al right so i cant tell if im understanding the theory of relativity correctly

through out the entire universe there is a grid where matter exists that can only be affect by the gravitational force of a solid matter. when this grid is affected by a gravitational force it bends around the object or matter to a state that attracts other sources of matter together where the bends on the grid meet. this is what we experience from the earth being pulled towards it

that much i get heres where i start doubting my self

now it is theorized that the grid may be bendable to a state where two points far away can be bent towards eachother to become the same point or at least the distance be brought together close enough that travel from point to point can be significantly decreased aka a worm hole or slip stream

if i am wrong on something please let me know what it is

al right so i cant tell if im understanding the theory of relativity correctly

through out the entire universe there is a grid where matter exists that can only be affect by the gravitational force of a solid matter. when this grid is affected by a gravitational force it bends around the object or matter to a state that attracts other sources of matter together where the bends on the grid meet. this is what we experience from the earth being pulled towards it

that much i get heres where i start doubting my self

now it is theorized that the grid may be bendable to a state where two points far away can be bent towards eachother to become the same point or at least the distance be brought together close enough that travel from point to point can be significantly decreased aka a worm hole or slip stream

if i am wrong on something please let me know what it is


:shrug:You are probably OK as far as SRT goes, but see the post "Inertial Frames Are Not Equivalent" which severely stresses the acceptance of special relativity theory - all this a polite way of saying SRT basically sucks.:shrug:

yay!

You are probably OK as far as SRT goes, but see the post "Inertial Frames Are Not Equivalent" which severely stresses the acceptance of special relativity theory - all this a polite way of saying SRT basically sucks.
In my travels I find many physicists who understand Relativity Phenomena differently. There's the Lorentz relativity then there's the Einstein theory of relativity. If Lorentz was correct (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) many problems are solved. Its only the Einstein version that needs to warp space and time. Lorentz warps matter only and that causes all the other phenomena.

In my travels I find many physicists who understand Relativity Phenomena differently. There's the Lorentz relativity then there's the Einstein theory of relativity. If Lorentz was correct (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) many problems are solved. Its only the Einstein version that needs to warp space and time. Lorentz warps matter only and that causes all the other phenomena.


You are probably correct - no argument here. My statement to SnowFox222 was in reference to the thread titled, "The inequality of Inertial Frames". When Lorentz, or whoever, warps matter by sheer inertial velocity conditions I leave the room in disinterest.:shrug:

In my travels I find many physicists who understand Relativity Phenomena differently. There's the Lorentz relativity then there's the Einstein theory of relativity. If Lorentz was correct (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) many problems are solved. Its only the Einstein version that needs to warp space and time. Lorentz warps matter only and that causes all the other phenomena.


Vern, I made a very brief review of your paper re Lorentz, but failed to see what you were driving at. I was interested in your claims regarding what "gravity" is. Again, I can't argue at my level of understanding your theses, but I will offer a suggestion that I see gravity, certainly stellar/planetary gravity, as reflecting the intrinsic processes in the conservation of angular momentum, with the necessary parameters of nonlocal force centers playing a critical and overriding role in the model.See JS Bell "Speakable and unspeakable in QM":shrug:

al right so i cant tell if im understanding the theory of relativity correctly

through out the entire universe there is a grid where matter exists that can only be affect by the gravitational force of a solid matter. when this grid is affected by a gravitational force it bends around the object or matter to a state that attracts other sources of matter together where the bends on the grid meet. this is what we experience from the earth being pulled towards it

that much i get heres where i start doubting my self

now it is theorized that the grid may be bendable to a state where two points far away can be bent towards eachother to become the same point or at least the distance be brought together close enough that travel from point to point can be significantly decreased aka a worm hole or slip stream

if i am wrong on something please let me know what it is

There is not really any grid in space. Look at a globe of the Earth. You will see a grid on that globe: lines of longitude and latitude. Are those grid lines real? Of course not. The grid is an analogy to help envision where something is located in the case of the global and to help envision what is happening in the case of general relativity.

