The Proper Theory Of Relativity

[A-wal]

No, it's not. An electromagnetic field is caused by charge in the same sense that a gravitational field is caused by mass.

I think we're getting our wires crossed. Mass and energy are equivalent, the curvature caused by mass and energy are equivalent. Mass causes inward curvature pull objects towards the source. Energy causes outward curvature pushing objects away from the source. That's all I meant.

 

The problem is that you can't.

The problem is the reason that I can't. The people here, like you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. I can't win because you've already decided to disagree with what I've said before even reading it. I've been clear enough.

 

Math? Predictions? Anything even resembling evidence?

 

You're obviously not even trying to pay attention are you?

 

The bold part is dangerously close to an ad hominem.

I've had conversations with creationists where I explained that evolution happens through the process of the survival of the fittest and natural selection with disadvantageous mutations being eliminated by the fact that those carrying them are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass those genes down, while individuals with advantageous mutations are more likely to pass those genes on and that we can see the process by looking at fossils of various ages and clearly seeing the gradual change over time. None of it would sink in because they weren't even prepared to entertain the possibility. They simply had too much invested in the lie to ever admit the truth. This conversation feels exactly the same and you even use the same methods of selective avoidance and misdirection that they use.

 

More to the point, people have been picking apart all the pieces of your idea that can be picked apart, which has been the majority of it. The rest that hasn't been picked apart is usually because it has no meaning without the math to make predictions.

The majority of it? That's ridiculous! Most of hasn't been touched. I've had no meaningful explanation for the inconsistencies in gr and so far no one has been able to show that free-fall is inertial.

 

Only in the sense that they have been desperate for you to use proper terminology

I didn't think my terminology was that bad. Could I have some examples?

 

Because equations are how you make predictions. If you could communicate clearly I should be able to understand what you mean when you say this:

The problem is that this is pretty much word salad without a meaning. What is time dilated to infinity, in what way is something defying reality, what is expanding, etc.

You don't know what I mean by infinitely time dilated? FROZEN! Saying an object can reach an event horizon is defying reality because it can't be done. It's ridiculous! The event horizon of the black hole is expanding.

 

That's why equations are so important, these things would all be explained without needing to redefine every other word.

Oh not this again. I've already been through this more than enough times. The equations describing gravitational acceleration correctly are the same as the ones describing acceleration in sr because it's the same thing. That's the whole point. Equations are not important as long as you can show the mathematical relationships. I have made definite and quantitive predictions.

 

Math

Sod off! (:

 

Answering one question while contradicting hundreds of others isn't how things work. The person behind the idea has nothing to do with being wrong or right.

That's how it should work, but I think we all know it's nothing like how it actually works. Who the information is coming from is practically all that matters.

 

This is actually rather easy. It is because equations make exact predictions. And how close those predictions are to measured values is the best objective measure we have for judging how good a particular prediction is.

 

Let me make a simple example:

 

If I sat a box down in front of you and told you it was heavy, what do that mean? What is an Olympic weightlifter did the same thing? A ballet dancer? A tool booth attendant?

 

My point here is that 'heavy' has fairly different meanings depending on who is saying it. Words are inexact, fungible, and open to interpretations.

 

Look, words can be exceptionally powerful. The classics of literature are considered the classics because the authors chose their words exceptionally well and the readers are very moved reading those words. But, the classics are constantly be re-evaluated, re-interpreted, and dissected from different points of view.

 

On the other hand, if the measured force needed to lift that box above was 785 N, it is 785 N. It is not 1000 N, 100 N, or any other number other than 785 N. While an Olympic weightlifter may be able to exert 785 N a lot easier than I can, it is still 785 N.

 

And if you have two different models in front of you: model A predicts 783 N needed to lift the box and model B predicts 14 N needed to lift the box, model A is clearly superior in this instance. Model A is only a few tenths of a percent in error whereas model B is several orders of magnitude off.

 

THIS is the objective independent comparison that lets us judge these two models. There is no discussion over which model's words are better chosen, or which model is more logical, or prettier. Model A is clearly vastly superior at making predictions that conform to actual measurements. And THAT is really what science is about -- being able to predict was nature will do without actually having to measure it each and every time. e.g. our models for putting up buildings let us know how much steel to use without having to actually measure it every time.

 

We have moved past the dark ages where models were judged on how 'logical' they were, or on whose authority they were said. It once was logical to deduce the world was flat, and the moon was made of cheese. It used to be that the king or the church would declare that the bad humors inside you made you sick. Once real evidence came in, and compared with these 'predictions', they were dropped in favor of models that agreed with reality.

 

THIS is why you should 'bother to learn the equations'. So that you too can make objective predictions which can then be objectively compared to experimentally measured values, and one can see just how well your predictions agree.

 

If you make predictions with excellent agreement, I guarantee you will generate a lot of excitement in the scientific community.

You don't think it's important that a theory be logical? Oh dear! EVERYTHING is logical! The logic may be beyond us but it's always there.

 

Now that I think of it, I can actually make a useful contribution to this discussion:

 

http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/unreasonable-math.html

 

My attempt to answer the question "why should I bother with the equations?"

You lot really aren't going to shut up about the sodding equations are you? You don't even bother to acknowledge that I've already done way better than that by showing exactly where the equations come from. I made a slight error in my last post. I forgot to move a paragraph. It should have been this:

Why are you all so obsessed with equations? If I can communicate what I'm saying clearly without using them then what's the point, and what's the problem? You don't need equations to show how this works, it's very simple but you people seem intent on making it seem as complicated as you possibly can so you can try to make yourselves look clever. It's pathetic. It's either that or your brains really do work that convolutedly. You want to talk maths? Okay. An objects speed through space-time remains constant when it accelerates so its speed through time has to slow as its speed through space increases. This is also exactly describing what would happen if an object were able to reach the event horizon of a black hole because it's the same thing accept that it's an inward curve instead of outward when it's caused by mass rather than energy. Either way, when an object accelerates it follows a curved path through space-time and that's what's responsible for the difference in age between an object that has accelerated and one that stayed inertial if they meet back up afterwards. The inertial object took a longer path through space-time because they were moving in straight lines while they accelerator was taking a shortcut by following a curved path. The angle of the curve changes less dramatically as a square of the distance between time and the direction of acceleration (90 degrees for an inertial object). An object would need to be infinitely accelerated to reduce the angle to zero and would be frozen in time as the two dimensions merge into one, but that would require infinite energy. The mathematics of acceleration comes from following a curved path in a simple four dimensional geometry. Now tell me why I should bother to learn the equations.

