Jump to content

How gravity works


trevorjohnson32

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

I didn't know that I was required to post responses to the absurd word salad of the other posters here. I can just generally say about any and all of the responses so far nothing has answered any of the questions I've asked. But to keep the thread alive for fun I'll read them again and try to pick something out. 

The „word salad” as you are refering to it, is posted by physicists with degrees and years of practical experience in the field of relativity. If you want to stay around and learn something I suggest you lower your ignorance level and start trying to understand what is being thrown at you, GR is far from an easy concept to grasp fully. You can start by spelling „you’re” instead of „your”

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, koti said:

The „word salad” as you are refering to it, is posted by physicists with degrees and years of practical experience in the field of relativity. If you want to stay around and learn something I suggest you lower tour ignorance level and start trying to understand what is being thrown at you, GR is far from an easy concept to grasp fully. You can start by spelling „you’re” instead of „your”

tour sure spell your Youre not yur?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Sorry guys, I know where your coming from and I'm not buying it. I have my own theory on how time dilation is caused. No need to ask for it like I'm sure your all frantically typing to do right now, I ll eventually post it.

great then do so with the mathematics please.

I can quarantee modern physics does an excellent job of describing time dilation using current theories. I've only posted a very rudimentary start point. The full EFE does a far better job but I have yet to see any sign your able to relate to that mathematical level.

(don't worry very few people do understand fully the EFE. Its nothing against you personally, just an observation on how restrictive my posts must be to be understood.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here's something of a scientific proof of the theory since its hard to come up with an instrument that can directly measure the density of space. Gravity is often compared to the weights on a cloth experiment. The experiment only works because of the gravity below the cloth. If you draw a perspective drawing from above the image is the same as the one I have in the video.

Edited by trevorjohnson32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A video isn't a proof secondly the rubber sheet analogy is just that a laymans analogy.

SR doesn't have the tools to fully understand time dilation. GR is far more informative but even then you must understand how every field contributes.  In order to understand spacetime one must examine how all involved particle fields interact and interfere. How they all contribute to the curvature term via their individual coupling constants to the mass term. 

When you examine GR with other fields such as QED, QCD etc then time dilation isn't mysterious at all. Its a result of interparticle field interactions and how those interactions in essence generate propogation delays. (by a classical physics analogy). 

 Unfortanetely for example describing the delays due to spacetime on photon signals requires understanding the null geodesic worldline itself. Thats incredibly difficult to describe without the reader understanding the principle of least action. 

lol you get right down to the nitty gritty a photon path is never truly straight at every infinitesimal. Not in our universe. This is true of all particle paths... The locality field interactions vary from coordinate to coordinate. (google Einstein locality) though ignore for now locality vs non locality with regards to entanglement lol. Lets just state the field interference has a range limit defined by c just as the particle influence is limitted by c.

Side hint the constant c is also the limit of information exchange between any two particles...

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

I didn't know that I was required to post responses to the absurd word salad of the other posters here. I can just generally say about any and all of the responses so far nothing has answered any of the questions I've asked. But to keep the thread alive for fun I'll read them again and try to pick something out. 

!

Moderator Note

The default position is that the well-tested ideas of mainstream physics are correct, and anyone with an alternative theory owns the burden of proof to show that they have something of substance to add to the conversation. That's the price of admission.

That some concept in physics doesn't make sense to you is not sufficient reason to dismiss it (that's in fact a logical fallacy; argument from incredulity) 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.