A simpler analogy is a square elastic sheet. Imagine laying the sheet out flat, drawing a grid it, and connecting the sheet to a frame that holds the edges of the sheet. Now put a weight in the middle of the sheet and lift the frame. The nice square grid won't be nice and square in the vicinity of the weight. Instead it will be stretched.

This grid is only two dimensional, so it is not the best analogy because we live in a three dimensional space. In fact, it is not three dimensional space that is warped in general relativity. It is four dimensional space-time. While we can't envision this, we can describe what happens mathematically.

==================================================



You are probably OK as far as SRT goes, but see the post "Inertial Frames Are Not Equivalent" which severely stresses the acceptance of special relativity theory - all this a polite way of saying SRT basically sucks.

Snowfox, geistkiesel is one of the resident crackpots that SciForums loves and cherishes. He's wrong. He doesn't even know the difference between special relativity and general relativity. From this post, it is obvious he doesn't even believe in Newton's laws. All inertial frames are equivalent even in Newtonian mechanics.

==================================================


In my travels I find many physicists who understand Relativity Phenomena differently. There's the Lorentz relativity then there's the Einstein theory of relativity. If Lorentz was correct many problems are solved. Its only the Einstein version that needs to warp space and time. Lorentz warps matter only and that causes all the other phenomena.
Snowfox, Vern is yet another of our resident crackpots who does not know what he is talking about. The Lorentz equations are derivable from the postulates of special relativity, and warped space-time is not one of those postulates. Einstein published his theory of special relativity in 1905. General relativity came several years later.

Vern is yet another of our resident crackpots who does not know what he is talking about. The Lorentz equations are derivable from the postulates of special relativity, and warped space-time is not one of those postulates. Einstein published his theory of special relativity in 1905. General relativity came several years later.
I know all that and I know exactly what I'm talking about. Why the hostility?

Vern, I made a very brief review of your paper re Lorentz, but failed to see what you were driving at. I was interested in your claims regarding what "gravity" is.

My ideas about gravity don't agree with Quantum Physics; so those of the Quantum faith quickly brand me a Crack Pot. I was simply agreeing with the Lorentz version of Relativity Phenomena that doesn't require variable space-time.

I know all that and I know exactly what I'm talking about. Why the hostility?
No hostility. Just bluntness. You don't know what you are talking about and you are a crackpot.


My ideas about gravity don't agree with Quantum Physics
Quantum physics does not say anything about gravity. Yet.

so those of the Quantum faith quickly brand me a Crack Pot.
It's not just quantum mechanists who would brand you as a psychoceramicist.


I was simply agreeing with the Lorentz version of Relativity Phenomena that doesn't require variable space-time.
Neither Lorentz Ether Theory nor Special Relativity require variable space time. Both, however, derive variable space time as a consequence of the postulates of the two theories. There is no experiment that can distinguish between Lorentz Ether Theory or Special Relativity for the simple reason that the two predict the exact same results for any experiment. The two differ only in there postulates.

The Lorentz contraction and time dilation are axiomatic in Lorentz Ether Theory. Lorentz also postulated an unknowable absolute reference frame. These postulates are fine from a mathematic point of view but not so fine from a physics point of view. They are just a little too ad hoc.

Einstein postulated that all inertial reference frames are equivalent and that the speed of light is a universal constant. The first postulate was something all physicists could agree with; this was the consensus view for 250 years at that time. The second postulate was something else, but experimentation and Maxwell's laws indicated that this was the case. The Lorentz contraction and time dilation are derived from these two simple postulates.

It was not Special Relativity that killed Lorentz Ether Theory, it was Occam's scalpel. Special Relativity showed that the ad hoc postulates of Lorentz Ether Theory can be derived from two simpler postulates. Quantum mechanics developed a mechanism by which no luminiferous aether is needed at all for the transmission of light. Lorentz' unknowable absolute reference frame is an unneeded appendage. Occam's scalpel says to cut off unnecessary appendages and to choose the simplest theory that explains the evidence.

