Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: Einsteins GR

  1. #1 Einsteins GR 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Einstein’s GR

    Einstein introduced General Relativity (GR)(curvature of space idea) as a correction for Newtonian Gravity that needed tiny miniscule corrections to the precession of Mercury's orbit (IMHO).
    Since then, it has established itself after some tiny corrections were proven.

    An after-thought that his GR would collapse in his 'static' universe model, he introduced a correction called Lambda that was supposed to counter this gravitational collapse. This correction would be a slight expansion added to his SUM to keep it from collapsing (IMHO).

    So, why did he think his SUM would collapse? Well, it would collapse because the introduction of space curvature that is supposed to correct the precession of orbiting bodies such as the planet mercury that would also 'erode' their linear momentum. If the curvature of space can have any influence on these orbiting bodies, then it must have influence on their 'linear momentum' as well. This then, would cause these bodies to spiral into their gravitational sources to create the collapse. His idea here also violates the 'Conservation of Momentum Law'.

    The acceptance of the BBU and its expansion then saved Einstein the embarrassment of this error by his own admission.

    To be honest about this, Einstein would be wrong anyway because in a static or more appropriately, Steady State Universe, without his 'curvature of space' idea but a flat space concept, the universe would not collapse because the presence of 'linear momentum' counters the force of gravity to maintain a Steady State everlasting universe as well as compliance to the 'conservation of momentum law'.

    Physical nature is structured in such a way as to prevent collapses. This also includes the hydrogen atom that maintains a permanent 'ground state' orbit because of the presence of the 'magnetic field' interactions between the proton spin fields and the electron orbital fields.
    Even the 'boost’ to gravity of the mysterious dark matter problem does not cause a collapse of the gravitational structures. In this case, the linear momentum just increases to compensate for this increase in gravitational effect.

    Since I consider the BB to be erroneous and have replaced it with a SSU model, then I would also consider Einstein’s 'curvature of space' concept to be erroneous.

    Mike NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Actually, GR was not made to correct the perihelion shift observed in mercury's orbit. It was made because newtonian gravity did not comply with special relativity. For instance, if one were to move a body around, then the changing gravitational force would be felt instantly by all other bodies in the univers, which is not allowed by SR. Thus GR was produced, and just happened to account for mercury's perihelion shift.


    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    Actually, GR was not made to correct the perihelion shift observed in mercury's orbit. It was made because newtonian gravity did not comply with special relativity. For instance, if one were to move a body around, then the changing gravitational force would be felt instantly by all other bodies in the univers, which is not allowed by SR. Thus GR was produced, and just happened to account for mercury's perihelion shift.
    Yeah that is what we call independent experimental verification. It is things like this which gives us confidence that GR is correct. Correct but not complete, just as Newtonian physics is correct but not complete.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Yeah that is what we call independent experimental verification. It is things like this which gives us confidence that GR is correct. Correct but not complete, just as Newtonian physics is correct but not complete.
    Very well put, if I may say so.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    Actually, GR was not made to correct the perihelion shift observed in mercury's orbit. It was made because newtonian gravity did not comply with special relativity. For instance, if one were to move a body around, then the changing gravitational force would be felt instantly by all other bodies in the univers, which is not allowed by SR. Thus GR was produced, and just happened to account for mercury's perihelion shift.
    reply
    GR made exremely miniscule corrections to Newtonian gravity.

    How does GR explain the Mysterious Dark Matter problem (Zwicky's Gravity)?
    This is not a tiny tweak in gravity but a change of major proportions.
    Any solutions?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    dark matter? the present of darkmatter increases the gravitational field?.
    Mike NS, GR have goitten proof by having the space bent, its been proven by a eclipse not long after its publishing
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    The curved space was firstly predicted in 1916 and proved by a photographic expedition to the penumbra of the total eclipse of 1919.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Gravitational time dialation and red shift have also been proven.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos quote
    dark matter? the present of darkmatter increases the gravitational field?.
    Mike NS, GR have goitten proof by having the space bent, its been proven by a eclipse not long after its publishing

    reply
    This tiny tweak could be the result of the Suns atmospheric refraction (very rare) or its gravity. I wrote an article that gravity is a manisfestation of the EM forces. Photon pulses are EM in nature. So gravity could have had some influence.

