Einstein's Field Eq

Hi guys,

in the other thread we discuss the speed of light, Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

because light is bend by gravity, there came up some questions of mine, that still bother be.

right now, Einstein's relativity tells us, what we have to believe gravity is. Space time E=mc2 construct.

please look at this vid



In this thread are my questions about the gravity, and why it requires an energy supply to appear, as I think!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

KrzYma
right now, Einstein's relativity tells us, what we have to believe gravity is. Space time E=mc2 construct.

please look at this vid

I watched the video.

1. Even if scientists are wrong about something, they aren't all idiots. Gaede and Crothers calling them all idiots is not only irrelevant, but it's wrong...they are some smart people. If Gaede and Crothers had a point they could start by respecting that other scientists are pretty smart and if they had a convincing argument backed up by observation, they should be able to convince the scientists, but do they even try? If calling other scientists stupid is how they try to convince them, it's an ineffective tactic even if they were right. Also did you notice they never cite a replacement equation which they think is better and show how it solves the problem as they see it?

2. I don't follow their logic on why they think the argument they think is circular is circular. But aside from that, the more important question is, does it match observation? They never cite a single instance where it doesn't. It has matched observations.

In this thread are my questions about the gravity, and why it requires an energy supply to appear, as I think!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

First look at an example of an electromagnet.

You can connect an energy input and create a magnetic field. Disconnect the energy input and the field goes away. So it is possible to use input energy to generate a field. However, just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's necessary.

Second, look at a bar magnet. It also generates a magnetic field. It's not plugged in like the electromagnet. It has no external source of energy input, yet it creates a magnetic field.

Likewise with gravity, no external energy input is required for a mass to generate a gravitational field.

You are making the mistake of saying there must be an energy input, but this contradicts observation. We observe no such relationship, therefore your claim there must be energy input is without any basis in observation. On the contrary it appears no external source of energy is required and as you pointed out the mass is noted to be stable, so it's not using itself up to generate a gravitational field.

It seems to me like you think the universe should be some way other than it is. Simply put, it doesn't behave the way you think it should. Join the club. This has been going on for a century. We have to accept it operates the way it is, not the way we want it to or expect it to operate.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sure, calling someone stupid is not an argument and is definitely not a scientific method. I didn't picked this anti-Einstein-theory video on purpose... this one is just the newest I saw, one of dozen that claim Relativity must be wrong.

If you consider, E=mc2 was not discovered by Einstein himself, like MS media is telling us, and this is a fact, Einstein adopted this equation into his theory from previous work other people did, you can see how media-science is propagated into the world.
As a lie in first step. But this is even not the biggest problem we have now, so... doesn't matter. It's not disproving anything.
Who wants to know, will know the truth about mc2.

----------------------------------------------

Observations of gravity as we see and measure it however, contradicts the law of physics as no work can be done without energy being used. This is a fact in all experiments. If energy = 0, there is no work that can be done, and if work is done, energy must be used ( converted )
In gravitational field, this done work is the displacement towards the attracting mass, or better said the interaction between the masses.
Therefore there must be something, even if we don't know for sure what it is.
Some kind energy we haven't discover yet maybe.

Actually, if you think about other stuff like, charge of the electron and the nuclei, there is also missing incoming energy to supply the work is done there.

I just think Tesla was right, "there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

.
.
.

This is not what we see at all

When it comes to atomic physics, you might learn something by reading a little bit about the different atomic models and the consequences. If the atom is to constantly be leaching energy to keep electrons in place it would be emitting a constant stream of energy. This is not what we see, the very fact that we see atomic structure through emission lines rather than a continuum is proof of the quantization of band structure representing different energy levels of electrons around the atom. This has been established for a long long time.

Conservation of energy states that in a closed system mechanical energy can be conserved if the system acts to equalize all forces applied on the system.

The wiki has a fairly good write up on it
en.wikipedia.org...

You do not need to be using or inputting energy into a system while it is in balance. The only energy we can gain as work from gravity is that of conversion between potential and kinetic, we typically have to put in the work to store the energy, or use a natural formation to do the work for us.

Work to be done also? well think of two objects that are gravitationally bound but doing work? Well it causes movement, this movement and acceleration is directly work.

reply to post by ErosA433

If the atom is to constantly be leaching energy to keep electrons in place it would be emitting a constant stream of energy.

no no, this is not what I mean. I don't say the electrons to move around nuclei require energy inflow.
So they get affected in any way and radiate into EM field.
I'm talking about energy needed to create the gravitational field to move two masses toward each other.
I understand the concept gravity as 'translator' from potential energy (distance) to kinetic energy (velocity) .
and as you say

The only energy we can gain as work from gravity is that of conversion between potential and kinetic, we typically have to put in the work to store the energy, or use a natural formation to do the work for us.

so for the energy to be available today in the universe there was the Big Bang,
creation from nothing

sounds a little like some kind of religion, don't you think ?

reply to post by KrzYma

so for the energy to be available today in the universe there was the Big Bang, creation from nothing

The big bang was not creation from nothing.

