Gravity (split)

[Capiert]

I think what everyone forgets is

gravity is an acceleration

g=-(Pi^2) m/(s^2).

Acceleration is the only observable,

the rest is a math construct

with mass constants

to taper

& balance the equations.

Einstein never said it

in his equivalence,

but if you ask me,

the pressure under my feet (or seat)

sure feels like a push.

Newton also mentioned the centrifugal "acceleration"

made the orbits a balance (linear motion tangentially, so to speak).

(Escape "speed" is only possible tangentially=horizontal,

against the vertical "acceleration".)

Let's face, in an expanding universe,

why aren't the matter waves expanding too?

That's big news for some.

(It's also low a pressure, vaccum out there.

What do we know about osmosis (high to low pressure transport),

& how pressure (or the lack of it) affects matter?

Even if that doesn't apply,

is everything static, or what?)

Gravity can't be shielded.

I've got nothing against an inertial concept

(I'm not so old fashion or outdated, that)

the tides can't rock & swap over,

with the earth's rotation (direction change)

twice a day.

I sure don't need action at a distance for gravity.

Light falls,

sound doesn't.

Fall in a falling elevator,

& you won't notice anything (=weightless)

till the collision.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Capiert

[swansont]

I think what everyone forgets is

gravity is an acceleration

g=-(Pi^2) m/(s^2).

Acceleration is the only observable,

the rest is a math construct

with mass constants

to taper

& balance the equations.

Einstein never said it

in his equivalence,

but if you ask me,

the pressure under my feet (or seat)

sure feels like a push.

 

 

 

That you feel the force opposing you rather than gravity is indeed from Einstein. The concept, if not the actual observation.

[Capiert]

Can we feel gravity?

I doubt it!

 

Only pressure

& that's always

on a surface,

not gravity.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Capiert

[swansont]

Can we feel gravity?

I doubt it!

 

Only pressure

& that's always

on a surface,

not gravity.

 

Another 1 crumbles

into the dust.

 

 

I just pointed out that the modern view is that you don't feel gravity. Your agreement with this doesn't make anything crumble.

[Capiert]

Sorry.

 

I deleted it for you.

Is that ok?

 

Or should the clutter remain for the record?

Edited May 9, 2016 by Capiert

[MigL]

The equivalence principle is certainly valid but I wouldn't say that "we don't feel gravity, only pressure on a surface".

More appropriate would be pressure on a 'volume' ( if that makes any sense ).

 

In a positive G maneuver, in an agile aircraft, your blood is forced away from your head, resulting in black-outs, unless compensated for by a G-suit or a reclining seat.

You don't just feel the Gs pushing you down, every individual part of you feels that force ( or acceleration ).

[Capiert]

If it feels like a push,

why isn't it?

[Capiert]

The equivalence principle is certainly valid..

(edited follows)

 

but I would say that "we don't feel gravity, only pressure on a surface".

 

More appropriate would be pressure in [not on] a 'volume'

(because only pressure is against surfaces,

in the sense of molecules colliding (=repelling, bouncing off)

against (other) molecules,

(which are all vibrating anyway

due to (their) temperature;

otherwise that doesn't makes sense (for me, (at all))).

 

Pressure throughout a volume, is random motion (=collisions)

(no longer gravitational)

& decreases with height.

E.g.

My blood pressure is higher (=larger)

in my feet,

than it is in my head.

What I'm then feeling

is (fluid) pressure

P=F/A

(that accumulates

layer by layer

from top

down(wards))

but

onto my nerve sensor's (area),

& it's Boyle's law

of (fluid pressure) compensation (equilibrium, osmosis so to say ruffly).

That's no longer gravity for me,

that's its side effects. Something else.

Facit: That's not gravitational acceleration (any longer),

it has been converted to fluid pressure('s acceleration),

where the molecules are banging (=bouncing) around with each other.

Each has been accelerated to (ruffly) an average momentum mom=m*v.

But the details are a little more complicated (than that).

That's just the ruff ideas.

 

Example:

 

If I set my foot on the floor

it bulges at the bottom.

If I continue to put my (full) weight on it (=my foot)

it bulges (even) more.

Now if that floor (board) (was & still) is attached

to a hydralic lift (under it, like at a car station, for a car)

& I switch it on

to raise,

then while it raises

my foot (near around the sole) bulges

a tiny bit more

depending

on the lift's acceleration.

If I lower the lift hydraulically (with less pressure),

my foot sole region's bulge reduces.

That's all fluid mechanics.

We can leave out gravity,

except when the lift is not moving

(up nor down).

