quickquestion

 

 

So you need to understand what the equations mean, what they describe, in order to get "the big picture".

 

 

No you haven't. The "proofs" you have provided on the forum have been equivalent to "Physics says that the sky is green but when I look at it, I see it is blue therefore physics is wrong". In other words, they are straw man arguments. (I assume the others in your video are similarly inane and baseless.)

What part of my video made you think the "sky is green" analogy?

 

And this is the other problem. You assume you know it all and science is wrong so you skim through complex material that needs hours or days of work. You pick out a phrase or two and misunderstand it completely.

 

For example:

 

 

 

You don't even read what people here write. That is discourteous as well unproductive.

You did the same thing. You judged my video before even getting to my equations because my Cam wasn't HD enough.

And here's the thing. I admitted I was wrong about the action and resistance thing. I admit when I am wrong, when the proof of my wrongness is certain.

Also, I read what people write. I just remembered it incorrectly.

I didn't say least resistance I stated least action

Hmm. Can you elaborate, but in such a way that I don't have to inject an Xmen mutation serum in order to understand (I never took calculus or lagrangians.)

 

The difference is due to both relative velocity and difference in gravity. (You can think of these as SR and GR, but actually GR is a more general theory that includes both effects.)

 

 

If it weren't for the curvature of space-time, then you would not fall to Earth - there would not even be a straight-line path. I tried a very simple, high-level analogy. If that doesn't work for you, I suggest you work through this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

 

There is a lot of math but I think you can get something from it, even if you skip that.

I read a bit of it, the gravitational waves sound an awful lot like aether waves to me.

But let's say, I do all of the equations, plug them into a simulation...it would just feel like I am plugging them into a simulation, creating a "reality-shell" to cover for actual reality. I wouldn't get a much deeper gaze upon reality this way.

Here is how spacetime curvature replaces Force.

 

 

In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by tve equivalent mass

A lot of greek I am not qualified to do. But I must ask you...if the distance between 2 physical points change...why must travel occur at all? In order to have the effect of an object traveling the path of least resistance, there must first be a resistance.

You don't have to do any experiments. They are done for you. See the paper. See the references therein. The experimental data is already out there.

 

At the very least, if these experiments can't discriminate between your idea and relativity, your idea should make predictions at least as good as relativity's predictions, right? If not, then your objections don't mean squat as best predictions win in science.

 

So show us that. Or maybe anything other than a vidya and stories. This is a science forum, after all. How about actually doing some science?

I disproved Einstein on a fundamental, logical level. If you believe my error is so obvious, then point out at what stage of the video I have made an error. For example, if you disagree with one of my sims, tell me what equation did I need to put in the sim and why. If you disagree with one of my paradoxes, then point out what part of the paradox you disagreed with.

But don't expect me to debate you using chains of complex equations I have never heard, that's no fair.

For example, if I build a Go-kart, and it uses Square Wheels, you wouldn't expect me to debate hundreds of complex Phd level equations in order to explain why my go-kart isn't working. Keep it earthly.

 

 

Why do you always insist you are right, even when you are talking about things you don't understand. It is very frustrating.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exponential_equation

My apologies.

I shall reformulate my question as:

How does an equation with a variable with exponent, return the same results as a linear equation.

I accept it does this, but I do not understand why.

Physics is the lanquage of mathematics. No physics theory exists without the mathematics. How can any model make a prediction without the mathematics?

How can any model make the precision, the precision you mean.

I can make a firearm or car using pure logic.

But to build a Buggatti Veyron, I'm gonna need to up my math game.

 

 

You "see" the curvature as the effect we call "gravity".

 

 

2.Yes it does. Which is why GPS satellites have to compensate for it.

 

 

3.I have no idea where you get that from. Why not try and learn, instead of making up nonsense.

3.I am trying to learn this theory, even though I don't believe it really, because it is interesting to me. But it is difficult because my fragile human mind needs to see it to believe it.

2. Now I thought GPS time was different solely due to their longitudal velocity (SR). But you are saying it is because of both SR and GR that their clock is different?

1. I don't see gravity as a curvation. It looks more like a straight line path.

Now as to why this is the case is another matter. You might argue that women are naturally wired to be focused more on their children and future as a protector and rational thinker as a way to ensure theirs and their children's survival. This is a wild guess but it might be so.

Lord Antares,

Are you saying Physics is Irrational.

Could you expand on this? Because it comes across as ridiculous.

 

Lord Antares and Raider, I'll respond to your posts later today.

If the evolutionary niche was not to build houses and weapons, then it does not make sense that they would suddenly transcend their niche.