    Rascal quote
    The curved space was firstly predicted in 1916 and proved by a photographic expedition to the penumbra of the total eclipse of 1919.

    reply
    See above reply to Zelos.

    Vroom quote
    Gravitational time dialation and red shift have also been proven.

    reply
    How does 'time dilation' have anythomg to do with gravity? It could have something to do with space expansion, according to your opinion.

    However, space is not expanding the light waves. The M-M interferometry experiment has proven that space has NO influence of the light waves. The expansion of the light waves is done by an 'intrinsic force' within the photons carriers which is the 'negatively charged VIRTUAL particles' that constitute and transmit the photons through the electric fields that surround the electrons.
    The electrons that shift within the HA's cause and radiate these photons through the EM fields.
    These fields occupy space but space does NOT influence the light in any way.

    I will post an article on this tommorrow.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    sopr ur stupid quote way and use the normal quoting mehod.
    How does 'time dilation' have anythomg to do with gravity
    becuase of the bending of spacetime causes time dilation, gravity wouldnt do this if it werent bending spacetime
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    Gravitational time dialation and red shift have also been proven.
    I will elaborate. Explain the following PROVEN phenomena:
    1. As light waves escape from a massive body, they are red-shifted.
    2. The closer you are to the center of a gravity well, the slower time is observed to move.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Hello everyone,
    I addressed the momentum issue in the "steady state universe" thread, so I won't rehash the argument here. But maybe I'll address these little bits;

    Mike NS wrote:
    However, space is not expanding the light waves. The M-M interferometry experiment has proven that space has NO influence of the light waves.

    The MM experiment proved there was no aether by measuring the speed of light at different times of the year. Since they always got the same answer, they concluded that there was no aether. What their experiment didn't do though, was test any effect on light due to gravity.

    Fact:
    Light seen travelling from a background source past a massive object (e.g., star, star cluster, etc.) is observed to alter its path, i.e., bend. See, for example, gravitational lensing ( http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/fe...grav_lens.html ). (Take careful note of the picture at the bottom, this is observational evidence!)

    Questions:
    1. In Newton's theory, what property is required in order for gravity to have an influence on an object (i.e., what property must the object possess)?
    (I'll let you answer this.)

    2. Does light (photons) have this property?
    Answer: No!

    3. So then, how can it be that gravity is observed to bend light?
    Einstein' answer: General Relativity - mass "warps" space-time.

    If you reject GR, then you have to replace his explanation for this (observed) effect. And I emphasize... the bending of light is a fact.

    NS wrote:
    The expansion of the light waves is done by an 'intrinsic force' within the photons carriers which is the 'negatively charged VIRTUAL particles' that constitute and transmit the photons through the electric fields that surround the electrons.
    The electrons that shift within the HA's cause and radiate these photons through the EM fields.
    These fields occupy space but space does NOT influence the light in any way.
    My quick reply is... nope.
    It is simply the Doppler effect.
    {edit}
    I thought I'd better edit this before I get caught.
    If we're referring to the good old Doppler redshift, then the original statement stands. However, if we're referring to the cosmological redshift, then the distinction is the source of the redshift. Instead of moving through space, space itself is moving. However, the same equations can be used within ~5% accuracy. On a cosmological scale, redshift is more accurately found via the Robertson-Walker metric, comoving coordinates, the scale factor, and a lot of math.
    {end edit}

    But let's examine your statement.
    Questions:
    4. In order for an electric field to have an influence on a "particle," what property MUST the particle have?
    (I'll let you answer this. Hint: what happens when a neutron travels in an electric field?)

    5. Does light (photons) have this property?
    Answer: No!

    => EM fields do not effect the path light takes.
    (I think this is what you are saying with the last sentence if I understand you correctly.)

    If I may ask, can you elaborate on this:
    NS wrote:
    The expansion of the light waves is done by an 'intrinsic force' within the photons carriers which is the 'negatively charged VIRTUAL particles' that constitute and transmit the photons through the electric fields that surround the electrons.
    My questions are:
    6. Can you explain more about what this "intrinsic force" is?

    (You can skip this one for now.)
    6b. If you had to give this force a functional form, what form would you give it (i.e., can you give a formula for it)?

