|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote:
GunFred says... My first question is how good is this image to illustrate the essence of GR? I think something is wrong or at least over simplified. In my view, if space [or spacetime] is warped or bent, any object would follow the same trajectory, no matter what speed it has. That is correct. Locally, the object will follow the same trajectory. However, as it is observed by others, the geodesics will follow a constraint. This constraint should be identified. Before GR, it was either the path with the least accumulated amount of time such as Fermat’s principle that gives rise to Snell’s law or the path with the shortest local distance. After GR, the geodesics was modeled after the path with the least accumulated spacetime. This model got to be the dumbest one since light always propagate with an accumulated spacetime of zero. shrug The other thing is that you are not correct that curved space means that objects take the same trajectory, regardless of velocity. Think about the surface of the Earth. That is pure nonsense. The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. shrug My second question is why a gravity field is explained by assuming space is warped, and why an electrical field is not explained that way? Curved space was first conceptualized by Gauss. However, it was his student Riemann who came up with a mathematical model to described curved space. Riemann went on to try to find a connection between curved space and gravitation. He failed. Space can be curved or warped as much as it wants to, but as long as there is no time dilation or a curvature in the temporal dimension, there is no gravitation. It was until the concept of time and space that gravitation can be modeled as the curvature in spacetime. shrug In contrast, electric fields do not affect all matter in the same way; neutral matter is not affected by gravity, Wrong. As long as an object has positive mass, it is affected by gravity even if it is neutral. shrug Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you probably meant the electric field. positively charged matter is affected in the opposite way from negatively charged matter. So there is no way to eliminate the effect of electric fields by viewing spacetime as warped. Now, that's not completely true. There actually is a theory, called "Kaluza Klein Theory"... That was merely an unsupported speculation. shrug There remains no unification between gravity and electromagnetism. shrug My third question is about a seeming inconsistency between GR and SR. I would like to stress the word "seeming" because I am confident that it is just because I don't understand either GR or SR well. As stated before, GR provided the insight that a free falling body in a gravitation field is in fact just inert in a warped space. It is not being accelerated. It would be accelerated if it was not in free fall, but standing on a structure that prevented it from falling, just like anything standing on earth and experiencing gravity force is equivalent to being accelerated. Now, if a body in free fall in a gravitation field is just like being inert, there is a nice example of the twin paradox. Consider twins, both in orbit around a heavy body, in the same plane but in opposite directions. Both are in orbit and therefore free falling and therefore inert in warped space. They meet each other after having traversed every half orbit. On one encounter they synchronized their clocks. On the next encounter they should have inconsistent clocks according to SR (assuming I understand SR and GR correct, which is likely not the case, but I am eager to receive some clarifying education in this matter). That is correct. The twin’s paradox brings out the stupidity in SR. After all, the Lorentz transform, in which SR is an interpretation of, is not supported by any experiments --- not even the MMX. You see. The MMX requires all observations to be referenced back to the absolute frame of reference. If one can show mathematically, that the absolute frame of reference will vanish, then the mathematical model would be valid. Larmor was the first to come up with the version that leads to the Lorentz transform. In Larmor’s transform, all observations have to be referenced back to the absolute frame of reference. With the way the transform as presented where all observers are traveling in parallel to each other against the absolute frame of reference, one can easily find the absolute frame of reference vanish. Poincare did just that. So, Larmor’s transform which does not satisfy the principle of relativity became the Lorentz transform which now satisfies the principle of relativity. The problem is that in general, the absolute frame of reference does not vanish in Larmor’s transform. shrug It's only *locally* true that freefall in GR is like inertial motion in SR. What "locally" means is: in a small region of spacetime. [...] Special Relativity can be used (approximately) within one of the little regions, but cannot be used to describe the relationship between distant regions. Nonsense. The issue is about the twin’s paradox. shrug My fourth question is about time in gravitation fields. I understood GR says that time is walking slower in gravity fields. No, not in general. There are infinite solutions to the field equations (GR). Not all of them exhibits gravitational time dilation. However, any solutions that degenerate into Newtonian law of gravity does manifest gravitational time dilation. There are many hypotheses that call out for gravitational time dilation. So, the Schwarzschild metric as one of the infinite solutions to GR is not unique in doing that. shrug No, that's not completely correct. It's not that time runs slower in one region than in another, it's that there can be multiple paths that take different amounts of time to travel, even though they connect the same two points. If you are traveling from New York City to Chicago, there might be a path that is 750 miles long, according to the mileage markers, and another path that is 850 miles long. It's not that the mileage markers are farther apart on one of the paths than the other, it's just that different paths have different lengths. It is amazing how one can find so much foliage (bull****) from a simple concept of gravitational time dilation. shrug