| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitchell" |
| Date: |
10 May 2004 07:01:38 PM |
| Object: |
The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Thankyou for the opertunity Randy and Tom.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Rowe" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
10 May 2004 11:00:57 PM |
|
|
In article <9c3da975.0405101601.566e8098@posting.google.com>,
(Mitchell) wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
All you've done here is demonstrate your lack of understanding of either
special relativity or general relativity. If you really want to learn
something, there are two books by Taylor and Wheeler that address most
issues discussed here,
Those are
Spacetime Physics -- covers special relativity and briefly mentions some
general relativity
Exploring Blackholes -- covers some aspects of general relativity --
basically anything where Schwarzchild coordinates are applicable
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
10 May 2004 07:29:04 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
You hopeless *****, SR is a *subset* of GR - GR with Newton's G set
to zero.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
10 May 2004 09:56:26 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Come on Raemsch, Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity.
Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when
there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as
generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course
there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when
massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many
applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives
a completely self-consistent description of the mechanics of
accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics
did.
The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In
general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change
general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
space-time is always flat.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
11 May 2004 12:52:16 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40A040D4.49B2CD4D@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Come on Raemsch, Special Relativity is a subset of General Relativity.
Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
In a manner of speaking.
Because special relativity sets the speed limit it also reveals
a change in speed limit. A change in speed(motion) is a more
general definition of acceleration.
Seeing a change in speed limit reveals acceleration through SR.
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
The only sense in which special relativity is an approximation when
there are accelerating bodies is that gravitational effects such as
generation of gravitational waves are being ignored. But of course
there are larger gravitational effects being neglected even when
massive bodies are not accelerating and they are small for many
applications so this is not strictly relevant. Special relativity gives
a completely self-consistent description of the mechanics of
accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as Newtonian mechanics
did.
The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In
general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change
general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
space-time is always flat.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
Nothing you have said could possibly justify matter reaching the speed
of light. It is a physical violation. It just so happens that SR is what
reveals it as a violation.
I am here to point it out.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
11 May 2004 07:06:01 AM |
|
|
"Mitchell" <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:9c3da975.0405102152.5e16022c@posting.google.com...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:<40A040D4.49B2CD4D@mchsi.com>...
Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
You replied
In a manner of speaking.
Because special relativity sets the speed limit it also reveals
a change in speed limit. A change in speed(motion) is a more
general definition of acceleration.
Seeing a change in speed limit reveals acceleration through SR.
But SR has no means of handling those conditions. SR has no means of
handling transformations between two frames of reference that whose relative
velocity is changing.
talking about some delta V is not the same as talking about delta V / delta
t.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
11 May 2004 08:44:31 AM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:2gbttaFtbu4U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Mitchell" <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:9c3da975.0405102152.5e16022c@posting.google.com...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:<40A040D4.49B2CD4D@mchsi.com>...
Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?
You replied
In a manner of speaking.
Because special relativity sets the speed limit it also reveals
a change in speed limit. A change in speed(motion) is a more
general definition of acceleration.
Seeing a change in speed limit reveals acceleration through SR.
But SR has no means of handling those conditions. SR has no means of
handling transformations between two frames of reference that whose
relative
velocity is changing.
talking about some delta V is not the same as talking about delta V /
delta
t.
"Can Special Relativity handle accelerations?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
11 May 2004 12:50:52 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40A040D4.49B2CD4D@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
[snip]
In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In
general relativity all motion is relative.
Not quite. Acceleration in SR is sort of absolute and defined as
invariant in terms on non-inertial paths in inertial reference frames.
In GR, again, acceleration is sort of absolute but non-invariant and
present in non-inertial paths in inertial reference frames.
SR and GR, in concert with Newtonian space + time, all define absolute
location.
In SR there is no absolute velocity but in GR there is only one, that
of signals travelling at the speed of light. The effort to relativise
dynamics failed in GR. In other words, the transition from
telativistic kinematics to relativistic dynamics did not succed. That
should mean to any sane brain in here something.