    (Don't forget to account for all the observed properties, e.g., photons being massless, neutral, that photons helicity can he either right handed or left handed (by the way, did you all know that ALL neutrinos are left handed... interesting), that the energies of the photons come in all sizes, and remember that the spin of a photon is 1, so it should obey Bose-Einstein statistics!)

    (Okay, so I got a little carried away with the helicity comment, but that's one of the easier parts to explain... it's what you'd expect!)

    (And remember, it's mathematics that distinguishes physics from philosophy....)

    (You can skip this one too for now.)
    6c. Can you give us a Feynman diagram of the interaction between a photon and these virtual particles?
    (Okay, this one's a little tounge-in-cheek.)

    7. What are the negatively charged virtual particles?

    8. Why do they have to be negatively charged, i.e., can they be positive, or neutral?

    9. Can you clarify what you mean to "constitute photons?"

    10. My guess then is that there must be "tons" of these VPs. Is there any evidence that they exist (other than in your hypothesis that the photons require them)?


    In all seriousness, these are the types of questions I would ask myself if I were putting forth this idea.

    Now if I don't get back to my own work, I'll never make it in the history books! Back to work....
    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    becuase of the bending of spacetime causes time dilation, gravity wouldnt do this if it werent bending spacetime
    reply
    Spacetime is supposed to be the 'curvature of space, right? The speed of light is a constant. So how do you get time dilation? Does that mean that light speed varies to create time dilation?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    becuase of the bending of spacetime causes time dilation, gravity wouldnt do this if it werent bending spacetime
    reply
    Spacetime is supposed to be the 'curvature of space, right? The speed of light is a constant. So how do you get time dilation? Does that mean that light speed varies to create time dilation?

    NS
    Not curvature of space, the curvature of spacetime. And noboby said the speed of light is constant. The only requirement of Relativity is that every inertial observer measures light to move at the same velocity.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    Gravitational time dialation and red shift have also been proven.
    I will elaborate. Explain the following PROVEN phenomena:
    1. As light waves escape from a massive body, they are red-shifted.
    2. The closer you are to the center of a gravity well, the slower time is observed to move.
    reply
    This is a gravitational redshift. This does not apply in any way to the supernova time dilations that were recently observed.
    How does this 'time dilation' refer to the supernova curves that were suposedly stretched? From what I remember, the curves were lower in magnitude but longitudinally extended?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Mike NS, y do u keep resisting einstein?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [quote="william"]
    The MM experiment proved there was no aether by measuring the speed of light at different times of the year. Since they always got the same answer, they concluded that there was no aether. What their experiment didn't do though, was test any effect on light due to gravity.

    reply
    I was referring to the ‘cosmological redshift’. What has that got to do with gravity?

    William quotes
    Questions:
    1. In Newton's theory, what property is required in order for gravity to have an influence on an object (i.e., what property must the object possess)?
    (I'll let you answer this.)

    reply
    Gravity is a mutual attraction between objects. All matter has gravitational effects, so they all attract but their ‘linear momentum’ (Newton’s 1st law of motion) says they will move in a straight line unless directed otherwise by another force.

    quote
    2. Does light (photons) have this property?
    Answer: No!

    Reply
    There is a possibility that gravity is EM in nature and so it could influence the light to bend because the photon pulses are using an electric field for transmission.

    quote
    3. So then, how can it be that gravity is observed to bend light?
    Einstein' answer: General Relativity - mass "warps" space-time.

    Reply
    Space has no influence on light, so it cannot bend the light. The M-M E has proven this.

    quote
    If you reject GR, then you have to replace his explanation for this (observed) effect. And I emphasize... the bending of light is a fact.

    reply
    I do not dispute that but as I said, it could be the gravity bending or possibly atmospheric refraction because the stars may have a thin atmosphere of hydrogen.

    quote
    {edit}
    I thought I'd better edit this before I get caught.
    If we're referring to the good old Doppler redshift, then the original statement stands. However, if we're referring to the cosmological redshift, then the distinction is the source of the redshift. Instead of moving through space, space itself is moving. However, the same equations can be used within ~5% accuracy. On a cosmological scale, redshift is more accurately found via the Robertson-Walker metric, comoving coordinates, the scale factor, and a lot of math.
    {end edit}

    reply
    See my new post on the ‘Expansion of the Light Waves’.’

    quote
    But let's examine your statement.
    Questions:
    4. In order for an electric field to have an influence on a "particle," what property MUST the particle have?
    (I'll let you answer this. Hint: what happens when a neutron travels in an electric field?)

    reply
    These are simple basic questions. The particle would need to have a charge.
    Free neutrons do not exist in space. They are locked into the matter nuclei.

    quote
    5. Does light (photons) have this property?
    Answer: No!

