Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Asexperia, Aug 3, 2012.

  1. Asexperia Valued Senior Member



    1 - The speed of propagation of gravity is not infinite.
    2 - The speed of light is absolute (in vacuum).
    3 - The time is variable. (For us the becoming is absolute).
    4 - The speed of light is the maximum value. (So ​​far recorded).
    5 - The energy and mass are equivalent.


    1 - All reference frames are equally valid. (Only applies to the speed of light in vacuum).
    2 - Time is a dimension of space. (The time is flowing, the space is static, the bodies move in).
    3 - It is possible the time travel.
    4 - Gravity is not a force.
    5 - The cosmological constant.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    No need for a qualification, all reference frames are equally valid is sufficient.

    No idea what your comment in the parenthases means, but this is a strength of the theory.

    Realtivity does not say time travel is possible.

    I have no idea what you mean by this.

    There is no cosmological constant in relativity - are you saying there should be one?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Some comments and questions:

    what do you mean by "For us the becoming is absolute"?

    The speed of light is not the maximum speed so far. It's the maximum speed it is possible to move at. The only way to get from one point to another faster than the speed of light is to take a shorter path, if you can find one.

    not quite true. Mass is a form of energy, but energy is not a form of mass.

    Why is this a weakness and why do you think it only apples to the speed of light in vacuum?

    No it's not. It's a dimension but not a spatial dimension.

    Actually, it's probably not. It's not possible to travel backwards in time by any known principle of physics, although relativity doesn't explicitly rule it out.

    Again, why is this a disadvantage. GR gives is a reason why gravity is there and is always attractive.

    We currently observe the cosmological constant is not zero, so this is not a disadvantage.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    Origin, I have edited point 4: Gravity is not a force.

  8. Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    Relativity is based on observable facts and not in real facts.

    The speed of light is constant in vacuum, so is the same for all observers.
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    The "strength" of relativity is that it's the unprecedented, counter-intuitive and yet correct prediction of what is observed in relativistic scenarios.

    The "strength" of its exposition (such as in Einstein's paper) is that it is clear and, once you get past the explanatory analogies, it's concise.

    One of the "weaknesses" in your statement above is that it's not so clear or concise. "Becoming-time"? Is that Sartre's take on Einstein? Why not just simply "time" and/or "spacetime"? "Rhythm" of time makes no sense, unless you want to speak of some kind of temporal fluctuations that are periodic, such as, say, the radar return on a volleyball that is being swung around a pole like a centrifuge. And then taking that into a frame dragging scenario. Whatever odd case that applies to. I guess you could speak of aperiodic fluctuations, but that's not normally what we mean by "rhythm". Syncopation maybe, but that's ratioed to the musical meter, so I'm still lost.

    It's probably best to stick with conventional language and the way the science has already been posited, which is well enough described that it stands alone, don't you think?

    Maybe you are troubled by relativity because it defies real-world intuition. But then turn on your mobile device and there you are on the map, because the relative effects of the GPS satellites dragging their frames around (and us here in the non-vacuum of the atmosphere, one of Origin's points) have been calibrated into every measurement. So now, unlike Einstein, you can just sit there and marvel at what a genius he was. I mean he might have had a proud moment in a mirror, but nothing as cool as GPS to settle some of the issues once and for all.

    "Strength" vs. "Weakness"? You seem to be wanting to pick tomatoes according to which ones are green and which ones are ready for pesto. Is is that hard? Soft, squishy, vine-ripened, and you're good to go. Just watch out for the word-salad. And yeah, except for worm-holes, time travel is kind of silly in reference to what relativity is and why.
  10. Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    Arqueous, your ideas are very interesting.


    According to the geometric concept of space-time, time is static, not flowing, which contradicts all the laws of nature. The space is static, the bodies move on it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The lines of the image (mesh) are the effects of gravity of the Earth. This mesh is extended in space at a certain speed (time), it has nothing to do with the space-time of relativity.
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Do some research before you start using words like 'according to .....'. GR is a dynamic geometric theory of gravity. DYNAMIC.
  12. kaduseus melencolia I Registered Senior Member

    No, it's a dimension of spacetime. There is a difference between space, time, and spacetime.
    No. There always appears to be someone who miss-quotes and apparently always fails to use the term 'appears'.

    I really don't like that saying, it should be more precisely put as 'The speed at which light propagates through a vacuum is........'
    Or even more precisely than that, 'The speed at which light propagates through a vacuum observed in our local background is..........'
    It is impossible to see a blue sky when looking through rose tinted glasses.

