The Problem with Einstein's Theory of Relativity

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Back in the earlier replies a video link was posted to watch Thunderbolts of the Gods. I have been watching it and it's bringing up things I have wondered regarding what we think we know about the sun. Why are sun spots dark and the temperature is low in them?

Why is the temperature at the surface of the sun only 6000 yet off the surface it is 2 million? Does it make sense that the sun is generating heat or is it receiving energy? The scientists don't seem to have a grasp on this, and it reminded me of some stuff Nassim Haremein brought up about an ancient artifact that showed UFO type vehicles exiting the sun through a huge triangle shape and just this past year we have seen that shape in the sun.

4.bp.blogspot.com... nt-image-sighting-reportSUN-Triangle-NASA.jpg


keithranville.files.wordpress.com...



Nassim thinks there is a singularity in the sun that works like a portal. Any thoughts?




posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sparky31
 

Except that observations predicted by relativity continue to be made and not a single aspect of relativity has been disproven.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.centauri-dreams.org...
www.space.com...



2nd that line.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


There is a quite satisfactionary answer to the problem with suns photo- and chromosphere at 6.000 K and the corona at 2.000.000 K, it involves the mighty magnetic fields and the many poles on the chromosphere, whose energies are wrecking havoc in the corona. See wikipedia, for example.

It is something like an electric motor: the current lines inside the motor are quietly humming away while powering a complete electric car at the same time to more than 60 miles per hour. With magnetic fields, many complex phenomena are possible.


Although not an electric universe, cut that out! Black holes as protons or neutrons - ever heard of Hawking radiation? Quantum physics dictate that there are virtual particles right at the corner of the eventhorizon of which one might escape, taking a very small amount of energy out of the black hole. Repeat for a while and a black hole vaporizes like a ballon. Therefore, the smaller a black hole, the less time does it exist. Not enough time left for all the particles in the universe to exist.. Sometimes, ideas are wrong.

And finally, for a major claim (like "electric universe > classic universe") you need a major proof or argument. And some very convincing evidences, preferably. Both are lacking from the idea of an electric universe.
edit on 27-8-2013 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I am not even going to pretend to grasp the theory

Then why do you think yourself qualified to say anything about it?

I'm just asking, okay? I'd hate to stop people like you from making threads like this. They give people like me a great laugh.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I am not even going to pretend to grasp the theory

Then why do you think yourself qualified to say anything about it?

I'm just asking, okay? I'd hate to stop people like you from making threads like this. They give people like me a great laugh.


I posted it to hear how you smart people could talk about it so I could learn something. I am not ashamed to admit when I am ignorant on a subject, and I appreciate a good debate amongst those who really do study this stuff. Is your ego that bruised and in need of puffing up that you insult everyone who seeks to learn something?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Thanks for your reply. It did not seem from these scientists that black holes are proven or that we really know much about them. Could you explain your views on them besides saying they have protons? I really am curious just what is supposed and put out there vs what we actually know.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


I posted it to hear how you smart people could talk about it so I could learn something.

Fiddlesticks. You posted it because you wanted a fight. And it's not the first time, either.

If you want to learn about evolution, this site will teach you. There are also many excellent books on the subject. You might try Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene or The Ancestor's Tale. Don't expect to learn about evolution from an internet message board.

Not that you ever did.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You couldn't be more wrong. Since I don't study physics, I am interested in understanding about what I posted. I can't help it that you assume everyone here is just playing games. So, for all those who truly do like this subject, then please talk about it some more.

I have now watched 2 videos on the "electric" universe, and they have brought up good points, but I really can't make a decision and hope someone here can offer some proof either way, but maybe it's just too complicated or we don't have enough ability to prove it.

Thanks for any replies for or against this.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 




I understand the problem they are breaking down in this video of a singularity of infinite mass taking up no space at all.


Your first problem is in that sentence. The singularity does not have infinite mass, it has infinite density. That means that all the particles (at this point, speaking of atoms is meaningless) are touching. Black holes can be quite small (relatively speaking). They are of course extremely massive per unit volume, but they are not infinitely massive. The universe contains a finite mass which is rather accurately known, the concept of infinite mass is quite meaningless.

Furthermore, while the singularity itself is quite odd and thinking about it is weird, that is not all there is to a black hole. There is also the event horizon and the space (if you can call it that) between the singularity and the event horizon.

By the way, 'black hole' is an unfortunate term. Stephen Hawkings showed that 'black holes' actually glow. See: Enigma: Black Holes Glow with a Hot Ring of Light



so I ask you all to take this on and discuss it so I can glean some deeper understanding on this theory of relativity.