Quantum mechanics developed a mechanism by which no luminiferous aether is needed at all for the transmission of light. Lorentz' unknowable absolute reference frame is an unneeded appendage. Occam's scalpel says to cut off unnecessary appendages and to choose the simplest theory that explains the evidence.

All true except it is QM that runs afoul of Occam's scapel. The most straightforward and simple universe is as postulated by Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincare (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein09.html) who all suspected it was a purely Electromagnetic Phenomenon (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html).

All true except it is QM that runs afoul of Occam's scapel. The most straightforward and simple universe is as postulated by Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincare (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein09.html) who all suspected it was a purely Electromagnetic Phenomenon (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html).
Occam's scalpel doesn't apply here. Occam's scalpel does not say to choose the simpler of two hypotheses. It says to choose the simpler of two competing hypotheses. Occam's scalpel does not apply if one hypothesis is consistent with what nature shows us to be true (e.g., experimental evidence) and the other is inconsistent with experimental evidence. You have not shown that your conjecture is consistent (Hint: You need to do some math). Without a detailed mathematical model and a detailed set of predictions, you do not even have a theory. You just have a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, and that is exactly what is on your website.

al right so i cant tell if im understanding the theory of relativity correctly

through out the entire universe there is a grid where matter exists that can only be affect by the gravitational force of a solid matter. when this grid is affected by a gravitational force it bends around the object or matter to a state that attracts other sources of matter together where the bends on the grid meet. this is what we experience from the earth being pulled towards it

that much i get heres where i start doubting my self

now it is theorized that the grid may be bendable to a state where two points far away can be bent towards eachother to become the same point or at least the distance be brought together close enough that travel from point to point can be significantly decreased aka a worm hole or slip stream

if i am wrong on something please let me know what it is

I think this is supposed to be the subject matter. I don't have a theory. I just point out where ever I can that modern physics has abandoned a great truth that was known a hundred years ago.

I think this is supposed to be the subject matter.
That is exactly right. So why did you go off-topic? That you went off-topic with pseudoscience is even worse.

I don't have a theory.
I agree with that!

I just point out where ever I can that modern physics has abandoned a great truth that was known a hundred years ago.
Wrong. That "great truth" fell by the wayside precisely because it was shown not to be a "truth". We still use Maxwell's equations, but then again we still use Newtonian mechanics. Both are approximately correct in a limited domain.

We do not use Lorentz Ether Theory for the simple reason that it is not needed and is too ugly. Postulating the Lorentz contraction and time dilation is just too ad hoc. Postulating an unknowable absolute reference frame is even worse; it is untenable.

wait... if something is absolute then it cant be unknowable being as trial and error can find it you just have to look
that and do you guys hate eachother??

wait... if something is absolute then it cant be unknowable being as trial and error can find it you just have to look
that and do you guys hate eachother??
No, and no. OK. Per special relativity, and Galilean relativity, all inertial reference frames are equally valid. There is no inertial reference frame that is 'better' than any other. This is a postulate of relativity: an assumption. Lorentz Ether Theory postulated the existence of an absolute inertial reference reference frame that is in a sense better than all others. Reference frames don't jump up and down saying "Hey! Over here! Look at me!" Lorentz' absolute inertial frame is unknowable and undetectable because of the Lorentz contraction and time dilation. There is no way to find it because it doesn't exist.

Now for the another no, no I don't hate these guys. I don't even know them, so how can I hate them? On the other hand, I do not like the psychoceramics (study of cracked pots) they present. The field of physics is on a par with biology when it comes to crackpots. In both fields, there are some people who think the prevailing theory is incorrect because they don't like it (e.g., evolution theory in biology) or don't understand it (e.g., relativity and quantum mechanics in physics).

