Jump to content
Drakes

relative motion (split from Switching frames Lorentz transform.)

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Drakes said:

You can live your entire life imagining and never get anywhere, in fact lots of people do this quite well.  Imagine what Einstein could really have achieved if he ever put his pencil down got out of his chair and did a real experiment like Von Braun instead of just imagining.  At one time the Earth was flat because one could clearly see the edge where the ocean fell off, it took men with logs and sails to eventually never reach the edge and the spherical Earth was discovered.  You can only go so far with a pencil then you have get up and test ones findings.  Einstein is not and never was a God, his math told him that the Universe was not expanding, perhaps that math was right and Hubble's is wrong.

 

We all want to know, however none of us does, in fact we know exactly the same as to what we are as the first Neanderthal did.  Sad but true.  The speeds I mentioned were not imagined they were calculated.

 

What is the imaginary power source for your imaginary space suit to keep you from freezing solid?  

WE also do not typically when thinking logically of piston movement lay train tracks into space.  Screw the fucking thought experiment unless the thought is how to actually get there.  If you wanna keep rehashing cats in a box go ahead, my thoughts go in one direction forward

Good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drakes said:

What is the imaginary power source for your imaginary space suit to keep you from freezing solid?  

Another irrelevant dead-end argument.
Why change now ?

I have told you,, and you can easily look it up, inertial and non-inertial frames date back to Galileo; why do you keep mentioning Einstein ?
As to E Hubble vs A Einstein, of course E Hubble is correct.
He made observations; how can he be wrong ?

Must be nice to live in your world, where you know very little, but think you have all the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Drakes said:

At one time the Earth was flat because one could clearly see the edge where the ocean fell off

Anyone who could see the sea, was well aware that the Earth was not flat. In fact, through history, very few people have believed the Earth was flat.

21 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Einstein is not and never was a God, his math told him that the Universe was not expanding, perhaps that math was right and Hubble's is wrong.

Actually, his math told him the universe was expanding. But as there was no evidence for that, he added a factor to keep it static. Hubble never accepted the universe was expanding, despite the law named after him and Lemaitre (who came up with the first model of the expanding universe using the red-shift data).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Anyone who could see the sea, was well aware that the Earth was not flat. In fact, through history, very few people have believed the Earth was flat.

Actually, his math told him the universe was expanding. But as there was no evidence for that, he added a factor to keep it static. Hubble never accepted the universe was expanding, despite the law named after him and Lemaitre (who came up with the first model of the expanding universe using the red-shift data).

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html#:~:text=Hubble showed Einstein photographic plates,a phenomena phenomenon called redshift.&text=However%2C Nussbaumer argues%2C Einstein was,Hubble as common lore holds.

However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing.

On February 4, Einstein gave a seminar about astronomy where he mentioned the work of the astronomers at the Wilson Observatory. He commended their work, but was conservative about how their observations might affect his equations, speculating that likely the universe was still static, but he might have to refigure his equations slightly.

 

Except Einstein wasn't so impressed. His diary from that time period hardly mentions Hubble at all. A week later when he was at another seminar, this one specifically on redshifted galaxies he offered a much more nuanced and qualified view. He said it could be an expanding universe, or from a universe that expanded and contracted, or perhaps even that distant light got "tired" and redder the farther it traveled. His beliefs were starting to change, but it was hardly the instant conversion often talked about. When asked how he could explain the redshifts, he said "I don't know the answer."

 

History 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Drakes said:

There is also no way to be still which is what I said originally. 

There is no way to be still in an absolute, universal sense,  But you can always find a reference frame that you, or whatever else you want to consider, is at rest relative to, and that all that needed.

 

1 hour ago, Drakes said:

You can live your entire life imagining and never get anywhere, in fact lots of people do this quite well.  Imagine what Einstein could really have achieved if he ever put his pencil down got out of his chair and did a real experiment like Von Braun instead of just imagining.  At one time the Earth was flat because one could clearly see the edge where the ocean fell off, it took men with logs and sails to eventually never reach the edge and the spherical Earth was discovered.  You can only go so far with a pencil then you have get up and test ones findings.  Einstein is not and never was a God, his math told him that the Universe was not expanding, perhaps that math was right and Hubble's is wrong.

Einstein did have an different way of approaching a problem.  Instead of starting with an observation or experimental result and attempting to explain it, he would start from basics principles and would see where they naturally took took him.  Often it led him to the same results as the observation/experiment.

