Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

[hansda]

Then I guess we'll get to them later.

As you wish.

In the mean time, feel free to address any of the issues I've already brought up.

Well, these four unknown forces are: 1) Compressive Force, 2) Integral Force, 3) Force on a field and 4) Space-Force. Details about these forces can be seen in the links.

Yes, as I said: you are violating some of the basic definitions of Newtonian mechanics. At most you can claim you've made a more generalized version.

Seems correct as application of Newtonian mechanics is enhanced.

Yes, in direct conflict with how Newtonian mechanics uses the term.

Clearly, it is not. If you use terms like "force" in a scientific context, but you are actually using a different definition than the standard one, it would be wise for you to explicitly mention that. Otherwise confusion ensues.

Here force still can be considered as F=dE/dx; where dE is change in energy over an infinitesimal distance dx.

That link mentions that this is a first approximation, and cannot work as-is because of the acceleration of the universal expansion. In other words: the link itself states this model cannot explain our current observations. As I said: "Newtonian model will have great difficulty explaining it."

GR is also not complete in explaining expansion of our universe.
​

True, but can you promise me that your text either contains a space-force that doesn't need an absolute reference frame, or makes a strong case why an absolute reference frame exists?

What do you mean by absolute reference frame? Here any point can be considered for reference.

Then stop bringing up others papers!

Right: "These two models can be correlated through my theory." I've already brought up all kinds of issues in your first two texts, issues that you refuse (cannot?) address. You have made an attempt, and looking at the current score, you've failed.

Can you answer my OP question in GR?​

Turns out I wasn't wrong, and the link actually states that our universe is incompatible with the Newtonian model it discusses.

As i said earlier GR is also incomplete in this regard.

No calculations. No evidence. You are doding the question once again. I'll just repeat it verbatim: Demonstrate that your Law of Inertia can explain them. Show calculations, evidence. Just you saying "it can, trust me" isn't worth anything in science.

Time Dilation can be explained by Compressive Force. Math is explained there. Only testing is required.
For Mercury Precession some unknown force must be there.
For LHC particle accelerator, what is your specific question?

 

[NotEinstein]

Well, these four unknown forces are: 1) Compressive Force, 2) Integral Force, 3) Force on a field and 4) Space-Force. Details about these forces can be seen in the links.

Yes, we will get to that later. How about addressing any of the issues I've already brought up?

Seems correct as application of Newtonian mechanics is enhanced.

Right, so it's not compatible with Newtonian mechanics (in general) anymore; that's what I've been saying all along.

Here force still can be considered as F=dE/dx; where dE is change in energy over an infinitesimal distance dx.

You are missing the point: this definition is missing from your text, so people are going to assume you're using the standard definition of force.

This definition by the way looks way more Lagrangian than Newtonian. How do you define the "E" energy in it?

GR is also not complete in explaining expansion of our universe.

But it is much much much better than any Newtonian model. And the point was that Newtonian models can't, which you have now admitted.​

What do you mean by absolute reference frame? Here any point can be considered for reference.

The 3-dimensional force vector is not invariant under Lorentz transformation, so it's incompatible with GR, unless one introduces an absolute reference frame in which the force vector is to be measured.

Can you answer my OP question in GR?

Whether GR can answer them is neither here not there; let's say that GR fatally cannot. How would that make the issues in your texts any less relevant or problematic?

And of course GR can answer the question "What is the motion of a particle at any instant of time?" Here's (literally) the first search result I got:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion#General_relativity

As i said earlier GR is also incomplete in this regard.

Which still isn't relevant. Also, you haven't actually pointed out anything that GR can't model, so care to provide at least one example of something regarding the expansion of the universe that GR (note: not BB, GR!) cannot explain?

Time Dilation can be explained by Compressive Force. Math is explained there. Only testing is required.

I guess we'll get to that later, then.

For Mercury Precession some unknown force must be there.

So... have you modeled it yet? Because GR gives a result so accurate and precise, our measurement errors are the limiting factor.

For LHC particle accelerator, what is your specific question?

Well, you've got a TOE, so let's see a calculation for the Higgs-boson mass. Or maybe some top-quark cross-section predictions.
Better yet, explain the lifetime of cosmic muons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

 

[NotEinstein]

While I'm waiting for the response to my previous post, let's go over the remaining two texts.

In the introduction it is stated that the modified version of Newton's first law of motion (the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia") can also handle massless particles. I've already explained why this is wrong: Newton's first law also handles massless particles just fine. The rest of the text is just three examples of hitherto "unknown" forces. Let's take a look.

1) Relativistic length contraction is postulated to be a force. No derivation is given, no proof is presented; it is merely asserted. The text claims that the compressive force doing this is "not yet considered", which is absolutely false: it is fully considered by the special theory of relativity; just not as a force.
It is not mentioned how this supposed compressive force somehow results in the same amount of length contraction irrespective of the rigidity of the object being contracted. It is not explained where the energy to perform this work is coming from. It is only stated that this compressive force is a function of velocity, which of course means it's subtly problematic: the force itself is affecting and changing the velocity.