Gravity as a basis

for what we feel is superfluous (it is not decisive for our feeling),

instead acceleration is.

We feel whether gravity is there or not,

& we can not distinguish whether it is gravity, or NOT!

(& get this, I bet (=believe) gravity is so. But who can prove it?)

Acceleration affects that (back) pressure,

& that depends on the forward direction.

Don't you find it unusual

that Einstein

brought our attention

to the fact that an elevator

can simulate (additional) gravity (gravitational acceleration)

(& perhaps its (not real) cancelation,

narrow mindedly seen,

in a falling elevator,

as weightless)?

 

Not even a magnetic nor electric field is felt

when we near it (in a house)

(unless (we touch the power cables, or) its mighty strong).

Why then is gravity so (refined) chic,

it goes thru everything

without scattering (distortion)?

(& it can't be absorbed, nor saved.

Instead, we have to lift things (to height h)

to save potential energy PE=m*g*h.)

Because (significantly) gravitation is (only) acceleration!

I.e. for the most part.

Nothing else will do that!

 

In a positive G maneuver, in an agile aircraft, your blood is forced away from your head

(e.g. left behind, away from the travel direction),

 

resulting in black-outs, unless compensated for by a G-suit or a reclining seat

(to buck the excess pressure, from your body's back(side of direction travel)).

 

 

You don't just feel the Gs (=g*n) pushing you down (=backwards,

 

due to the inertial drag

of trying to accelerate the molecules

by the transfering (from fluid mechanic's) molecular collisions (pressure)

onto them..

 

(So where did the source of that (cockpit) pressure come from?:

From the thrusters, onto the plane('s fussilage), into the seat.

That's all solid state, (elastic collision) atomic bonds (transfer).

But it's still a push.

(Even if parts of the fussilage, transfer it at some parts, into a pull.

The Net is a push!))

 

every individual part of you feels that (pressure or) force (per area,

 

naturally acceleration

of molecules,

from the fluid pressure).

 

We don't have a gravity simulator,

we only have the opposite.

E.g. Weightlessness in orbit.

Otherwise we wouldn't need airbags

when (severely) braking, in a car.

& then we would not get the bruises

nor internal rips, that bleed;

all because of surface contact (area), PRESSURE.

E.g. How much pressure,

depends on how small the area is,

for the same amount

of "acceleration" force,

expressed as molecules colliding

(decelerating,

while the opposite (target) molecule accelerates).

 

Force is simply a finess way

to describe

(a kind (k=m) of)

"acceleration",

with a mass (m=(actually, lack_of=anti_)efficiency)

coefficient.

It could also be written

F=(k)*a

to get the idea across.

 

Inertial (gravity)

is an interesting theme for me.

I'm interested in the arguements against (it).

(If any?)

I only need a list

(maybe a few brief comments for the exotic 1's).

At worst, in priority e.g. biggest problem 1st.

 

--

 

Einstein gave us a bridge, the gravitational equivalence,

(but) it's our job to use it, & cross it, if we want.

Nobody has to if they don't want to, or are afraid.

 

That's the future (in my opinion).

 

Plus, anyone can return (back, (into the past('s concept))),

if they want.

 

Einstein also said,

there is no preferred reference system,

they are all valid.

 

I notice Physicists,

avoid inertial gravitation

(like the plague)

as suppose to be wrong,

but I don't know why?

 

I suppose we should be diplomatic,

each (person)

left to their own decision

(if, when, where, & why).

 

It's a public bridge.

Come & go, when & where you want,

as you please.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

 

I notice Physicists,

avoid inertial gravitation

(like the plague)

as suppose to be wrong,

but I don't know why?

.

 

 

What is 'inertial gravitation'?

 

We understand gravity as the lack of 'true' inertial frames. So I am confused by this term. (Maybe you are just using a non-standard term for something we are familiar with)

[Capiert]

Good place to start.

 

What is it lacking?

 

Is that because we are turning

around in a circle?

 

In other words

that we are not going

in a straight line?

 

I think if we are traveling

in a curve

we have more than just 1 true inertial frame

we have at least 2

if not 3 true (inertial) frames

which can be co_ordinated together (synchronized),

because all 3 dimensions seem unique (against each other).

Where they each begin & end seems undecernable though.

Due to Pythagorus('s right angle squared rule) they seem to flow

into each other.

 

You must understand,

I do not come from your complicated perspective.

 

However,

to backdown

from your question:

gravitation is inertial,

that means obeying Newton's 3 laws

(& quite possibly more).

 

I suspect the word true

meany pure.