    Reply
    If you are referring to charge, yes, but the charge is contained in the electric field surrounding the electrons. The photon is a condensed congregate of these virtual charged particles so the condensed part makes it appear that the photon has charge when in fact, it just uses the field charges as congregates to move through space IMO.

    Quote
    EM fields do not effect the path light takes.

    reply
    True.

    quote
    If I may ask, can you elaborate on this:
    NS wrote:
    The expansion of the light waves is done by an 'intrinsic force' within the photons carriers which is the 'negatively charged VIRTUAL particles' that constitute and transmit the photons through the electric fields that surround the electrons.
    My questions are:
    6. Can you explain more about what this "intrinsic force" is?

    reply
    See my new article on the Expansion of the Light Waves. That article should help you understand what I say.

    quote
    (Don't forget to account for all the observed properties, e.g., photons being massless, neutral, that photons helicity can he either right handed or left handed (by the way, did you all know that ALL neutrinos are left handed... interesting), that the energies of the photons come in all sizes, and remember that the spin of a photon is 1, so it should obey Bose-Einstein statistics!)

    reply
    your massless photons have spin? Just exactly how do you describe a photon? How can something that has no mass (form) have spin?

    My description of a photon is that it is created by the magnetic field resulting from the accelerating electron velocity as the electron changes orbits from the outer to the inner orbit. The surrounding ‘virtual charged particles’ in the electric field are influenced by this magnetic field pulse and are then condensed into a elongated globule that has momentum because it than pushes against the front particles to transfer this momentum to move through the field like a stack of dominos falling over.
    The field particles just wobble to transfer this momentum.
    So this concentrated globule can appear as containing a charge even though it is using the fields virtual charged particles.

    quote
    And remember, it's mathematics that distinguishes physics from philosophy....)
    7. What are the negatively charged virtual particles?

    reply
    These particles are considered to be the components of the ‘action at a distance’ of the fields.

    quote
    8. Why do they have to be negatively charged, i.e., can they be positive, or neutral?

    Reply
    Since they surround the electrons, I consider them to be negative but the important thing here is that the VP’s be of the same charge to create the ‘action at a distance’.

    quote
    10. My guess then is that there must be "tons" of these VPs. Is there any evidence that they exist (other than in your hypothesis that the photons require them)?

    Reply
    The evidence is their ‘action at a distance’ that is real.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Space has no influence on light, so it cannot bend the light. The M-M E has proven this.
    maybe, but much more have proven it does. get over it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Space has no influence on light, so it cannot bend the light. The M-M E has proven this.
    Some people think that the speed of light in a vacuum is greater than when passing through certain types of media. Of course, if you know better, please feel free to elaborate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Just a quick post. I'm going to have to limit my time on this website I'm afraid....

    Mike NS wrote:
    Space has no influence on light, so it cannot bend the light. The M-M E has proven this.
    No!

    The MME proved there was no aether. Period.

    That is, before the MME, the thought was that light needed a medium (i.e., the aether) to travel through (like sound). The ONLY thing the MME did was prove it (the aether) didn't exist. PERIOD!

    You CANNOT draw the conclusion you came to from the MME.

    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Ok, well if your photons travel through these fields of VPs, then to travel at the speed of light, then the electric field on the VPs would have to be quite large. I will believe your theory as soon as you find one of these particles for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    2. The closer you are to the center of a gravity well, the slower time is observed to move.
    your theory has also completely failed to provide an explenation of this.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Damn! I just can't seem to stay away from this website! (I'll never get any work done... :| )

    Okay, I'll make it short and sweet:
    This post will refer to my original post on this thread and Mike NS's response to it (a few posts back).

    Me:
    1. In Newton's theory, what property is required in order for gravity to have an influence on an object (i.e., what property must the object possess)?
    (I'll let you answer this.)
    The answer is mass. Photons have no mass.