Sorry, that is way beyond the scope of a blog or forum, any blog or forum, but especially this one. An entry level physics course at your local community college would be much more satisfactory. Many schools have continuing education courses that would cover this material. Relativity is actually fairly easy to understand, even though the consequences can be far reaching.
edit on 27/8/2013 by rnaa because: more material


Thanks for the clarification. I have read some physics, but one of my greatest disappointments is while I made straight A's in geometry and trig, I struggled to get past algebra and really don't know how I managed to pass rudimentary calculus. I have looked for someone who can teach that side of math for years, but it's frustrating to me. I don't think I would be able to do the math involved to understand it.

Do you have any good sites to recommend that I can improve this area of understanding?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thanks for your explanations. Did you watch the video I posted? If so, can you point out the error they are making? They seem to say that in Einsteins later years he knew there were problems with his theory. I truly do appreciate your taking the time to suss this out and the back and forth is helpful as well.

What do you say to the issues they brought up about red shift. Has this idea really been shown to not show distance as these men are saying? If not, why not. Thanks



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by micpsi
 




Einstein's general theory of relativity is a theory of classical physics in which dynamical properties, like position & momentum or time & energy, are simultaneously defined for objects with exact precision. Quantum mechanics states that these variables cannot be simultaneously measured/known with arbitrary accuracy. The two theories are not complementary but are fundamentally inconsistent with each other. That is why physics is in crisis. Its two most successful theories are incompatible with each other.


I disagree entirely.

There is a point where Newtonian Physics 'breaks down' (i.e. as objects approach the speed of light) and General Relativity is required to explain what is going on. The two are not 'incompatible'; they are complimentary.


At speeds close to that of light, Newtonian physics breaks down and Special Relativity takes over, not General Relativity. The fact that you maket such an elementary error not even a first-year physics undergraduate would commit makes me reluctant to continue. But I will.

Originally posted by rnaa
Likewise, there is a point where General Relativity 'breaks down' (i.e. the event horizon of a black hole) and Quantum Field Theory (which is simply, but not strictly accurately, Quantum Mechanics plus Special Relativity; review the work of Dirac) is required to explain what is going on. GR and QM most certainly are complimentary, they can answer different questions, though there is overlap, just as there is between Newton and Einstein.

You confuse two categories of difference. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of Special Relativity. GR is not an approximation of QM. This is because it is fundamentally incompatible with QM and so cannot approximate to it in some limiting case.

Originally posted by rnaa
Some Physicists find this an aesthetic problem since infinities are ugly in Physics. They think one approach should handle everything, and QFT may solve the problems they are working on better, or more aesthetically, than GR. But as I said above, Godel showed that it is an impossible ideal to strive for completeness; eventually you are going to come up against something that just doesn't fit, like a singularity and GR.

One needs to remember that we are working at the outer limits of both theories. No experiment has ever shown a valid prediction from General Relativity to be incorrect; and the same with QM (after Dirac added Special Relativity anyway). That does not mean that we will never find an instance where QFT makes a better prediction than GR. Never say never in science. There will certainly be problems where QFT handles the problem 'better'.

The reason why no experiments have shown GR to be wrong is that NO experiments have ever tested it at the energy/space/time scale where physicists believe GR breaks down, namely, at very high mass densities when the quantum nature of the gravitational field becomes significant. GR and QM are not complementary in any sense. GR-->SR as the gravitational field-->0 and QM-->classical physics (which includes SR). This is a well-known fact and should not be interpreted as implying that QM and GR are compatible, or complementary, theories. You will find few physicists supporting this erroneous belief of yours.

BTW: the word is spelt "complementary", not "complimentary."
edit on 29-8-2013 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
A Hungry Black Hole

www.dailymotion.com...




edit on 29-8-2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
\

BTW: the word is spelt "complementary", not "complimentary."
edit on 29-8-2013 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.


Some will accuse you of being a grammar nazi, but in this case you do have a point. One is about supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks.and the other is about saying nice things. So, thanks for the English lesson.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Thanks for your reply. It did not seem from these scientists that black holes are proven or that we really know much about them. Could you explain your views on them besides saying they have protons? I really am curious just what is supposed and put out there vs what we actually know.


We know pretty good how much a proton weighs.
We know exactly that a particle with the characteristics of a proton does exist.
We do know that those characteristics don't match those of a miniature-blackhole.

There are simple laboratory experiments which determined the following:



Rutherford knew hydrogen to be the simplest and lightest element and was influenced by Prout's hypothesis that hydrogen was the building block of all elements. Discovery that the hydrogen nucleus is present in all other nuclei as an elementary particle, led Rutherford to give the hydrogen nucleus a special name as a particle, since he suspected that hydrogen, the lightest element, contained only one of these particles. He named this new fundamental building block of the nucleus the proton.
Source wiki

I get the notion that you want to question all of science - please stop. It is useless. Bring up a counter-prove and we will discuss that.

