Notices
Results 1 to 57 of 57
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 3 Post By exchemist

Thread: Inverted black holes

  1. #1 Inverted black holes 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    39
    So, I don't claim to know anything in practice about this subject so for someone who has studied a lot of physics it might be quite clear. But what I want to understand better is how the big bang can't be an inverted black hole? Because from what I've read it shouldn't work this way but I don't understand why. In other words why can't a black hole in our universe (or our part of the universe) be a big bang in another universe (or super distant part of the universe). Because there seems to be a holographic property for the event horizon of a black hole and Susskind seems to have a theory about a kind of inverted holographic property for the hole universe? Also the description as I understand it sounds quit the same. Mass and time is condensed into a really small point in a black hole. So why can't it expand space and time in "the other end" theoretically. So why can't they be the same thing but in reverse?

    Again, I don't claim this is the case in any way but I just want to understand it better. As I understand it there's some instability in the singularity that makes a wormhole impossible and everything is just incinerated?


    Last edited by zunc; August 15th, 2013 at 08:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    The standard uncharged blackhole solutions and the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies are as different from each other as two spacetimes can be. The reason is that the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies are conformally flat while the standard uncharged blackhole solutions are conformally covariant. However, I did read somewhere that the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies do correspond to the time-reversal of matter collapsing to form a blackhole. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is true that the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies cannot correspond to a fully collapsed blackhole from any perspective.


    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,680
    Surely, one "non-technical" difference is that a black hole (even an idealised Schwarzschild black hole) exists within a larger space-time, whereas the big bang describes all space time.

    Also, there can be multiple black hole singularities but only one big bang singularity.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Surely, one "non-technical" difference is that a black hole (even an idealised Schwarzschild black hole) exists within a larger space-time, whereas the big bang describes all space time.

    Also, there can be multiple black hole singularities but only one big bang singularity.
    I don't think "non-technical" explanations can be applied because it is a feature of GR that things can be made to appear very different by changing the coordinate system. Only by examining invariant or manifestly covariant properties can one assess the true situation. In the case a blackhole vs the big bang, the big bang has zero Weyl conformal tensor while the blackhole curvature is entirely the Weyl conformal tensor. This settles the question that they are different from every perspective.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    39
    Hi

    Thanks for your replies! I think in a way I understand what you mean Strange. I just have a follow up question (and I don't mean to say I don't believe you). But as I has understood the principle behind the black hole space and time is basically is warped down into a super small "space" (Don't know which word I should use here to describe it to not confuse stuff since it is space that is falling in on itself?) where the black hole singularity is. And that this is the reason why you can't escape the black hole even if you could travel backwards in the speed of light (which you can't) because space is collapsing down into the singularity faster than the speed of light. So If space and time is that condensed together at the singularity of the black hole wouldn't the expansion on the hypothetical "other side" describe the expansion of all space time in that end if it would reverse the progress? Also, just want to clarify so no one misunderstands me that I used the word wormhole in the first post but I don't think it would be possible to travel through I was more intersted in knowing if the information that is distorted in the black hole could burst out scrambled somewhere else in a kind of reverse reaction.

    I realize I almost wrote the same question again but maybe I won't really get it if I don't understand the technical side of it too. Anyway, thanks a lot for trying to explain to me, I find it really fascinating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    39
    KJW I didn't see your last post before I posted my reply but as I wrote in the end:

    I realize I almost wrote the same question again but maybe I won't really get it if I don't understand the technical side of it too.
    Thanks for trying to explain stuff anyway
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Presumably, the OP was considering the perspective from inside the blackhole, where it is less obvious that this is different from the big bang.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,680
    Quote Originally Posted by zunc View Post
    Hi

    Thanks for your replies! I think in a way I understand what you mean Strange. I just have a follow up question (and I don't mean to say I don't believe you). But as I has understood the principle behind the black hole space and time is basically is warped down into a super small "space" (Don't know which word I should use here to describe it to not confuse stuff since it is space that is falling in on itself?) where the black hole singularity is. And that this is the reason why you can't escape the black hole even if you could travel backwards in the speed of light (which you can't) because space is collapsing down into the singularity faster than the speed of light. So If space and time is that condensed together at the singularity of the black hole wouldn't the expansion on the hypothetical "other side" describe the expansion of all space time in that end if it would reverse the progress? Also, just want to clarify so no one misunderstands me that I used the word wormhole in the first post but I don't think it would be possible to travel through I was more intersted in knowing if the information that is distorted in the black hole could burst out scrambled somewhere else in a kind of reverse reaction.

    I realize I almost wrote the same question again but maybe I won't really get it if I don't understand the technical side of it too. Anyway, thanks a lot for trying to explain to me, I find it really fascinating.
    So a few random things you might want to look at.