    NS:
    reply
    Gravity is a mutual attraction between objects. All matter has gravitational effects, so they all attract but their ‘linear momentum’ (Newton’s 1st law of motion) says they will move in a straight line unless directed otherwise by another force.
    So what happens when the linear momentum is in the opposite direction as that of gravity?
    It will collapse (or escape, that is, the universe will EXPAND!!) (Since momentum has a force of zero of course. You need a FORCE to balance a force (as someone else pointed out).)

    NS:
    Free neutrons do not exist in space
    Free neutrons DO exist. But they have a lifetime of about 15 minutes!

    NS:
    reply
    your massless photons have spin? Just exactly how do you describe a photon? How can something that has no mass (form) have spin?
    Photons have a spin of 1. You do not need mass to have spin. A spin of 1 makes it what is called a "boson," hence, they obey Bose-Einstein statistics. I think I know the mistake you are making - you are thinking of spin classically. "Spin" is not spin (rotation) - it is an intrinsic quantum-mechanical property. This is a fact!


    NS:
    Reply
    The evidence is their ‘action at a distance’ that is real.
    You have to be careful when you say "action at a distance." What the term means is that two or more "objects" interact with no known mediator. As far as we know, it is NOT real! Currently, there is no known action at a distance. Everything has a mediator. There are many problems with action at a distance (causality for one). If you insist on this, you'll find yourself in the deep end of the pool!

    That's all folks!
    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [quote="william"]
    Photons have no mass.

    reply
    I never said they did. But they do have momentum and could have 'charge'. See my new post on the EoLW's.

    quote
    Since momentum has a force of zero of course. You need a FORCE to balance a force (as someone else pointed out).)

    reply
    When a gravitational source has an orbiting body in a perfect circle, there is a balance between the momentum of the object and the GS. So this momentum than counters the GS. Therefore, it then has force countering the GF.

    quote
    Free neutrons DO exist. But they have a lifetime of about 15 minutes!

    reply
    What you say is just a 'tick' off the astronomical clock.

    quote
    There are many problems with action at a distance (causality for one). If you insist on this, you'll find yourself in the deep end of the pool!

    reply
    All forces extend to infinity (disregarding the SF and WF). are you familiar with the 'inverse square law in relation to distance'?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,676
    fotons have no mass i beg to differ... their mass has not been detected YET..

    and 15 minutes is a increddible long time for such a small particle...

    plus, forces don't extend to infinity.. nothing is infinate.. everything ends somewhere... except when you divide 1 by 3... the number of three's you'll get is indeed infinate...
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Me: Photons have no mass.

    You: reply
    I never said they did. But they do have momentum and could have 'charge'. See my new post on the EoLW's.
    You missid the point! (Argh!) The point I was making is that in Newton's theory an object must possess mass in order for gravity to have an effect of the object. Photons have no mass yet gravity still alters the path. I gave a link earlier to a picture of gravitational lensing as observational evidence of this. GR explains this effect while Newton's gravity can't.

    Since momentum has a force of zero of course. You need a FORCE to balance a force (as someone else pointed out).)

    reply
    When a gravitational source has an orbiting body in a perfect circle, there is a balance between the momentum of the object and the GS. So this momentum than counters the GS. Therefore, it then has force countering the GF.
    NS, you haven't demonstrated even an elementary usage of physics terms. Firstly, you call it LINEAR momentum, yet you cite an example of ANGULAR momentum. And momentum can never counter a force. They are completely different beasts. Ironically, you are right that in an orbit there is a balance of forces, but it is not a momentum that counters the force.

    Me: Free neutrons DO exist. But they have a lifetime of about 15 minutes!

    You: reply
    What you say is just a 'tick' off the astronomical clock.
    First, you said they didn't exist, now it's just a "tick." Here is some simple math: 15 is not equal to 0.
    Actually, the neutrons in a neutron star are FREE neutrons. I explained why they don't beta decay in a previous post. If you choose not to believe me, look it up for yourself! (For the last time; THE NEUTRONS IN A NEUTRON STAR WILL NOT DECAY!!!!!!)

    Me: There are many problems with action at a distance (causality for one). If you insist on this, you'll find yourself in the deep end of the pool!

    You: reply
    All forces extend to infinity (disregarding the SF and WF). are you familiar with the 'inverse square law in relation to distance'?
    NS, again, respectfully, you don't even know the meaning of the terms you are using. "Action at a distance" is different than "not action at a distance." The inverse square law has nothing to do with action at a distance.