It reads better now, and then there's this:

You can look at it as objects in flat space-time being pulled and pushed by mass and energy or you can look at it as objects following straight paths through space-time that's curved inwards by mass and outwards by energy, it makes absolutely no difference. When an object follows a curved path in two spatial dimensions it feels a force pushing it in the same two spatial dimensions in the opposite direction. The exact same thing happens when one of the dimensions is time. The object gets pushed backwards in the opposite direction in the two dimensions that the curved path is moving through, and so is being pushed backwards in time as well as space and therefore ages slower than an inertial object.

 

You can see this for yourself by drawing a simple diagram. Just draw a circle with a vertical and horizontal line going all the way through so they cross in the centre. This isn't an ordinary diagram or I wouldnt be using it. It's using two dimensions at right angle to each other to represent exactly that. We can use one of those directions to represent time because there's no real difference between space and time. The vertical line represents time and the horizontal line represents one of the three spatial dimensions. We only need one spatial dimension because you can always draw a one dimensional straight line between any two objects. Objects always move through space-time with a combined velocity of the speed of light.

 

Now use a pencil. An inertial objects path through space-time is represented by a vertical line because they're travelling through time at the speed of light and not travelling through space at all from their own perspective. Other inertial objects paths through space-time are represented by lines running parallel to the vertical line. Their distance in space is represented by its distance across the horizontal spatial line and its relative velocity is represented by its distance across the vertical temporal line. Other inertial objects moving at different relative velocities are moving through time at the same speed as each other but are at different points along the vertical line and so are looking at each other at a skewed angle and see each other as shortened in time. They would see them as shortened in the spatial dimension that they're moving through relative to them if they weren't looking at a one dimensional straight line, but you can't have everything. You could use a sphere I suppose but let's not. This shortening of length from each others perspective represents Doppler shift. Infinitely far away in the vertical direction representing time on the circle would represent an object moving at the speed of light and one that's vertically running exactly parallel would represent an inertial object at rest relative to them.

 

An accelerating objects path is represented by an angled line, like the hand of a clock. 12:00 is inertial and 3:00 is infinite acceleration because the dimensions are at right angles to each other. An accelerating objects path is a diagonal line moving across both dimensions of the circle and their speed through the horizontal spatial dimension means that their speed through the vertical temporal dimension is slower than an inertial object to keep their speed through space-time constant at the speed of light. An object that's increasing or decreasing its rate of acceleration creates a curved line. It takes more energy to increase its angle of acceleration the harder it accelerates approaching infinity as it approaches 3:00, which represents an event horizon as well as the speed of light because they're the same thing. This works just as well with gravity. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and move relatively faster than light then it would be moving down the circle instead of up which would mean it would be moving backwards in time relative to other objects.

I get why maths is important but this is far more meaningful and fundamental because this is where the equations come from.

 

 

Once more from the top. I'll try to keep things as simple and straight forward as possible. I know how much most scientists tend to struggle understanding and communicated with words. When an object accelerates it's following a curved path through space-time rather than a straight line. If the acceleration is being caused by mass then it's an inward curvature that pulls objects towards each other and if it's being caused by energy then it's an outward curvature that pushes them apart. Either way, when an object accelerates it feels a force caused by the varying degrees of the strength of the acceleration over the different parts of the object because of the varying distance from the mass or energy over the object.

 

When an object falls towards a singularity this force gets stronger as the strength of gravity increases at a faster rate and so creates more of a difference in the strength of gravity over the different parts of the object. This is called tidal force. It's no different to the force that an object feels when it uses energy to accelerate. When an object accelerates using energy it's also the varying distance from the energy source that causes it to feel a force. If an object were accelerated evenly over the different parts of the object then it wouldn't feel a thing. The mathematics of acceleration don't change.

 

When an object accelerates it creates a Rindler horizon behind it marking the point beyond which no information can ever reach the accelerating object as long as it keeps accelerating at at least the same rate. It gets closer to the accelerating object at a continuously slower rate and could never actually catch up to the object because that wouldn't make sense. The exact same thing happens when an object is in free-fall. If it were able to reach an event horizon then the Rindler horizon would have caught up with and it still wouldn't make sense for exactly the same reasons.

 

There's also a horizon in front of an accelerating object that works in exactly the same way. As the increase there acceleration they catch up to their own light/information at a progressively slower rate if they increase their acceleration. They can never catch up to it for the same reason as the Rindler horizon can never catch up to them. When an object is in free-fall, again there is a horizon in front of the object as they gain own their own light/information at a progressively slower rate and again, they could never catch up to it. This one's called an event horizon.

 

And then there's the stuff about global geometry, red shift and the big bang that never really happened as well.

 

 

I've shown gr to be logically inconsistent and given a working alternative based on a well established theory of relative movement that actually works. It explains how mass and energy really are equivalent because the acceleration caused by them are mathematically identical. This is the only way it can work and make sense. The onus is now firmly on you to either show how gr can work in a self consistent way or show that gravitational acceleration and energetic acceleration aren't equivalent. Good luck!

[elfmotat]

Now that I think of it, I can actually make a useful contribution to this discussion:

 

http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/unreasonable-math.html

 

My attempt to answer the question "why should I bother with the equations?"