    One way of explaining why light cannot escape a black hole is that all paths lead towards the singularity; space is so curved there is no direction which is towards the event horizon. I think that is based on the Schwarzschild metric. There is an alternative metric which describes things slightly differently: Waterfall

    There is a possibility that the Kerr metric could lead to an alternative universe ("the physical meaning of which is unclear"): Kerr black hole

    And there is even the proposal that black holes can "create new universes: Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe | Inside Science

    All this may change if, for example, someone develops a theory of quantum gravity or some other modification to GR.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    The nature of singularities is not straightforward, either. I once derived a metric for a big bang that was a single point. However, this metric could be coordinate-transformed to a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, where the big bang singularity is a three-dimensional space.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is an alternative metric which describes things slightly differently: Waterfall

    Interesting (though I wish the metric was better formatted). I discovered another way to express the Schwarzschild solution: as a wormhole with no interior region of the blackhole (the throat minimum at the event horizon).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    1) Time and space cannot interact with material. we always think there is space, then the material fill in the space. In reality, we have material in the world, then defined space to describe it. Space is nothing. It cannot interacts with material. Space curvature is because the field (matter) curves in the space.
    2) As I mentioned in other thread, the matter in the world is made up of a single components, electric field. The most stable form of the electric field is radiating structure, electron, positron and photon. Normally, electrons and positrons gathered to form atom. When more and more atoms get together, like planet, the field density will increase. Finally, the atom structure will collapse to form a highly packed structure, we call it neutron star. There is not atom in the neutron star. The electron and positron are perfect aligned and very high density. That is why neutron star does not emit light. The neutron star has chance to form a relative stable structure black hole. In the black hole structure, the electric field aligned in a circle. The density of field can be higher than electron, positron and light. When electron, positron or light close to it, their own structure will be damaged. that is why light or planet curve first, then disappear when it close to black hole. Black hole is not as stable as radiating structure. When it gets bigger and bigger, it will tend to collapse to get back to radiating structure, like electrons and positron, to generate new planet. The material world recycles like this.
    3) Any forms of matter, like planet or a life etc, has starting and ending point. But the basic component of the matter does not have starting and ending point. It just exists. It changes forms constantly. It is not generated from others. It will not generate something else.
    4) Our universe is made up of single component, electric field. It forms ball-like structure, then big planet. The universe should have a big ball shape. The electric field will decrease outward until it drop to zero. All the planets or particles in the universe is connected by field.
    5)There may have other universes exist. They may merge with our universe to form a bigger one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The standard uncharged blackhole solutions and the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies are as different from each other as two spacetimes can be. The reason is that the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies are conformally flat while the standard uncharged blackhole solutions are conformally covariant. However, I did read somewhere that the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies do correspond to the time-reversal of matter collapsing to form a blackhole. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is true that the standard flat-space big bang cosmologies cannot correspond to a fully collapsed blackhole from any perspective.
    Absolutely correct. Just to add to this - the initial state of low entropy just after the Big Bang can be associated with a very small ( or vanishing ) Weyl curvature of space-time in that region. This is called the Weyl curvature hypothesis, and was initially proposed by Roger Penrose back in the 70s. It provides a natural way to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics on cosmological scales.

    Gravitational singularities ( uncharged, slowly rotating black holes ) "function" the exact opposite way - Ricci curvature in their vicinity is small or vanishing ( Schwarzschild metric ), whereas Weyl curvature is not. This is an essential characteristic that distinguishes black holes from the Big Bang singularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    1) Time and space cannot interact with material. we always think there is space, then the material fill in the space. In reality, we have material in the world, then defined space to describe it. Space is nothing. It cannot interacts with material. Space curvature is because the field (matter) curves in the space.
    This is incorrect. Space-time permeates both vacuum and energy/matter fields; the difference between the two is that for the former the Einstein tensor vanishes, whereas for the latter it doesn't. However, it is always space-time itself which has intrinsic curvature.

    As I mentioned in other thread, the matter in the world is made up of a single components, electric field.
    Incorrect. Matter is not electromagnetic in origin; rather, non-vanishing rest mass is the result of the Higgs mechanism.

    Normally, electrons and positrons gathered to form atom. When more and more atoms get together, like planet, the field density will increase. Finally, the atom structure will collapse to form a highly packed structure, we call it neutron star. There is not atom in the neutron star. The electron and positron are perfect aligned and very high density. That is why neutron star does not emit light. The neutron star has chance to form a relative stable structure black hole. In the black hole structure, the electric field aligned in a circle. The density of field can be higher than electron, positron and light. When electron, positron or light close to it, their own structure will be damaged. that is why light or planet curve first, then disappear when it close to black hole. Black hole is not as stable as radiating structure. When it gets bigger and bigger, it will tend to collapse to get back to radiating structure, like electrons and positron, to generate new planet. The material world recycles like this.
    This is all just made-up nonsense, and has no relation to actual physics.

    Our universe is made up of single component, electric field
    Incorrect, see above.