 

So is gravitation purely inertial?

I'd say mostly,

let's say >95%

in most cases.

There are magnetic effects,

& electrostatic effects.

But what I want to discuss

is the inertial character

of gravity.

(Sorry for the personification, there.)

 

We live in this universe.

It is inertial.

I've even read Miles Mathis

unified field theory,

& it's also inertial.

Everything (mechanical, or physical)

fits into that scheme inertial.

I don't know any other place

than this universe,

particularly the earth.

& I do not know any place

(in the universe)

where Newton's laws

do NOT hold.

If you Physicists

are afraid

to use his laws

for some other case

then I don't know who can help you?

(A psychiatrist, or loved 1?)

 

Although we have 3 dimensions x,y,z, please notice the alphabet ends there

(on purpose),

I suppect the universe is different

from how we perceive it,

but I can not tell you how.

 

As far as I am concerned everything (=mass) is inertial (=moveable)

or at least mostly.

 

But please tell me the difference.

What is not inertial,

& why.

I suppose inertial

means moveable,

encompassing (=including)

speed & acceleration.

Anything (=masss) that can be moved

(=is moveable).

 

If we look at Newton's intent,

inertia (might have) meant mass

m=F/a.

But I haven't studied the principia

to find out exactly

what he meant, &

if that is true.

Because there is another way to express force

with a quotient,

as reciprocal mass.

I don't know if inertia is that,

because Ewert (1996) got upset

that inertia & gravitational mass

were not the same

really confounding (=ruining)

Newton's original treat(i)s ideas.

The problem stems

from the (new spastic) definition

for weight

where the gravitation (acceleration) constant g

was used (hung onto the mass) as a multiplier

instead of divisor.

2 possibilities existed,

& you guessed it,

(naturally)

they chose the wrong (worst) 1

to make force.

It was the easiest way for them

(perhaps for the future too)

but the worst way for our (past) history.

Pounds are pounds

in mass & weight.

But kilograms are only mass

 

(they could have incorporated g into that kilogram definition, altogether,

so weight & mass could be interchangeable, as something like

 

Wt=Fo*g=m

where the (new) force is Fo=m/g mass per acceleration,

instead of multiplied, (that would have made a neat new_ton as small as it is,

fitting the expression tons of fun,

 

but didn't)

& (instead they selected) Newtons (to be the g factor, instead of divisor for the mass, &)

are used for weight.

 

But atomic weight for chemists is mass.

What a (popular) mess.

The chemists added onto mass the word "weight" just to be sure they would be understood.

& the bathroom scale still "weighs" mass.

Go to a government office for a passport, or doctor to to get weighed

& they've always give it in kg, not Newtons.

& nobody will admit the error, that started back with the SI (~1967?).

Back then they were happy just to have made the 1st move

(away from the chaos of different number systems),

into metric.

But USA didn't didn't join in.

My advice to them (USA) is go binary, all the way,

with a few modifications,

like 1" 2" 4" ..

the binary_foot 16"

but 8" would do (& be more understandable, for children, instead of giants, like the Anunnaki).

Edited May 10, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

I think if we are traveling

in a curve

Okay, we understand our motion as a curve on space-time. This is fine.

 

we have more than just 1 true inertial frame

I am not sure I follow you. We have a local inertial frame for which we can consider ourselves at rest.

 

we have at least 2

if not 3 true (inertial) frames

which can be co_ordinated together (synchronized),

We can have many such local frames as long as they are close to us and comoving.

 

because all 3 dimensions seem unique (against each other).

No idea what this means.

 

Where they each begin & end seems undecernable though.

Due to Pythagorus('s right angle squared rule) they seem to flow

into each other.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

You must understand,

I do not come from your complicated perspective.

It may help if you learned some of this 'complicated perspective' first.

[Sensei]

Can we feel gravity?

I doubt it!

Hold in hand the same (with the same mass) dumbbell on Earth, then on the Moon, or Mars.

 

I do not know any place

(in the universe)

where Newton's laws

do NOT hold.

They don't hold at relativistic velocities, and photons.

 

f.e. in Newton's physics kinetic energy is:

[math]E.K.=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math]

but in Special Relativity:

[math]E.K.=m_0c^2\gamma-m_0c^2[/math]

 

Classic physics momentum:

[math]p=m_0v[/math]

Special Relativistic momentum:

[math]p=m_0v\gamma[/math]

etc.

[Capiert]

Okay, we understand our motion as a curve on space-time. This is fine.

 

 

I am not sure I follow you. We have a local inertial frame for which we can consider ourselves at rest.