    The only real weakness of GR is that it is essentially a planar definition of gravity, like everything else before it.
  13. Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    Then the gravity is a force. For the GR gravity is not a force, is the effect of the curvature of the space-time, a geometric concept, pure theory.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2012
  14. Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    What is it?
  15. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Correct - the speed of light is not unique to light.
    I'm going to give you a chance to explain this in a bit more detail. Please define "local background."

    Again, please explain what you mean by "planar" in this context.
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    No, it's not a force. Objects follow the natural path, geodesic path, through spacetime curvature unless acted upon by a FORCE. The geodetic effect was measured in the proper frame of the GPB experimental apparatus. Spacetime curvature is an experimentally confirmed fact of nature. How about learning something rather than making incoherent comments about stuff you don't understand. So far you're just trolling anybody who does understand this stuff.
  17. Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    I understand The Theory of Relativity very well, its strengths and weaknesses. I can see it clearly.
    It is you don't understand my explanations.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2012
  18. pmb Banned Banned

    There are two classifications of force in physics. One kinds of force, oike the Lorentz-Force, can be represented by a 4-force and the other are called inertial forces, such as the Coriolis force. In relativity the gravitational force is an inertial force.

    4-forces exist in all frames of reference while inertial forces exist only in non-inertial frames of reference.

    Here is the expression of the gravitational force in GR
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You're delusional. You're explanations are delusional. You're relativity illiterate and certifiably blind if you think it's clear to you.
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    This is an accurate statement!

    This statement may be accurate, depending upon how you define the use of the word, "confirmed", in context.

    The two statements taken together, sound as though the use of, "confirmed fact", in the second is the same as saying, "proven to be a fact of nature". If this is the way it is read the second statement is not accurate.

    Observation, of the geodesic effect does confirm, as in support the accuracy of, a prediction of GR, but since it does not directly measure the curvature of spacetime, (It only measures an effect predicted by the underlying theory.), it does not prove it.

    Any statement that, asserts that the curvature of spacetime is a fact of nature is inaccurate. GR and the curvature of spacetime remain a theoretical model, describing our observations and experience... So far, one of the most successful theories in physics. Yet a theory none the less.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Please give an example of one of the laws of nature that this contradicts.
  22. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    The main weaknesses of Relativity are time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity.

    1. Time dilation is false. The length of the path that light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second is a meter. When light travels 1 meter, 1/299,792,458 of a second has elapsed FOR THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!!

    2. In Relativity, length is not contracted in all directions, only the direction in which the motion occurs. That means if the length is contracted along the x axis, the y and z axis are not contracted. This creates massive problems for relativity when compared to #1.

    3. The relativity of simultaneity is complete non-sense. Einstein tells us that we must abandon the concept of simultaneity. The concept of being simultaneous has been well understood by almost every person that has walked the face of this planet. The concept of "I wonder what so and so is doing NOW" regardless of the distance between us is fundamental!!! Two objects in space, regardless of separation, move along the SAME timeline, PERIOD!

    4. There is an EXACT distance between the center of the earth and the center of the moon at ANY given POINT IN TIME. That is reality! We can not know reality, only conceptualize it. Our lives and observations are of the PAST. We can not know the NOW, only the past! Since two points are ALWAYS separated by a distance there is a delay between when something occurs at one point, and when it is known or measured at another point.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Motor Daddy:

    Why am I not surprised to see you chiming in on this thread? You probably have about as much knowledge of relativity as the opening poster does.

    No. Time is frame-dependent. The definition of the second is irrelevant to that.

    This claim of your is completely unsupported. You're just blowing hot air. There are no massive problems. In fact, no problems at all.

    The more you post, the more clear it becomes that you don't have the faintest inkling about the subject.

    Simultaneity is frame-dependent, just like the rate at which clocks tick.

    The EXACT distance between the earth and the moon is frame dependent, just like time and simultaneity. That is reality!

    The concept of "past" is also frame-dependent. Walk around in a circle and the slice of time you call the "past" changes as you walk.


    Hey Motor Daddy,

    Have you come up with anything new since I last put you in your place in the [thread=101682]Relativity of Simultaneity[/thread] thread?

    Have you managed to come up with anything since March (the last time you posted there)?

    Are you able to answer the following question yet?

    You've had over a year to come up with an answer to that question. Any progress?

Share This Page