    There may have other universes exist.
    There is currently no way to decide whether this is true or not.
    exchemist likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The nature of singularities is not straightforward, either. I once derived a metric for a big bang that was a single point. However, this metric could be coordinate-transformed to a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, where the big bang singularity is a three-dimensional space.
    What ?! I'd be interested in seeing that - would you be able to type this up here ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The nature of singularities is not straightforward, either. I once derived a metric for a big bang that was a single point. However, this metric could be coordinate-transformed to a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, where the big bang singularity is a three-dimensional space.
    What ?! I'd be interested in seeing that - would you be able to type this up here ?
    It's not as strange as it might first seem. Consider what happens at the origin of a spherical coordinate system when it is coordinate-transformed to a Euclidean metric. In this case, a null two-dimensional space transforms to a single point (and the inverse transformation transforms a single point to a null two-dimensional space).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    It's not as strange as it might first seem. Consider what happens at the origin of a spherical coordinate system when it is coordinate-transformed to a Euclidean metric. In this case, a null two-dimensional space transforms to a single point (and the inverse transformation transforms a single point to a null two-dimensional space).
    Such an inverse transformation would not be unique, though ? In fact, neither geometry nor topology ( if we speak of space-times ) of the resulting structure would be determined. Which is in itself interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Such an inverse transformation would not be unique, though ?
    I'm not sure what you're asking. If a coordinate transformation is given, it's inverse is unique. The singularity of the transformation at the origin may cause a problem, but I think it will still be unique if one considers the limit on approaching the origin.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    In fact, neither geometry nor topology ( if we speak of space-times ) of the resulting structure would be determined. Which is in itself interesting.

    The geometry is determined... it's null. The topology, on the other hand, is ambiguous if we remove the assumption that a null space implies a single point, which we must in the case of spacetime (or any indefinite metric)
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Let me give you a simple example about the relationship of time, space and material. If we put a piece of iron in a dry nitrogen container, you can store it for a very long time. If this container is put in any place of same environment, it can still be kept for as long as you want without change. But when it is put in chloric acid, it can react quickly. This reaction means the original balance condition is broken. The electron in the iron atom rearranges to form a new balance condition. This tells us the change or movement of material is not relied on time and space. It relies on the other materials, which make contact with it. Only other materials can break its original balance. Time and space cannot make an object change, but we need them to describe the changes. Change is actually caused by rearrangement of material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    We use a clock or ruler to measure time and space, but clocks and rulers themselves are made of material. They are not time and space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I'm not sure what you're asking. If a coordinate transformation is given, it's inverse is unique. The singularity of the transformation at the origin may cause a problem, but I think it will still be unique if one considers the limit on approaching the origin.
    True, but I was specifically thinking of this as a space-time singularity. In such a scenario the original transformation may not be given, or even well defined.

    The topology, on the other hand, is ambiguous if we remove the assumption that a null space implies a single point, which we must in the case of spacetime (or any indefinite metric)
    Hm, ok, I wasn't aware of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Let us start with pure space without any time or material involved. Space does not have a starting or ending point; it is infinite in all directions. Mathematically, space can be defined by three dimensions: X, Y, and Z. Once a zero point and the direction of X, Y, Z is chosen, all other points in space immediately become defined as well. Since space is endless in all direction and uniform at all points, there is no concept of movement.

    If we set a frame in pure space, then this frame is similar to Lorentz’s aether system. The difference is that this space system has no material (aether) in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    There is an event H happening. We can choose any coordinate system to describe it. Einstein starts his theory by comparing two coordinate systems: one is a stationary system K defined by the coordinates X, Y, Z; the other is a moving system K' defined by coordinates X’,Y’, Z’. Based on our discussion about space, these two systems are not space any more because space cannot move. They are bonded to the reference objects. Although we still use the same unit of length, the X, Y, Z, and X’, Y’, Z’ is not space, they are actually the distance between the event and the moving reference object. But they were incorrectly called space. This concept switch causes space to be related with movement.

    We may argue about how we can choose a coordinate system to describe an event in space if there is no object as a reference. If we can find an absolutely balanced object as reference, like perfect balanced electron and positron, the frame will be the same as the frame in pure space. Otherwise we cannot use X, Y, Z and X’, Y’, Z’ to stand for space in relative theory and all other theories. This should be the distance to the reference object. To a pure space and time system, no matter how a reference point is chosen, movement has its absolute meaning, that the speed is constant. But when choosing an object as a reference point, the movement turns to be relative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Let me give you a simple example about the relationship of time, space and material. If we put a piece of iron in a dry nitrogen container, you can store it for a very long time. If this container is put in any place of same environment, it can still be kept for as long as you want without change. But when it is put in chloric acid, it can react quickly. This reaction means the original balance condition is broken. The electron in the iron atom rearranges to form a new balance condition. This tells us the change or movement of material is not relied on time and space. It relies on the other materials, which make contact with it. Only other materials can break its original balance. Time and space cannot make an object change, but we need them to describe the changes. Change is actually caused by rearrangement of material.
    Nonsense. Consider a particle with a very short lifetime before decay ( for example a muon ). Measure the lifetime far away from a massive body, and then close to a massive body. You will find that they are not the same, even though the make-up of the particle never changes. That is because the geometry of space-time differs. These experiments have been done, and the predictions confirmed.