 

 

We can have many such local frames as long as they are close to us and comoving.

 

 

No idea what this means.

 

 

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

 

It may help if you learned some of this 'complicated perspective' first.

1.

I do not use Einstein's space*time,

it's a non_reversible stew (=mix)

which will not return unique answers back

(without a decoding key value).

2 values in, 1 value out,

without 1 of the original values

the other original value

can NOT be found

from the output.

Einstein liked it because it gave such large values;

but quotients are much more analytical.

It is rejected (by me). Sorry.

 

2.

Our "local" inertial frame is curving

around in a circle;

but since we're moving

thru space (the universe is another inertial frame, wrt it=that universe)

then we are moving in a spiral.

I see an inertial frame as a dimension (direction).

Straight line motion.

You believe energy can not be created nor destroyed,

but that is happening all the time,

(you call it conversion)

when we bounce,

but it (=motion, speed) is being destroyed (=cancelled)

in 1 direction;

& being (newly) created (like beaming if you may wish)

in another direction.

That is how I see it.

When 2 waves meet

with opposite phase,

they cancel,

& nothing is left.

No more energy (is) there. Nothing!

It's not reversible.

If you need waves, then you must "creste" them (from scratch)! Basta.

 

If you are moving in a curve,

you must use (at least) 2 (straightline motion) dimensions.

Newtonian physics functions only in a straight line;

a curve is a mix(ture).

Thus needs 2 coordinates, or more =3.

Put all 3 coordinates together,

& you can describe any motion inertially.

Say it so: 3 inertial coordinates, are our 3 dimensions;

or should I say 6 inertial directions.(?)

 

(It's very important

that things move it straight lines.

That's (almost) half of Newton's 1st law.)

 

3.

Yes but considering only the earth('s surface)

where I am, you will call that 1 inertial system

although I see 3 (x,y,z dimensions);

acceptably calling it a frame sytem.

Inertial for me is only in 1 direction (Euclide),

straight line.

Newton meant resistance to move

but you have to see

where that comes from.

Collisions & recoils, backfires, bounce.

It has to do with how the dimensions separate,

or distinguish themselves

from each other.

It's fascinating.

(e.g. gravity is only vertical.)

 

4.

Each dimension is not related to the other,

x,y,z are not connected vastly (separate, by angle!),

they are like 3 different (=unique) people.

They do not know what the other does.

& yet they are somehow strangely connected.

Something holds them together, the universe.

Otherwise they would never have met (together).

& a conversion from 1 dimension

to the other would not have taken place. (= would not be possible).

There difference(s) is the barrier. (It's not infinite!)

It takes force (per se collision presure)

to overcome that barrier,

making a conversion posible, at all.

(It's difficult, but not (infinitely) impossible.)

They are 3 completely different dimensions!

That might sound mad, (WE are mad) like I'm talking about multi dimensions above 3, (Erratum are=is.)

but please recognize what's there already, staring you in the face.

You'll never get to anything higher,

if you don't recognize what you already have.

They are all built the same way (so to speak, directions different; but where they meet (? wow!).

Interesting things are happening there.

Don't ask me what, I don't know (enough), nor any body that does.

 

Semantics: either something is "for" & assists (=helps);

or it is "against" & does not help, or it interferes

working against, as counter productive.

 

"Unique" is 1 of a kind,

it will never be found

anywhere else,

(ever again).

 

We have only these 3 dimensions (graspable).

They are the only 1's we can deal with.

 

5.

(I think)

any straight line

(between 2 points)

can be broken down into

its x,y,z coordinates using pythagorus's law

r^2=x^2 + y^2 + z^2.

I asume you know that

but doubted I did,

or something else.

It's still good to ask questions,

because you are going to (wrongly) assume

I know somethings I don't;

& but for others although I do, not.

Misunderstandings happen all the time.

I have to struggle that my PCs get in them what I want to say.

Sometimes they have a mind for themselves.

 

Pythagorus' law seems to connect the 3 dimensions together.

Any received transfer is proportioned to the other 2 dimensions' losses.

I think that's obvious. I just say things different from what you are used to.

 

That's what we see, but there is a catch to it.

That's our local reference frame;

but if there is an absolute reference frame (e.g. the universe's)

then it has nothing to do with our randomness, earth reference frame;

there might be hints

to finding the true coordinates.

If so however,

I suspect they will only be found with (specific) speeds,

& other peculiarities.

Resonances are a good place to start searching in. ~ quantum speeds, so to say.

We generally only observe coordinate mixtures,

not a single absolute axis.