But the fact that Einstein wasn't an experimenter himself means nothing, as he knew that other could and would perform the experiments/observations needed to confirm or disprove his theories.  All he needed to do was to show them where they needed to look and what they should look for.

Nobody is now or has ever elevated Einstein to "Godhood".  People tested his theory from the get go, and continue to do so to this day.  They do this in order to see if it fails at some point, and if so, where and how.  Einstein is revered because he "with just his pencil" and little experimental evidence to go on, came up with an entirely new way to view time and space, and one that has survived every experimental challenge thrown at it to date.  I is one thing to take existing experimental data and come up with an explanation for it, it is an entirely other thing to be able to start from basic principles, and not only explain existing experiments, but to accurately predict the outcome for experiments yet to be made for another 100 yrs. ( one of his predictions was the existence of gravitational waves, something that has just recently proven to exist by experiment.)

As far as the expansion of the universe is concerned,  when Einstein published GR in 1915, it wasn't even clear if the "universe" extended beyond our own galaxy.  It wasn't until 1923, that observations of Cepheid variables finally confirmed that the Andromeda nebula was in fact a galaxy in it own right, distant and separate from our galaxy.  A static universe was the accepted view of the time, and Einstein was just trying to make his theory consistent with this.  Later, when observations showed otherwise, he admitted himself that it was his "biggest blunder".  Ironically, his "biggest blunder" happened due to trying to force his theory to fit with accepted "wisdom", rather than letting it stand on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Janus said:

There is no way to be still in an absolute, universal sense,  But you can always find a reference frame that you, or whatever else you want to consider, is at rest relative to, and that all that needed.

 

Einstein did have an different way of approaching a problem.  Instead of starting with an observation or experimental result and attempting to explain it, he would start from basics principles and would see where they naturally took took him.  Often it led him to the same results as the observation/experiment.

But the fact that Einstein wasn't an experimenter himself means nothing, as he knew that other could and would perform the experiments/observations needed to confirm or disprove his theories.  All he needed to do was to show them where they needed to look and what they should look for.

Nobody is now or has ever elevated Einstein to "Godhood".  People tested his theory from the get go, and continue to do so to this day.  They do this in order to see if it fails at some point, and if so, where and how.  Einstein is revered because he "with just his pencil" and little experimental evidence to go on, came up with an entirely new way to view time and space, and one that has survived every experimental challenge thrown at it to date.  I is one thing to take existing experimental data and come up with an explanation for it, it is an entirely other thing to be able to start from basic principles, and not only explain existing experiments, but to accurately predict the outcome for experiments yet to be made for another 100 yrs. ( one of his predictions was the existence of gravitational waves, something that has just recently proven to exist by experiment.)

As far as the expansion of the universe is concerned,  when Einstein published GR in 1915, it wasn't even clear if the "universe" extended beyond our own galaxy.  It wasn't until 1923, that observations of Cepheid variables finally confirmed that the Andromeda nebula was in fact a galaxy in it own right, distant and separate from our galaxy.  A static universe was the accepted view of the time, and Einstein was just trying to make his theory consistent with this.  Later, when observations showed otherwise, he admitted himself that it was his "biggest blunder".  Ironically, his "biggest blunder" happened due to trying to force his theory to fit with accepted "wisdom", rather than letting it stand on its own.

The math requires 85 more energy and mass then exist. Much like getting a 100 megaton nuclear explosion from a firecracker, it doesn't happen, no matter how many times you try or how many thought experiments you do.  So the math is wrong or the Universe is wrong and the Universe is not subject to fallible human interpretation or blunders.

 

 

Edited by Drakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Drakes said:

The math requires 85 more energy and mass then exist. Much like getting a 100 megaton nuclear explosion from a firecracker, it doesn't happen, no matter how many times you try or how many thought experiments you do.  So the math is wrong or the Universe is wrong and the Universe is not subject to fallible human interpretation or blunders.

 

 

Have we jumped back to dark matter again?   If so, then what you said is again completely based on misconception.  No one claims there is more mass than exists.  Dark matter has mass. It just a type of matter with mass that doesn't participate in the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus doesn't emit, absorb, radiate, or block electromagnetic waves of any frequency. 