 

That was a good read. It's unfortunate A-wal did't bother to look at it.

[A-wal]

That's rich! You obviously didn't bother to read my last post. You replied right after I posted it without bothering to read it complaining that I didn't read a link. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR ME TO USE EQUATIONS BECAUSE I'M DESCRIBING THE MATHEMATICAL REALATIONSHIPS PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT THEM!!! If you'd read my last post then you'd know that.

Edited December 16, 2012 by A-wal

[Bignose]

You don't think it's important that a theory be logical? Oh dear! EVERYTHING is logical! The logic may be beyond us but it's always there.

 

You really didn't bother to read the post did you? Logic is certainly important, but logic alone isn't enough. Again, at one time, it was logical to deduce that the world was flat. It is easy to be lured into thinking things are logical that just aren't true.

 

Hence the importance on making predictions with mathematics and comparing them with measured values.

 

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR ME TO USE EQUATIONS BECAUSE I'M DESCRIBING THE MATHEMATICAL REALATIONSHIPS PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT THEM!!!

 

 

 

no you're not. you're using phrases like "the object falls". Does it fall quickly, slowly? Quickly to me and slowly to you?

 

MATH is needed when you make statements like that so that you can make a statement like "the object falls at 5 m/s". Then we can set up the experiment and see just how fast it actually does fall. This lets us have an idea on how right or wrong you are.

 

It really is that simple.

 

Edited December 16, 2012 by Bignose

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

A-wal, quit the insults and re-read the speculation forum rules. If you continue to flaunt the rules this thread will be closed and further actions may be taken.

[elfmotat]

That's rich! You obviously didn't bother to read my last post. You replied right after I posted it without bothering to read it complaining that I didn't read a link. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR ME TO USE EQUATIONS BECAUSE I'M DESCRIBING THE MATHEMATICAL REALATIONSHIPS PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT THEM!!! If you'd read my last post then you'd know that.

 

No, you really aren't. You're being extremely vague in your mission to write out your "theory" without using math. You realize that physics is a quantitative science, right? We need numerical predictions to test whether or not your "theory" agrees with experiment. That means numbers! And where are we going to get those numbers? If your "theory" has no equations then we can't get them from anywhere! So your "theory" isn't really a theory at all - it's just a jumble of ill-defined concepts.

Edited December 16, 2012 by elfmotat

[MigL]

So one of your arguments is that no external mass-energy can ever reach the event horizon of a black hole since tidal forces are equivalent to acceleration and no acceleration can accelerate mass-energy to c. Did I get this right from your word jumble ?

 

When a black hole forms the region of greatest density is obviously the centre, where neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome first. In effect the hole forms from the centre out. The rest of the collapsing star is 'swallowed' from the centre out as the black hole forms. If your argument were true a black hole could not form because the exterior regions of the star could never 'reach' the already formed event horizon.

 

So congratulations are in order you've just proved that black holes and their associated event horizons CANNOT exist.

Any and all observational evidence supporting their existence be damned.

 

Neither mathematics nor observational evidence will convince you,yet we are the ones who have already made up our minds and are blindered ?

Edited December 16, 2012 by MigL

[Ringer]

I've had conversations with creationists where I explained that evolution happens through the process of the survival of the fittest and natural selection with disadvantageous mutations being eliminated by the fact that those carrying them are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass those genes down, while individuals with advantageous mutations are more likely to pass those genes on and that we can see the process by looking at fossils of various ages and clearly seeing the gradual change over time. None of it would sink in because they weren't even prepared to entertain the possibility. They simply had too much invested in the lie to ever admit the truth. This conversation feels exactly the same and you even use the same methods of selective avoidance and misdirection that they use.

This doesn't make your statement any less of an ad hominem. I haven't seen any evidence to be ignored, so they can't be ignoring evidence can they? Now what you are asking is for them to believe vague ramblings in place of what has been well established for many years due to its consistency with experiment. Which of those scenarios sounds like the creationist position?

The majority of it? That's ridiculous! Most of hasn't been touched. I've had no meaningful explanation for the inconsistencies in gr and so far no one has been able to show that free-fall is inertial.

Inconsistencies that, so far, people have shown to be misunderstandings.

I didn't think my terminology was that bad. Could I have some examples?

'An electro-magnetic field is caused by energy'

'My definition of an event horizon is the point that no object can reach'

Those are literally 2 lines of writing away from each other, and both are incorrect usages.

You don't know what I mean by infinitely time dilated? FROZEN! Saying an object can reach an event horizon is defying reality because it can't be done. It's ridiculous! The event horizon of the black hole is expanding.

You didn't say infinitely time dilated, you said dilated to infinity. It could be meant as time dilatation continues forever, but the amount of dilation isn't defined. Or that it was dilated extremely fast, making its mass reach infinity which could bring about your statement of going against reality. Or it could mean a myriad of other things. Do you see why words don't adequately explain things, because these misunderstandings are very common.

 

Oh not this again. I've already been through this more than enough times. The equations describing gravitational acceleration correctly are the same as the ones describing acceleration in sr because it's the same thing. That's the whole point. Equations are not important as long as you can show the mathematical relationships. I have made definite and quantitive predictions.

Alright, how about this for a change of pace. Describe, using only words, the differences of the escape velocities between the Earth and moon due to gravitational forces quantitatively. Then, again using only words, predict the velocity needed to launch a 5000kg satellite in orbit around a 10*10^24 kg planet.

