The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

originally posted by: GetHyped
Please post up interesting facts from Flat Earth conference 2015 next.

Lol. Nice one

I can see why one might wish to propose a new explanation for some phenomena if the currently accepted explanation is flawed, or incomplete, or flatout wrong. The new explanation, of course, must be falsifiable and should more accurately and completely describe the phenomena. In the case of EU and gravity, however, this is not the case. It’s junk science and only finds an audience with those who have a limited knowledge of mathematics and physics.

What I find most curious is the fact that there are so many out there who seem to despise Einstein and GR. People who have no idea what the theory is about. It’s quite common for those who’ve studied GR to come away with a sense of awe at the beauty and elegance of it’s mathematical framework, and logical flow. GR is, after all, strictly a theory of spacetime geometry. It makes no attempt to explain what gravity is. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within spacetime. And it does a damned good job of it.

I wouldn’t bet against Einstein. At least not with EU...

a reply to: netbound

It’s junk science and only finds an audience with those who have a limited knowledge of mathematics and physics.

please watch the mathematical creation of an black hole including singularity nonsense.


If you don't understand that this construct is purely mathematical and has nothing to do with reality, than I can't help you.
listen to the words, "if we somehow could", or "if we assume"...

in this calculation there are just two variables, mass and distance, but we know matter is composed of charged particles. Moving charges interact, there is magnetism as well, resonance and and and...
If you let all this out, there simply can not be a correct way to calculate anything.

Mathematics is a tool, and with any tool you can create things but also destroy them.

There is no science in saying "gravitational constant" if you didn't measured it overall in the whole universe.
There is no science in saying "constant speed of light" if you didn't measured it overall in the whole universe.
all this is a local phenomenon nothing else.

Without the assumption that C is constant Einstein couldn't create any theory.
Big Bang is an religious creation act.
Gravity as the driving force is just blindness and ignorance.

I don't agree with everything EU theory is saying, no...
I just get more and more closer with my research to this theory and away from GR, QM and particles ZOO .

If General Relativity near perfectly describes the visible universe, why is it that we need a magnetic field around the Earth, to even start considering these questions? (You know, because without the field we would all be fresh toast out of the toaster.)

It is possible that the EU theory could be complete BS but, a wise man once said: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." With that out on the table, please try and explain the Ricci tensor, Lorentz transformations, partial differential equations, and the warping of space-time to a six year old. Now try and explain a simple bar magnet to the same six year old. Tell me, what do you think is more elegant, simplicity or mysticism?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Is it possible those same results are tied to the equipment/technology used? or location(earth,galaxy)?even the configuration of the solar system?

1. No.
   
   
2. No.
   
   
3. No.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

If General Relativity near perfectly describes the visible universe, why is it that we need a magnetic field around the Earth, to even start considering these questions? (You know, because without the field we would all be fresh toast out of the toaster.)

Where did you read that GR completely describes the universe?

It is possible that the EU theory could be complete BS but, a wise man once said: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." With that out on the table, please try and explain the Ricci tensor, Lorentz transformations, partial differential equations, and the warping of space-time to a six year old. Now try and explain a simple bar magnet to the same six year old. Tell me, what do you think is more elegant, simplicity or mysticism?

As an instant's reflection makes clear, the person who made that statement about six-year-olds and explanations wasn't a wise man, he was a thoroughgoing idiot. How much of the world can a six-year-old actually understand?

Is your argument that EU theory is more likely to be true because it is simpler? Well, fiddlesticks. It is simpler because it has not been called upon to explain the working of nature in detail; and wherever it has been so applied, it has failed dismally.

Here is the news. Some subjects are too hard for average minds to understand. It isn't fair, but there is nothing to be done about it. Some of you will just have to take what you are told on faith. And this is why it is so important to learn to distinguish true authority from false.

EU theory is bunk. The 'authorities' who promote it are false.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." ?

imo, if you cannot gauge the physical significance of any theory / equation, you don't understand it yourself.
You require exactly that physical aspect of anything under the sun to explain it to a six year old.

a reply to: Astyanax

Where did I read that GR completely describes the universe? I read that from the uncountable number of people who claim we only need gravity to explain what we see in the cosmos.