The big bang wasn't from nothing. The start point anything but nothing

ErosA433
The big bang wasn't from nothing. The start point anything but nothing

so something else then 0, in any terms
what kind of energy creates fluctuations in non-existend ?

KrzYma

ErosA433
The big bang wasn't from nothing. The start point anything but nothing

so something else then 0, in any terms
what kind of energy creates fluctuations in non-existend ?

In my view your thread topic has changed from gravity to big bang.

Our observations about gravity locally in our solar system appear to be very reliable. They are so consistent we had physicists puzzling over spacecraft emitting slightly more thermal radiation on one side than the other making its apparent gravitational acceleration a very tiny bit off, before they realized the cause. For them to be puzzling over such miniscule amounts of acceleration shows that our model for local gravitational attraction must be pretty accurate. These models don't show that energy inputs are needed.

Observations of gravity in other galaxies don't match up with observable or baryonic matter so we wonder if there's something we can't see (maybe non-baryonic matter) causing the unexplained gravitational attraction. Some scientists are trying to explain these observations by proposing alternate theories, such as MOND, or more popularly by looking for a type of matter we haven't found yet, some type of weakly interacting particle perhaps. So there is a gravitational mystery of sorts but it's not related to your topic of gravity needing some sort of energy, which is not even proposed by the alternate gravitational theories like MOND etc.

Now you've changed the topic to "big bang" which is a different topic. The further back in time you go to look for answers, the more speculative our ideas become. One reason is that even though the media likes to say the LHC simulates big bang conditions, that's only true to a point. It can only simulate conditions after a certain time after the big bang. Prior to what we can simulate with the LHC, some of our hypotheses haven't been verified, like the existence of the inflaton particle and field for example, and this behavior is not predicted by Einstein's equations so it's beyond the scope of your thread title.

Saying we have some uncertainties about the earliest part of the big bang is a lot different than saying creation of a gravitational field requires the consumption of energy. The former I would agree with, since it's a topic which exceeds our current observational capabilities, but the latter seems to have no basis in observation and it IS a topic within our observational capabilities.

Have you accepted the observations that gravity doesn't require an energy input? Is that why you changed topics?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


how is Big Bang not related to gravity or Einstein's theory ?? Big Bang is the cause of everything in the theory.
The Big Bang has created all the mass and it's potential energy in the Universe and gravity is just "converting" this potential energy into kinetic energy.
In theory !!!

Have you accepted the observations that gravity doesn't require an energy input? Is that why you changed topics?

NO! Gravity requires energy, distance is the stored potential energy of masses that came, according to the theory, from the Big Bang.
Unfortunately this equations do not correspond to the observations we make you always talk about, so dark energy, dark matter and what else has been fabricated to support the old theory.

KrzYma
how is Big Bang not related to gravity or Einstein's theory ?? Big Bang is the cause of everything in the theory.

No it's not. When Einstein wrote relativity theory, he didn't even know about the big bang.

Theory of relativity

In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.

Physical cosmology

Einstein published his first paper on relativistic cosmology in 1917, in which he added this cosmological constant to his field equations in order to force them to model a static universe.

Static universe means just that...no big bang. He had already developed his field equations in 1915 before writing about a static universe in 1917.

By 1929 it became clear that the universe was expanding, and relativity was re-interpreted in accordance with new observations supporting the idea of a big bang, but to claim a relationship between big bang and relativity seems to ignore that relativity was originally written for a static universe without any big bang.

reply to post by KrzYma


The force of gravity is not observed to require energy input to support it. If you want to think of it in terms of energy systems and configuration then the formation of a star is a conservation of energy still, there is no net input from the outside.

1st generation star explodes, that emits energy somewhere around 70-80% of it in neutrinos the rest is a mixture of photons and ejecta kinetic energy. OK so the neutrinos carry away energy and in terms of the system that energy is lost and none conserved. The available energy though is in the ejecta.

This ejecta escapes the gravitational well of the remnant (if there is one) or the gravitational well of the configuration. Once this material has cooled enough, it can then start to form another star(s) the energy is all configurational. What was converted from gravitational potential is then converted back in the formation of the new young star system. Energy is put in though the material falling into a well, and warmed up mainly via gas friction. But in the end there is a fixed pool of energy.

As for gravity as an action requiring energy, Other than something that cannot be directly tested, like brane theory, I do not see there is any evidence for the action of gravitational wells and interaction requires an energy input. It is oddly disconcerting but thats what it is.


And I can reflect the above post in being accurate that the theory of relativity was made before the model of the universe was really pinned down from evidence.

reply to post by KrzYma


No one said it wasn't related, he just said that the topic seems to have shifted from what the title said to something else.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


sorry but it contradict itself

Einstein published his first paper on relativistic cosmology in 1917, in which he added this cosmological constant to his field equations in order to force them to model a static universe.

so no Big Bang... relativity holds

By 1929 it became clear that the universe was expanding, and relativity was re-interpreted in accordance with new observations supporting the idea of a big bang

add Big Bang... relativity holds after re-interpretation

and this is the today's point of view. Big Bang as presented in MS media. Who said I'm talking about 1917 ??

