It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti Relativity

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

age is pretty irrelevant in this thread, asking for age in this matter is the same as saying you are stupid.


yes, but that gets you an ATS warning.. So someone, not me of course, might ask for ones age in order to imply that one is a bit silly.
edit on 21-4-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
math is something we invented and has nothing to do with nature.
On the other hand geometry is nature and it doesn't need math.



Math is needed, as is language, to adequately explain geometry and nature.


All geometry derives from polarization or radiation.


Yeah, sure. Show me the radiation or polarization of a dodecahedron.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

ok i show you.
en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File
odecahedron.jpg



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Ok,

last couple of pages did not reveal anything tangible.
From another forum I perplexed into definition of photon and light.
What is photon and what is light? Are these same phenomenon? Can we say that 'photon\ is a \state\ of light upon release or capture meaning we 'captured' a 'sample' of light flux?

last question to complete noob, how photon propagates when free? Does it continue as particle or starts to inflate as a wave?

if it is a particle all the way whilst traveling, what keeps it confined discreet whilst en route? It has no mass!

DO.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Not seeing anything about radiation or polarization in regards a dodecahedron on that Wikipedia page.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
Ok,

last couple of pages did not reveal anything tangible.
From another forum I perplexed into definition of photon and light.
What is photon and what is light? Are these same phenomenon? Can we say that 'photon is a state of light upon release or capture meaning we 'captured' a 'sample' of light flux?


A photon is an elementary building block of the quantum mechanical electromagnetic field.

Light is a name humans give to electromagnetic waves which are visible to human eyes.


last question to complete noob, how photon propagates when free? Does it continue as particle or starts to inflate as a wave?


It stays sort of like both all the time.


if it is a particle all the way whilst traveling, what keeps it confined discreet whilst en route? It has no mass!

DO.


I will try to be gentle. It is actually very difficult to visualize or understand *correctly* what a photon really is. It took the best minds of quantum mechanics 40+ years from the time Einstein first proposed electromagnetism was quantized (1905) to the point it was truly firmly defined in general (quantum field theory).

Very very briefly, the 'quantized' nature of the electromagnetic field means that you can add up only certain "modes" of allowed elementary behavior, to get the quantum mechanical wavefunction of the electromagnetic field. The fact that electromagnetism is quantized into photons roughly means that at some deep level there is are sums (though a sum over countable infinity) which in Maxwellian E&M might have been a continuous integrals. Some individual 'terms' in the sums are called 'photons'.

The behavior of quantum mechanical particles is both simultaneously waveish and particleish, not one or the other. However, the "effective" behavior can be very much either waveish or particleish with the "other nature" not really having any practical experimental influence even though theoretically it is still there.

In cases like radio waves, then you can think of the individual photons like molecules of water, whose motions collectively add up to make the big waves you see in the surf. At some level there is a particle like nature, but in the collective motion you see a big wave. (This analogy is not fully accurate but it's evocative).

In other circumstances, say like x-rays, then the effects of individual photons themselves (the one term in the sum) are important.
edit on 21-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
If GR isn't true:

- GPS would be out by miles every day. Because time dilation has to be taken into account when programming the software.

- we would ever have been able to send the Rosetta, cassini and Voyager (and countless ) probes to their locations

These are just 2 of the countless, proven , testable reasons why GR is correct and works.



There exists alternate theories that can explain the physical phenomena known as "time dilation" in a much more simple and accurate manner than GR. Said theories would still allow us to also program our GPS, and calculate flight paths for spacecrafts.

Just because a theory allows us to do a few things, doesn't mean it is true, nor does it mean it is the only theory that will ever provide the same or better results.

I could name a few theories that helped predict a few things, but ended up being wrong in the end.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

There exists alternate theories that can explain the physical phenomena known as "time dilation" in a much more simple and accurate manner than GR. Said theories would still allow us to also program our GPS, and calculate flight paths for spacecrafts.


Please post them, along with the maths, that are able to address time dilation and relativistic aspects of GPS since that is one that has been covered.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Ok, thanks for insiders.

What keeps the energy once released a substance when we know photon has no mass?

In other words, once photon has been emitted what keeps it as concealed particle while it travels?

Why you ascribe light as a flux of individual particles?

How come the light constitutes flux of individual packets of energy?

How come those individual packets of energy held together when my eyes 'sees them'?

DO.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There is the theory of [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT] that was developed by Dr. [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT] and Dr. [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT] that is currently being researched by the Department of [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT].