Despite what some people seem to think, this is not some bizarre thing.  The neutrino, an already known subatomic particle, has these properties. It is even possible that a type of neutrino, the sterile neutrino, is what makes up dark matter.

What is it that makes people that know very little about a subject feel like they are qualified to lecture others on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Drakes said:

So the math is wrong or the Universe is wrong and the Universe is not subject to fallible human interpretation or blunders.

The maths of GR make no prediction about how much mass there ‘should be’ in the universe, and of what type it is. In fact, taken in and of themselves, the maths make very few predictions at all - they are actually just a very general constraint on what forms local spacetime geometry can take. In more technical terms, this constraint is a system of coupled, non-linear partial differential equations.

The crucial thing with this is (and too many people don’t seem to realise that), in order to obtain a solution from such a system, you need to first supply a set of initial and boundary conditions; only then does a definitive solution emerge, which allows us to make quantifiable predictions. So in GR, you get out precisely what you put in. If you start with a wrong premise (e.g. the universe is static) and put in boundary conditions to that effect, the GR field equations will return a solution that is consistent with the basic workings of gravity and those boundary conditions. Complaining then that ‘GR predicted a static/expanding/contracting universe’ (e.g.) is a complete non-sequitur, because all it does is apply the basic laws of gravity to boundary conditions that we supply. If you start with flawed boundary conditions, you get a more or less unphysical solution. That doesn’t mean that GR is wrong - it means that we aren’t using it correctly. This distinction is crucial. 

So if you get a prediction that doesn’t match observations, then either one of two things can be the cause of that:

1. The boundary conditions are wrong

2. The model is wrong

You need to realise that physicists are genuinely considering both of these options seriously - dark matter would fall under (1), but at the same time there is also lots of research being done on how GR as a model could be amended to obtain the observational data without the need for anything ‘dark’. The problem here is that we know that GR works extremely well on smaller scales (on the order of our solar system), which places strong constraints on what kind of amendments one can realistically make to it, without violating experiment and observation. At present, no alternative model works as well as GR itself does, so (1) is currently the preferred option by consensus.

As a final note, we already know that GR has a limited domain of applicability, so it isn’t the most general model of gravity possible. We are just not entirely sure yet where exactly the limits are, or what a more general model will look like. This is all under investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Drakes said:

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html#:~:text=Hubble showed Einstein photographic plates,a phenomena phenomenon called redshift.&text=However%2C Nussbaumer argues%2C Einstein was,Hubble as common lore holds.

However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing.

On February 4, Einstein gave a seminar about astronomy where he mentioned the work of the astronomers at the Wilson Observatory. He commended their work, but was conservative about how their observations might affect his equations, speculating that likely the universe was still static, but he might have to refigure his equations slightly.

 

Except Einstein wasn't so impressed. His diary from that time period hardly mentions Hubble at all. A week later when he was at another seminar, this one specifically on redshifted galaxies he offered a much more nuanced and qualified view. He said it could be an expanding universe, or from a universe that expanded and contracted, or perhaps even that distant light got "tired" and redder the farther it traveled. His beliefs were starting to change, but it was hardly the instant conversion often talked about. When asked how he could explain the redshifts, he said "I don't know the answer."

 

History 101

Thanks. That seems to confirm what I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Janus said:

Have we jumped back to dark matter again?   If so, then what you said is again completely based on misconception.  No one claims there is more mass than exists.  Dark matter has mass. It just a type of matter with mass that doesn't participate in the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus doesn't emit, absorb, radiate, or block electromagnetic waves of any frequency. 

Despite what some people seem to think, this is not some bizarre thing.  The neutrino, an already known subatomic particle, has these properties. It is even possible that a type of neutrino, the sterile neutrino, is what makes up dark matter.

What is it that makes people that know very little about a subject feel like they are qualified to lecture others on it?

Wrong dark matter is absolutely nothing except a value that makes an equation correct.  Try making up values on a final exam and see if you pass because you can not complete the math and just pop in the number that makes the equation correct.

 

I triple dog dare ya, see if you make the Deans list

 

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Thanks. That seems to confirm what I said. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-made-his-share-errors-here-are-three-biggest-ncna855731

 

3. Einstein and the expanding universe

Einstein was uncomfortable with some of relativity’s implications, including one of the biggest — that the universe isn’t a static thing but an entity that must expand or contract. This was unthinkable to Einstein, who believed the universe existed in a “steady state.”