I wasn't promoting the EU, I just wanted to offer a viewpoint from it's perspective. By the way, that wise man was Einstein. Yes I did that just to get a little laugh out of the matter. Now it looks like you said Einstein was a "thoroughgoing idiot". Ha, anyways, no I'M not saying it is more plausible because it is simple. I'm just quoting, who arguably was the smartest man on earth.

Here's my news, your somewhat condescending tone is not something i'm going to deal with. You automatically assume we're "average minds", with little to no knowledge of the leading theories. Just because I, myself, am investigating a potential theory, that may have answers to what we didn't know before, does not make me an average mind. Also, if we want to really understand the nature of the universe, we need to constantly be looking for new ideas. Especially when it's been a great deal of time since our last significant discovery... There's nothing wrong with people searching for a new theory to replace some of our older ideas, as Einstein did with Newton.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Altering the speed of light doesn't mean it's not constant, it just mean it can be altered.
Sigh

How does that even begin to make logical sense to you?

If it can be altered, then it is not constant.

That means throughout the Universe the speed of light can be different.

If something alters it. 1000/1000 times the lunar laser reflectors will provide the same exact results. Same as deep space contacts. Light has a constant speed or those things would never work.

Is it possible those same results are tied to the equipment/technology used? or location(earth,galaxy)?even the configuration of the solar system?

Not a chance. Lunar reflector tests can be performed with any laser powerful enough. Deep space contact becomes even more difficult when a slight percent of a percent miscalculation means your transmission will miss by millions of miles.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Where did I read that GR completely describes the universe? I read that from the uncountable number of people who claim we only need gravity to explain what we see in the cosmos.

Were any of these people scientists? Can you cite a source?

By the way, that wise man was Einstein.

Really? Can you cite a source for this (Facebook memes don't count).

You automatically assume we're "average minds", with little to no knowledge of the leading theories.

I don't know why you choose to include yourself among the 'some' I referred to earlier. But speaking of 'knowledge of the leading theories', would you care to explain how the Lorentz transformation, which you mentioned earlier, fits into the General Theory of Relativity?

There's nothing wrong with people searching for a new theory to replace some of our older ideas, as Einstein did with Newton.

Very true. But EU is not new and it is not a theory.

originally posted by: Bedlam

The LCD you're looking at is a really elegant stomp to the face of luminiferous aether, which requires EM to be longitudinal, like sound. Since light is polarizable, it cannot be longitudinal, and there is no aether for EM. QED.

NO, what I think of doesn't, this is a misconception from 19th century.
And I never said "luminiferous aether" so pleas don't stick it to me.

What I say is this, electron -Ɔ and proton +Ɔ equals (+-)2Ɔ, that's the field I'm talking about.
I know it's incomprehensible for you...

I don't know why it must be always just one way or the other, longitudinal or transverse waves.
In my world it's a seamless transition from one to another...



since you talk about polarizes, here some interesting effects if one of the polarizes is missing in the LCD configuration.

LCD proves absolutely nothing about the nature of light.

a reply to: Astyanax

According to www.goodreads.com... a-six-year-old it is attributed to Einstein. That's funny that you mentioned Facebook memes because I've seen some pretty ridiculous ones also...

I chose to include myself among the average minded because you had said: " Some of you will just have to take what you are told on faith." The fact that you said, you, made me think you were directing it toward myself too. That's how I interpreted it, if i'm wrong it's my mistake.

As for the Lorentz transformation applying to Relativity, I certainly don't understand the math, which is part of the reason why i'm going to school to learn higher level mathematics for the physics courses. I want to be able to contribute 100% to the leading ideas. Back to my understanding of Lorentz transformations, my understanding is only that of the concept. So I can tell you that they are what allow for differing reference frames, with that comes space that is not absolute. Hence, the warping of space-time. I'm certainly no expert but, explaining that to a six year old, I think, would be pretty difficult.