Biologists simply ignored their crackpots for a long time. This was a mistake. The creationists thrived in part because they were ignored. Biologists have learned to be vigilant. Physicists need to be vigilant too. Many of the religious crackpots who don't like evolution also do not like modern physics. We are next in line in their gunsights.

To the crackpots: Just because you don't like or don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

wait... if something is absolute then it cant be unknowable being as trial and error can find it you just have to look that and do you guys hate eachother??
No hate; I love these guys. I just hang around hoping I might someday convence folks like D_H that the old absolutes had some merit.

No, and no. OK. Per special relativity, and Galilean relativity, all inertial reference frames are equally valid. There is no inertial reference frame that is 'better' than any other. This is a postulate of relativity: an assumption. Lorentz Ether Theory postulated the existence of an absolute inertial reference reference frame that is in a sense better than all others. Reference frames don't jump up and down saying "Hey! Over here! Look at me!" Lorentz' absolute inertial frame is unknowable and undetectable because of the Lorentz contraction and time dilation. There is no way to find it because it doesn't exist.

Now for the another no, no I don't hate these guys. I don't even know them, so how can I hate them? On the other hand, I do not like the psychoceramics (study of cracked pots) they present. The field of physics is on a par with biology when it comes to crackpots. In both fields, there are some people who think the prevailing theory is incorrect because they don't like it (e.g., evolution theory in biology) or don't understand it (e.g., relativity and quantum mechanics in physics).

Biologists simply ignored their crackpots for a long time. This was a mistake. The creationists thrived in part because they were ignored. Biologists have learned to be vigilant. Physicists need to be vigilant too. Many of the religious crackpots who don't like evolution also do not like modern physics. We are next in line in their gunsights.

To the crackpots: Just because you don't like or don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

D.H., The twin paradox seems to indicate that there is a absolute frame of reference. What do you think?

No. The twin paradox is called a paradox because it seems paradoxical, not because it identifies a flaw in relativity theory. It is fully resolved without invoking any absolute reference frame.

how is it solved then?

The first postulate of special relativity says the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. This limitation to inertial reference frame is why special relativity is prefixed with the word "special". In particular, the first postulate of special relativity doesn't apply to non-inertial reference frames. The resolution of the twin paradox is that the traveling twin is a non-inertial observer. He accelerates upon leaving the Earth, accelerates to do a U-turn at the remote star, and accelerates once more to come back to rest with respect to the Earth.

I see

There is another, equally intuitive way to look at this.

2 objects are said to be in inertial motion relative to each if there is a coordinate transformation that will bring each to (spatial) rest relative to these transformed coordinates. It it easy to see that, for some body A transformed to rest on its own (spatial) coordinates, the transformation that brings B to rest on its own (spatial) coordinates is a simple (velocity-dependent) rotation of B's coordinates about the origin relative to A's coordinates.

Since there is no coordinate transformation that will bring any body to rest on the time coordinate, it is equally easy to see that, under this circumstance, A and B are never going to agree of the rate of the other's clocks. This is OK; the symmetry of this "disagreement" simply means that each thinks the other's clock is slow by the same amount, even though it means there is no such as "real" time in this situation.

Now consider the following; from a strictly kinematic point of view i.e. no forces of any sort being considered, all return journeys (provided they have the same speed over the same time interval) are equivalent. Then it is convenient to choose the simple out-and-back case. Assume clock B makes this trip.

Notice there is no coordinate transformation that will bring clock B to rest on a single coordinate set throughout this trip. There are 3 options; B transforms itself to rest going out, but then notices it is in relative motion to itself coming back, B transforms itself to rest coming back and notices it is in relative motion to itself going out, or B agrees to use the coordinates at which A is at rest.

In each case, symmetry is broken, A and B agree that the clock B has run more slowly than the clock A

See, it is no paradox, it is a direct consequence of the Special Theory

P.S A diagram of world-lines on 1 spatial coordinate might help.