Today's science is telling us there was the Big Bang and Relativity is correct.
So how is the creation of space (distance) not relevant to energy stored in it as gravitational field ?

KrzYma
Unfortunately this equations do not correspond to the observations we make you always talk about, so dark energy, dark matter and what else has been fabricated to support the old theory.

If you've got a new theory that's better, that explains those observations, let's hear it. I never heard anybody say that dark matter and dark energy have been explained. But independent of those observations, we make very accurate gravitational calculations in our own solar system, where we can observe energy flows, like solar wind, thermal radiation, etc, and we've never seen that gravity requires energy input.

Maybe you're troubled by that, but if so Richard Feynman has some advice for you:

You're allowed to think gravity should require energy input, and if you think you can prove it, please do so and win your Nobel prize. But you've presented no evidence to support this idea and there just isn't any.

There's a lot we could be missing looking at other galaxies, because they are so far away. Our observations in our own solar system probably have more certainty and accuracy and we don't see any hint of dark matter or dark energy on that scale so you can't use those terms to say our understanding of gravity in our solar system is flawed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I don't want to create a new theory, I just want to know exactly why this actual theory is wrong.

Once again:
Einstein's equations lead the scientists to develop Big Bang theory.
This one is needed for the gravitational field, gravity transforms this potential energy produced by the Big Bang into kinetic energy which is motion.



what if Big Bang never happened ??
where the energy for gravity comes from?

KrzYma
I don't want to create a new theory, I just want to know exactly why this actual theory is wrong.

You haven't shown it's wrong. You've said basically you don't like the way it is.

Once again:
Einstein's equations lead the scientists to develop Big Bang theory.

Once again, no they didn't. It was mostly observations by Edwin Hubble that led to the big bang idea, not Einstein's equations. Please get this straight.

This one is needed for the gravitational field, gravity transforms this potential energy produced by the Big Bang into kinetic energy which is motion.

The big bang is not needed for the gravitational field, so you're completely confused about that, but the latter part is sort of right, yes the big bang explains the expanding universe, though it's more accurate to say observations of the expanding universe led to backwards extrapolation which led to the big bang idea.

what if Big Bang never happened ??
where the energy for gravity comes from?

You seem to think the two have a relationship that they simply don't have.

We don't have a full understanding of what causes mass to warp space-time, so the answer to that question is, "we don't know", or if someone does they've been unable to successfully convince anyone else. But it's got nothing directly to do with the big bang.

Also your video presenter lies and you can prove it. He says that we use redshift to determine the distance to astronomical objects. How can this be true when astronomers tell us that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away and it doesn't have any redshift at all? In fact it's got blue shift.

He's just showing his ignorance like most people that attack mainstream theories out of ignorance. The method for determining astronomical distance is very complex. If you want to get a better understanding of how it's really done instead of the lies in the video, read this wiki link explaining it:

Cosmic distance ladder
There are 20 different methods of checking astronomical distances and some of them are used to cross-check each other. It is by using these methods that we came up with red shift correlation, and it is by these methods that we know Andromeda's distance even though it's blue-shifted.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


maybe James Sorenson is lying, I don't know his agenda, but what about others, like this PhD scientists


I see here a big problem and not a big bang.

KrzYma
maybe James Sorenson is lying, I don't know his agenda, but what about others, like this PhD scientists

I investigated his claim myself and determined independently that he is mistaken. Basically his claim boils down to this analogy:

Arp says that his claims are not an illusion, the two things that look like they are connected really are connected.

I have no bias and if I thought he was right I'd admit it, but his claim looks like just as much of an illusion as this example.

I read Arp's personal site, and he said that he was disappointed that not one single notable scientist agreed with him. Not a single one, and this is coming from the source. You can claim all other astronomers are brainwashed to conform to mainstream and will lose funding if they disagree or whatever, but I depend on no mainstream funding, I looked at the raw source imagery in detail, and I agree with all the mainstream astronomers who unanimously said he's wrong, that he's wrong.

But if you want to believe the person is really holding the sun, feel free. It's the same illusion Arp fell for. Just replace those objects with more distant astronomical objects, and then claim that you have proof they are at the same distance because they look like they are connected (when in fact they are not at the same distance and not connected).

Arbitrageur

You can connect an energy input and create a magnetic field. Disconnect the energy input and the field goes away. So it is possible to use input energy to generate a field. However, just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's necessary.

Second, look at a bar magnet. It also generates a magnetic field. It's not plugged in like the electromagnet. It has no external source of energy input, yet it creates a magnetic field.

As you know but others may not, the energy dissipation in the electromagnet example as well is unrelated to the generation of magnetic fields. A superconducting electromagnet will generate a magnetic field without energy dissipation.

The intrinsic spin magnetic moment of the electron is what's responsible for the magnetic fields from permanent magnets. In fact, you can't EVER stop an electron from making a magnetic field.