves and photons have no rest mass, the laws of physics dictate that they must move at exactly the same speed: the speed of light, which must equal the speed of gravity. Even before the constraints got this spectacular, requiring that a gravitational theory reproduce Newtonian orbits while simultaneously being relativistically invariant leads to this inevitable conclusion. The speed of gravity is exactly the speed of light, and physics wouldn't have allowed it to be any other way.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.
Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous awards for science writing… Read More
Site Feedback
Tips
Corrections
Reprints & Permissions
Terms
Privacy
© 2020 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AdChoices


maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 28 Feb, 2020 11:14 am
@BillRM,
Hi Bill, you are making me show my age. I am an engineer now, and all the math I do now is Euclidean. I want to a few hopefully helpful points...

1) Do you understand the point I am making about Frames of Reference? Dealing with multiple reference frames is the key to relativity.

2) In Physics, and definitely in GR, it's all about the math. If two theories make the exact same predictions they are equivalent theories. This is true even if they are based on ideas that seem very different to us. They are functionally the same, and if one is correct they other is equally correct.

Feynman pointed out these "equivalent theories" can be different from each other in a very important way.... they lead scientists in different directions to advance or develop new theories. He suggests that every good Physicist will keep multiple equivalent explanations in mind and be able to convert between them.

3) If you want to find the orbits assuming Classical mechanics with a finite speed for action of gravity, you would set up an integral and solve. My initial answer (again... after the decades) was wrong (again... after the decades). I don't think you can get these orbits to pop out without assuming an infinite speed of gravity.

If we want to know this for sure, seeing as this is a hypothetical and we need to specify the parameters for any hypothetical, we would have to set up the integrals and do the math.

4) I am not sure if I understand your question for GR. Asking a question about "why" something is in Physics is seldom useful.

The math gives the answers that it gives. The why? simply "because that's the answer".

I think this article is trying to provide a nice story for non-scientists. Scientists don't need the nice stories... and often they get in the way of understanding.
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 28 Feb, 2020 12:56 pm
@maxdancona,


Max my background happen also to be in engineering like your an I never had a course in the details of GR. Hell I can still remember the 'joy' of working with Maxwell equations at the time with zero computers aids an with a night class on top of that.

Guess I will have to see if MIT online courses have courses that a person with a very rusty engineering math back ground would find useful in understanding
GR.

I think I could still handle vector math and at least second order differential equations with some brush up work.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 28 Feb, 2020 01:18 pm
@maxdancona,
Here is a page dealing with MIT course in GR theory.

Quote:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-962-general-relativity-spring-2006/syllabus/


Course Description
This course covers the basic principles of Einstein's general theory of relativity, differential geometry, experimental tests of general relativity, black holes, and cosmology.

Prerequisites
The course catalog lists Differential Equations (18.03), Linear Algebra (18.06), and Electromagnetism II (8.07) as prerequisites. Students should also be familiar with Lagrangians and action principles, Green's functions, and numerical analysis (some homework assignments require the numerical solution of systems of differential equations).


Lord now I am remembering why I was in love with the nice and simple Newtonian universe along with it equations LOL

It been forty years since I had deal with that level of math an while I had have most of the listed pre-requisties they are far far in my remote past.
 

Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 05:39:55