    Likewise, consider a radar beam, first in gravity-free space, between two points, and measure the length of its trajectory via the speed of light. Now do the same with a massive body between those same points. You will find that when the massive body is there the radar beam takes longer, because its geodesic through curved space-time is longer, even though the make-up of the radar signal never changes. This is called Shapiro delay, and can be experimentally measured.

    I don't know what you are trying to do here, but relativity is extremely well verified experimentally and observationally :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    Saying that relativity is wrong only amounts to a demonstration of your own failure to understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Let us start with pure space without any time or material involved. Space does not have a starting or ending point; it is infinite in all directions. Mathematically, space can be defined by three dimensions: X, Y, and Z. Once a zero point and the direction of X, Y, Z is chosen, all other points in space immediately become defined as well. Since space is endless in all direction and uniform at all points, there is no concept of movement.
    You need to consider space-time, and not space. And it is also not uniform, it has degrees of freedom, such as intrinsic curvature.

    To a pure space and time system, no matter how a reference point is chosen, movement has its absolute meaning, that the speed is constant.
    Again, we are dealing with space-time, not space. There is no movement in space-time, just static world lines, the geometry of which determines the relation between events.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    You ignored a very important part in your writing, the field. All massive or small particle exists in the field which is generated by material around it. A particle can exist long or short relies on both itself and environment. For the short life time decay particle, when it is formed, it is still make rearrangement by itself. It is not balanced yet. That is why it is changing until it is balanced.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Let us start with pure space without any time or material involved. Space does not have a starting or ending point; it is infinite in all directions. Mathematically, space can be defined by three dimensions: X, Y, and Z. Once a zero point and the direction of X, Y, Z is chosen, all other points in space immediately become defined as well. Since space is endless in all direction and uniform at all points, there is no concept of movement.
    You need to consider space-time, and not space. And it is also not uniform, it has degrees of freedom, such as intrinsic curvature.

    To a pure space and time system, no matter how a reference point is chosen, movement has its absolute meaning, that the speed is constant.
    Again, we are dealing with space-time, not space. There is no movement in space-time, just static world lines, the geometry of which determines the relation between events.

    Nonsense. Consider a particle with a very short lifetime before decay ( for example a muon ). Measure the lifetime far away from a massive body, and then close to a massive body. You will find that they are not the same, even though the make-up of the particle never changes. That is because the geometry of space-time differs. These experiments have been done, and the predictions confirmed.

    Likewise, consider a radar beam, first in gravity-free space, between two points, and measure the length of its trajectory via the speed of light. Now do the same with a massive body between those same points. You will find that when the massive body is there the radar beam takes longer, because its geodesic through curved space-time is longer, even though the make-up of the radar signal never changes. This is called Shapiro delay, and can be experimentally measured.

    I don't know what you are trying to do here, but relativity is extremely well verified experimentally and observationally :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    Saying that relativity is wrong only amounts to a demonstration of your own failure to understand it.[/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Time has the same property. It does not have starting point and ending point. Once a reference point is defined, other point has it absolute meaning. Time and and space are not related, You cannot move time because there is no interaction between time and material.

    You need to consider space-time, and not space. And it is also not uniform, it has degrees of freedom, such as intrinsic curvature.

    To a pure space and time system, no matter how a reference point is chosen, movement has its absolute meaning, that the speed is constant.
    Again, we are dealing with space-time, not space. There is no movement in space-time, just static world lines, the geometry of which determines the relation between events.[/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You ignored a very important part in your writing, the field. All massive or small particle exists in the field which is generated by material around it. A particle can exist long or short relies on both itself and environment. For the short life time decay particle, when it is formed, it is still make rearrangement by itself. It is not balanced yet. That is why it is changing until it is balanced.
    Time has the same property. It does not have starting point and ending point. Once a reference point is defined, other point has it absolute meaning. Time and and space are not related, You cannot move time because there is no interaction between time and material.
    Meaningless gibberish. I have explained to you what the situation really is, and how it can be experimentally checked and confirmed - all of which you have chosen to completely ignore.
    Petty, but your own decision.

    This nonsense needs to be separated out, and moved to pseudo or trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Have you ever thought the massive body contribute something to you mentioned lifetime? If space and time is the reason to causes different, you do not need the massive body (material).

    Field density is related to the distance from a body. Relative theory wrongfully defined space and distance. This causes the space is related to field density. Because the field density is curved, then the space is wrongfully defined curved.

    Yes, you can verify experimentally relative theory. But some concept is wrong. The space in relative theory should be distance or field density.

    Nonsense. Consider a particle with a very short lifetime before decay ( for example a muon ). Measure the lifetime far away from a massive body, and then close to a massive body. You will find that they are not the same, even though the make-up of the particle never changes. That is because the geometry of space-time differs. These experiments have been done, and the predictions confirmed.

