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.
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...
I am not even going to pretend to grasp the theory
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.
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
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.
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.
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'.
Originally posted by micpsi
\
BTW: the word is spelt "complementary", not "complimentary."edit on 29-8-2013 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.
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.
Source wiki
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.
At speeds close to that of light, Newtonian physics breaks down and Special Relativity takes over, not General Relativity.
BTW: the word is spelt "complementary", not "complimentary."