Saying "I don't believe in protons or blackholes or.." is generally pointless. Bring up a conclusive idea WHY protons/blackholes/.. might be a wrong idea, that would be wonderful, really! Denial of experimentally proven theories and ideas doesn't work.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 




At speeds close to that of light, Newtonian physics breaks down and Special Relativity takes over, not General Relativity.


You are right. My brain must have outraced my fingers.



BTW: the word is spelt "complementary", not "complimentary."


Mea culpa.

BTW: the word is spelled "spelled" not "spelt" (in America anyway .
;

My Australian spell checker doesn't correct grammar, but it does flag "spelt" even though both "spelt" and "spelled" are acceptable interchangeably in Australia. So I compliment you on your sharp eyes.

All that aside, I think you may be reading too much into my assertions, just as I think that when you say that the two approaches are fundamentally incompatible, you are overreaching in your objections.

I am saying that the two theories are complementary because they are both useful at solving problems. They each have their own strengths in their approach. There are problems that cannot be solved by QFT that can be solved by GR and vice-versa. This is what makes them complementary. There are also problems that can be solved by either, this is where the two overlap. Some of those problems are easier or more convenient using one approach or the other. This is where you see incompatibility.

And yet, science has many instances of this kind. Chemists are quite happy using the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom because it produces satisfactory results in their day to day work. Physicists would never use Rutherford-Bohr, they use the Atomic Orbital Model, without which the transistor would not have been possible (probably). These two models are not incompatible, they both successfully solve problems, but some problems are solved better by one model than the other.

The fact that Newton couldn't describe the orbit of Mercury as accurately as Einstein didn't mean that the two approaches were incompatible, it just meant that Einstein had expanded the tool set so more problems could be solved.

I agree that the infinities that GR 'throws up' are ugly and unsatisfactory and QFT may well be the better tool for the job. That doesn't mean its the ONLY tool for all jobs. Hammers and screwdrivers are not incompatible, they are complementary.

edit on 31/8/2013 by rnaa because: corrections: grammar, point making.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I hope you two keep talking as you both bring up interesting points. As for the other guy telling me to not question science, I would like to know how we grow then?

Isn't it the fact that people did question accepted "facts" the reason we have grown in knowledge and understanding? I see different things brought out by scientists unafraid to question established knowledge, and as I said, this particular area is one I am not strong in, thus I am very appreciative of those who can discuss this as rnaa is doing.

I loved how Nassim Haramein shares his first misunderstandings of dimension and how he was more confused when his teachers showed him a dot that didn't exist which clearly to him did. So, it is in the search for more truth and understanding that I posted this thread.

I wish more lurkers would jump in because I am sure there are more who have dedicated much time to this area who could share how this works for them or how they also see problems with the various schools of thought.

Nassim brings up the question of "what is making the earth spin, solar system spin, atom spin" and says they can't answer that question which is amazing because it is a fundamental question in the mechanics of creation. What caused the spin, where is the energy coming from to create this?






posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


The problem with black holes is it is not entirely known what space actually is, and so it is not entirely known how gravity actually works, and it is not entirely known how dark energy works. So there is a gigantic 'eye of the storm' in the middle of ours and most spiral galaxies, and like a tornado or whirlpool or your toilet, when material gets near the center, it seemingly disappears. At first they thought everything just got sucked in the middle and got packed tighter and together and more dense, like the middles of things like planets and stars from gravity and pressure and other things I guess. But then stephan hawking said I bet some stuff gets out, and thats why hes famous, and thats called hawking radiation. I guess their problem is they dont know if the center of a black hole is moving through space, or if it is part of the material galaxy, or if it is a constant infinitely twisted section of space time that a galaxy has caught. I personally think it could be that as time progresses, a black hole gaining mass from material entering it, may help contain the spiral of the galaxy, because maybe if more mass is focused and the black hole gets bigger, it means it has a greater gravitational extent, which is a greater toilet bowl swirl in space for all the solar systems to swirl around...



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Thanks for your thoughts. Make this simple for me please. How do we know black holes exist?



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Because there are no stars or planets at the center of galaxies. There is a relative center of the shape of a spiral. There are a supposed 300 billion stars in the milky way, how would you figure they are spinning? Like a carrousel right, but just as there needs to keep something like the planets spinning around our sun, there needs to be something that keeps all the suns in a galaxy spinning around a common central point. That common central point is not an ultra big sun (though in some way it may be... for it is thought that when stars die they turn into mini black holes (mini compared to super massive central black hole)), that common central point is so twisty from all that mass spinning about it, and the galaxy as a whole 'maybe' moving through space, that there cant possible maintain a solid massive object in the center, so instead at the center is like a cosmic paper shredder, where space is twisted up and moving so fast and sharply, that it decimates any organized stable material like molecules or atoms.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join