    Likewise, consider a radar beam, first in gravity-free space, between two points, and measure the length of its trajectory via the speed of light. Now do the same with a massive body between those same points. You will find that when the massive body is there the radar beam takes longer, because its geodesic through curved space-time is longer, even though the make-up of the radar signal never changes. This is called Shapiro delay, and can be experimentally measured.

    I don't know what you are trying to do here, but relativity is extremely well verified experimentally and observationally :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    Saying that relativity is wrong only amounts to a demonstration of your own failure to understand it.[/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Again, if time and space are the reason to cause material change. You cannot verify anything. It is impossible to do the same thing at the same location at the same time. How can we repeat the same thing at different time and location?





    Meaningless gibberish. I have explained to you what the situation really is, and how it can be experimentally checked and confirmed - all of which you have chosen to completely ignore.
    Petty, but your own decision.

    This nonsense needs to be separated out, and moved to pseudo or trash.[/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,680
    Another near-universal attribute of the crackpot: the inability master the ineffable complexities of the QUOTE tag.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Have you ever thought the massive body contribute something to you mentioned lifetime?
    No, because that is not what happens.

    If space and time is the reason to causes different, you do not need the massive body (material).
    You are right, you do not necessarily need a massive body - all you need is energy, in any form. All forms of energy are a source of space-time curvature. This also includes things like electromagnetic fields, stresses, strains, momentum and the related fluxes.

    Field density is related to the distance from a body.
    There is no "field" in General Relativity, only space-time and its geometric invariants.

    Relative theory wrongfully defined space and distance.
    While this is perhaps your personal opinion, the experimental evidence tells us otherwise.

    This causes the space is related to field density. Because the field density is curved, then the space is wrongfully defined curved.
    Like I said, there is no "field". There is only space-time and its geometry.

    Yes, you can verify experimentally relative theory.
    Exactly. That is how we know that it works.

    But some concept is wrong. The space in relative theory should be distance or field density.
    Again, that is just your personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, just don't confuse it with reality.

    Again, if time and space are the reason to cause material change. You cannot verify anything. It is impossible to do the same thing at the same location at the same time. How can we repeat the same thing at different time and location?
    You don't have to, because we know that the speed of light is constant everywhere, so we know how long the radar signal would take in empty space. All we need to do is measure it near a massive body, and we will always find a delay of a precisely determined value. The radar signal itself is not changed, it just takes longer because it traverses a longer distance in curved space-time. This is experimentally verified, and the outcome tallies exactly with what is calculated in the curved space-time model of General Relativity :

    Shapiro delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is just one piece of experimental evidence. The fact is that all experimental tests to date are in perfect accordance with General Relativity. Each and every one. And all of which are based on just one simple assumption - that space-time need not be flat. We do not need any fields, no distances, no densities, no material changes. Just one simple model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So where is your experimental evidence ? What evidence can you present that space-time is not curved, but that instead "material changes" ? Remember that your evidence must explain not just one, but all observed phenomena of relativistic physics. The list I have referenced before is just a small excerpt, there are many more relativistic effects which directly or indirectly rely on the presence of space-time curvature. And they are all experimentally confirmed.

    This should be fun
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    39
    Just wanted to say thank you. Got some good answers and links a while back. I think I understand it a bit better now but I realize I need to read more about different cosmologies and Weyl curvature. It seems like this became a thread about relativity in general
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The topology, on the other hand, is ambiguous if we remove the assumption that a null space implies a single point, which we must in the case of spacetime (or any indefinite metric)
    Hm, ok, I wasn't aware of that.
    I wouldn't take what I said to be a rigorous statement. There may be other ways to establish the topology that I have not considered. My point was that singularities are not as straightforward as one might think, and I think my example supports that.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    a simple question, What is energy? Energy is field. It is material.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Have you ever thought the massive body contribute something to you mentioned lifetime?
    No, because that is not what happens.

    If space and time is the reason to causes different, you do not need the massive body (material).
    You are right, you do not necessarily need a massive body - all you need is energy, in any form. All forms of energy are a source of space-time curvature. This also includes things like electromagnetic fields, stresses, strains, momentum and the related fluxes.

    Field density is related to the distance from a body.
    There is no "field" in General Relativity, only space-time and its geometric invariants.

    Relative theory wrongfully defined space and distance.
    While this is perhaps your personal opinion, the experimental evidence tells us otherwise.

    This causes the space is related to field density. Because the field density is curved, then the space is wrongfully defined curved.
    Like I said, there is no "field". There is only space-time and its geometry.

    Yes, you can verify experimentally relative theory.
    Exactly. That is how we know that it works.

    But some concept is wrong. The space in relative theory should be distance or field density.
    Again, that is just your personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, just don't confuse it with reality.