    Also, you claim to have "solved" the MDM problem, yet you didn't even know that photons have spin which is quite elementary. You make claims about the MM experiment when you yourself don't really understand the experiment. You again and again ignore the observational evidence I provided with links (PICTURES!!). You still haven't addressed my white dwarf complaint (possibly on the SSU thread - I'm losing track of these posts...). And you absolutely refuse to do any calculations even when I try to step you through them!

    How on Earth are we ever to take you seriously?????

    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    William

    To make a long story short, I do not bother with everything that is taught in science. Especially the miniscule details like those that you refer to.

    Einsteins GR corrections are like fleas compared to Zwicky's elaphantine DM enhancements of gravity.

    How does your GR explain these giagantic enhancements?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    NS: To make a long story short, I do not bother with everything that is taught in science. Especially the miniscule details like those that you refer to.
    Mike, it is these miniscule details that prove you are wrong.
    If you ever have to go see a doctor (for heart surgery as an example) would you want your doctor to bother with these details?

    Mike, I am painfully aware that you don't bother with everything that is taught in science. You simply take out of science what you like and throw the rest away claiming it is wrong.

    Take, for example, black holes. Since you require neutron stars in your hypothesis, you simply choose to believe that black holes and white dwarfs (the other two death-stages of stars) do not exist even in the face of theoretical predictions and observational evidence.

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...l1/dwarfs.html
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm
    http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html
    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...eases/2001/03/


    NS: Einsteins GR corrections are like fleas compared to Zwicky's elaphantine DM enhancements of gravity.

    How does your GR explain these giagantic enhancements?
    Mike, if these "gigantic enhancements" somehow didn't fit into your hypothesis, you'd simply refuse to believe they exist!!!

    Frustrated,
    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    William quote
    Take, for example, black holes. Since you require neutron stars in your hypothesis, you simply choose to believe that black holes and white dwarfs (the other two death-stages of stars) do not exist even in the face of theoretical predictions and observational evidence.

    reply
    I answered this on the other thread, SSU.
    I will repeat a clearer answer here. I believe BH's are a manisfestation of the Zwicky MDM which is an attraction between 'separated electric charges'. You know how much stronger the coulomb force is in relation to gravity I'm sure. there is no observational evidence that BH's are real. Only artists drawings are illustrated.
    I did not refute the existence of WD's. I was aware of the WD attached to the star Sirius more than a decade ago.

    quote
    if these "gigantic enhancements" somehow didn't fit into your hypothesis, you'd simply refuse to believe they exist!!!

    reply
    No. The MDM has support and is caused by X-ray activity in the central regions of the clusters besides the accelerated galaxy velocities. I explained in my post on the MDM about this and explained what it ciuld be. Separated electric charges! This is the only explanation that would create such strong enhancement of gravity. There cannot be any other explanation.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    observation of BH have been done.
    oh yeah mike, when u dont read the specefic things or listen/learn them, dont comee with a theory and claim its right, becuase its not only stupid its foolish
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    No!

    The MME proved there was no aether. Period.
    No you have confusion here. Lorentz himself theorized that aether contraction was the reason for the MM results when he developed the lorentz factor. Further more aether contraction remained the explanation for the MM experiment until Einstein and special relativity came up with a better explanation.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    why are we acctualy talking about such a old wrong idea as aether?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    why are we acctualy talking about such a old wrong idea as aether?
    Well to say it was disproven as far back as michelson morley must be incorrect, but I guess it's of no consequence really.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    IaP quote
    No you have confusion here. Lorentz himself theorized that aether contraction was the reason for the MM results when he developed the lorentz factor. Further more aether contraction remained the explanation for the MM experiment until Einstein and special relativity came up with a better explanation.

    reply
    The Lorentz contraction deals with material bodies only.

    Light is not material and if you consider the 'virtual' particles to be material, then supply some data on them.

    IMO, the MME has falsified the EoS idea as a carrier of the light pulses to account for the 'cosmological redshift'.

    IaP, in case you do not know it, Einstein hated the Quantum theory and I think he never accepted it.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Me:
    No!