2) The curving and bending of geodesics is postulated to be caused by a force. Even in the text the contradiction is present: a geodesic is the path followed by a particle not experiencing any force, so, by definition, this postulated force cannot exist. It is summarized perfectly in the sentence: "Even if no force is applied to a particles, this bending force will be applied to the particle."
Now, let's assume this bending force is exempt from this. We can immediately tell that Newton's second law is out the window: for massless particles $$\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$$ doesn't work, because $$m=0$$. No replacement is given, so no check whether this force matches reality can be done. However, there is another way: when a charged particle is made to fly in a curve, it will be emitting photons. This is called synchrotron radiation. So under GR, an electron in free-fall would not emit photons, but when the bending of spacetime is actually caused by a force, it would. I'm not aware of experimental data specifically checking for this, but I do know that this has not been observed.
Additionally, I'm quite sure black holes cannot be properly described with this force, because I see no way that the self-gravitating features of spacetime can be implemented as such. But again: no mathematical description of this force is given, so there's nothing to work with here.

3) Electric and magnetic fields are "moved with" their source particles by a postulated force. This is plain non-sense. There is no need for such a force: if the particle produces the field, then it is immediately obvious that moving the particle will move the field. Also, forces do not affect fields: they are caused by them. This is even stated in the text. Due to the amount of contradictions, this point is incomprehensible.
And to boot, no mathematical description of this force is given.

The conclusion is just a repeat of earlier text, so no further comments on that.

On to the final text!
This text postulates that the expansion of the universe is caused by a force, the "space force". The introduction makes a crucial mistake: the reasoning behind why a force is needed is fundamentally flawed. If no forces are acting upon the galaxies, they are still flying away from us (the text explicitly mentions Hubble's discovery of this). In other words, the expansion of the universe does not need a force to explain it. It's the acceleration of the expansion that does, but the introduction doesn't mention this at all.
Let's assume this terrible mistake is just that, a mistake, and continue.

Next, space is quantized. This violates the entirety of Newtonian physics, but this is not discussed by the text. Then follows a convoluted mathematical derivation, just to reach the conclusion that the "space force" can be correlated with Hubble's Law. However, this result is not actually stated mathematically, so the derivation is pointless, and I will not discuss it. (It deals with elongating infinitesimal space intervals in an infinitesimal time, and getting a velocity from that.)

Another force is introduces, that attached objects to their space position. This force is of course in violation with not only Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity, but also hansda's own TOE. hansda has previously stated that if no force is acting upon an object, it will remain in its current state of motion. But here hansda feel the need to introduce a force to keep objects stationary (i.e. to keep their space coordinates the same). This is a fundamental contradiction.

The main text ends with the statement that this latest force will keep the energy of our universe constant. At no point has there been an evaluation of the work these forces perform, and where their required energies are coming from. In other words, this is merely an assertion.

Finally, the conclusion is just a summary, and contains no new insights.

 

[hansda]

While I'm waiting for the response to my previous post, let's go over the remaining two texts.

In the introduction it is stated that the modified version of Newton's first law of motion (the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia") can also handle massless particles. I've already explained why this is wrong: Newton's first law also handles massless particles just fine. The rest of the text is just three examples of hitherto "unknown" forces. Let's take a look.

1) Relativistic length contraction is postulated to be a force. No derivation is given, no proof is presented; it is merely asserted. The text claims that the compressive force doing this is "not yet considered", which is absolutely false: it is fully considered by the special theory of relativity; just not as a force.
It is not mentioned how this supposed compressive force somehow results in the same amount of length contraction irrespective of the rigidity of the object being contracted. It is not explained where the energy to perform this work is coming from. It is only stated that this compressive force is a function of velocity, which of course means it's subtly problematic: the force itself is affecting and changing the velocity.

2) The curving and bending of geodesics is postulated to be caused by a force. Even in the text the contradiction is present: a geodesic is the path followed by a particle not experiencing any force, so, by definition, this postulated force cannot exist. It is summarized perfectly in the sentence: "Even if no force is applied to a particles, this bending force will be applied to the particle."
Now, let's assume this bending force is exempt from this. We can immediately tell that Newton's second law is out the window: for massless particles $$\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$$ doesn't work, because $$m=0$$. No replacement is given, so no check whether this force matches reality can be done. However, there is another way: when a charged particle is made to fly in a curve, it will be emitting photons. This is called synchrotron radiation. So under GR, an electron in free-fall would not emit photons, but when the bending of spacetime is actually caused by a force, it would. I'm not aware of experimental data specifically checking for this, but I do know that this has not been observed.
Additionally, I'm quite sure black holes cannot be properly described with this force, because I see no way that the self-gravitating features of spacetime can be implemented as such. But again: no mathematical description of this force is given, so there's nothing to work with here.

3) Electric and magnetic fields are "moved with" their source particles by a postulated force. This is plain non-sense. There is no need for such a force: if the particle produces the field, then it is immediately obvious that moving the particle will move the field. Also, forces do not affect fields: they are caused by them. This is even stated in the text. Due to the amount of contradictions, this point is incomprehensible.
And to boot, no mathematical description of this force is given.

The conclusion is just a repeat of earlier text, so no further comments on that.

On to the final text!
This text postulates that the expansion of the universe is caused by a force, the "space force". The introduction makes a crucial mistake: the reasoning behind why a force is needed is fundamentally flawed. If no forces are acting upon the galaxies, they are still flying away from us (the text explicitly mentions Hubble's discovery of this). In other words, the expansion of the universe does not need a force to explain it. It's the acceleration of the expansion that does, but the introduction doesn't mention this at all.
Let's assume this terrible mistake is just that, a mistake, and continue.

Next, space is quantized. This violates the entirety of Newtonian physics, but this is not discussed by the text. Then follows a convoluted mathematical derivation, just to reach the conclusion that the "space force" can be correlated with Hubble's Law. However, this result is not actually stated mathematically, so the derivation is pointless, and I will not discuss it. (It deals with elongating infinitesimal space intervals in an infinitesimal time, and getting a velocity from that.)

Another force is introduces, that attached objects to their space position. This force is of course in violation with not only Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity, but also hansda's own TOE. hansda has previously stated that if no force is acting upon an object, it will remain in its current state of motion. But here hansda feel the need to introduce a force to keep objects stationary (i.e. to keep their space coordinates the same). This is a fundamental contradiction.

The main text ends with the statement that this latest force will keep the energy of our universe constant. At no point has there been an evaluation of the work these forces perform, and where their required energies are coming from. In other words, this is merely an assertion.

Finally, the conclusion is just a summary, and contains no new insights.

NE,
Thanks for your views, queries and interest with my theory. Yesterday, I published one more paper in the Academia.edu. This paper can explain Einstein's concept of space-time in terms of field. This paper also can clarify most of your queries. This paper can be seen here https://www.academia.edu/35365935/Structure_of_a_Particle ; https://iitkgp.academia.edu/SanatanHansda .

 

[NotEinstein]

NE,
Thanks for your views, queries and interest with my theory. Yesterday, I published one more paper in the Academia.edu. This paper can explain Einstein's concept of space-time in terms of field. This paper also can clarify most of your queries. This paper can be seen here https://www.academia.edu/35365935/Structure_of_a_Particle ; https://iitkgp.academia.edu/SanatanHansda .

The introduction promises us that the text will show how Einstein's concept of spacetime can be explained in terms of fields. Let's see!

"The particle is considered as the constituent of mass and charge." First of all, that's missing color charge and several other quantum numbers. But more importantly, it sounds like word salad. How can a particle (physical object) be a constituent of mass (abstract concept, or some physical parameter)?

"A particle may not have any field surrounding it; example-photon." Erm, a photon IS a combination of an electric and magnetic field. While it may be true these fields don't extend into infinity, it's a bit too simple to say that they have no fields surrounding them.

Next, the neutrino is stated to travel at the speed of photons, which is patently false.

A new type of field, the "integral field" is introduced. It is not clarified what this field is, or how it works.

Early in the next paragraph (still on page 1), it is stated that a field distribution of a particle having an integral field "will consist of the field lines". This is of course not true in physics: field lines are not fundamental concepts. Further along it states that "energy may flow through these loops formed by field lines." This is of course not how field lines or energy work in physics.
More interesting is that this clearly only works for magnetic field's field lines (which carries no energy); electric field lines don't terminate on the source particle.

At the top of page 2 it is suggested that a change can happen to the field, and then the particle can respond to this. This is of course not what happens in general; typically, the particle responds directly to whatever is causing the change, and the field will change according to its source particle. The rest of the paragraph continues in this misunderstanding, by giving all kinds of non-specific examples how changes to the field (lines) affect the particle.

Halfway though, we encounter this: "They can be stretched or contracted. So a tensor can be associated with these field." Now, my understanding of tensors is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure this is a complete non-sequitur.

Near the end, an absolute reference frame is sneakily hinted at: "This dragging effect may cause time dilation in atomic clock, if it is moved at a very high speed." A very high speed with respect to what? It is also not explained how a dragging effect can affect the decay rates of unstable particles.

Next paragraph, halfway page 2. Near the start, the possibility of the termination of a field line on a particle different than the source is acknowledged; it is stated that energy in that case can be stored as the twisting of the field line, "[storing] the energy in a spiral form." This is not how field lines work, and is thus non-sense. Right after that: "Dark energy may be the energy stored due to the twisting of these fields." This of course shows a fundamental lack of understanding what dark energy is about, and is plainly and simply wrong.

The rest of this paragraph (and the previous one) is just an attempt to describe the generalities of field theories through field lines; which is fundamentally the wrong approach to use.

The paragraph ends with the suggestion that gravitational waves are the vibrations in the field lines resulting from a particle collision. Which is of course wrong.

Page 3 contains only the conclusion, which is just a summary.

My conclusion: this text contains a clumsy and general description of field theories without any specifics. Where it does mention specific cases or details, it is often wrong or plain non-sense. Additionally, it doesn't answer the questions I raised in post #243, even though hansda promised it would.

 

[hansda]

The introduction promises us that the text will show how Einstein's concept of spacetime can be explained in terms of fields. Let's see!

Here I have shown, how Einstein's concept of spacetime is basically a field-mesh or mesh of fields.

"The particle is considered as the constituent of mass and charge." First of all, that's missing color charge and several other quantum numbers. But more importantly, it sounds like word salad. How can a particle (physical object) be a constituent of mass (abstract concept, or some physical parameter)?

Isnt atomic particles like quarks and electrons, constituent of mass and charge.

"A particle may not have any field surrounding it; example-photon." Erm, a photon IS a combination of an electric and magnetic field. While it may be true these fields don't extend into infinity, it's a bit too simple to say that they have no fields surrounding them.

So you also conclude the same thing that photons have 'no fields surrounding them'.