    Again, if time and space are the reason to cause material change. You cannot verify anything. It is impossible to do the same thing at the same location at the same time. How can we repeat the same thing at different time and location?
    You don't have to, because we know that the speed of light is constant everywhere, so we know how long the radar signal would take in empty space. All we need to do is measure it near a massive body, and we will always find a delay of a precisely determined value. The radar signal itself is not changed, it just takes longer because it traverses a longer distance in curved space-time. This is experimentally verified, and the outcome tallies exactly with what is calculated in the curved space-time model of General Relativity :

    Shapiro delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is just one piece of experimental evidence. The fact is that all experimental tests to date are in perfect accordance with General Relativity. Each and every one. And all of which are based on just one simple assumption - that space-time need not be flat. We do not need any fields, no distances, no densities, no material changes. Just one simple model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Have you ever thought the massive body contribute something to you mentioned lifetime?
    No, because that is not what happens.

    Then why do you need it

    If space and time is the reason to causes different, you do not need the massive body (material).
    You are right, you do not necessarily need a massive body - all you need is energy, in any form. All forms of energy are a source of space-time curvature. This also includes things like electromagnetic fields, stresses, strains, momentum and the related fluxes.

    What is field? Field is material. It is the basic component of the world? It can be energy or particle based on its structure.

    Field density is related to the distance from a body.
    There is no "field" in General Relativity, only space-time and its geometric invariants.

    That is the problem for this theory. It wrongfully uses space to stand for field

    Relative theory wrongfully defined space and distance.
    While this is perhaps your personal opinion, the experimental evidence tells us otherwise.

    This causes the space is related to field density. Because the field density is curved, then the space is wrongfully defined curved.
    Like I said, there is no "field". There is only space-time and its geometry.

    Yes, you can verify experimentally relative theory.
    Exactly. That is how we know that it works.

    But some concept is wrong. The space in relative theory should be distance or field density.
    Again, that is just your personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, just don't confuse it with reality.

    Again, if time and space are the reason to cause material change. You cannot verify anything. It is impossible to do the same thing at the same location at the same time. How can we repeat the same thing at different time and location?
    You don't have to, because we know that the speed of light is constant everywhere, so we know how long the radar signal would take in empty space. All we need to do is measure it near a massive body, and we will always find a delay of a precisely determined value. The radar signal itself is not changed, it just takes longer because it traverses a longer distance in curved space-time. This is experimentally verified, and the outcome tallies exactly with what is calculated in the curved space-time model of General Relativity :

    This is another unreasonable thing. If you believe movement is relative, how is photon speed constant everywhere? Please get back to read the detail about Einstein's relative theory. You will find what the problem is.

    Shapiro delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is just one piece of experimental evidence. The fact is that all experimental tests to date are in perfect accordance with General Relativity. Each and every one. And all of which are based on just one simple assumption - that space-time need not be flat. We do not need any fields, no distances, no densities, no material changes. Just one simple model.
    If space is not flat, how do you treat your coordinate system. Have you ever draw a curve when you use X, Y ,Z? Why do you use straight line?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,589
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    If space is not flat, how do you treat your coordinate system. Have you ever draw a curve when you use X, Y ,Z? Why do you use straight line?
    Two points.
    1) Do not quote an entire post, especially if your "reply" addresses nothing stated in the quoted post.
    2) Please stop posting altogether. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    a simple question, What is energy? Energy is field. It is material.
    Energy is not "material". But regardless, space-time is curved both inside and outside of energy distributions, just in different ways.

    If space is not flat, how do you treat your coordinate system. Have you ever draw a curve when you use X, Y ,Z? Why do you use straight line?
    You don't use x,y,z,t in curved space-time. These are Cartesian coordinates which are normally only used for flat Euclidean space; if there is curvature you choose a different set of coordinates, often based on certain symmetries your system has. For example, if we look at the Earth in otherwise empty space, we see that for all intents and purposes the system is spherically symmetric, and we will find that we can use a coordinate system of the form



    The two coordinate functions A(r) and B(r) are determined from the field equations of General Relativity, and depend on the boundary conditions of the problem at hand. This general metric is called Schwarzschild space-time. Unlike in your Cartesian x,y,z,t coordinate system, the geodesics in such a space-time or not straight lines, but curved. That is why a ray of light ( which propagates along null geodesics in space-time ), when it passes just outside a massive body, is following a curved trajectory; this is termed gravitational light deflection :

    Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Obviously the predictions by General Relativity when it comes to light deflection have been confirmed to very high accuracy. This deflection is geometric in nature ( geodesics are no longer straight lines ), and has nothing to do with fields, materials, etc etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    If you do not use X,Y.Z in curved space, Einstein should come back to correct his relative theory. His theory is based on X,Y,Z are straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    If you do not use X,Y.Z in curved space, Einstein should come back to correct his relative theory. His theory is based on X,Y,Z are straight.
    I have just explained to you that this is not the case. Do you actually listen to what people say, or are you just here to troll ?
    In Special Relativity a flat space-time is used, but it is not Euclidean, it is Minkowski space-time with a metric signature of (-,+,+,+). In General Relativity space-time is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold which is no longer flat at all, so Cartesian coordinates are not used.