 

[A-wal]

<p>I haven't got time to write a proper reply and answer individually at the moment but I will because I'm in the library and I've got half an hour. It's not the equations matter, it's the mathematical relationships that they express. It's right here:</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can see this for yourself by drawing a simple diagram. Just draw a circle with a vertical and horizontal line going all the way through so they cross in the centre. This isn’t an ordinary diagram or I wouldn’t be using it. Its using two dimensions at right angle to each other to represent exactly that. We can use one of those directions to represent time because there’s no real difference between space and time. The vertical line represents time and the horizontal line represents one of the three spatial dimensions. We only need one spatial dimension because you can always draw a one dimensional straight line between any two objects. Objects always move through space-time with a combined velocity of the speed of light.<br />

<br />

Now use a pencil. An inertial objects path through space-time is represented by a vertical line because they’re travelling through time at the speed of light and not travelling through space at all from their own perspective. Other inertial objects paths through space-time are represented by lines running parallel to the vertical line. Their distance in space is represented by its distance across the horizontal spatial line and its relative velocity is represented by its distance across the vertical temporal line. Other inertial objects moving at different relative velocities are moving through time at the same speed as each other but are at different points along the vertical line and so are looking at each other at a skewed angle and see each other as shortened in time. They would see them as shortened in the spatial dimension that they’re moving through relative to them if they weren’t looking at a one dimensional straight line, but you cant have everything. You could use a sphere I suppose but let's not. This shortening of length from each others perspective represents Doppler shift. Infinitely far away in the vertical direction representing time on the circle would represent an object moving at the speed of light and one that's vertically running exactly parallel would represent an inertial object at rest relative to them.<br />

<br />

An accelerating objects path is represented by an angled line, like the hand of a clock. 12:00 is inertial and 3:00 is infinite acceleration because the dimensions are at right angles to each other. An accelerating objects path is a diagonal line moving across both dimensions of the circle and their speed through the horizontal spatial dimension means that their speed through the vertical temporal dimension is slower than an inertial object to keep their speed through space-time constant at the speed of light. An object that's increasing or decreasing its rate of acceleration creates a curved line. It takes more energy to increase its angle of acceleration the harder it accelerates approaching infinity as it approaches 3:00, which represents an event horizon as well as the speed of light because they're the same thing. This works just as well with gravity. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and move relatively faster than light then it would be moving down the circle instead of up which would mean it would be moving backwards in time relative to other objects.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Try it!</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It doesn't matter what I do. No matter how many times I show you that gr simply can't work you just refuse to acknowledge it and claim it's a misunderstanding without showing that's the case. The level of intellectual dishonesty here is embarrassing. I know you're just going to say that it's me that's being intellectually dishonest but that doesn't make it true, and it will be obvious to anyone who anyone reading this thread who doesn't have a vested interest in my being wrong. No one has even tried to explain the  </p>

<p>inconsistencies that I've pointed out in gr. No one has been able to refute the fact that the two accelerations are equivalent, or show that free-fall is inertial. All you can do is attack me and my methods, not the concussions. It's not a fair fight because if I do the same I'll get banned.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Could someone please show me the equations for evolution!</p>

 

Edited December 17, 2012 by A-wal

[Ringer]

<p>Could someone please show me the equations for evolution!</p>

There are a good amount, but here's a basic one.

 

p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1

 

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium shows the distribution of alleles in a population. If the distribution is static no evolution is occuring (which is not necessarily true, but that's another matter)and here are some more

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=D842ADFD2541E45A3A19507965C20C70.journals?fromPage=online&aid=8246536

 

So what was your point on that?

Edited December 17, 2012 by Ringer

[imatfaal]

Now use a pencil. An inertial objects path through space-time is represented by a vertical line because they're travelling through time at the speed of light and not travelling through space at all from their own perspective. Other inertial objects paths through space-time are represented by lines running parallel to the vertical line. Their distance in space is represented by its distance across the horizontal spatial line and its relative velocity is represented by its distance across the vertical temporal line. Other inertial objects moving at different relative velocities are moving through time at the same speed as each other but are at different points along the vertical line and so are looking at each other at a skewed angle and see each other as shortened in time. They would see them as shortened in the spatial dimension that they’re moving through relative to them if they weren’t looking at a one dimensional straight line, but you cant have everything. You could use a sphere I suppose but let's not. This shortening of length from each others perspective represents Doppler shift. Infinitely far away in the vertical direction representing time on the circle would represent an object moving at the speed of light and one that's vertically running exactly parallel would represent an inertial object at rest relative to them.<br />

 

So an object sees it's own path as vertical - ie it is not moving in space; OK. Other objects at rest to the initial object also have vertical lines displaced from the first; OK.

 

"Their distance in space is represented by its distance across the horizontal spatial line and its relative velocity is represented by its distance across the vertical temporal line" Nope - if the second object has a relative velocity, and the initial objects line is vertical; then the second objects line must be at an angle. This object is both moving in space away or towards the initial object and through time; thus it's path on the spacetime diagram must be at an angle.

 

 

"Infinitely far away in the vertical direction representing time on the circle would represent an object moving at the speed of light and one that's vertically running exactly parallel would represent an inertial object at rest relative to them"

 

Light would be shown on a standard 45 degree path - if your units are friendly. And all massive objects will be constrained to be within this boundary; as no physical objects can move a greater distances per unit time than light. Light would not be infinitely far away - light has a finite speed, so why infinitely far?

No massive object is at rest with respect to light

 

An accelerating objects path is represented by an angled line, like the hand of a clock. 12:00 is inertial and 3:00 is infinite acceleration because the dimensions are at right angles to each other. An accelerating objects path is a diagonal line moving across both dimensions of the circle and their speed through the horizontal spatial dimension means that their speed through the vertical temporal dimension is slower than an inertial object to keep their speed through space-time constant at the speed of light. An object that's increasing or decreasing its rate of acceleration creates a curved line. It takes more energy to increase its angle of acceleration the harder it accelerates approaching infinity as it approaches 3:00, which represents an event horizon as well as the speed of light because they're the same thing. This works just as well with gravity. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and move relatively faster than light then it would be moving down the circle instead of up which would mean it would be moving backwards in time relative to other objects

 

Now I am beginning to think that you mean the x axis to represent velocity and not space - in a space time diagram an accelerating object's path is a curved line, for it to be straight the x axis must be velocity. But that does not tally with your description of parallel lines showing objects sharing a rest frame but physically displaced - if x axis were velocity then they would be on a single line.