Next, the neutrino is stated to travel at the speed of photons, which is patently false.

You want to apply Lorentz Transformations to particle Neutrino?

A new type of field, the "integral field" is introduced. It is not clarified what this field is, or how it works.

Detail behaviour of this "integral field" is to studied. When a particle is formed/annihilated, this "integral field" is also formed/annihilated.

Early in the next paragraph (still on page 1), it is stated that a field distribution of a particle having an integral field "will consist of the field lines". This is of course not true in physics: field lines are not fundamental concepts. Further along it states that "energy may flow through these loops formed by field lines." This is of course not how field lines or energy work in physics.

Can you separate magnetic fields from a magnet? or Can you separate the electrical fields from an electron?

More interesting is that this clearly only works for magnetic field's field lines (which carries no energy); electric field lines don't terminate on the source particle.

Magnetic fields dont carry energy? Electrical fields can terminate on opposite charge.

At the top of page 2 it is suggested that a change can happen to the field, and then the particle can respond to this. This is of course not what happens in general; typically, the particle responds directly to whatever is causing the change, and the field will change according to its source particle. The rest of the paragraph continues in this misunderstanding, by giving all kinds of non-specific examples how changes to the field (lines) affect the particle.

Isnt the magnetic field of a magnet change, when another magnet is brought nearer to it?

Halfway though, we encounter this: "They can be stretched or contracted. So a tensor can be associated with these field." Now, my understanding of tensors is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure this is a complete non-sequitur.

Do you mean, 'magnetic fields can not be stretched or contracted'?

Near the end, an absolute reference frame is sneakily hinted at: "This dragging effect may cause time dilation in atomic clock, if it is moved at a very high speed." A very high speed with respect to what? It is also not explained how a dragging effect can affect the decay rates of unstable particles.

Dragging effect will slow down their movement.

Next paragraph, halfway page 2. Near the start, the possibility of the termination of a field line on a particle different than the source is acknowledged; it is stated that energy in that case can be stored as the twisting of the field line, "[storing] the energy in a spiral form." This is not how field lines work, and is thus non-sense. Right after that: "Dark energy may be the energy stored due to the twisting of these fields." This of course shows a fundamental lack of understanding what dark energy is about, and is plainly and simply wrong.

That is only my prediction.

The rest of this paragraph (and the previous one) is just an attempt to describe the generalities of field theories through field lines; which is fundamentally the wrong approach to use.

Do you mean field theories can not be applied to field lines?

The paragraph ends with the suggestion that gravitational waves are the vibrations in the field lines resulting from a particle collision. Which is of course wrong.

Why do you think it is wrong? When two particles collide, will it not generate any sound? When the clouds collide, it generates lightening. It also generates sound, which can be heard.

Page 3 contains only the conclusion, which is just a summary.

Yes.

My conclusion: this text contains a clumsy and general description of field theories without any specifics. Where it does mention specific cases or details, it is often wrong or plain non-sense.

Seems your conclusion is wrong, as i answered most of your querries.

Additionally, it doesn't answer the questions I raised in post #243, even though hansda promised it would.

If you could not find answers for your post #243, they can be answered separately. No problem.

 

[hansda]

While I'm waiting for the response to my previous post, let's go over the remaining two texts.

In the introduction it is stated that the modified version of Newton's first law of motion (the "Instantaneous Law of Inertia") can also handle massless particles. I've already explained why this is wrong: Newton's first law also handles massless particles just fine. The rest of the text is just three examples of hitherto "unknown" forces. Let's take a look.

Say, you are right that Newton's First Law of Motion also can handle massless particles. But in reality Newton's First Law of Motion is not applied to a massless particle.

1) Relativistic length contraction is postulated to be a force. No derivation is given, no proof is presented; it is merely asserted. The text claims that the compressive force doing this is "not yet considered", which is absolutely false: it is fully considered by the special theory of relativity; just not as a force.
It is not mentioned how this supposed compressive force somehow results in the same amount of length contraction irrespective of the rigidity of the object being contracted. It is not explained where the energy to perform this work is coming from. It is only stated that this compressive force is a function of velocity, which of course means it's subtly problematic: the force itself is affecting and changing the velocity.

In Newtonian mechanics, stress and strain are related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–strain_curve . Lorentz length contraction will cause a strain. In my article "Structure of a Particle", I have also explained this as a dragging effect.

2) The curving and bending of geodesics is postulated to be caused by a force. Even in the text the contradiction is present: a geodesic is the path followed by a particle not experiencing any force, so, by definition, this postulated force cannot exist. It is summarized perfectly in the sentence: "Even if no force is applied to a particles, this bending force will be applied to the particle."
Now, let's assume this bending force is exempt from this. We can immediately tell that Newton's second law is out the window: for massless particles $$\vec{F}=m\vec{a}$$ doesn't work, because $$m=0$$. No replacement is given, so no check whether this force matches reality can be done. However, there is another way: when a charged particle is made to fly in a curve, it will be emitting photons. This is called synchrotron radiation. So under GR, an electron in free-fall would not emit photons, but when the bending of spacetime is actually caused by a force, it would. I'm not aware of experimental data specifically checking for this, but I do know that this has not been observed.
Additionally, I'm quite sure black holes cannot be properly described with this force, because I see no way that the self-gravitating features of spacetime can be implemented as such. But again: no mathematical description of this force is given, so there's nothing to work with here.