The theory supports that time is an illusion, and any and every theory that even mentions the existence of time can be thrown in the trash. In fact, the theory suggests there will be a day that the word "time" is no longer used in society, and our watches and clocks will some day be replaced by [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT]. We will also do away with the word "space". We will no longer travel "through space" to get from point A to B. We will instead travel "between [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT]".

Einstein's theories were just a stepping stone for us. But now it's being used as a road block for the rest. It is the left hand dazzling its fingers to capture attention. Forget about the right hand.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NAVSEA

That has got to be one of the stupidest posts of all time and the reason I say that to you is because of [CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET BY US GOVERNMENT].

Damn it! I hate when that happens.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Uuuf...No burden of proof is on you. Nonetheless go thru the thread in my signature if you wish
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Once again. No it isnt. YOU are the once making the claim that something is wrong. it is not up to me to convince you. Its up to you to convince us that your incredible claim (and it is an incredible claim) is in fact corrcet.

Keep going, i can do this all night and im not the one making myself look foolish.
Oh my really?
Talk to gps makers and satellite launchers and find out if the give a monkey's f# for Einstein's GR. Lol



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
If GR isn't true:

- GPS would be out by miles every day. Because time dilation has to be taken into account when programming the software.

- we would ever have been able to send the Rosetta, cassini and Voyager (and countless ) probes to their locations

These are just 2 of the countless, proven , testable reasons why GR is correct and works.



There exists alternate theories that can explain the physical phenomena known as "time dilation" in a much more simple and accurate manner than GR. Said theories would still allow us to also program our GPS, and calculate flight paths for spacecrafts.

Just because a theory allows us to do a few things, doesn't mean it is true, nor does it mean it is the only theory that will ever provide the same or better results.

I could name a few theories that helped predict a few things, but ended up being wrong in the end.


No there are not. none that are taken seriously at least.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Uuuf...No burden of proof is on you. Nonetheless go thru the thread in my signature if you wish
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Once again. No it isnt. YOU are the once making the claim that something is wrong. it is not up to me to convince you. Its up to you to convince us that your incredible claim (and it is an incredible claim) is in fact corrcet.

Keep going, i can do this all night and im not the one making myself look foolish.
Oh my really?
Talk to gps makers and satellite launchers and find out if the give a monkey's f# for Einstein's GR. Lol


I dont need to talk to them. I know that they do. Now tell me, how do you know they dont?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014
Cos at his age you are expected to believe each other...only when you grow older do you understand deception and BS



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Uuuf...No burden of proof is on you. Nonetheless go thru the thread in my signature if you wish
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Once again. No it isnt. YOU are the once making the claim that something is wrong. it is not up to me to convince you. Its up to you to convince us that your incredible claim (and it is an incredible claim) is in fact corrcet.

Keep going, i can do this all night and im not the one making myself look foolish.
Oh my really?
Talk to gps makers and satellite launchers and find out if the give a monkey's f# for Einstein's GR. Lol


I dont need to talk to them. I know that they do. Now tell me, how do you know they dont?
Heck you are not doing your home work I gave you, so be my guest and wallow in your ignorance.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Uuuf...No burden of proof is on you. Nonetheless go thru the thread in my signature if you wish
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Once again. No it isnt. YOU are the once making the claim that something is wrong. it is not up to me to convince you. Its up to you to convince us that your incredible claim (and it is an incredible claim) is in fact corrcet.

Keep going, i can do this all night and im not the one making myself look foolish.
Oh my really?
Talk to gps makers and satellite launchers and find out if the give a monkey's f# for Einstein's GR. Lol


I dont need to talk to them. I know that they do. Now tell me, how do you know they dont?
Heck you are not doing your home work I gave you, so be my guest and wallow in your ignorance.



Hmmm....maybe you ARE 12 years old. You certainly argue like you are.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
No there are not. none that are taken seriously at least.


You are incredibly wrong.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I’m not going to address the issue of the OP, other than to say that government and corporate influences have often stifled creativity and ignored alternative ideas/theories in favor of the status quo. This isn’t just a matter of GR, however, and I don’t know why it was singled out. It’s not like it’s Einstein’s, or any other serious scientist’s, fault. There are many factors involved in this issue, and it could fill another very large thread.

The main reason I’m making this post is to clear something up; something I’ve seen over and over again in similar threads. I think some clarification is needed regarding the terms “space” and “spacetime”. Even though they’re used interchangeably by most folks, there is a BIG difference between the two. Einstein’s GR does not deal with “space” itself, but rather the concept of “spacetime”.