The effects might be as astounding as a laser, if or when we find it.

(There are many ways to skin a cat.)

The flow is the connection between 2 dimensions (or more)

& how much it changes.

Pythagorus's formula (probably from the babylonians)

gives us a good idea

of what happens

when changing

a dimension's value.

Just take a pencil in your hand,

& rotate it slowly.

A lot is happening

to each molecule

(considering

we are only a sub inertial reference frame).

It's mind boggling.

 

6.

What do you think I am here for.

I can't do everything on my own,

but can't stand it when others get stuck too

when it looks so obvious to me.

The risk of foreign ideas

is to loose

my own god given talents

perspectives & ideas.

Am I an egoist? yes! who isn't?

It's a question of degree, =amount. How much? it varies

whether I'm under attack.

No risk no fun. At least that's what they say.

 

I'm no different from most people.

Physics is very strict,

because the physicists have a lot of problems to solve.

I didn't believe it at 1st,

but falling into quite a few booby traps,

I got convinced.

It's no bed of roses,

or should I say,

it is, ouch!

 

My original goal has been to make physics

quicker & easier,

but it has costed me my life

& done the opposite.

Hold in hand the same (with the same mass) dumbbell on Earth, then on the Moon, or Mars. They don't hold at relativistic velocities, and photons.f.e. in Newton's physics kinetic energy is:[math]E.K.=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math]but in Special Relativity:[math]E.K.=m_0c^2\gamma-m_0c^2[/math]Classic physics momentum:[math]p=m_0v[/math]Special Relativistic momentum:[math]p=m_0v\gamma[/math]etc.

Oh yes! That looks like the same special relativity

that Einstein kicked out the window as trash

in his book (1920 ch22).

I don't know why your profs don't keep you up to date.

Sorry.

 

Relatativistic mass

is suppose to be momentum.

Speed is the variable,

not mass.

There is no conservation of speed,

only conservation of mass.

 

Still, thank you for digging it up for me,

it's always convenient to have it handy

as note, summary,

so compact & concise.

 

The full truth to the kinetic energy

is you are missing the initial speed squared (term),

which can be significant

for speeds near or at light speed c.

The kinetic energy formula (pronounced "key")

KE=m*v*va, m=mass v=speed difference, va=average speed,

is already relativistic.

Sorry.

 

The

E= m*(c^2)

formula, is someone elses work,

(it originally did not come from Einstein

but instead from a man in Tirol, before Einstein.

Einstein found=guessed a series that also fit it

because he did not derive it,

we have no evidence of a derivation, & it)

can be derived when the initial speed

v0=c

is allowed to be light speed c

using simple algebra

& the complete g (linear acceleration, freefall) formula

including missing 3rd term of 3.

Any high school graduate with maths can do it

because only addition, subtraction, multiplication & division are needed.

 

It's unfortunate Swanson was too eager to sent it to the trashcan.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

Your method of posting great walls of text is not helping you communicate.

[Capiert]

Your method of posting great walls of text is not helping you communicate.

Sorry.

 

I don't know how to use your quote buttons (exclusively).

I'm new.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Capiert

[Mordred]

We don't throw out SR, because in many circumstances it still works out accurately. It is also not possible to understand GR without a firm understanding of SR.

 

Much of your last post is so scattered I can't make any sense of it. It reads like random thoughts thrown together without any effort to apply a logical sequence to your post.

 

Although it is evident that your math skills may be lacking on the relations involved.

In particular the choice of coordinate systems.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Mordred

[Capiert]

We don't throw out SR,

Yes, I have observed that,

but Einstein did!

 

because in many circumstances it still works out accurately.

Yes, that is the momentum effect, from the speed.

(Mass is (significantly) constant).

Ewert's book (1996) said the concept of relativistic mass happens at all speeds,

NOT just near the speed of light. He equated it to momentum.

Drop a 1kg stone on your foot from 10 cm above,

then compare that with (from) 1 m

(then from 10 m also if needed,

to feel the pain).

The stone had enough momentum (some prefer saying energy)

to damage

at the faster speed.

Mass & speed are interchangeable (=swappable) mathematically,

but we know: ONLY the mass is constant,

NOT the speed.

That same momentum concept works the same way,

ALL the way up to near light speed c.

Why should the effect make an abrupt change

(at some certain speed)

& swap mass for speed,

but still continue to speed up?

That would make no sense!

 

[The problem is, you, (like too many) believe everything your professors say,

even if it is not true. Or am I being too rude?

Einstein & Lorentz thought it was very important that we knew how relativity was developed

so we could decide for ourselves what was true, (& what not; NOT somebody else)

for when they were no longer there.