Here I simply explained that geodesic is not a straight line but a loop. So a particle following geodesic will follow a loop but not a straight line. This is in contradiction to Newton's First Law of Motion or his Law of Inertia, that if no force is applied to a mass in motion, it will continue to move in a straight line.

3) Electric and magnetic fields are "moved with" their source particles by a postulated force. This is plain non-sense. There is no need for such a force: if the particle produces the field, then it is immediately obvious that moving the particle will move the field. Also, forces do not affect fields: they are caused by them. This is even stated in the text. Due to the amount of contradictions, this point is incomprehensible.
And to boot, no mathematical description of this force is given.

Why do you think a field line bends in space(if no force is applied to it)?

The conclusion is just a repeat of earlier text, so no further comments on that.

On to the final text!
This text postulates that the expansion of the universe is caused by a force, the "space force". The introduction makes a crucial mistake: the reasoning behind why a force is needed is fundamentally flawed. If no forces are acting upon the galaxies, they are still flying away from us (the text explicitly mentions Hubble's discovery of this). In other words, the expansion of the universe does not need a force to explain it. It's the acceleration of the expansion that does, but the introduction doesn't mention this at all.

You yourself is calling this an acceleration but dont want to consider this as a force. Seems self contradiction.

Let's assume this terrible mistake is just that, a mistake, and continue.

Next, space is quantized. This violates the entirety of Newtonian physics, but this is not discussed by the text. Then follows a convoluted mathematical derivation, just to reach the conclusion that the "space force" can be correlated with Hubble's Law. However, this result is not actually stated mathematically, so the derivation is pointless, and I will not discuss it. (It deals with elongating infinitesimal space intervals in an infinitesimal time, and getting a velocity from that.)

This is metric expansion of space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space . Seems you are not aware of it.

Another force is introduces, that attached objects to their space position. This force is of course in violation with not only Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity, but also hansda's own TOE. hansda has previously stated that if no force is acting upon an object, it will remain in its current state of motion. But here hansda feel the need to introduce a force to keep objects stationary (i.e. to keep their space coordinates the same). This is a fundamental contradiction.

But this is a fact that, in metric expansion of space, there is no relative motion between the mass and the space. Because metric expansion of space can happen at a speed greater than c.

The main text ends with the statement that this latest force will keep the energy of our universe constant. At no point has there been an evaluation of the work these forces perform, and where their required energies are coming from. In other words, this is merely an assertion.

The metric expansion of space itself is work. Dont you think so?

Finally, the conclusion is just a summary, and contains no new insights.

May be. So what?

 

[NotEinstein]

Here I have shown, how Einstein's concept of spacetime is basically a field-mesh or mesh of fields.

Spacetime is not a mesh of fields, because spacetime isn't a field. Fields live in spacetime.

Isnt atomic particles like quarks and electrons, constituent of mass and charge.

(The grammar appears broken?)
No, a particle isn't "made out of mass and charge"; a particle has mass and charge. They are properties of the particles, not its building blocks.

So you also conclude the same thing that photons have 'no fields surrounding them'.

Yes, in the sense that there is no energy in the fields surrounding an isolated photon.

You want to apply Lorentz Transformations to particle Neutrino?

A neutrino has mass, and therefor is not travelling at the speed of light. So yes, one can apply the Lorentz transformations to a neutrino just fine.

Detail behaviour of this "integral field" is to studied. When a particle is formed/annihilated, this "integral field" is also formed/annihilated.

It's still unclear where the term "integral field" comes from, or why this field was introduced in the first place.

Can you separate magnetic fields from a magnet?

Irrelevant; that has nothing to do with field lines.

or Can you separate the electrical fields from an electron?

Also irrelevant; that has nothing to do with field lines.

Magnetic fields dont carry energy?

Perhaps I was too hasty; they can transfer no energy. (They can't do work.)

Electrical fields can terminate on opposite charge.

Yes, but that's not what you initially said.

Isnt the magnetic field of a magnet change, when another magnet is brought nearer to it?

No, the fields start overlapping. If you think there's more at play, please point me to scientific literature talking about field-to-field interactions for magnetic fields.

Do you mean, 'magnetic fields can not be stretched or contracted'?

No, I mean that if something can be stretched or contracted, that doesn't automatically make it (expressible as) a tensor.

Dragging effect will slow down their movement.

Particles are at rest in their own rest frame; there is no dragging effect there. Explain to me how a force that's not there can affect the ticking of an atomic clock.

That is only my prediction.

Demonstrate how the energy stored in the twisting of field lines is compatible with what we know about dark energy.

Do you mean field theories can not be applied to field lines?

No, I mean that talking about field theories by using the concept of field lines is cumbersome and silly. It's much easier to talk about the fields themselves.

Why do you think it is wrong? When two particles collide, will it not generate any sound? When the clouds collide, it generates lightening. It also generates sound, which can be heard.

But none of those are comparable to gravitational waves. Two neutron stars orbiting each other tightly can produce gravitational waves, yet there are no two particles colliding.

Seems your conclusion is wrong, as i answered most of your querries.

Not really; see this post.

 

[NotEinstein]

Say, you are right that Newton's First Law of Motion also can handle massless particles.

We've already established that it does. Or rather, you haven't been able to make a solid case that it doesn't.

But in reality Newton's First Law of Motion is not applied to a massless particle.

That's because people are using the second law as well, and that causes the first law not to be applicable to massless particles anymore; we've been over this.

In Newtonian mechanics, stress and strain are related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–strain_curve . Lorentz length contraction will cause a strain.

Please give some equations for this strain.

In my article "Structure of a Particle", I have also explained this as a dragging effect.

I don't think I've seen that article before? Do you have a link?

Here I simply explained that geodesic is not a straight line but a loop.

Geodesics aren't loops in general, so that's wrong.

So a particle following geodesic will follow a loop but not a straight line. This is in contradiction to Newton's First Law of Motion or his Law of Inertia, that if no force is applied to a mass in motion, it will continue to move in a straight line.

This is wrong: a geodesic is defined as the path a particle takes if no force is acting upon it. Therefor, it cannot contradict Newton's first law. You are interpreting the bending of spacetime as a force: that is what causes the contradiction, not anything in GR.

Why do you think a field line bends in space(if no force is applied to it)?

Well, field lines aren't real, so forces cannot be applied to them. But more importantly: what force do you propose is bending the magnetic field lines into a loop?

You yourself is calling this an acceleration but dont want to consider this as a force. Seems self contradiction.

OK, how about this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 15, 36, 79, ... I am counting numbers, but I've accelerated. What force do you propose caused that acceleration in counting?
What I'm getting at: not all accelerations are accelerations in the Newtonian sense. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is simply stating that the derivative to time of the universal expansion velocity is positive; it doesn't mean there's a force involved.

This is metric expansion of space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space . Seems you are not aware of it.

It seems you are unaware that the metric expansion of space does not require the quantization of space.

But this is a fact that, in metric expansion of space, there is no relative motion between the mass and the space. Because metric expansion of space can happen at a speed greater than c.

So you are aware that the expansion of space isn't just some velocity. Then why were you being intellectually dishonest just sentences ago when you demanded that the acceleration of this not-really-a-velocity be caused by a force?

The metric expansion of space itself is work. Dont you think so?

Not to my knowledge. Please show me an equation that gives the amount of work done by the metric expansion of space itself.

May be. So what?

Nothing; I just wanted to make clear I read the text till the very end.

 

[RADII]

I'm not aware of experimental data specifically checking for this, but I do know that this has not been observed.

Synchrotron radiation has been studied, & the primary installation is run by the U of Wisconsin [http://src.wisc.edu/about.html].

 

[NotEinstein]

Synchrotron radiation has been studied, & the primary installation is run by the U of Wisconsin [http://src.wisc.edu/about.html].

But has it been done with cases where the curving of the charged particle was caused by the bending of spacetime, and not an electric or magnetic field?

 

[RADII]

But has it been done with cases where the curving of the charged particle was caused by the bending of spacetime, and not an electric or magnetic field?

Ooooh. Don't know, haven't looked that deeply into the research.

 

[hansda]

We've already established that it does. Or rather, you haven't been able to make a solid case that it doesn't.

That's because people are using the second law as well, and that causes the first law not to be applicable to massless particles anymore; we've been over this.

So you agree that Newton's First Law is not applied so far to the massless particles.

Please give some equations for this strain.

Say a particles initial length is $$L_0$$. After Lorentz Length contraction its length becomes $$L_1$$. So its strain will be $$\frac{L_0 - L_1}{L_0}$$

I don't think I've seen that article before? Do you have a link?

https://www.academia.edu/35365935/Structure_of_a_Particle

Geodesics aren't loops in general, so that's wrong.

But geodesic isnt a straight line. Or is it?

This is wrong: a geodesic is defined as the path a particle takes if no force is acting upon it. Therefor, it cannot contradict Newton's first law. You are interpreting the bending of spacetime as a force: that is what causes the contradiction, not anything in GR.

Well geodesic is the notion of a straight line in a curved space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

Well, field lines aren't real, so forces cannot be applied to them. But more importantly: what force do you propose is bending the magnetic field lines into a loop?

Isnt Earth magnetic field real?

OK, how about this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 15, 36, 79, ... I am counting numbers, but I've accelerated. What force do you propose caused that acceleration in counting?
What I'm getting at: not all accelerations are accelerations in the Newtonian sense. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is simply stating that the derivative to time of the universal expansion velocity is positive; it doesn't mean there's a force involved.

Space is getting stretched or not?

It seems you are unaware that the metric expansion of space does not require the quantization of space.

Where you observe quantization? I was simply using calculus.

So you are aware that the expansion of space isn't just some velocity. Then why were you being intellectually dishonest just sentences ago when you demanded that the acceleration of this not-really-a-velocity be caused by a force?

Please read that sentence again. You misinterpreted it.

Not to my knowledge. Please show me an equation that gives the amount of work done by the metric expansion of space itself.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni2.html

Nothing; I just wanted to make clear I read the text till the very end.

Good.

 

[NotEinstein]

So you agree that Newton's First Law is not applied so far to the massless particles.

It isn't in Newtonian mechanics, due to the second law. But the first law by itself can be applied to massless particles without any trouble.

Say a particles initial length is $$L_0$$. After Lorentz Length contraction its length becomes $$L_1$$. So its strain will be $$\frac{L_0 - L_1}{L_0}$$

That's simple the amount of strain. I probably should have been more clear: give the mathematical equation for this straining force. As in: f = ?

https://www.academia.edu/35365935/Structure_of_a_Particle

(I'll check this out later.)

But geodesic isnt a straight line. Or is it?

Not sure how that's relevant? There are more options than only "straight line" or "loop".

Well geodesic is the notion of a straight line in a curved space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

Sooo... You've just answered your previous question yourself?

Isnt Earth magnetic field real?

It is, but I don't see how that is a response to my question?

Space is getting stretched or not?

Yes, but the stretching of space doesn't require a force: that's my point.

Where you observe quantization? I was simply using calculus.

"Consider the distance between two consecutive points in space as dx;" That's quantization: you are saying that there is a smallest distance dx that two space position can be apart. If space were continuous, point x + dx/2 would always exist, but here is doesn't.

Note that it's followed almost immediately by "Say due to application of space-force Fi, this distance is elongated to the length dx' ". This is incoherent, because it's not explained what "elongating" of a space-interval means, because against what space-scale are you measuring that?

Please read that sentence again. You misinterpreted it.

Which sentence? I wrote: "This force is of course in violation with not only Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity, but also hansda's own TOE. hansda has previously stated that if no force is acting upon an object, it will remain in its current state of motion. But here hansda feel the need to introduce a force to keep objects stationary (i.e. to keep their space coordinates the same). This is a fundamental contradiction."
In your text you feel the need to introduce a force to keep particles "anchored" to their space position as space expands. I.e., without this force, particle would start moving when the space expands. However, since there is no force acting upon the particles, this is in contradiction with your own "Law". But then you introduce a force, explicitly to keep the state of motion of the particles the same, which again violated your "Law", just "the other way around".

You then replied: "But this is a fact that, in metric expansion of space, there is no relative motion between the mass and the space. Because metric expansion of space can happen at a speed greater than c."
Here you claim that particles will remain motionless when space expands, which seems to contradict your earlier statement that they would start moving.

Please point out where I have misread what you are trying to say.​

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni2.html

Please point out which equation on that page gives the amount of work done by the expansion, because I don't see it?

 

[hansda]

It isn't in Newtonian mechanics, due to the second law. But the first law by itself can be applied to massless particles without any trouble.

May be Newton's First Law can be applied to mass less particles, but this has not been done so far.

That's simple the amount of strain. I probably should have been more clear: give the mathematical equation for this straining force. As in: f = ?

From the stress-strain relationship, you can know the stress developed for a particular strain. Consider stress=F/A; or F=stress x A

(I'll check this out later.)

As you wish.

Not sure how that's relevant? There are more options than only "straight line" or "loop".

If the particle follows geodesic and if the geodesic is not a straight line; that means the particle is not following a straight line.

Sooo... You've just answered your previous question yourself?

See the meaning of the term 'notion'. It is only a concept. That means it is not the reality.

It is, but I don't see how that is a response to my question?

That implies magnetic fields are real. So other fields also can be real.

Yes, but the stretching of space doesn't require a force: that's my point.

Space can be considered as a sheet of rubber. To stretch the rubber sheet, a force is required. So, space-force also can be applied to stretch the space.

"Consider the distance between two consecutive points in space as dx;" That's quantization: you are saying that there is a smallest distance dx that two space position can be apart. If space were continuous, point x + dx/2 would always exist, but here is doesn't.

This is as per infinitesimal analysis. If you follow continuity of a function, only the interval of dx is considered. It is not considered as quantized.

Note that it's followed almost immediately by "Say due to application of space-force Fi, this distance is elongated to the length dx' ". This is incoherent, because it's not explained what "elongating" of a space-interval means, because against what space-scale are you measuring that?

Again you consider the rubber sheet. Mark two points on the sheet. Stretch the rubber sheet. Distance between the two marked points will increase. Same thing can happen with the space also.

Which sentence? I wrote: "This force is of course in violation with not only Newtonian physics and the theory of relativity, but also hansda's own TOE. hansda has previously stated that if no force is acting upon an object, it will remain in its current state of motion. But here hansda feel the need to introduce a force to keep objects stationary (i.e. to keep their space coordinates the same). This is a fundamental contradiction."
In your text you feel the need to introduce a force to keep particles "anchored" to their space position as space expands. I.e., without this force, particle would start moving when the space expands. However, since there is no force acting upon the particles, this is in contradiction with your own "Law". But then you introduce a force, explicitly to keep the state of motion of the particles the same, which again violated your "Law", just "the other way around".

You then replied: "But this is a fact that, in metric expansion of space, there is no relative motion between the mass and the space. Because metric expansion of space can happen at a speed greater than c."
Here you claim that particles will remain motionless when space expands, which seems to contradict your earlier statement that they would start moving.

Please point out where I have misread what you are trying to say.​

Seems you are still not getting the point. Consider space as a rubber sheet again. Consider some balls are placed on this rubber sheet. Now you stretch this rubber sheet. Will these balls remain at their earlier place or they will slip?
​

Please point out which equation on that page gives the amount of work done by the expansion, because I don't see it?

Seems you made no attempt to read the text. Anyway you can see this link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni.html#c1

 

[NotEinstein]

May be Newton's First Law can be applied to mass less particles, but this has not been done so far.

Doesn't matter; if it can handle it, it can handle it.

From the stress-strain relationship, you can know the stress developed for a particular strain. Consider stress=F/A; or F=stress x A

What is "stress"? What is "A"? Your equation is useless if you don't provide the definition of its terms.

If the particle follows geodesic and if the geodesic is not a straight line; that means the particle is not following a straight line.

Correct. But a "not straight line" is not automatically a loop. For example: a spiral. Or a zig-zag or saw tooth line.

See the meaning of the term 'notion'. It is only a concept. That means it is not the reality.

I suggest you learn the word "notion" means in this context:

#3: conception or idea: his notion of democracy.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/notion​

It's the curved spacetime equivalent of a straight line. So you have answered your own question; you just misunderstood the answer.

That implies magnetic fields are real. So other fields also can be real.

Well, obviously. But that doesn't mean that any field you can come up with is real, or that field lines are real. So stop dodging the question: "what force do you propose is bending the magnetic field lines into a loop?"

Space can be considered as a sheet of rubber.

That is only an imperfect analogue, not how reality works.

To stretch the rubber sheet, a force is required. So, space-force also can be applied to stretch the space.

And you've found a place where the analogue fails. Space is not a rubber sheet!

This is as per infinitesimal analysis. If you follow continuity of a function, only the interval of dx is considered. It is not considered as quantized.

You have described it literally as quantization:

Consider the distance between two consecutive points in space as dx;

If you aren't quantizing space, then please don't talk as if you are quantizing space. It's very confusing to your readers.

Again you consider the rubber sheet. Mark two points on the sheet. Stretch the rubber sheet. Distance between the two marked points will increase. Same thing can happen with the space also.

That's not correct. Consider the rubber sheet. Draw a ruler onto it, and then mark off some distance. Now stretch the sheet. Notice that the ruler stretches with the sheet! That's because its space itself stretching; there is no outside space to measure the size of space against.
When you say a distance is elongated, it's getting elongated with respect to some ruler. You haven't provided such a ruler, so you cannot meaningfully talk about elongation.

Seems you are still not getting the point. Consider space as a rubber sheet again. Consider some balls are placed on this rubber sheet. Now you stretch this rubber sheet. Will these balls remain at their earlier place or they will slip?

Obviously, they will remain stationary with the part of the rubber sheet they are resting on. Their space coordinates (measured by the rulers drawn on the rubber sheet) show that their coordinates don't change.
​

Seems you made no attempt to read the text.

I in fact have made the attempt; that's why I asked you where the equation was, because I can't find it.

Anyway you can see this link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni.html#c1

That is a different link. Are you admitting the equation isn't present in your first link, and that it was in fact you who "made no attempt to read the text"?

And once again, your link contains no equation of work. Why do you keep posting irrelevant links?

 

[NotEinstein]

It appears that hansda has abandoned his/her attempts to defend his/her position?

 

[RADII]

It appears that hansda has abandoned his/her attempts to defend his/her position?

It is the Holidays...

 

[NotEinstein]

It is the Holidays...

Hansda has been online several times after the last response in this thread. But you are right; let's wait and see...

 

[hansda]

Doesn't matter; if it can handle it, it can handle it.

Well, this is your view, how do you look at it.

What is "stress"? What is "A"? Your equation is useless if you don't provide the definition of its terms.

These are standard physics terms already well defined. So new definition is necessary. Here A can be considered as area.

Correct. But a "not straight line" is not automatically a loop. For example: a spiral. Or a zig-zag or saw tooth line.

If it is not a straight line, as per Newton's Law of Inertia, it will be subject to a force.

I suggest you learn the word "notion" means in this context:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/notion​

It's the curved spacetime equivalent of a straight line. So you have answered your own question; you just misunderstood the answer.

"Equivalent of a straight line" and "a straight line" does not mean the samething.

Well, obviously. But that doesn't mean that any field you can come up with is real, or that field lines are real. So stop dodging the question: "what force do you propose is bending the magnetic field lines into a loop?"

It is the thumb rule, which bends magnetic field lines around a current carrying wire.

That is only an imperfect analogue, not how reality works.


And you've found a place where the analogue fails. Space is not a rubber sheet!

Space can be considered as a rubber sheet. http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/users/gabor/black_holes/slide5.html .

You have described it literally as quantization:

If you aren't quantizing space, then please don't talk as if you are quantizing space. It's very confusing to your readers.

How will you define continuity of a function? Say consider f(x)=x. Is it continuous or quantized?

That's not correct. Consider the rubber sheet. Draw a ruler onto it, and then mark off some distance. Now stretch the sheet. Notice that the ruler stretches with the sheet! That's because its space itself stretching; there is no outside space to measure the size of space against.
When you say a distance is elongated, it's getting elongated with respect to some ruler. You haven't provided such a ruler, so you cannot meaningfully talk about elongation.

Well, Hubble observed expansion from the Earth.

Obviously, they will remain stationary with the part of the rubber sheet they are resting on. Their space coordinates (measured by the rulers drawn on the rubber sheet) show that their coordinates don't change.

Why they will remain stationary with the rubber sheet? No force is applied to the balls.
​

I in fact have made the attempt; that's why I asked you where the equation was, because I can't find it.


That is a different link. Are you admitting the equation isn't present in your first link, and that it was in fact you who "made no attempt to read the text"?

And once again, your link contains no equation of work. Why do you keep posting irrelevant links?

"The mechanical energy can be expressed as follows, using the notation of Carroll and Ostlie:

The above expression, I copy pasted from that link.