As a sidenote, Einstein didn’t come up with the idea of combining space and time into a single four-dimensional spacetime fabric. That insight came from Hermann Minkowski a few years after Special Relativity was proposed. Though initially dismissing it, like most other scientists, Einstein soon came around to the idea, and it became a central concept in the later development of GR.

OK, I’ll admit from the get-go that my ability to explain things/concepts doesn’t merit any gold stars. So, if I go off on a tangent at times in my explanation of the difference between space and spacetime, please bear with me. Remember, it’s not nice to be mean to the mentally challenged.

Space vs Spacetime

Spacetime is the arena in which all physical events take place - an event is represented as a point in spacetime and specified by its time and location. An event in classical relativistic physics is defined using the coordinates (x,y,z,t), which is the location of an elementary (point-like) particle at a particular time. A region of spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events taking place within it, much the same way that a line is the union of all of its points. The ‘world line’ of a particle or light beam is the path that the particle or beam takes in spacetime and represents the history of the particle or beam. The ‘world line’ of the orbit of the Earth in spacetime is usually depicted as two spatial dimensions x and y (the plane of the Earth's orbit) and a time dimension (t) orthogonal to x and y, resulting in a helix. In space alone, however, the time coordinate is dropped and the orbit of the Earth is represented as an ellipse.

Put another way, in a Euclidean space the seperation between 2 points is measured by the distance between the 2 points . Simple enough. The distance is a purely spacial measurement. In spacetime, however, the displacement (interval) between 2 events is a completely different calculation and includes a temporal seperation factor of c^2Δt^2 (in case the 'delta' symbol didn't display properly, it's the speed of light squared multiplied by the time difference squared). So, in the case of purely time-like paths, geodesics are (locally) the paths of greatest separation (spacetime interval) as measured along the path between two events, whereas in Euclidean space and Riemannian manifolds, geodesics are paths of shortest distance between two points. The curvature of spacetime refers to the non-Euclidean geometry used to describe it.

For physical reasons, a spacetime continuum is mathematically defined as a four-dimensional, smooth, connected Lorentzian manifold. The Lorentz metric determines the geometry of spacetime, as well as determining the geodesics of particles and light beams. About each point (event) on this manifold, coordinate charts are used to represent observers in reference frames, using Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z,t). The concept of geodesics is central in general relativity, since geodesic motion is considered as pure, inertial motion in spacetime, and is free from any external influences.

As far as space vs spacetime goes, I heard it (somewhere?) expressed before in an old Chinese proverb:

“An expanding universe demands spacetime curvature. However, it doesn’t demand space curvature.”

If you’re familiar with the Schwarzschild or Friedmann solutions of GR, you’ll note that these spatially flat solutions give motion to test bodies to account for ‘curved time’. Now there’s a concept for ya!


Anyway, in Einstein’s view the curvature of spacetime (not space) is the result of gravity. In any case, the bottom line is that flat space and curved spacetime are not incompatible features of our universe, and work quite well together. Just don’t confuse the 2 as being the same thing, because they are quite different concepts.

And lastly, why blame Einstein for all the misconceptions held about his ideas? It’s not his fault, and it’s not fair...

Cheers!

edit on 4/22/2015 by netbound because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/22/2015 by netbound because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

What do you not understand?Go ahd and elaborate which equations from GR are used for GPS and space flight.


Don't we use Newtons equations for space flight?

For a GPS satellite sending a signal to a receiver there is a correction factor that Einstein showed would be needed because clocks at different points in a gravitational field run differently.
It doesn't involve any of the geometry tensor's, it's just a simple algebraic relationship that has been tested many times involving velocity and c. Similar to most of the math in the other relativity, Special relativity.

It also is the same for objects in acceleration which is what Einstein's Equivalence Principle is all about. Except for accelerating objects the equation is more complicated because once the signal is emitted there has been an increase in velocity so there is an acceleration and time component to deal with.

Why are seeing these equations so important to you?

It's been tested to parts per billion. There is nothing to dispute, it already works. The only thing that can be done now is come up with a better theory that predicts Newtons gravity, also covers the additional predictions that have been made and confirmed to be true by GR (Mercury's ellipse, lensing by the sun is 2x more than expected, clock speed) AND makes new testable predictions that we can confirm and increase our understanding of what gravity is.

If you do dispute GR which of the 2 main laws do you dispute? Do you know the 2 laws? They both have mathematical expressions(s) but also a simple name and a simple explanation for each.
edit on 22-4-2015 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2015 by joelr because: html

edit on 22-4-2015 by joelr because: html




top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join