[ydoaPs]

Mass and energy are equivalent, the curvature caused by mass and energy are equivalent.

and

 

Mass causes inward curvature pull objects towards the source. Energy causes outward curvature pushing objects away from the source.

 

are directly contradictory. If they're equivalent, then they're not going to have such an extremely different result. This difference (which means they're NOT equivalent) is enormous. It means the math is most certainly different than what we use with the current theories. It means it has drastically different predictions.

 

You have yet to give us the math or the predictions made from the math. You've given us absolutely no reason to believe you at all.

 

The problem is the reason that I can't. The people here, like you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. I can't win because you've already decided to disagree with what I've said before even reading it. I've been clear enough.

 

No, the reason is because you can't seem to be able to put together anything coherent. You say plainly contradictory things like, "Mass and energy are equivalent, the curvature caused by mass and energy are equivalent. Mass causes inward curvature pull objects towards the source. Energy causes outward curvature pushing objects away from the source".

 

Blatant contradictions like that are the very antithesis of "clear".

[A-wal]

You really didn't bother to read the post did you? Logic is certainly important, but logic alone isn't enough. Again, at one time, it was logical to deduce that the world was flat. It is easy to be lured into thinking things are logical that just aren't true.

 

Hence the importance on making predictions with mathematics and comparing them with measured values.

Do you think it's possible for an object to ever reach an event horizon from the perspective of any other object?

 

Do you think it makes sense that at the event horizon the difference in the strength of gravity between one plank length and the next is enough to overpower any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction? Before an object reaches the event horizon a finite amount of energy is always enough to accelerate away, and then suddenly it isn't. That's completely stupid! It's so obviously the equivalent of accelerating towards the speed of light using energy, with the horizon moving away at a slower rate but always moving away from the accelerating object, and at the speed of light locally.

 

Objects moving through the curved space-time around a black hole don't have to be thought of as following a straight line in positively curved space-time. They can just as easily be thought of as accelerating towards a singularity in flat space-time, and acceleration in flat space-time can just as easily be thought of as following a straight line in negatively curved space-time. It makes no difference because following a straight line in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time are exactly the same thing.

 

If an object were accelerated to the speed of light then time dilation and length contraction would be infinite at the event horizon, making every point of the event horizon a singularity. This would mean that every point of the event horizon has its own event horizon, also made entirely of singularities. That creates a bit of an infinite paradox problem.

 

When exactly in the life span of a black hole, or to put it another way, what is the radius of the event horizon when an object reaches it? If no object can reach an event horizon from the perspective of any external observer then it must be impossible to cross an event horizon after any other object. That means that all of the objects that ever reach the event horizon of a black hole have to do it at exactly the same time.

 

no you're not. you're using phrases like "the object falls". Does it fall quickly, slowly? Quickly to me and slowly to you?

 

MATH is needed when you make statements like that so that you can make a statement like "the object falls at 5 m/s". Then we can set up the experiment and see just how fast it actually does fall. This lets us have an idea on how right or wrong you are.

 

It really is that simple.

 

So ask me. Tell me which parts are unclear and Ill clarify them for you. Is that simple enough for you? Okay that's enough messing about now.

 

You need to explain how an object could possibly be accelerated to the point when no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to move away. That makes absolutely no sense and if you want to claim that something that ridiculous is true then you'd better be able to explain how it's possible. Movement is just that, it doesn't matter what accelerated the object, think about it.

 

When an object accelerates using energy it can't possibly ever accelerate enough to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light relative to any other object. Instead it becomes harder for the accelerating object to increase its velocity relative to other objects the faster its already moving relative to them. Length contraction and time dilation make up the difference so there's no contradiction between the different frames of reference because they're mearsuring different distances, because that is how relative movement works. When you say that objects can reach the event horizon of black hole, think about what you're actually saying. You're saying that these rules don't apply when gravity accelerates an object. Why? If an object is free-falling towards a black hole then it's velocity relative to objects using energy to accelerate in the opposite direction and maitain a constant distance from the black hole would increase in exactly the same way that it would if it were using energy to accelerate relative to those objects in the absense of gravity. How can gravity accelerate an object so much that no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to counteract it. That's completely insane!

 

You're also saying that it's always possible for an object to escape using a finite amount of energy right up until it reaches the event horizon. The energy requirement increasesby a greater amount over the same distance the closer the object is to the event horizon, which should be as an inverse square of thedistance but can't be if what you're saying is true, so you're saying that gravity moves objects in a completely different way to energy, not just the cause and the strength but actually a completely different form of movement that allows objects to reach any relative velocities they like as long as there's enough acceleration to create an event horizon. Now, gravity does create length contraction and time dilation but it can't be the equivalent to the length contraction and time dilation created when an object uses energy to accelerate because if it were then an object wouldn't be able to reach an event horizon because it would be the equivalent of accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light.

 

There must be an equivelent to a Rindler horizon behind a free-falling object that marks the point beyond which no signal could ever reach the free-faller as long as they keep free-falling at at least the same rate. It can't work like the Rindler horizon when an object uses energy to accelerate because this horizon needs to behave in the equal and opposite way to the event horizon. I want you to explain to me exactly how this works, because I know how it works with acceleration due to energy because that's how it has to work to keep the speed of light constant and if gravity accelerated objects in the same way then it wouldn't be possible to reach an event horizon in a finite amount of proper time because the closer you got to, the harder it would be to close the gap as an inverse square and making it impossible to reach in exactly the same way that it's impossible to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light using energy. Length contraction and time dilation do obviously increase the amount of proper time and space that free-falling object expiriences compared to an object that keeps a greater distance from the black hole, but not by enough to stop the object accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light apparently, and not the amount required to keep the speed of light constant. So what's the amount of time dilation and length contraction that an object expiriences when being accelerated by gravity based on?