But if house building and weaponing was common in ancient females, then their lack of STEM influence must solely be the result of social limiters.

The third factor being, the cross-sexualization of the specie, the transition and cross-role switching of males and females. If females are inherently out of their niche, then due to cross-sexualization (trans-sexualization genetic and social factors) then the females may find themselves further and further adept at traditionally male roles.

Ok lets explain spacetime curvature. It is not space is curved.

 

What it really describes is a set of mathematical relations in terms of differential geometry. The mathematical relations it is mapping is freefall motion. After all GR is all about kinematic motion.

 

Lets try a different tact. Take a thermometers and measure the rise in temperature of water as you heat it. With the exception of the phase changes you have a linear relation.

 

Spacetime curvature is just that. A set of relations done in terms of geometry.

 

Another example is universe curvature in Cosmology. It is not saying that the universe is flat in terms of its volume.

 

It is specifically describibg the density evolution of the universe over time.

 

Physics is based upon math, 90% of its descriptions are mathematical in nature spacetime curvature is no exception.

I thought physics, was based on physics, physical space. Though the effect of gravity is tangible, I am not sure the space-time explanation is satisfactory.

I am trying to understand why a piece of non-existentent differential geometry will accelerate me to earth. But lets say for the sake of argument, that the geometry exists. Why would it generate a force upon me.

Reality, yes, let's get back to that. Again, when are we going to see a comparison between whatever predictions you make and reality? E.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 Stories and YouTube videos and words are all meaningless. Show us that your predictions are better than relativity's. Full stop.

My experiments are not possible with the current technology. But I may think of some which may be more feasible. And yes I don't think GPS is a hoax, but there obviously must be a rational explanation of why satellites seem to age slightly less. Time-travel, the least rational explanation in my humble opinion, or at least used to be before Einstein.

 

Yes it is - you are using the wrong value for v.

 

 

 

 

As he has a further degree in physics and this is first year school physics I reckon he is right too.

 

 

There is no exponential equation there. x^2 is not exponential. 5^x is exponential

 

Learn some basic maths and basic physics - it is well worth it. Many people here will help - but fewer will help if you pretend great knowledge and then demonstrate great ignorance

^2 is an exponent. Therefore it is exponential.

If I draw a graph of x^2 it will be non-linear.

Also, my equation was not wrong, my equation input was wrong. An equation does not care what input you put into it, it is a nonliving entity.

There are two options.

1. In primitive times, females built the huts and houses, and the weapons.

2. In primitive times, females did not build the huts and houses, and the weapons.

If 1. is correct, there is no biological reason why females are not filling Stem fields today.

Like I said forget eather think in terms of fields and their interactions and you will be able to make sense of relativity. All fields contribute to mass. When you fully comprehend it Spacetime curvature is simply the sum of all field interactions. Electromagnetic/strong/weak/Higgs etc.

Not sure I fully comprehend my own aether theory yet, let alone my rivals theory that I don't fully understand, yet understand enough to note a few paradoxes. Because the theory has paradoxes, it may not actually be possible for me to ever understand it, since by definition, a paradox, or set of logical contradictions, cannot be understood.

 

 

It doesn't have a density. It is just a set of measurements; in other words, geometry.

 

 

That doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

Here is an analogy that might help.

 

Imagine two people standing a few feet apart at the equator. They then start walking due North. As they go, they will gradually get closer together (look at the lines of longitude to see why). There is no force, but they are effectively drawn together.

 

1. In this analogy, the lines of longitude represent the time dimension (everything moves along that). 2. The presence of mass cause curvature of space-time that causes things to get closer together as they move forward in time.

1. True, everything moves through time. 2. Here's the part I'm not getting. You say mass causes a curvature in space-time. But I see no curvature in either space, or time. Time does not slow down as well fall to earth. Nor does space curve as well fall to earth. If space time was curved, and our forward motion would cause our descent, then a rock thrown vertically, would leave the bounds of the atmosphere.

Yes two light beams can interfere with each other. A strong enough light beam can also generate gravity. All forms of energy can.

But by interefere do you mean that they can reduce each other's velocity?

1.correct hence no rest mass all particles are field excitations not bullet like objects. The photon is no exception. A field can and does have medium like properties but is not a medium.

 

2.By the way how can the thermodynamic laws be too early to prove your model that is trying to overturn estsablished and well tested physics? GR takes the thermodynamic laws and utilizes them in its field equations?

1. Hmm this goes along with my aether, that light is just a field excitation of the aether field.

2. My theory is too incomplete to make any thermodynamic conclusions. Einstein spent more time on it and was probably more savant than me, so he had more time to refine and make his theory match the data. Sort of like how Plato did with his theory of 5 shapes...impressive to the greeks but doesn't mean it is actually a model of reality.

Light has no rest mass it still has inertial mass

All of the above can be answered if you stop to think.

 

1.Take an electric field for example. Have you ever heard the term "propogation delay" ie you can slow down signals via an electromagnetic field?

 

2.Mass is "resistance to inertia change"

 

3.Spacetime is a geometry that describes freefall motion. Fields can and do interact and interfere with kinematic motion via their respective coupling constants

1."Propogation rate and propogation delay" were terms I planned to associate with my pet aether theory. But about EM fields, there are some options. Maxwell said Light itself is an electromagnetic field. So if I put Light in the opposite direction of another light, will it reduce each other's speed? Also, magnets. Magnets are a field which has been proven to have an effect on electric fields.

2. True.

3. Spacetime is drawn as dimensionally incorrect (like Picasso or topography.) So let me ask you this, is Spacetime supposed to be denser the closer you get to a planet, or less dense? Either way, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because if gravity was a result of an abberation in Time itself, then time should be radically different in gravitational fields. What makes more sense to me, is that Spacetime is just a metaphor/analogy for Aether, and that objects move to less dense zones (less dense Aether near earth, so they fall to Earth).

I am still trying to figure out why "Spacetime" would cause a force to occur in the first place.

Light has no rest mass it still has inertial mass

Ok but have we ever observed light resting? I thought it automatically travelled at or near C at all times.

For one thing its obvious from that video you absolutely no idea how time dilation works. If you did understand it then you would realize it makes perfect sense.

 

The problem is you refuse to take the time to understand how it works within field theory.

 

Start with mass give the proper definition of mass?

 

Forget all this garbage about an ether and replace ether with fields. Now setup a global field metric using mass density (you can use the Einstein field equations for this setup)

 

then setup your mass distribution, fire lasers through different mass density regions will that laser travel the same rate? absolutely not.

 

Secondly it is impossible to have a static Eather in a vacuum that is dragged by the Earth without being detectable via redshift. Or for that matter having zero thermodynamic temperature influence aka friction itself

If space is a vacuum, then what is the point of science supporting Tepler's idea of using a rotating large cylinder to warp space.

If space is nothing, then what is the stuff being warped and moved by the cylinder.

Now for the time being, lets forget about aether just for sake of debate. Can you salvage Einstein's theory after i tried to defeat it with paradoxes 1.2.3. and 4. in the video? As well as both experiments 1 and 2? Aether was not a key requirement for those points.

Secondly it is impossible to have a static Eather in a vacuum that is dragged by the Earth without being detectable via redshift. Or for that matter having zero thermodynamic temperature influence aka friction itself

 

Now, you have to be more specific.

Vacuum dragged by Earth? I don't understand. Aether is not a vacuum.

It is too early in the game to talk about thermodynamics at this stage. All I can say is...mainstream science says "Light has no mass...yet has thermodynamic influence as well as influenced by gravity"...Seems like these rules are fairly mysterious and flexible.

Start with mass give the proper definition of mass?

 

Mass shouldn't matter in this context, because according to Einstein time dilation is the same regardless of mass (except in the sense that apparently you can't reach c if you have mass.)

 

Forget all this garbage about an ether and replace ether with fields. Now setup a global field metric using mass density (you can use the Einstein field equations for this setup)

 

then setup your mass distribution, fire lasers through different mass density regions will that laser travel the same rate? absolutely not.

 

This is getting off track, but yes laser will travel slower through different mass regions. But this does not directly prove or directly disprove my points.

And I shouldn't have to load some questionable video that may or may not be hazardous to my computer. Especially one where you quickly move your camera across the pertinant text from some book.

 

Take it from a professional cosmologist all your video does is show how little you understand. Not trying to be insulting but if you wish to prove Eather of any form and Einstein wrong this video doesn't even come close and yes I watched it all

Could you explain why.

Also it is a standard youtube video, none of which are known to be hazardous to any computer.

insufficient post your formulas and calcs here. I should not need to go outside this forum to get answers on a speculation model

youtube should work embedded in the forums, at least it is so on my browser.

in the video there is dynamic simulations.

what you are suggesting is somewhat absurd. it would be like having an engineering class, but i am forbidden to use a marker on whiteboard, powerpoint or show enginnering videos and simulations.

Its like where IP man is fighting that British guy but IP starts winning, and they tell him kicking is against the rules. But that is how IP naturally teaches and fights. You are denying me my style and what I need to succeed.

How about simply following the criteria of our forum rules in speculations 9n mathematical rigor?

My video is math and text.

Math..and text, and some video simulations.

A professor teaches using a lecture and powerpoint. My video is like a Powerpoint presentation. You can't simply say PowerPoint is not allowed.

This is my style of teaching. You cant demand that I simply change my style and hand out papers to students. I teach via a certain way that is needed.

No, it is not sarcasm.

I'm a male.

I was circumcised.

And honestly, I think uncircumcised penises look disgusting. And I wasn't taught that. I stumbled upon a picture of one and I thought there was something wrong.

Obviously, positions would probably be reversed if I hadn't been circumcised.

But I could care less.

Actually, that's wrong. I'm glad I was circumcised.

And female circumcision is not the same thing. So go to health class. It's barbaric. Male circumcision is much safer and has actual benefits(I admit, tiny almost non-existent ones) compared to female circumcision.

That's nice. But you are missing one important thing.

Consent.

If you get a prince albert and enjoy it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to get a prince albert.

If circumcision had no ill effects for you doesn't mean that everyone who gets it will get no ill effects.

 

 

Words can have more than one meaning, you know.

 

Gas can mean an "air-like fluid" or "a shorthand term for gasoline" or "to chase" or ...

 

People have invented a new word ("gas") because they needed something shorter than the rather long-winded gasoline. (Why they couldn't just call it petrol, like the rest of us, I don't know.)

I think calling it petrol is a good idea.

 

 

Great. Then can you present it here.

I did, which was in the video. But apparently 10 mins is too much to watch. I blame it on modern television.

 

 

It's already been pointed out to you that your equation for KE is wrong.

 

Also, an object dropping from rest for 1 second will fall 4.9 meters, not 9.8. (s = 1/2 gt^2) At that time it will have a speed of 9.8 m/s

 

KE = 0.5(4kg) (9.8m/s)^2 = 192 J

 

PE = (4 kg)(9.8 m/s^2)(4.9 m) = 192 J

my equation for KE is not wrong, it is the same as yours.

But I fear you are right about the acceleration.

I must ponder these equations and how a linear equation can return the same result as an exponential equation.

These are truly equations of magical proportions.

As physicists say..."the equation is beautiful."

I tried watching your video (I don't usually bother). It shows some fuzzy, handheld and illegible pictures of books and then an incomprehensible and unexplained animation of "bullets". As light doesn't behave like bullets, I don't know what it is intended to show.

 

But, basically, if you are not able to present arguments that are based on the mathematics of relativity (which you clearly aren't), then I think they can just be ignored. All you are saying (again) is: "I don't understand relativity so I am going to make some stuff up which I think proves it wrong".

 

And, again, all this does is demonstrate your ignorance.

You are demonstrating your ignorance if that is the only thing that you got from my video.

I shall take it to other forums then, if my video is seemingly beyond your comprehension.

PS: There was math in my video.

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for, the Relativity movie.

I actually realize a gif wouldn't be enough to list all my points. I also laid out the equations I used in case anyone wants to challenge my points.

You have to defeat all of my major points in order to put Einstein in the clear. For instance, point 2. of mine may be somewhat weak, but you have to also destroy points 1,3, and 4. For instance, if you disprove simulation 1, but not simulation 2, my argument still stands.

 

 

Then why not just use the equations.

Physical locations of objects will be in the gif. It will be a multimedia. The more physical it is, the better it is. People can argue about equations all day. but it is tough to argue with a clear concise physical representation.

 

I'm going to wager that Janus's numbers are correct, based on a long history of getting it right. You might consider that yours are wrong. They look made-up to me, and more so when your conclusion is that different observers see different results, which is not possible with the self-consistent mathematics in relativity. IOW, you can't just say one thing happens at one time, and another thing happens at another time, based on a whim. That's not science. That's argument by rectal retrieval.

einstein litterally says object's speed changes their time.

time, is the rate of behavior and change of objects.

my argument is that relativity changes aging, but not time.

the gif will make this clear.

For that to make sense you would have to produce a GIF of the neurons in your brain failing to understand physics.

Sadly, I fear this will remain "in principle".

A famous person once said "If the first time you hear of quantum physics, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

I modify this quote and say "If the first time you hear of einstein's relativity, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

 

 

But you have the wrong value for v. How did you calculate it?

Why do you assume that v=9.8 m/s? It isn't. v=13.9 m/s (sqrt(192) from Imatfaals post)

Ok that is the thing i'm not getting.

if acceleration is 9.8 m/s, then shouldn't v be 9.8 m/s?

it takes 1 second to move 9.8 m/s.

therefore velocity is 9.8 m/s.