    This is all simple differential geometry in curvilinear coordinate systems; it's basic.

    Tell me, what do you actually know about differential geometry, and calculus on manifolds ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    If you do not use X,Y.Z in curved space, Einstein should come back to correct his relative theory. His theory is based on X,Y,Z are straight.
    Tell me also, where in my post 38 do you see a Cartesian coordinate system with straight x,y,z,t coordinates ? The metric I gave there is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations. Show me how this is based on straight coordinates, as you assert.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    You ask me about any experiment to prove my opinion. The example you mentioned just proved my opinion. Material causes material changes. Material can exist in many ways, like particle, field. We also call it mass, energy, momentum. A simple example is when a photon is absorbed, the electromagnetic field from photon disappears. It merges with the body, we say the energy level increase. Energy is a kind of field. It can transfer from body to body. Its own structure disappear after transfer. When an electron or other particle transfer from body to body, its basic structure still keeps the same, we call it mass. In some certain condition, the particle structure can be damaged, like photon absorption. This is the real meaning of mass energy conservation. We always treat photon is energy. Photon is not energy before it is absorbed. It is a moving particle. When two bodies collide, the field around the body or in the body transfers from one to the other. We call this part field kinetic energy or momentum based on what we need. The transferred field will rearrange with the new body to reach a new balance. We call it change. Some field may cause moving, some may turns to other changes to the new body, like heat etc. That is why New's first law is not correct.
    Why can you prove relative theory? The X,Y, Z in relative theory is not space. It is distance from the event to the coordinate system. The field from the coordinate system related to this distance. That is why your example and your comments needs energy. If space and time related to material, you cannot repeat anything because time and space is different from this lab to that lab from today to tomorrow. When we try to repeat something, we always try to make the experimental condition the same. This "same" means to keep the material and material environment the same. You cannot keep the space and time the same.
    What is the impact of this simple mistake in relative theory? Since Einstein's space-time opinion, people try to build time channel etc. It totally mislead the physics.
    Again, Space and time are not real thing. They are math concepts. They do not interact with material. The things we define and measure length and time, like ruler, clock are all based on material or material change.
    It might be very hard to change your mind if you believe relative theory already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    I agree with field is curved around planet. But space is not. That is my point for this argument. Relative theory starts with straight X, Y, Z. Then you mention space is curved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    If you do not use X,Y.Z in curved space, Einstein should come back to correct his relative theory. His theory is based on X,Y,Z are straight.
    Tell me also, where in my post 38 do you see a Cartesian coordinate system with straight x,y,z,t coordinates ? The metric I gave there is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations. Show me how this is based on straight coordinates, as you assert.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Just another crank. Trash please mods. Puts on ignore.
    I think rather that it this individual that may need a ban, or at least a warning. He or she is contaminating other people's threads - which start out as perfectly sensible discussions - with this junk.

    P.S. I admire Markus' patience.
    Dywyddyr, PhDemon and zunc like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    That is my point for this argument. Relative theory starts with straight X, Y, Z.
    Prove this claim of yours using the maths of General Relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    That is why New's first law is not correct.
    A wave of the hand, a snicker on his face, aaaannnnnddddd....400 years of physics out the window.
    If anyone needed further proof just how much of a crank our friend here really is, then this statement of his summarises it better than I ever could

    It might be very hard to change your mind if you believe relative theory already.
    ...says the one who has yet to provide even a single piece of real evidence to show that relativity is indeed not correct ( after acknowledging that it can be experimentally verified...? ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    "Energy is not "material". But regardless, space-time is curved both inside and outside of energy distributions, just in different ways."

    Get back to your physics: Photon is energy. Is photon a material? Photon is electromagnetic field. Is field a material or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    You did not have any input on this discussion. Do you know close your mouth if you have no opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Just another crank. Trash please mods. Puts on ignore.
    I think rather that it this individual that may need a ban, or at least a warning. He or she is contaminating other people's threads - which start out as perfectly sensible discussions - with this junk.

    P.S. I admire Markus' patience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,255
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    You did not have any input on this discussion. Do you know close your mouth if you have no opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Just another crank. Trash please mods. Puts on ignore.
    I think rather that it this individual that may need a ban, or at least a warning. He or she is contaminating other people's threads - which start out as perfectly sensible discussions - with this junk.

    P.S. I admire Markus' patience.
    Look, pal, a forum is for readers as well as writers, and I write plenty when I have a contribution to make.

    You are behaving both rudely, by hijacking threads, and foolishly, by posting rubbish that people waste time refuting, and I am perfectly entitled to draw attention to this and to add my opinion to that of others who share it.

    If you go on like this you will get banned, because this is a science forum. Legitimate users of it will not be prepared to see good subjects and discussions showered with nonsensical crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    No matter general relative theory or special relative theory. There is one space and time only. If you agree space is curved, all the coordinate system should use curved X,Y,Z. Is that reasonable? Then Einstein should come back to correct his special relative theory.