The first postulate of special relativity says the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. This limitation to inertial reference frame is why special relativity is prefixed with the word "special". In particular, the first postulate of special relativity doesn't apply to non-inertial reference frames. The resolution of the twin paradox is that the traveling twin is a non-inertial observer. He accelerates upon leaving the Earth, accelerates to do a U-turn at the remote star, and accelerates once more to come back to rest with respect to the Earth.


Not quite D H. The acceleration is only at the begininng of the trip, the slowdown and turn around at the end of the first leg and the slowdown when reaching earth again. In between the accelerations the space ship is moving inertially. The paradox come from the equivalence of inertial frames.

Your explanation is a fictional accounting of the mainstream SRT industry - where did you yet such bunk?

Here the space ship twin sees the earth moving away inertially and he expects his twin to be younger when the earth returns. The earth twin sees the same. However, only the so called space ship twin has a slower aging process. So where is the equivalence of inertial frames?

Feynman et al resolved the matter thus. The space ship twin did accelerate three times, but the accleleration has nothing to do with slower aging rates. It is the fact that the space ship is the frame that is really moving that brings on the lower aging rate.

But when you adopt this tactic you kill SRT as you have now defined a preferred inertial frame of reference, which is the backbone of SRT.

I don't believe a word of SRT, age slowing and equivalent frames of reference as defined in SRT, but I do know the basic postulates. You,ve been reading Captain Marvel comics haven't you? Shazam!

If I were you I would get my money back from whatever SRT school you attended?:shrug:

Not quite D H. The acceleration is only at the begininng of the trip, the slowdown and turn around at the end of the first leg and the slowdown when reaching earth again. In between the accelerations the space ship is moving inertially. The paradox come from the equivalence of inertial frames. The point is that the travelling twin isn't in an inertial frame but it's easy for someone to miss this. If you don't account for the non-inertial movement over the entire journey, you'd be confused by the result. When you do account for the non-inertial nature you'd find there's no paradox.

Feynman et al resolved the matter thus. The space ship twin did accelerate three times, but the accleleration has nothing to do with slower aging rates. It is the fact that the space ship is the frame that is really moving that brings on the lower aging rate. There's no 'really moving frame', Feynman said nothing of the sort. It's because the travelling twin is guarenteed to have not been moving inertially for the entire trip which sorts it out. Acceleration is not relative, motion is. Since the travelling twin measures non-zero acceleration during the trip he cannot have been in an inertial frame the entire time, while the one at home can say that. Even if you do your calculations in a frame where the 'at home twin' is moving the point is he's moving inertially.

But when you adopt this tactic you kill SRT as you have now defined a preferred inertial frame of reference, which is the backbone of SRT. No, you don't kill it at all. Doing your calculations in a particular frame isn't a problem, provided your work is manifestly Lorentz invariant.

For instance, physicists like to do calculations in things like the centre of momentum frame, so that the sum of all the momenta of objects in say a collision are zero. You can boost to a different frame and do your calculations but it's often much messier and you end up with the same physical result.

Doing your calculations in frame A is the same as boosting to frame B, doing your calculations and then boosting your results back to frame A.

Try it with some quantum field theory. I'll be happy to help you.

I were you I would get my money back from whatever SRT school you attended?Cambridge, where I was taught GR and 'Black Holes' by people who had Hawking as their PhD supervisor. Which school did you attend where you learnt relativity?

Was it.... nowhere? :roflmao:

I think one of the wonderful things about "relativity paradoxes" is that the resolutions of them help the student understand the subject in far greater detail. So whilst it may seem boring to see people question the same old things, it is immensely helpful to those new to the subject to see all the details on display and to see when someone gets the eureka moment!

I don't believe a word of SRT, age slowing and equivalent frames of reference as defined in SRT, but I do know the basic postulates.
Of course you don't "believe" a word of SRT. You don't even "believe" a word of Galilean relativity (your silly "mchip shot of sorts (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82515)" thread).