Anyhow, I should probably add, the fact that, I don't think the Electric Universe is going to replace Relativity. It shouldn't, the large majority of evidence points to Relativity being correct. Rather than the smaller portion that points to EU. I just wish there was definitive proof that space is warping to prove Einstein 100% correct. Bent starlight from behind the sun, does not prove to me, that space is actually warping. If we can't measure the warping of space itself, as far as i'm concerned, it isn't proven.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

You know, we all have to rely on authorities most of the time. I wouldn’t pretend to know more about making bread than a baker, or get into an argument with a farmer about growing tomatoes.

I am no great lover of authority myself but human society cannot function without it.

The point about the Lorentz transformation is this: Special and General Relativity are very different theories about different things. The first is about moving bodies, the second is about gravity: the motion of bodies in gravity fields was not covered under Special Relativity.

The Lorentz transformation relates to Special Relativity. It shows (this is the six-year-olds' version) how a moving object looks to observers moving at different speeds and angles.

I don't think a social-media website like Goodreads is a very authoritative source, do you? When, where and to whom was Einstein supposed to have said this? Where was it recorded and reported?

a reply to: Astyanax

The Lorentz transformation relates to Special Relativity. It shows (this is the six-year-olds' version) how a moving object looks to observers moving at different speeds and angles.

works only if the assumption about constant C is true over the whole universe,
unfortunately it has been measured only on Earth and even this every time with slightly different results.

a reply to: Astyanax

you seem to be a smart person, tell me more.

a reply to: Astyanax

I agree with the fact that we have to rely on authorities when it comes to things we are not closely familiar with. But I do think we need to bring POSSIBLE issues/ better explanations to hand.

Obviously the website could be wrong, as all others could be. But it was the first link so I figured it would work. And no i didn't plan on surfing the web to possibly find the core from which it came. I've just heard it before related to Einstein.

a reply to: KrzYma

works only if the assumption about constant C is true over the whole universe

Do you have any reason for believing it is not?

You know, anti-relativity cranks are the saddest science cranks of all. At least rejecters of evolutionary have a good reason for their obscurantism; they have religious beliefs with which the theory is in conflict, and the field is one in which direct observational evidence is very hard to come by. Rejecters of relativity (special or general) are merely expressing their anger over their inability to understand the theory, and they persist in their wilful blindness despite the fact that direct, empirical evidence for it is abundant.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

tell me more.

Vector99 already explained it in this post.

1. It can't be the equipment, because the results have been reconfirmed several times over the past century or so using different kinds of equipment.
   
   
2. It can't be our location in space, since that is constantly changing — Earth goes round the Sun, the Sun orbits the Galactic centre and the Galaxy itself is careering away from its fellows at some absurd velocity. And if by 'location' you mean our proximity to large quantities of matter, well, that does affect the metric expansion of space, but the verification of GR through various experiments shows that the presence of matter does not affect the speed of light — only its direction.
   
   
3. It could be that the speed of light varies from place to place in the universe, but if that were the case it would have to vary in a remarkably consistent way in order to produce the image of the universe visible to us. Besides, we have absolutely no reason to believe it does, and very good reasons — such as the regularity of pulsars — to believe that it is constant. There are hypotheses in which a variable speed of light is postulated, and some recent experiments have even claimed to demonstrate this, but the level of confidence with which these claims are made is very low.

This may be a good place to point out that the speed of a moving photon never varies. The 'speed of light' varies in different media, but this is due (roughly speaking) to photons being deflected within the medium by collisions with atoms or molecules. Variable-speed-of-light hypotheses also amount to this: photon deflection due to collisions with virtual particles in vacuo. However, these hypotheses are rather far-fetched and require a great deal of evidence and experimental replication before we can take serious account of them.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

I do think we need to bring POSSIBLE issues/ better explanations to hand.

Why do you think EU is a POSSIBLE explanation of anything? Wouldn't it take someone with specialist knowledge of the subject (physical cosmology) to make that decision?

originally posted by: [post=19721551]Vector99 . Deep space contact becomes even more difficult when a slight percent of a percent miscalculation means your transmission will miss by millions of miles.

Which calculation mate? Care to demonstrate it?
And what is the subtended angle of transmission from the transmitter?