    The MME proved there was no aether. Period.
    Imaplanck: No you have confusion here. Lorentz himself theorized that aether contraction was the reason for the MM results when he developed the lorentz factor. Further more aether contraction remained the explanation for the MM experiment until Einstein and special relativity came up with a better explanation.
    You are right Imaplanck. The MME returned a null result - a nondetection of the aether. So FitzGerald and Lorentz independently proposed the contraction in order to explain the nondetection. Good job.

    I suppose I should be more careful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    make, what oddes that have to do with this?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    IaP quote
    No you have confusion here. Lorentz himself theorized that aether contraction was the reason for the MM results when he developed the lorentz factor. Further more aether contraction remained the explanation for the MM experiment until Einstein and special relativity came up with a better explanation.

    reply
    The Lorentz contraction deals with material bodies only.

    Light is not material and if you consider the 'virtual' particles to be material, then supply some data on them.

    IMO, the MME has falsified the EoS idea as a carrier of the light pulses to account for the 'cosmological redshift'.

    IaP, in case you do not know it, Einstein hated the Quantum theory and I think he never accepted it.

    NS
    Jesus.
    No, no, no. Im not advocating aether contraction, The only significance that I see is that the contraction of actual space(defined as aether at the time) filled the gap between the knowledge of light velocity being c despite your relative velocity and Einsteins proper explanation.
    Of course I am well aware that its the traveller not the vacumm itself that is contracted (in terms of an observer in an independant rest frame of course). I have studied relativity.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    MME along with Relativity showed that there was no need for a medium for light waves to travel through (Aether.)
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    William, Zelos, IaP and vroom:

    The Earth was moving in two direction during this experiment. The Einstein ST is moving in only one direction. So how does that explain the neutralization of the MME that recorded the light moving in lateral directions? This experiment has conclusively refuted the influence of space on the Redshifts of the light by space.

    Mike NS.
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    So how does that explain the neutralization of the MME that recorded the light moving in lateral directions? This experiment has conclusively refuted the influence of space on the Redshifts of the light by space.

    Mike NS.
    What neutralization?
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Dear NS,
    Do you see the photo I added to my profile?
    <--------------------------------------------------

    This is how you make me feel!

    Sincerely,
    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    it doesnt matter how many D you move in its still solvible, but just to give it a shoot, explain more what the problem is and i´ll try
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    William, Zelos, IaP and vroom:

    The Earth was moving in two direction during this experiment. The Einstein ST is moving in only one direction.
    I cant see what you mean by spacetime moving in only one direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    So how does that explain the neutralization of the MME that recorded the light moving in lateral directions? This experiment has conclusively refuted the influence of space on the Redshifts of the light by space.

    Mike NS.
    Im lazy, so you are using MM to dispute an expanding universe and/or BB?
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    for god sake mike use the normal rael qay to quote
    reply
    OK, so I am using the regular quote here.

    But how are you going to answer several replies with just one post?
    Or a long post that you can edit on your home computer?

    I find it more convenient to excerpt copy and paste on a local word document to work at home or even here if it involves several different replies.

    I do not see why that should bother you anyway. I clearly use 'quote' and 'reply' to differentiate between the two.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    for god sake mike use the normal rael qay to quote
    reply
    OK, so I am using the regular quote here.

    But how are you going to answer several replies with just one post?
    Or a long post that you can edit on your home computer?

    I find it more convenient to excerpt copy and paste on a local word document to work at home or even here if it involves several different replies.

    I do not see why that should bother you anyway. I clearly use 'quote' and 'reply' to differentiate between the two.

    NS
    if you excerpt copy and paste you simply highlight the excerpt and click on the quote button up the top of the message body section the excerpt will then be quoted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Just use multiple quote boxes Mike - type them manually.

    [ quote ] text [ /quote ]
    or
    [ quote="who you're quoting" ] text [ /quote ]
    without the spaces

    Use it :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    mike i thank you
    the thing is that its much easier to read it and also its much easier to see what is answer and what is quoted
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    mike i thank you
    the thing is that its much easier to read it and also its much easier to see what is answer and what is quoted
    reply
    OK, but old habits are difficult to change. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    now you just need to quit saying "reply" and you'll be good to go!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    that would be good aswell, everybody knows that what comes after is the reply on the qoeted stuff
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    school
    Posts
    13
    that is poooo u know nothing
    science
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    school
    Posts
    13
    sarry that was my evil cyborg twin using hius computer hacking skills to hack my account
    science
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    sure
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •