Intoscience

Why are so many people insistent on stating Einstein being wrong? I never understand this. Interesting that all these crackpots over the past 100 years have not yet produced a testable theory that shows "the flaw/s" in SR & GR. I don't know the detailed workings of relativity but I know enough to grasp the basic ideas & principles and they make perfect sense to me. I guess maybe its the difficulty in resolving the relationship between quantum gravity and GR why so many people throw their arms up proclaiming Einstein to be wrong, even though the vast majority who do so haven't a clue on either theory in the first place. Depends on your point of view, however I believe that if something is objectively testable and the results predictable & repeatable in all experiments, then one and maybe all can agree at that time that that something is "true". You may however improve on the detail and discover that the truth you have established previously has evolved since. For example Newton formulated his theory of gravity and his theory states that masses attract each other, he developed a mathematical model to prove this and this model, the force of gravity, still holds truth even today. Einstein came along and showed that although masses are "attracted" to each other the reason they do is down to the geometry of spacetime. He produced a mathematical model to prove this which still holds true to this day. Obviously this all depends on you definition of "true" but I think when teaching you can only go off what you currently know to be true based on verified experimental evidence.

Yeah, I think its the lack of understanding of why the math is important. Some people assume they can produce scientific models based purely on idea. They are either ignorant to, or choose to be so, the fact that theories require verification through experiment and prediction. I have plenty of ideas and personal theories about many things but they are and will remain just that, unless someone smarter than me comes up independently with something similar and a verifiable model to prove it. However, I don't ever hold out much hope or expect such, since with my limited knowledge I'm sure most if not all of my ideas would prove to be easily falsifiable to begin with, by experts in the scientific community .

I wasn't criticising your initial response (though I do see it could be interpreted that way). It was a genuine question, since I'm currently involved with a large project at my works where we are looking at changing fuel source from natural gas to a similar alternative. Hydrogen being the leading present option, one I'm personally not all that convinced about. Mainly for the reasons given in this thread so far. However there seems to be a lot of talk around "alternative" fuels and especially to replace fossil fuels. What are the current most realistic alternatives?

Oh the Irony... never mind. Beliefs don't really have anything to do with science. You have been allowed the freedom of speech and had the opportunity to present your ideas and then been asked to back them up with actual scientific evidence. This is the scientific method, so why would you expect anything different on a science forum, discussing with actual scientists? All you have demonstrated so far is an ignorance to actual real science, then thrown insults when being called out, rather than defending your position respectfully and politely using evidence that can be scrutinised then either accepted or rejected based on experiment and observation.

What is back assward about changing fuels from diesel to hydrogen?

Sometimes I wish I could leave, I've had one of those days... This all sounds rather woo woo to me, since we have no evidence that aliens exist how can we reach out? And if they/it did exist why would we have any reason to assume we would be able to communicate with them/it, or if they want to communicate, or in fact maybe not even recognise each other's existence in the first place? It's all wild speculation mostly born from imagination that has been influenced by popular sci-fi culture. Most if not all of us fall victim to this at some point or another., as my old grany used to say "some more than others".

Well no, gravity is a real effect that can both be observed/experienced, measured and modelled with a very high degree of accuracy and predictability. Whether you want to model it as a force, geometrical effect, or any other, makes no difference (provided the model is testable). You can call the effect what ever you want, non of this sways the fact that "gravity" which is a name place holder for a real phenomenon. Your idea of time & gravity has no validity until you can prove it so using a testable model. We can all imagine how things might work, we might all have our own ideas on such which may seem logical to yourself. Makes no difference unless you can model it in a way that can be independently tested and verified. Your current ideas are not even close to making any logical sense from what you are posting. So unless you can provide a model explaining how you believe it works, or rather, might supersede the current verified models, then you are in no position to argue against those that actually know what they are talking about. Again I will remind you that to argue against something that has been verified over and over and therefore is commonly accepted by the mainstream to be correct, you should at the very least educate yourself to a good level of understanding on what you are arguing against. How can you claim it is wrong when you don't even understand what you claiming against??? This in itself is illogical to begin with.

The present issue is that you are advocating that we agree with your idea and those that refute it because not only are your ideas full of errors, you refuse to show supporting evidence. At the same time telling people (scientists) on a science forum that they are the ones who are wrong! You should be looking in the mirror ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So let me try and understand your premise, what you are saying is that the future is effectively an infinite line of fixed unchangeable points and gravity is a perceived effect of travelling to those points at differencing velocities? The future doesn't have to be fixed for time to be real. I cannot fathom the relationship that you are trying to establish regarding velocity, time and gravity??? The relationships have been explained to you based on verified models, that have been established for a long time and proven to work over and over (as Markus stated). So what is it you are arguing against, and no disrespect but if ( by your own admission) you have no formal science education how can you expect to argue against those that do?? To argue against something you really need to understand what you are arguing against in the first place, would you not agree?

You can model gravity using both Newtonian (gravity as a force) or GR which models spacetime geometrically, both are the accepted models in mainstream physics. Using GR the Earth warps space-time around it like all massive objects do, the greater the mass the greater the warping. To escape this warping then an object requires a velocity, the velocity required depends on the amount of warping. An orbit happens in basic terms when the velocity and the gravity (warping) balance out, i.e. where the escape velocity is not enough to completely escape the gravitational attraction (warping), however at the same time the gravity (warping) is not great enough to pull the object all the way to the centre of mass so you kind of get an equilibrium creating an orbit. You can easily imagine this as a sort of tether between the Earth and moon, gravity being the tether. But I suspect you know this already, since you seem to play dumb when it suits, so what is the point you are trying to make? or rather what is you argument regarding time?

Do your know what an orbit is and the mechanics of how they work for bodies in outer space? Do you understand the difference between "weight" and "mass" Well if the orbital velocity of the moon slowed down to a speed where it would not then miss the earth as it falls then yeah there would be a massive impact for sure. So what causes something to "drop"? If there are no forces or force of gravity in this instance, then why and how do things attract each other? I guess I should go back to school then

Velocity & Gravity Gravity The moon is constantly falling towards the earth due to the mutual gravitational attraction, but due to its velocity it constantly "falls past" the earth. this is basically how orbits work No need for a mechanical tether, there already is one, its a force called gravity I find time and its relationships to frames all very fascinating. I wonder, when we consider motion to be a relationship between different frames does this apply also to the "motion" of vibrating subatomic particles or strings in string theory for example? So say we had a particle/string that was at true absolute zero temperature, sat in empty space with no other point of reference, and there was never any change in it's state, would the particle still experience time? How would time be measured (could it be measured) in this scenario? I'm guessing that the simple answer to this is that such a particle/string could not exist there by making the question moot?

All observers may agree that an event happens, but they may not agree on when. In other words, there is no argument that an event happens, but there is no one universal 'present' for the event.

But different frames of reference may not agree on the 'now' so which one is the "real" now? In addition, technically it could be said that we are always living in the past, since our experiences depend on information and the propagation of that information which may vary in speed and then our systems have to process that information which also has a speed associated with it. So which is the real now? A simply analogy would be for example, when you hear a clasp of thunder did it thunder right then at the very moment you heard it or did it thunder in the past?

Time is either a consequence emergent from motion or it is fundamental. Either way its a necessity for existence as we know it. Think about it this way, everything is in constant motion, all the fundamental particles, the vibrating strings (from string theory) etc... So either time emerges from motion or it is fundamental for motion to be possible. There is no getting away from it, just like you require space dimensions for physical massive objects to exist, you also require time for motion to take place. And since massive objects are made up from things that are in constant motion, then without motion those things can't exist. Thus no time = no existence (as we know it)

How is time unnecessary? much like you require at least 3 dimensions of space for 3 dimensional objects to exist, you require time for motion and/or change to exist.

There is no evidence that it is possible to travel back in time. However it is possible to travel forward in time relative to another frame of reference.

Those are tools to build models which describe what we observe, predict, verify and universally understand. So math, using different forms, is a language & tool allowing us to do science and communicate our results to each other from past to present and on to the future.

If a god can do anything then there is no sense in trying to understand how it is possible. Because if a god can do anything then it/he/she can do the impossible. If god exists, then expecting to understand god is futile. Rather than trying to understand something that is, for all intent, mythical, maybe we should spend our time trying to understand the universe around us and what we can do, if anything, that will make things better.

Well, I'm no linguist so I could not say with any conviction. All I do know is that in the area I originate from the H is dropped in the pronunciation of almost every spoken word, e.g. Have - ave Happy - appy Hate - ate How - ow

This is very common were I live. My ex partner who was from out of the area originally constantly reminded me of this. Her view was similar to mistermack's that people from the area should get a better education on the English language. However she often took it a step further, which was one of a few things that irritated me, by insinuating that all the people from this area are "thick cavemen". The use of different dialect and slang doesn't bother me, I find it quite charming.

Where I originate from the use of slang was very extensive and in that area a language all on its own. So much so that anyone who is not from the area, or very familiar with it, will really struggle to understand/interpret what is being said. Interestingly though, for the past few decades this slang is slowly being filtered out and now most (mainly the younger generation) no longer use it, perhaps just a few lingering words and phrases. When I'm in discussion with an older person who was born and still lives in the area we talk to each other in this slang. But with the younger generation I tend to revert back to mostly standard English. Like mistermack I do often find myself wincing at the incorrect use of words. I by no means speak "The Queens English", but when I hear double negatives, or the one phrase that irritates me is when people say "he borrowed me his..." I find myself frowning. Thanks for all your responses, I find the subject very interesting.

Have you ever had a situation where you find yourself trying to explain that some words in the English language are spelt the same but mean totally different things depending on the context. For example the word - wind This can mean a feature of the weather, e.g. air movement. Or to rotate something, e.g. a reel of hose. My question is, would it not make more sense to either change the spelling slightly, or create a new word? What are your experiences and opinions on the subject and also please offer other examples!

Are you thinking that a really large black hole would have such gentle curvature that its approaching zero? Sounds like the idea 'the universe is just a very large black hole' even though space appears flat.

"Telling" anyone to do anything is not a good approach for someone suffering with depression. Best to subtly/tactfully suggest or gently encourage rather than telling. The key is to get the person to realise for themselves in their own way, so they feel like they have made a positive decision for themselves or others close to them. Tricky when they currently feel like everything is pointless.