See "the relativity principle" (book).]

 

It is also not possible to understand GR without a firm understanding of SR.

Yes, but Einstein kicked out SR. He did not want it any more, at all!

He was very happy & proud of GR, the sole masterpiece,

that was valid.

It was intended for high school graduates

(not higher,

but .. the opposite happened.

It's too wordy,

& it bores people).

 

For years I questioned if relativity is (really) true,

(years after I had accepted it

but then rejected it).

Because Einstein often said things we could not prove,

to avoid criticism.

We cannot build light speed spacecraft to any of it.

But now I can say,

I (surely) accept it,

(truely convinced);

but not the way everybody thinks.

For me it looks very obvious.

SR is constant speed,

GR is constant (=linear) acceleration.

Both are momentum.

Fine, naturally there are smaller details,

& that gravity is a push, not a pull;

& time delays, instead of dialation (for simultaineous synchronization).

But I don't need much more.

Everyone else does.

My greatest doubt was because of the Frizgerald_Lorentz contraction.

(FItzgerald found it before Lorentz, stating it on half a page in nature magazine (mid 1800s)).

What puzzled me, was SR was based purely on math, & 2 assumptions.

(Please Note: The (average) light_speed c is a constant (that varries),

but that is not what everyone believes.

Unfortunately,

Everyone has been brainwashed to believe it's constant &/or only 1_way,

although experimentally we cannot measure that speed in only 1 direction.)

Einstein had many opponents, but his popularity won

even though he was not always right & made mistakes.*

Gerocke 1926 gave ~5 examples of different c speeds for different years,

even noticeable in different old volumes (= book, years) of the CRC Handbook of Physics & Chemistry.

So we know, c is not constant, (even nasa measures the speed of light to the moon daily, sometimes)

& the best we can measure, is only an average.

Well if it's only an average, what gets done in 1 direction,

gets undone during the return direction (speed up vs slow down).

How can you measure an ether speed when differences cancel out?

 

Einstein also said he wouldn't use the ether,

because he didn't need it (for his calculations).

Many (wrongly) believe he threw it away, but that's not true.

In Lyden 1922 he said we need it, & the ether was like a sea of frozen photons.

(Please remember, solids' atoms will still wiggle at room temperature because of heat.

But they are roughly in the same place.).

The 2 assumptions were: constant speed c, & the Fitzgerald_Lorentz contraction,

He then fudged everything to keep c constant.

Meters shrunk (got smaller), & time dialated (got larger).

 

Now:

Imagine 2 rockets travelling away from each other at light speed.

Each capitan looks at the other & shouts:

"Hey! Your clock is going slower than mine; but mine is ok (it's running normal)!"

Each denies (the other's accusation). Why? (Optical delusion?)

 

Anyway,

Lorentz worked on relativity,

& had 19 of the 20 terms of GR finished in1904,

1 year before Einstein ever began SR.

 

Lorentz flew over "time" too quickly as uninteresting,

& Einstein devoted a good chunk of theory, to time.

 

But the way I see it, is

we're only talking about time "delays",

(of synchonization (he called simultaneous))

thru the (large) distance of space,

instead of dilation

It's really not complicated,

(& suppose to be)

more like an echo delay calculation.

He was actually talking about obvious things

but didn't have it all clear in his head.

At least that's my opinion that makes more sense (to me),

considering Einstein chucked (=threw) out his own (SR) theory.

(=We finally have a continuum, from start to finish.)

 

Much of your last post is so scattered I can't make any sense of it.

It reads like random thoughts thrown together without any effort to apply a logical sequence to your post

Yes, way too many thoughts come at the same time,

so it's difficult for me to keep track of everything

getting it all into slow (hacker infested) computers

on time, before I forget.

It's a problem,

& you are not prepared for a brief comment

of many different things. I just fly thru as many as I can.

It takes me almost half a day just to get that far for only 1 post.

It's a race against time.

I also have health issues (causing problems),

that is difficult to control (& it's an experiment too).

 

Although it is evident that your math skills may be lacking on the relations involved.

In particular the choice of coordinate systems.

Yes. Quite obvious. I prefer algebra, & xyz.

1 set(up) (well used) is better than none (or poorly used);

2 sets or more would be redundant for my needs (maybe),

just to try to comprehend nature.

Unless you have some tips (quick)?

 

*1 of his 1905 papers also wrongly comments electromagnetism,

(e.g. the motor's rotor vs stator principle),

that it is only a 1 direction effect

although it is bidirectional.