Science is not about "believing" anything. It is about looking at evidence and deciding which model best fits the evidence. Special relativity has lots and lots and lots of evidence behind it. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it is not true. Since you don't "believe" a word of SRT (or general relativity), how do you explain colliders, muon count experiments, experiments with atomic clocks, Mercury's orbit, ...? Put your hands over your ears and go LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you?

I think one of the wonderful things about "relativity paradoxes" is that the resolutions of them help the student understand the subject in far greater detail. So whilst it may seem boring to see people question the same old things, it is immensely helpful to those new to the subject to see all the details on display and to see when someone gets the eureka moment!
geistkiesel is one of sciforum's cherished and beloved psychoceramicists. Many people here have tried to get him have that eureka moment. It hasn't worked as of yet. That doesn't mean we should give up. People unknowledgeable but curious about relativity come to this site to learn. They can't learn if presented with completely wrong information and there is no indication that it is wrong.

Anyhow, best of luck in helping geistkiesel achieve that eureka moment. We will have to give you a major sciforums award if you manage to do that.

geistkiesel is one of sciforum's cherished and beloved psychoceramicists.
Ah, I see. Well, as you say, still nice for the lurkers to see it discussed!


Anyhow, best of luck in helping geistkiesel achieve that eureka moment. We will have to give you a major sciforums award if you manage to do that.
We'll have to see how it goes...

Science is not about "believing" anything. It is about looking at evidence and deciding which model best fits the evidence. Special relativity has lots and lots and lots of evidence behind it. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it is not true. Since you don't "believe" a word of SRT (or general relativity), how do you explain colliders, muon count experiments, experiments with atomic clocks, Mercury's orbit, ...? Put your hands over your ears and go LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you?

this is why i dont approve of religion

Hello D H,

I enjoyed reading through this string and I'm in your corner.

I particularly like this comment: "No hostility. Just bluntness. You don't know what you are talking about and you are a crackpot."

But based on my own experience, bluntness and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee................if you have another 90 cents.....but nothing else seems to work either. :-)

By the way, your comparison of biology and physics is also the reason I haunt some of these sites.

You commented:

Einstein postulated that all inertial reference frames are equivalent and that the speed of light is a universal constant. The first postulate was something all physicists could agree with; this was the consensus view for 250 years at that time. The second postulate was something else, but experimentation and Maxwell's laws indicated that this was the case. The Lorentz contraction and time dilation are derived from these two simple postulates.

cinci: Nothing wrong with this comment but I like to think only the first postulate is necessary. If the laws of physics apply in all inertial frames, then Maxwell's laws apply. Since Maxwell's equations predict c as a function of two basic constants, then c is the same in all inertial frames. Then you can say that relativity simply shows that Galileo's relativity includes electromagnetic phenomena.

Alphanumeric: The point is that the travelling twin isn't in an inertial frame but it's easy for someone to miss this. If you don't account for the non-inertial movement over the entire journey, you'd be confused by the result. When you do account for the non-inertial nature you'd find there's no paradox.

cinci: After many years of arguing this silly so-called paradox I have started asking people who believe it is a paradox this quesiton: "Where's the paradox?".

Describing that the traveling twin rockets away at high speed and comes back younger doesn't constitute a paradox. Maybe it represents something one doesn't believe, but it's not paradoxical...it's just strange.

The so-called paradox doesn't exist and the perception that there is one is based on asking an impossible question. It is usually asked this way: If the twin is moving relatively to the Earth then his clock runs slow and he ages less; but, relativity says it's only relative motion that counts so the Earth can be considered to be moving realtive to the twin and it should be time dilated also.

Well, not quite. Relativity says if you consider the Earth as a statinary inertial and have the twin move relative to it the twin will be time dilated.

Relativity also says that if you consider the twin as stationary inertial frame that the Earth will be time dilated.

The paradox fails because you can't consider that both are stationary at the same time. If you do say both are statinary then the twin isn't moving and neither is the earth so there would be no time dialtion for either. The "paradox" results from a nonsensical proposition where things are moving and not moving at the same time.