 

How could I have said that with equations?

 

No, you really aren't. You're being extremely vague in your mission to write out your "theory" without using math. You realize that physics is a quantitative science, right? We need numerical predictions to test whether or not your "theory" agrees with experiment. That means numbers! And where are we going to get those numbers? If your "theory" has no equations then we can't get them from anywhere! So your "theory" isn't really a theory at all - it's just a jumble of ill-defined concepts.

How the hell is this

Once more from the top. I'll try to keep things as simple and straight forward as possible. I know how much most scientists tend to struggle understanding and communicated with words. When an object accelerates it's following a curved path through space-time rather than a straight line. If the acceleration is being caused by mass then it's an inward curvature that pulls objects towards each other and if it's being caused by energy then it's an outward curvature that pushes them apart. Either way, when an object accelerates it feels a force caused by the varying degrees of the strength of the acceleration over the different parts of the object because of the varying distance from the mass or energy over the object.

 

When an object falls towards a singularity this force gets stronger as the strength of gravity increases at a faster rate and so creates more of a difference in the strength of gravity over the different parts of the object. This is called tidal force. It's no different to the force that an object feels when it uses energy to accelerate. When an object accelerates using energy it's also the varying distance from the energy source that causes it to feel a force. If an object were accelerated evenly over the different parts of the object then it wouldn't feel a thing. The mathematics of acceleration don't change.

 

When an object accelerates it creates a Rindler horizon behind it marking the point beyond which no information can ever reach the accelerating object as long as it keeps accelerating at at least the same rate. It gets closer to the accelerating object at a continuously slower rate and could never actually catch up to the object because that wouldn't make sense. The exact same thing happens when an object is in free-fall. If it were able to reach an event horizon then the Rindler horizon would have caught up with and it still wouldn't make sense for exactly the same reasons.

 

There's also a horizon in front of an accelerating object that works in exactly the same way. As the increase there acceleration they catch up to their own light/information at a progressively slower rate if they increase their acceleration. They can never catch up to it for the same reason as the Rindler horizon can never catch up to them. When an object is in free-fall, again there is a horizon in front of the object as they gain own their own light/information at a progressively slower rate and again, they could never catch up to it. This one's called an event horizon.

a jumble? Are you seriously telling me you can't follow that?

 

So one of your arguments is that no external mass-energy can ever reach the event horizon of a black hole since tidal forces are equivalent to acceleration and no acceleration can accelerate mass-energy to c. Did I get this right from your word jumble ?

 

When a black hole forms the region of greatest density is obviously the centre, where neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome first. In effect the hole forms from the centre out. The rest of the collapsing star is 'swallowed' from the centre out as the black hole forms. If your argument were true a black hole could not form because the exterior regions of the star could never 'reach' the already formed event horizon.

 

So congratulations are in order you've just proved that black holes and their associated event horizons CANNOT exist.

Any and all observational evidence supporting their existence be damned.

 

Neither mathematics nor observational evidence will convince you,yet we are the ones who have already made up our minds and are blindered ?

Im glad you asked me about that. Black hole formation is what first got me thinking about this. I thought that I knew what happed to the matter that falls into a black hole. I thought that because the event horizon is the equivalent to accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light from every external frame of reference, that must mean matter moves backwards in time from the perspective of those reference frames until it reaches the singularity, where it gets broken down into pure energy and because the singularity is a single point in time as well as space, it gets carried out on the shockwave of the supernova and released as a gamma ray burst. Faulty reasoning though. Theres no way for an object to be accelerated to the speed of light relative to any other object. A gamma ray burst is just the collapsed star.

 

Inconsistencies that, so far, people have shown to be misunderstandings.

Not true! When?

 

'An electro-magnetic field is caused by energy'

'My definition of an event horizon is the point that no object can reach'

Those are literally 2 lines of writing away from each other, and both are incorrect usages.

They're not incorrect at all. Just because that's not how you've heard them being refered to before doesn't make them wrong. We'd still be in caves if everyone had that attitude.

 

You didn't say infinitely time dilated, you said dilated to infinity. It could be meant as time dilatation continues forever, but the amount of dilation isn't defined. Or that it was dilated extremely fast, making its mass reach infinity which could bring about your statement of going against reality. Or it could mean a myriad of other things. Do you see why words don't adequately explain things, because these misunderstandings are very common.

What did I use to clarify what I meant? Words!

 

Alright, how about this for a change of pace. Describe, using only words, the differences of the escape velocities between the Earth and moon due to gravitational forces quantitatively. Then, again using only words, predict the velocity needed to launch a 5000kg satellite in orbit around a 10*10^24 kg planet.

Why? I have absolutely no idea and I'm not even going to bother thinking about it because it's not even close to analogous to anything that I'm describing. If I really wanted to I could find out and express it in words because you never need to use equations to describe mathematics, it's just shorthand.

[Bignose]

So ask me. Tell me which parts are unclear and Ill clarify them for you. Is that simple enough for you? Okay that's enough messing about now.

 

You need to explain how an object could possibly be accelerated to the point when no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to move away. That makes absolutely no sense and if you want to claim that something that ridiculous is true then you'd better be able to explain how it's possible. Movement is just that, it doesn't matter what accelerated the object, think about it.

 

Ok, here is what I am asking: give an exact mathematical prediction that can be compared with experimentally measured values. That way one can calculate whether your prediction is 0.1% off, 1% off, 10% off or 1000000% off.

 

And, I don't need to explain anything. It isn't my theory that is trying to be defended. It is yours. And, really, until an estimation of what % error your idea has, all you have is a story. Not science. It may very well be a good story, it may be very interesting, and 'logical' to some, but it isn't science. It is just story telling.