So Einstein added a fudge factor to his equations, a kind of energy associated with empty space. This cosmological constant allowed for a stable universe. But sure enough, astronomers in the 1920s confirmed that the universe was expanding. Einstein later called the cosmological constant the “greatest blunder” of his career.

Einstein's resistance to the idea of an expanding universe makes sense in light of his classical education, says Marcia Bartusiak, a science journalism professor at MIT and the author of several books on the history of physics. His schooling took place in the 1880s and 1890s, when the prevailing wisdom — based on physics going back to the work of Isaac Newton — was that the universe was static. An expanding cosmos simply "didn't fit with his view of how the universe acted," she says. But when astronomers showed Einstein the data, he came around.

“He listened to the evidence, from [astronomer Edwin] Hubble,” Bartusiak says. "He Einstein admitted his error.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Wrong dark matter is absolutely nothing except a value that makes an equation correct. 

Not true.  The equations work great.  Predictions can be made that are accurate based on them.  We can send space craft to mars based on those eqations.  When looking at the larger structures like galaxies the equations indicate there is more matter than can be seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Wrong dark matter is absolutely nothing except a value that makes an equation correct.  Try making up values on a final exam and see if you pass because you can not complete the math and just pop in the number that makes the equation correct.

 

I triple dog dare ya, see if you make the Deans list

Worked out for Wolfgang Pauli

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Wrong dark matter is absolutely nothing except a value that makes an equation correct. 

Based on observation and measurement (i.e. the way the universe is).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Not true.  The equations work great.  Predictions can be made that are accurate based on them.  We can send space craft to mars based on those eqations.  When looking at the larger structures like galaxies the equations indicate there is more matter than can be seen. 

Assuming that people know what a galaxy should be composed of or how they should move in the first place.  No one has this info, so they work out a math equation and then say the Universe is 85 percent missing.  It's also a delusional assumption to say with impunity that gravity is the same everywhere as it is on Earth as 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is unexplored, and no looking at billions of year old light does not count for exploration 

 

Edited by Drakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Drakes said:

Assuming that people know what a galaxy should be composed of or how they should move in the first place.  No one has this info, so they work out a math equation and then say the Universe is 85 percent missing.  It's also a delusional assumption to say with impunity that gravity is the same everywhere as it is on Earth as 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is unexplored, and no looking at billions of year old light does not count for exploration 

 

How are scientists delusional when they will reject any established idea in the face of new evidence? Nothing they do is written in stone. Your narcissism is showing through with thinking if you can't comprehend something, nobody can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

How are scientists delusional when they will reject any established idea in the face of new evidence? Nothing they do is written in stone. Your narcissism is showing through with thinking if you can't comprehend something, nobody can.

It is delusional at the least to say that humanity must from the Earth understand the Universe.  One thing that I can tell you for a fact, is that 85 percent of the Universe is NOT missing, 100 percent of the Universe is right where it belongs, the fact that minuscule and irrelevant humans do not Understand this fact attributes to legal sales of alcohol, cigarettes and dimwitts babbling that climate change began 150 years ago when 20000 years ago half the Earth was glaciated

 

But but but scientist say

 

Define scientist

Edited by Drakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drakes said:

It is delusional at the least to say that humanity must from the Earth understand the Universe.  One thing that I can tell you for a fact, is that 85 percent of the Universe is NOT missing, 100 percent of the Universe is right where it belongs, the fact that minuscule and irrelevant humans do not Understand this fact attributes to legal sales of alcohol, cigarettes and the cartoon network 

You really ought to learn about the concept of "metaphors".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You really ought to learn about the concept of "metaphors".

Nah I bought Apple and Google, because real science pays

Edited by Drakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drakes said:

It is delusional at the least to say that humanity must from the Earth understand the Universe.  One thing that I can tell you for a fact, is that 85 percent of the Universe is NOT missing, 100 percent of the Universe is right where it belongs, the fact that minuscule and irrelevant humans do not Understand this fact attributes to legal sales of alcohol, cigarettes and dimwitts babbling that climate change began 150 years ago when 20000 years ago half the Earth was glaciated

 

But but but scientist say

 

Define scientist

!

Moderator Note

You aren't allowed to call the things you make up "facts". Do it again while you're discussing anything here and you'll be suspended. You might want to consider going to a less rigorous science discussion forum if you want claims like this to pass unchallenged.

Thread closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.