The elapsed time on a clock is like the "length" of a path through spacetime. This is just wrong. Spacetime is ** ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2 Where ** ds^2 = length of spacetime squared ** dt^2 = time segment squared ** dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = spatial length squared Time is not spacetime, space is not spacetime, and time is not space. Daryl is very intoxicated in voodoo mathematics. shrug My fifth question is about absolute time and instantaneous information transfer (required by absolute time). Absolute time or absolute simultaneity does not say information can be instantaneously transferred. shrug Under absolute simultaneity, all observers do agree that all events happen chronologically in order. Under relative simultaneity, the chronological order of events is not guaranteed to be observed so between two observers. The interferometers of the MMX very much ruled out relative simultaneity since the interference pattern can be observed coherently experiments after experiments. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
On Mar 6, 9:44*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...] The other thing is that you are not correct that curved space means that objects take the same trajectory, regardless of velocity. Think about the surface of the Earth. That is pure nonsense. *The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. shrug The wublee thinks the Earth's surface is flat. And shrugged 13 times in one post. [...] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
On Mar 6, 11:45 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 6, 9:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: That is pure nonsense. The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. shrug The wublee thinks the Earth's surface is flat. The college dropout thinks the surface of a sphere represents curved space, and a simple geometric analysis will prove the college dropout and Daryl wrong. The surface of a sphere by no means is curved space. Einstein Dingleberries tend to worship the nonsense in which only Einstein Dingleberries can understand themselves. shrug And shrugged 13 times in one post. You will find two more in this post. shrug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
.... ahahahaha... AHHAHAHA.... AHAHAHA....
"Koobee Wublee" wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: Daryl McCullough wrote: Daryl McCullough wrote: curved space means that objects take the same trajectory, regardless of velocity. Think about the surface of the Earth. KW wrote: That is pure nonsense. The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. shrug Eric Gisse wrote: The wublee thinks the Earth's surface is flat. KW wrote: The college dropout Gissethinks the surface of a sphere represents curved space, and a simple geometric analysis will prove the college dropout and Daryl wrong. The surface of a sphere by no means is curved space. Einstein Dingleberries tend to worship the nonsense in which only Einstein Dingleberries can understand themselves. shrug [alt: Einstein Cling-ons tend to worship Einstein's Dingleberries.] [ Z: http://www.urbandictionary.com/ : Cling on & cling-ons] Eric Gisse, the shrug-counter, wrote: And shrugged 13 times in one post. KW wrote: You will find two more in this post. shrug hanson wrote: .... AHAHAHAHA.. You are too kind, Wubli... AHAHAHA... Let's see. Gisse's CV: -- ~ 9 years of college: NO BSc. -- Fired from his 1st job after 60 days. -- Dreamt of flying to the stars with Uncle rect-Al Schwartz. All that with... No BSc, no job, no space flight... ahahaha... Naturally, Gisse's loud mouthing on the UseNet appears to be a compensation for his abject failures... Poor ******* really, that Gisse. I feel kinda sorry for him... because to boot, Y. Porat has posted that Eric is morbidly obese and repulsively ugly looking... ... Somewhere, Eric, the poor sod, had grabbed and clung onto the wrong end of the rubber ruler which had too many Einstein Dingleberries on it... Thanks for the laughs, though, guy...ahahahanson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
On Mar 7, 12:22*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:45 pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Mar 6, 9:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: That is pure nonsense. *The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. shrug The wublee thinks the Earth's surface is flat. The college dropout thinks the surface of a sphere represents curved space, and a simple geometric analysis will prove the college dropout and Daryl wrong. *The surface of a sphere by no means is curved space. *Einstein Dingleberries tend to worship the nonsense in which only Einstein Dingleberries can understand themselves. *shrug And shrugged 13 times in one post. You will find two more in this post. *shrug When presented with the silliness of his idea, the wublee ****s a wall of insults and re-asserts that the surface of a sphere is flat. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
On Mar 7, 1:36*am, "hanson" wrote:
[snip another wall of barely coherent insults] I see you agree that the surface of a sphere is flat. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
On Mar 7, 2:22*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:45 pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Mar 6, 9:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: That is pure nonsense. *The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. shrug The wublee thinks the Earth's surface is flat. The college dropout thinks the surface of a sphere represents curved space, and a simple geometric analysis will prove the college dropout and Daryl wrong. *The surface of a sphere by no means is curved space. Of course it is. A surface is a 2D space. (Perhaps KW is flummoxed by the idea of a space that has anything other than 3 dimensions.) And it is curved, which can be demonstrated any number of ways, including measuring the sum of the interior angles of a 3-sided polygon in that surface. *Einstein Dingleberries tend to worship the nonsense in which only Einstein Dingleberries can understand themselves. *shrug And shrugged 13 times in one post. You will find two more in this post. *shrug |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
Koobee Wublee says...
On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote: GunFred says... My first question is how good is this image to illustrate the essence of GR? I think something is wrong or at least over simplified. In my view, if space [or spacetime] is warped or bent, any object would follow the same trajectory, no matter what speed it has. That is correct. No, it is not correct. You really have no idea what you are talking about. A geodesic through a curved space is determined by *two* quantities: (1) a starting point, and (2) a starting velocity vector. The path certainly does depend on the velocity. This is made explicit in the equation for the geodesic: (d/ds)^2 x^u = -Gamma^u_vw (d/ds)x^v (d/ds)x^w The path explicitly depends on the velocity (those d/ds x^v terms on the right-hand side). It's one thing to not be interested in these topics. Fine. But don't pretend to understand a topic that you have no interest in and know nothing about. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
Koobee Wublee says...
On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote: The other thing is that you are not correct that curved space means that objects take the same trajectory, regardless of velocity. Think about the surface of the Earth. That is pure nonsense. The surface of the earth is still represented by flat space as given by the longitude, latitude, and altitude. The *surface* of the Earth is a 2-dimensional curved surface. That means that a point on the Earth is characterized by two numbers: the latitude and the longitude. Altitude for a point on the surface of the Earth is not an independent coordinate, since the altitude is a *function* of latitude and longitude. The surface of the Earth is a 2-D curved surface, embedded in a 3-dimensional flat (for most purposes) space. You wade into topics that you have no understanding of. It's very bizarre. The most striking difference between a curved space and a flat space is that in flat space, geodesics that start off parallel remain parallel. In flat space, the geodesics are the straight-line paths. On the surface of the Earth, the geodesics are the "great circle routes". The equator and the lines of longitude are examples of geodesics. Geodesics that start off parallel do not remain parallel. This can easily be seen by taking the line of 0 degrees longitude, and the line of 5 degrees longitude. At the equator, these geodesics are parallel. But if you follow them all the way to the North Pole, they are no longer parallel. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions on GR from a layman
Polemic "Eric Gisse" at alt.morons, wrote:
"hanson" wrote: [snip another wall of barely coherent insults] I see you agree that the surface of a sphere is flat. hanson wrote: ahahahaha... a 2D surface is by definition flat, if not then it acquires a 3rd dimension also by def. What is it that you don't understand about that? IOW, like KW said: "The surface of a sphere by no means is curved"... Curved space only exists in the mind of Einstein Dingleberries when they worship Albert's rectum and awe: "That must be it. Looks just like that space-time rubber trampoline which Albert's cling-ons are talking about" Now, let us return and see whether you still have some intellectual balls, or whether your beytsyim fell off already and gummed up your mentation: ---------------- "Eric Gisse" wrote: "hanson" wrote: "Eric Gisse" wrote: Eric wrote: snip bantering with Porat I've always liked to think the electron is a topological defect in space, but I can't reconcile that theory with the proton which is an actual assemblage of parts which has the opposite charge. hanson wrote: First things first. Forget the proton part for now. The natural world is grainy & discrete, with its obviously very large to vanishingly small matter elements. So, the question arises "why does the current, real, universe have a lower cutoff graininess that matches the size of the electron's rest mass?... Did you answer that ton you own satisfaction? Eric weaseled and wrote: Your muddled thinking and writing style hurts my mind. hanson wrote: ahaha... Anyways, what is the reasons in your pain ridden mind why the electron mass should be the basic defect in your topological space? It has been known now for 200+ years that the converters from 1D space to mass is G/c^2 = r/m, or for 70 years that H^2/G = rho (m-density) in the "outer limits", where you like to muse & fantasize at. So what is so new in your take Eric? Put the cofactors like 2,3,4..., Pi and [a], the fine structure constant, into any of the r^(1 to 3) / m converters and you'll get to what you want. When you have found the numerical match, interpret & discuss your equation, pontificate and brag about it... instead of you cranking Porat, who has a far deeper insight into his physics then you have now into your own... Eric, show that you have some intellectual balls, .... ahahaha... ahahanson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
a few questions | Steve Trellert | Misc | 14 | January 20th 09 02:13 PM |
Layman wants to learn | Michael | Misc | 3 | September 30th 06 09:39 PM |
Just got a G-11 and have some questions | Craig M. Bobchin | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | July 19th 06 06:34 AM |
TV-76 questions | Wayfaring Stranger | Amateur Astronomy | 22 | June 21st 06 06:46 AM |
Question from a Layman | Gary | Research | 14 | June 26th 05 07:56 AM |