E.g. We can either have the magnetic field static or moving,

instead of only static.

 

So he used the most unacceptable (=unbelieveable) arguement

of his time

(that were state of the art, but wrong)

to get attention & popularity.

 

Maybe, it was a surprise attack?

A distraction,

to get his main ideas thru.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Capiert

[Mordred]

You definitely have numerous misconceptions on Einstein vs SR. He didn't throw out SR. SR is perfectly valid in Euclidean space.

 

It's been incorporated into GR, and is an essential aspect within GR which is designed to handle curvature.

[MigL]

Wow ! OoooooK...

 

You seem to think you know a lot about Einstein and scientific history.

SR was not discarded by Einstein, but was a precursor to his groundbreaking work with GR.

As a matter of fact, if Einstein hadn't published in 1905, chances are good Poincaire would have presented a working version of SR within 5 to 10 yrs, as he was that close.

His work with GR, however would probably have taken 50 to 100 yrs to equal ( if ever ), as there was no-one even remotely close to what he accomplished with curved space-time geometries.

 

I suggest re-reading his 1905 paper.

While it may be more limited in scope of applications, it is by no means redundant.

[swansont]

[The problem is, you, (like too many) believe everything your professors say,

even if it is not true. Or am I being too rude?]

 

Even if this were true, why should anyone believe what you say? At least a professor has credibility and deserves the benefit of doubt. You're just spewing unsupported nonsense.

 

 

For example, you say this

So we know, c is not constant, & the best we can measure, is only an average.

ut give no actual supporting evidence that it's true. There's no science to discuss, or rebut.

[Capiert]

You definitely have numerous misconceptions on Einstein vs SR.

I don't see them as misconceptions,

I see them as my evaluation of him.

This website also evaluates us whether they are correct or not,

in an effort to get closer to dealing with the person.

You can not forbid me from the impressions I become, & expect me to accept that.

I thought it is a free country, away from communism & brainwashing propaganda.

I want to think for myself & come to my own conclusion (=be the judge of it myself).

Not everything that is said is true, but also not everything that is said, the opposite.

 

He didn't throw out SR.

Yes he did.

You've obviusly missed the post from 2016 05 10 19:14 (17:14 PM)

That would mean you have the misconceptions.

 

SR is perfectly valid in Euclidean space.

Perfect? Hmm, with that math? I have my doubts.

Sorry.

 

It's been incorporated into GR, and is an essential aspect within GR which is designed to handle curvature.

What type of curvature do you mean? Also perfect?

 

Even if this were true,

and it is

why should anyone believe what you say?

That's a good question.

Believe it or not

belief is not knowing,

(it is an emotional state

with nothing to do with the facts (=logic))

it's assuming,

based on "thin" air.

We mix the facts (with emotion, as we please).

A sensible person would react to different ideas,

because they know the weaknesses

of what they possess.

But a self sufficient person would ignore with disinterest

because it does not improve their situation.

Only when that is at stake is there interest in what they are suppose to do. (Improvement.)

Otherwise NO motivation,

& that's a barrier for others.

You don't get complaints for no reason.

There is a reason!

 

If you want to know,

you go to the original texts

& read them like Einstein said (=recommended),

instead of professing what everybody does NOT know!

 

At least a professor has credibility

NOT anymore considering the proliferation of wrong material!

But I can close an eye.

 

and deserves the benefit of doubt.

What benefit are you talking about?

Now I consider the students deserve that instead!

(Maybe the wrong ones are perhaps, in the wrong place from disinterest & lack of attention.

They have not been schooled well enough.)

 

You're just spewing unsupported nonsense.

Where is it not supported? Where & what is non_sense, may I ask please?

I can not force you to read (e.g. Einstein), if you don't want to.

It's not my job to read for you.

I can (try to) point you in the right direction,

but (if you believe, without knowining, then nobody can help you

because your emotions have taken over,

not allowing you to, thus producing your foolish ration,

& then it's your choice (per whim) which way you go.

We all make mistakes, we'll all failable, & egoists!

 

I know how foolish students are! They become professors,

thinking they know everything they've studied!

Not all though. We're here for a good time not a long time.

 

For example, you say thisut give no actual supporting evidence that it's true.

I'm sorry I can not decipher that small typo. What is thisut? Please clarify.

 

There's no science to discuss, or rebut.

Are you sure? Edited May 13, 2016 by Capiert

[Capiert]

Your method of posting great walls of text is not helping you communicate.

Yes your website does not allow me

to update, correct modify & improve

my past posts,

as my texting & programing

get familiar (to me)

& improve.