Mike says: there is nothing 'relative' about General Relativity. GR is
absolutism and ultimate determinism at its best. Not even Newton got
so absolute as GR did.
Mike
To accommodate this change
general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity
space-time is always flat.
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
11 May 2004 04:33:41 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Thankyou for the opertunity Randy and Tom.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
Could you please clarify if you talk about the horizon of cosmology
here, or about the event horizon of black holes?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
11 May 2004 06:05:41 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c7q6ll$hva$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mitchell wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Thankyou for the opertunity Randy and Tom.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
Could you please clarify if you talk about the horizon of cosmology
here, or about the event horizon of black holes?
Bye,
Bjoern
Black holes Bjoern.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
12 May 2004 04:23:33 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c7q6ll$hva$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mitchell wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Thankyou for the opertunity Randy and Tom.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
Could you please clarify if you talk about the horizon of cosmology
here, or about the event horizon of black holes?
Bye,
Bjoern
Black holes Bjoern.
Well, then I'm at a loss to understand why you wrote above "The horizon
itself moves at c." Why on earth do you think so???
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
13 May 2004 10:27:26 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c7sqel$2kt$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c7q6ll$hva$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mitchell wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Thankyou for the opertunity Randy and Tom.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
Could you please clarify if you talk about the horizon of cosmology
here, or about the event horizon of black holes?
Bye,
Bjoern
Black holes Bjoern.
Well, then I'm at a loss to understand why you wrote above "The horizon
itself moves at c." Why on earth do you think so???
Bye,
Bjoern
Please do not say what I do not say Bjoern.
I did not say that the horizon moves that way but reletivistically
I guess you could.
I think it is Dirk that has used that argument.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconsistancy between GR and SR proof |
14 May 2004 07:04:47 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c7sqel$2kt$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mitchell wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c7q6ll$hva$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mitchell wrote:
I am going to use what Randy said to Tom to demonstrate an inconsistancy
between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General.
Tom, I would think answering the question very literally, there should
be a different answer. The horizon itself moves at c. Any photons on the
horizon move at c. A free falling object for a shell observer would see
the object's velocity approaching -c at the limit of the horizon. So
without an explicit specified other observer, seems to me the answer
would have to be:
What is the velocity at the event horizon? c
therefore:
What is the rate of change of velocity at the event horizon? 0
This is a problem. According to Special Relativity matter can't reach
light speed. If it did time would end for it.
In General relativity matter does reach light speed.
This is the knowledge that begins to reveal problems with GR.
It is incomplete and needs to be consistant with SR.
You can correlate the end of time at the event horizon with
matter reaching(falling at) the speed of light.
This prediction is the begining of evidence demonstating that
the theory of gravity must become a limited strength theory(GR).
Thankyou for the opertunity Randy and Tom.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
Could you please clarify if you talk about the horizon of cosmology
here, or about the event horizon of black holes?
Bye,
Bjoern
Black holes Bjoern.
Well, then I'm at a loss to understand why you wrote above "The horizon
itself moves at c." Why on earth do you think so???
Bye,
Bjoern
Please do not say what I do not say Bjoern.
I did not say that the horizon moves that way
Oh, sorry. Looking into the original post, I see that you said that
"Randy" said this to "Tom". Unfortunately you didn't say in which post
or thread this was, so I don't know the context. Using a Google search,
this comes apparently from this thread:
<http://www.google.de/groups?hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=7xDnc.174%24bd6.5839%40eagle.america.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3DTom%252C%2520I%2520would%2520think%2520answering%26ie%3DUTF-8%26lr%3D%26hl%3Dde>
And I see that Randy has corrected this statement about the horizon in
the very next post!
Anyway, you didn't dispute this, so I thought that this is your opinion,
too.
but reletivistically I guess you could.
Why?
I think it is Dirk that has used that argument.
No, it was Randy M. Dumse, and he corrected himself.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
