| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2004 10:21:30 PM |
| Object: |
What problem does relativity solve? |
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 03:55:19 PM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<11990c07.0411182021.6ba49249@posting.google.com>...
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
www.google.com "how to use google"
If you actually read this newsgroup, or books for that matter, you
wouldn't have to ask that question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 09:13:48 AM |
|
|
In article <11990c07.0411182021.6ba49249@posting.google.com>,
Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
There was no problem of simultaneity when special relativity was
formulated. The problems it solved at the time were
conceptual/aesthetic/philosophical-- problems of an inquiring mind
inspired by electromagnetism.
--
"Yes, I revere you much, honored ones, and wish to fart in response." --
Aristophanes, Clouds
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 09:22:11 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
There was no problem of simultaneity when special relativity was
formulated. The problems it solved at the time were
conceptual/aesthetic/philosophical-- problems of an inquiring mind
inspired by electromagnetism.
On the first page of his 1905 paper -On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies- Einstein points out the assymetry in explanation for a moving
magnet through a coil of of wire producing a current. The Lorentz Force
law envisions two distinct motions: magnet moves coil does not and coil
moves magnet does not. Einstein complains that this asymmetry is not
inherent in the phenomenon. And he does something about it.
The Lorentz Force Law warts and all -correctly- predicts the current
flow in the coil of wire (as a closed circuit). The answers are pefectly
good. The explantion for the answers leave something to be desired.
In this sense, Einstein's theory is unsusual. It is not an attempt to
repaire an empirically demonstrated defect in an existing theory, but to
clean the theory up. Einstein appears to be motivated by a
principle-objection rather than an empirical discrepancy.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 10:38:21 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
Special Relatvity describes the mixing of space and time as a
hyperbolic rotation to bring Newtonian physics into agreement with
Maxwell's equations.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
21 Nov 2004 11:13:27 AM |
|
|
SR discribes what an electron will do.
GR cant. Indentical to conservation and energy is interchangable with
mass.
SR defies GR and newtonians.
electron orbits dont act like planet orbits.
without sr you cant discribe qunton machanics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 08:18:41 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question,
to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
Special Relatvity describes the mixing of space and time as a
hyperbolic rotation to bring Newtonian physics into agreement with
Maxwell's equations.
So if special relativity is an evolution of Newtonian mechanics, is
there any reason we should assume that relativity will ever converge
with quantum mechanics?
Didn't you have a web page with a bunch of quotes on it one point? If
you could add "science strives for spareness of form and maximum
generality" to the list I'd like to link to it from one of my web
pages.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 08:26:16 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
So if special relativity is an evolution of Newtonian mechanics, is
there any reason we should assume that relativity will ever converge
with quantum mechanics?
Didn't you have a web page with a bunch of quotes on it one point? If
you could add "science strives for spareness of form and maximum
generality" to the list I'd like to link to it from one of my web
pages.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Cranks Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=Techmocracy+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.google.com/search?q=Multiple+Natures+Hypothesis+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 01:14:35 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question,
to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
Special Relatvity describes the mixing of space and time as a
hyperbolic rotation to bring Newtonian physics into agreement with
Maxwell's equations.
You're giving me the context of the problem (thanks for that) but not
describing the problem itself. Can you do that in a remarkably
simplisitic yet illuminating way?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 01:23:54 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
The question by Einstein was generally, "What are the implications of
certain articles of knowledge which are already well established?" The
answer, in his case, was the theory of relativity.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Shubert http://www.everythingimportant.org" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 06:05:51 AM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1100849034.035264.201620@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mike Helland wrote:
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question,
to solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
The question by Einstein was generally, "What are the implications
of certain articles of knowledge which are already well
established?" The answer, in his case, was the theory of relativity.
-Mark Martin
Correct. And simultaneity isn't a problem. The universe merely follows
set laws. They are what they are. Nothing can be done about that.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
18 Nov 2004 10:42:39 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Relativity is a self consistent theory that agrees with observation better
than any alternative. It have never made a prediction that contradicted
an observation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 02:38:38 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
There was some problem with the electrodynamics of moving
bodies if I remember correctly. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 09:35:21 PM |
|
|
The riddle of your exsistance.
Mass and energyare interchangable and identical to conservation.
Taos the tongass forest giant.
200 left on planet ,,8 feet tall up to 800 pounds.
golden river alaska
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 02:11:35 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question, to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
Special Relativity unifies mechanics and electrodynamics. With a
relatively small modification Einstein show how the laws of mechanics
can be made Lorentz Invariant.
A further consequence is the simplification and beautification of
Maxwell's Equations in the context of a 4 dimensions Minkowski space. In
this context the seperate electric and magentic fields are melded into a
type (2,0) enengy momentum tensor. Had Maxwell lived another 20 years
(he died youngish) he might have acheived this formulation of
electrodynamics. Einstein's jumping off point was to unify mechanics and
electrodynamics (which is relativistic right in the shrinkwrap) under
the same set of symmetries.