 

Perhaps arrangements can be made,

for the benefit of the readers?

 

Typos (& errors) are a disgrace, I know.

 

I only want to be understood.

Okay, we understand our motion as a curve on space-time. This is fine.I am not sure I follow you. We have a local inertial frame for which we can consider ourselves at rest.We can have many such local frames as long as they are close to us and comoving.No idea what this means.I have no idea what you mean by this.It may help if you learned some of this 'complicated perspective' first.

I see the universe constructed differently from you.

Inertial, is resistance to motion (an oversimplified explaination).

 

I see it as straight line motion, (Newton's 1st law)

but for 3 axii, xyz,

there are (really) 6 directions (of motion), i.e.

forth,

& back included.

Physicists ignore that,

as trivial (mundane etc).

But "minus -" is angle 180 degree (rotation).

Plus +, has 2 meanings,

1 for addition,

& the 2nd for angle (rotation).

You multiply polarity to add angles.

i=(-)^0.5, =90 degrees.

i*i=90 + 90 degrees, =180 degrees, =i^2, =(-) (polarity, angle) =-1 (factor)

i^3=270 degrees

i^4=360 degrees =(-)*(-) (that's minus multiplied by minus, angles), =(-)^2 (that's minus squared).

You use 2 sticks (horizontal "-" (minus) & vertical, as cross(ed) symbol) for plus "+",

for "positive" (=360 degree) angle.

But that "positive" is really "minus squared"

if you want to reverse it (=the math)

in order to thoroughly track (=follow)

it (throughout the universe).

 

A dimension, is bidirectional,

but Newtonion (=inertial)

is only single direction.

 

Changing direction (=angle)

needs energy (input)

(which is also momentum (related))

mom=E/va.

 

So, 6 directions

can describe,

the 3 axii (too).

 

Each is related by 90 degrees

but those are also each

very specific rotation angles

(which you are familiar to as curl cross_products).

There is a very specific angle structure,

it is not random

so (that) any angle can (NOT) do.

It must be the right 1.

Thus the math must be tracked

for those (exact) angle (directions),

which I believe you use tensors

for producing=creating

that (angle(s) direction(s))

& polar lengthes info.

 

So, it is possible

to follow (=track)

(length) measurements (& their direction=orientation, in space)

of anything (like houses, & buildings)

as the earth rotates

during the day.

 

Why all the hassel?

 

Because of the electromagnetic

right hand rule

for motors & generators

is fixed (=non_swappable)

for energy in

vs energy (coming) out

from your (electrical) machines. (e.g. Matter).

 

The universe has a very definite "structure"

which many physicists

have wrongly rejected

as the ether.

 

They believe

there is nothing there, (as vacuum),

but to me it looks like substance.

It (=vacuum) has no molecules (atom)

because most have been removed,

but it does seem somewhat

like fluid water

under certain conditions

that I perceive.

That is only my impression.

 

I would not be a classic physicist (no calc),

without (it=ether).

 

Although, we rotate with the earth,

I suspect

there is an absolute axis (in the universe)

on which everything

is calibrated (to)

or "scaled". (An important word if you ignore physicists', definition, scalar.)

& if that exists

(as a structure)

then it will have

(different) properties

(as a Barrier (change), surface).

 

With Pythagorus's law

we know how much the conversions (of length) are,

between the 3D's axii as x,y,z.

 

The (math) integrations of a quarter circle (part of a circumference)

produces a fraction of Pi.

 

So Pi is a (very) very special number

for multi_dimension structure.

It's sort of the glue(ing number)

between them

for area, &/or volume.

It (=Pi) doesn't seem so simple or empty to me,

as only a (strange, non integer) number.

It seems to be working (dynamically, corresponding=communicating

between the dimensions actively)

but what we get (mathematically, as 3.14..)

is only a (truncated simplified) final result.

It's (=Pi is) always shapining up (varrying, within tolerances),

constantly changing slightly

like anything thermal.

It's still convenient,

that we can have (it=Pi as)

such a simple approximation

as only 1 symbol,

&/or wierd number.

 

There is a lot in it,

& it is the key

to the dimensions (structure, construction

of the universe).

Edited May 14, 2016 by Capiert

[swansont]

NOT anymore considering the proliferation of wrong material!

You keep claiming it's wrong, but have offered up no evidence that it's wrong. Just your assertion. That's not nearly enough.

[ajb]

Capiert I do not understand much of what you are saying. I am not sure how to help you with your thinking.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Capiert, start making sense and complying with the rules of this forum, or this is being closed.