 

I don't understand why there is such a resistance to this step. If your idea can be calculated and shown to be 0.1% off, I bet it would get all sorts of attention. Isn't that exactly what you want? Turning your idea into mathematics is exactly the next step towards acceptance -- why aren't you embracing it?

 

and if you really want something to try to clarify, ydoaPs sure asked a good one.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Bignose

[Ringer]

Not true! When?

Honestly at this point it's not worth me going through 7 pages to point out specific posts that you didn't pay attention to the first time around.

They're not incorrect at all. Just because that's not how you've heard them being refered to before doesn't make them wrong. We'd still be in caves if everyone had that attitude.

So we would still be in caves if everyone in a given field communicated in the accepted way?

 

Oh, so you just redefine words without letting people reading know. That's not the best way to go about this when you are arguing that you don't need math to have clarity.

 

What did I use to clarify what I meant? Words!

And it's still less than clear. What do you mean by frozen, in what reference frame is it frozen, can it not move in any reference frame, if not you would have to explain why time stopped in its own reference frame. I don't really want answers to these, it's just to point out that it still doesn't make sense because the words are ambiguous.

Why? I have absolutely no idea and I'm not even going to bother thinking about it because it's not even close to analogous to anything that I'm describing. If I really wanted to I could find out and express it in words because you never need to use equations to describe mathematics, it's just shorthand.

For one it is analogous because it has to do with the way in which gravity works, which you would have to explain to cover the areas of relativity. Two, it wouldn't matter if it's analogous, if you could do it you would be able to show you don't need math to properly explain and predict nature. So it's your choice, explain my example and bring me to your side by showing that I'm wrong, or refuse and allow me to believe you refuse to do it because you know you can't.

 

Math isn't shorthand, it is the explanation. Words, on the other hand, are analogies used to help people begin to understand the workings in a way they're familiar with.

[ydoaPs]

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR ME TO USE EQUATIONS BECAUSE I'M DESCRIBING THE MATHEMATICAL REALATIONSHIPS PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT THEM!!! If you'd read my last post then you'd know that.

No, you're not. Which is why I have posts like:

 

and

 

 

are directly contradictory. If they're equivalent, then they're not going to have such an extremely different result. This difference (which means they're NOT equivalent) is enormous. It means the math is most certainly different than what we use with the current theories. It means it has drastically different predictions.

 

You have yet to give us the math or the predictions made from the math. You've given us absolutely no reason to believe you at all.

 

 

 

No, the reason is because you can't seem to be able to put together anything coherent. You say plainly contradictory things like, "Mass and energy are equivalent, the curvature caused by mass and energy are equivalent. Mass causes inward curvature pull objects towards the source. Energy causes outward curvature pushing objects away from the source".

 

Blatant contradictions like that are the very antithesis of "clear".

 

and everyone agrees.

 

A negative is a huge deal. "Pushing" vs "pulling" is at minimum a difference in sign. That means the vectors will point in opposite directions and the sum will be different than if they both pulled. Furthermore, there's the question of "how much" does it push? Is there a difference if you take the curl or divergence of the vector field? This would tell us how/if there's any curving in the push and how much pushing vs pulling is going on.

 

Yes, the math is different. It is at minimum a different summation. It is in no way "identical". So, show us the math.

[elfmotat]

Do you think it's possible for an object to ever reach an event horizon from the perspective of any other object?

 

Do you think it makes sense that at the event horizon the difference in the strength of gravity between one plank length and the next is enough to overpower any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction? Before an object reaches the event horizon a finite amount of energy is always enough to accelerate away, and then suddenly it isn't. That's completely stupid! It's so obviously the equivalent of accelerating towards the speed of light using energy, with the horizon moving away at a slower rate but always moving away from the accelerating object, and at the speed of light locally.

 

Objects moving through the curved space-time around a black hole don't have to be thought of as following a straight line in positively curved space-time. They can just as easily be thought of as accelerating towards a singularity in flat space-time, and acceleration in flat space-time can just as easily be thought of as following a straight line in negatively curved space-time. It makes no difference because following a straight line in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time are exactly the same thing.

 

If an object were accelerated to the speed of light then time dilation and length contraction would be infinite at the event horizon, making every point of the event horizon a singularity. This would mean that every point of the event horizon has its own event horizon, also made entirely of singularities. That creates a bit of an infinite paradox problem.

 

When exactly in the life span of a black hole, or to put it another way, what is the radius of the event horizon when an object reaches it? If no object can reach an event horizon from the perspective of any external observer then it must be impossible to cross an event horizon after any other object. That means that all of the objects that ever reach the event horizon of a black hole have to do it at exactly the same time.

 

You need to explain how an object could possibly be accelerated to the point when no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to move away. That makes absolutely no sense and if you want to claim that something that ridiculous is true then you'd better be able to explain how it's possible. Movement is just that, it doesn't matter what accelerated the object, think about it.

 

When an object accelerates using energy it can't possibly ever accelerate enough to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light relative to any other object. Instead it becomes harder for the accelerating object to increase its velocity relative to other objects the faster its already moving relative to them. Length contraction and time dilation make up the difference so there's no contradiction between the different frames of reference because they're mearsuring different distances, because that is how relative movement works. When you say that objects can reach the event horizon of black hole, think about what you're actually saying. You're saying that these rules don't apply when gravity accelerates an object. Why? If an object is free-falling towards a black hole then it's velocity relative to objects using energy to accelerate in the opposite direction and maitain a constant distance from the black hole would increase in exactly the same way that it would if it were using energy to accelerate relative to those objects in the absense of gravity. How can gravity accelerate an object so much that no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to counteract it. That's completely insane!

 

You clearly have no idea how GR or black holes work. First of all, it's not true in general that external observers will not observe objects crossing the event horizon. This is only true if you're using Schwarzschild coordinates because there's a coordinate singularity at R=2M. If you use, for example, Kruskal coordinates (which are well-behaved everywhere outside the physical singularity) then you can certainly observe things falling into the horizon. This is a clear example of when knowing the math is necessary. Your wordy descriptions are annoying to read and convey significantly less information than a couple of equations would.