    About Newton's first law. Have ever found any thing move in straight and without friction? Have you ever thought what causes move, why a body moves? If not you need think about it. Energy is too unclear when we talk about material world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    That is my point for this argument. Relative theory starts with straight X, Y, Z.
    Prove this claim of yours using the maths of General Relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    I never invite you to read my writing. Look at your post first before you put comment on others.
    If this is place to talk about science why did you put so much personal attack statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    You did not have any input on this discussion. Do you know close your mouth if you have no opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Just another crank. Trash please mods. Puts on ignore.
    I think rather that it this individual that may need a ban, or at least a warning. He or she is contaminating other people's threads - which start out as perfectly sensible discussions - with this junk.

    P.S. I admire Markus' patience.
    Look, pal, a forum is for readers as well as writers, and I write plenty when I have a contribution to make.

    You are behaving both rudely, by hijacking threads, and foolishly, by posting rubbish that people waste time refuting, and I am perfectly entitled to draw attention to this and to add my opinion to that of others who share it.

    If you go on like this you will get banned, because this is a science forum. Legitimate users of it will not be prepared to see good subjects and discussions showered with nonsensical crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Photon is energy
    Yes.

    Is photon a material?
    No.

    Photon is electromagnetic field.
    No.

    Is field a material or not?
    It is not.

    If you agree space is curved, all the coordinate system should use curved X,Y,Z.
    That's exactly what happens - General Relativity deals with curvilinear coordinate systems, as I have already shown you mathematically. Why are you ignoring that ?

    Then Einstein should come back to correct his special relative theory.
    How many times...? Special Relativity deals with Minkowski space-time, which is flat. General Relativity deals with Riemann space-time, which is generally curved.
    Why are you wasting your time here making a fool of yourself - you are quite obviously completely ignorant of even the basics, and- which is much worse - you do not listen to anything that is being explained to you.

    About Newton's first law. Have ever found any thing move in straight and without friction? Have you ever thought what causes move, why a body moves? If not you need think about it. Energy is too unclear when we talk about material world.
    That is exactly what Newton's first law says; the state of motion of a body changes only if an external force - like friction - acts on it. Since friction is everywhere, you will never see completely uniform and unaccelerated motion in the real world.
    Newton's laws are correct and work in their domain of applicability, just like the laws of relativity and quantum mechanics.

    If this is place to talk about science why did you put so much personal attack statement?
    Maybe that is because your posts are devoid of any science. That just makes you a disruption - a troll, in other words.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    I cannot agree with you about material and energy opinion. Stop this argument.
    There is one space only? Is it straight or curved? If may answer curved. Then the question is "do you think all the coordinate system should be drawn curved? or straight?

    About newton's law, if you agree with space is curved, how can a body move in straight? If nothing moves in straight, do you think the law reflects the natural, which is the target of science? Then how can you prove it is right or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    This is a particularly annoying troll.

    In a curved space, a 'straight' line is the geodesic. What do you mean by 'straight line'?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    There is one space only? Is it straight or curved?
    There is only space-time, not space, which exhibits both local and global curvature.

    do you think all the coordinate system should be drawn curved? or straight?
    The degree of curvature is determined by stress-energy in accordance with the field equations of General Relativity :



    Obviously this varies from event to event in space-time.

    About newton's law, if you agree with space is curved, how can a body move in straight?
    They follow "straight" lines always - these lines are called geodesics. In flat space-times these are straight just as we would intuitively understand the term, but in curved space-times geodesics have intrinsic curvature. For example, on the surface of the earth the geodesics are great circles, because the surface of the earth is curved. It works the same way in 4 dimensions. How difficult is this to understand ? That is why a body approaching another body follows a curved trajectory, just as Newton's first law predicts.

    If nothing moves in straight, do you think the law reflects the natural, which is the target of science?
    Of course. It is perfectly natural, and just as one would expect.

    Then how can you prove it is right or not?
    Same as any other theory in physics. Use the model to make predictions, then test the predictions against experiment and observation - that's why I have given you the link to the experimental tests of relativity. It is called the scientific method. I suggest you look it up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    you cannot repeat anything because time and space is different from this lab to that lab from today to tomorrow. When we try to repeat something, we always try to make the experimental condition the same. This "same" means to keep the material and material environment the same. You cannot keep the space and time the same.
    What is the impact of this simple mistake in relative theory?
    It makes the theory "relative".
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    If you agree space is curved, all the coordinate system should use curved X,Y,Z. Is that reasonable?
    No. Have you ever looked at the Mercator projection map of the globe?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Black Holes
    By spacesolidspace in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 26th, 2013, 06:25 AM
  2. Black Holes
    By BluSthil in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 26th, 2013, 06:30 AM
  3. White holes are the opposit of black holes in the univers.
    By Victor2009 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 21st, 2009, 07:12 AM
  4. Black holes
    By KALSTER in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 19th, 2007, 08:56 AM
  5. black holes
    By shawngoldw in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: March 8th, 2007, 04:53 PM
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
  •