 

Second, you have objections to the concept that matter, once it has crossed the horizon, can never return. You, for some strange reason, think that this is a question of acceleration. In fact, this is true no matter how an object is lowered passed the horizon. For example, if you tied a ball to a rope and slowly lowered it passed the event horizon it would still be impossible for the ball to ever return. The reason this happens is because the light-cone of the ball is "tilted" so drastically that the ball would need to exceed c in order to escape. In fact, the "t" coordinate actually becomes spacial and the "r" coordinate becomes timelike once you've crossed the horizon, so you can no more avoid the singularity than you can avoid growing older. The singularity lies in the future of every geodesic inside r<2M.

 

Also - fun fact - since geodesics are paths that maximize an object's proper time, fighting against falling into the singularity will actually make you arrive there faster.

[ydoaPs]

A-wal?

[A-wal]

I'm getting very irritated by this. I'm not interested in doing the maths. Please stop trying to push your crap on to me. I don't like being pressurised to do something that I don't want to. I know what that crap does to your brain and I'm definitely not going to go down that road so stop asking. My answer is no! Now please stop pushing! See what I did there?

 

Ok, here is what I am asking: give an exact mathematical prediction that can be compared with experimentally measured values. That way one can calculate whether your prediction is 0.1% off, 1% off, 10% off or 1000000% off.

 

And, I don't need to explain anything. It isn't my theory that is trying to be defended. It is yours. And, really, until an estimation of what % error your idea has, all you have is a story. Not science. It may very well be a good story, it may be very interesting, and 'logical' to some, but it isn't science. It is just story telling.

 

I don't understand why there is such a resistance to this step. If your idea can be calculated and shown to be 0.1% off, I bet it would get all sorts of attention. Isn't that exactly what you want? Turning your idea into mathematics is exactly the next step towards acceptance -- why aren't you embracing it?

 

and if you really want something to try to clarify, ydoaPs sure asked a good one.

Well I would ask the author but I don't think I'll get much of a response. If you want to claim that gr's accurate then it should be able to predict exactly what happens under those circumstances. I'd also really like to see the equation for how the energy requirement to move away from a black hole increases as the distance increase because it can't possibly be right because how could it jump up to infinity? It should be exactly the same as the energy requirement to accelerate in the opposite direction and return to the original velocity relative to whatever if energy was used to accelerate in the first place.

 

It's a true story. I've made a few definite predictions. I'll go through and list them soon and I'll also look at ydoaPs question again.

 

Honestly at this point it's not worth me going through 7 pages to point out specific posts that you didn't pay attention to the first time around.

 

So we would still be in caves if everyone in a given field communicated in the accepted way?

 

Oh, so you just redefine words without letting people reading know. That's not the best way to go about this when you are arguing that you don't need math to have clarity.

 

 

And it's still less than clear. What do you mean by frozen, in what reference frame is it frozen, can it not move in any reference frame, if not you would have to explain why time stopped in its own reference frame. I don't really want answers to these, it's just to point out that it still doesn't make sense because the words are ambiguous.

 

For one it is analogous because it has to do with the way in which gravity works, which you would have to explain to cover the areas of relativity. Two, it wouldn't matter if it's analogous, if you could do it you would be able to show you don't need math to properly explain and predict nature. So it's your choice, explain my example and bring me to your side by showing that I'm wrong, or refuse and allow me to believe you refuse to do it because you know you can't.

 

Math isn't shorthand, it is the explanation. Words, on the other hand, are analogies used to help people begin to understand the workings in a way they're familiar with.

I'm not asking for examples of posts that I didn't pay attention to. I'm asking for examples of specific misunderstandings that you claim I've made. If I really do have misconceptions about any part of relativity then I'd very much like to know what they are, but I suspect you're just making false claims.

 

I don't think I said frozen. I keep saying that objects never freeze at the horizon, they just keep slowing down.

 

Equations are shorthand for the mathematical relationships. I use the right hand side of my brain to visualise everything. I don't think in equations. I like to think about what actually happens.

 

No, you're not. Which is why I have posts like:

 

and everyone agrees.

 

A negative is a huge deal. "Pushing" vs "pulling" is at minimum a difference in sign. That means the vectors will point in opposite directions and the sum will be different than if they both pulled. Furthermore, there's the question of "how much" does it push? Is there a difference if you take the curl or divergence of the vector field? This would tell us how/if there's any curving in the push and how much pushing vs pulling is going on.

 

Yes, the math is different. It is at minimum a different summation. It is in no way "identical". So, show us the math.

I don't think I ever said it was identical, but if I did I meant that velocities add together in such a way as to keep any relative velocity below the speed of light when mass accelerates an object, in exactly the same way as velocities add together when an object is accelerated by energy.

 

A-wal?

Er, yes what? Did you miss me? Ah, that's so sweet.

 

Oh crap. I forgot to reply to the comments between my last two posts. I'll do that next time.

[ydoaPs]

I'm getting very irritated by this. I'm not interested in doing the maths. Please stop trying to push your crap on to me. I don't like being pressurised to do something that I don't want to. I know what that crap does to your brain and I'm definitely not going to go down that road so stop asking. My answer is no! Now please stop pushing! See what I did there?

So you're not interested in doing actual conversation or science.

 

</thread>

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm getting very irritated by this. I'm not interested in doing the maths. Please stop trying to push your crap on to me. I don't like being pressurised to do something that I don't want to. I know what that crap does to your brain and I'm definitely not going to go down that road so stop asking. My answer is no! Now please stop pushing! See what I did there?

This is mathematics, not methamphetamines.

 

Given the speculations forum rules (rule 1), I think this thread has run its course. Closed.