The ultimate result of SR is a better concept of time and space or more
properly the concept of spacetime. Newton's idea that time is absolute
and everywhere the same is empirically incorrect. One of the issues
settled is that of simultaneity, which is known not to be absolute.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 08:25:42 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question,
to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
Special Relativity unifies mechanics and electrodynamics. With a
relatively small modification Einstein show how the laws of mechanics
can be made Lorentz Invariant.
Ok, I think your reply is the only one that gets close to answering the
question.
Einstein ends the introduction of his 1905 paper with this:
"Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of
the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present
encounters."
What actual problems are there?
I think I need one other point cleared up with some certainty:
I understand the idea that light moves at the same speed regardless of
the speed at which the emitter is moving. And I see that in Einstein's
paper, right in the introduction. We'll call that claim (A).
Other explanations of relativity that I read sometimes say that the
speed of light is the same no matter what speed the observer of the
light is moving. We'll call that claim (B).
Are both claim A and B correct, or only claim A? Is claim B a
consequence of claim A somehow? I don't see how. What part of
Einstein's "On Electrodynamics..." paper makes claim B?
A further consequence is the simplification and beautification of
Maxwell's Equations in the context of a 4 dimensions Minkowski space.
In
this context the seperate electric and magentic fields are melded
into a
type (2,0) enengy momentum tensor. Had Maxwell lived another 20 years
(he died youngish) he might have acheived this formulation of
electrodynamics.
Just by knowing the history of the equations, I'd guess not, since
Maxwell only managed to get it down to 20 equations in 20 variables. It
was actually Oliver Heaviside that wrote Maxwell's quations as 4
equations and 2 variables.
The ultimate result of SR is a better concept of time and space or
more
properly the concept of spacetime. Newton's idea that time is
absolute
and everywhere the same is empirically incorrect. One of the issues
settled is that of simultaneity, which is known not to be absolute.
I think this is a common misconception. Newton didn't think that time
was absolute. He thought there was absolute time and relative time.
Thats pretty clear if you read his stuff:
http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 08:48:54 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1100874342.064045.280170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
robert j. kolker wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a question,
to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem of
simultaneity?
Special Relativity unifies mechanics and electrodynamics. With a
relatively small modification Einstein show how the laws of mechanics
can be made Lorentz Invariant.
Ok, I think your reply is the only one that gets close to answering the
question.
Einstein ends the introduction of his 1905 paper with this:
"Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of
the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present
encounters."
What actual problems are there?
I think I need one other point cleared up with some certainty:
I understand the idea that light moves at the same speed regardless of
the speed at which the emitter is moving. And I see that in Einstein's
paper, right in the introduction. We'll call that claim (A).
Other explanations of relativity that I read sometimes say that the
speed of light is the same no matter what speed the observer of the
light is moving. We'll call that claim (B).
Are both claim A and B correct, or only claim A? Is claim B a
consequence of claim A somehow? I don't see how. What part of
Einstein's "On Electrodynamics..." paper makes claim B?
Claim B is based on the following:
1. He said that the speed of light is: light path/an interval of time.
2. He defined that time is what the clock measures. This definition makes
time into a relative quantity. This definition enables a clock second to
measure the same speed of light by all observers. Why? Because a clock
second can have any amount of time as long as this amount of time allows us
to measure the same speed of light by all observers.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
09 Dec 2004 11:11:18 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1100874342.064045.280170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
robert j. kolker wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to
this.
Theories, hypothesis, and conjectures exist to answer a
question,
to
solve a problem.
What problem does special relativity solve? Is it the problem
of
simultaneity?
Special Relativity unifies mechanics and electrodynamics. With a
relatively small modification Einstein show how the laws of
mechanics
can be made Lorentz Invariant.
Ok, I think your reply is the only one that gets close to answering
the
question.
Einstein ends the introduction of his 1905 paper with this:
"Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root
of
the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at
present
encounters."
What actual problems are there?
I think I need one other point cleared up with some certainty:
I understand the idea that light moves at the same speed regardless
of
the speed at which the emitter is moving. And I see that in
Einstein's
paper, right in the introduction. We'll call that claim (A).
Other explanations of relativity that I read sometimes say that the
speed of light is the same no matter what speed the observer of the
light is moving. We'll call that claim (B).
Are both claim A and B correct, or only claim A? Is claim B a
consequence of claim A somehow? I don't see how. What part of
Einstein's "On Electrodynamics..." paper makes claim B?
Claim B is based on the following:
1. He said that the speed of light is: light path/an interval of
time.
2. He defined that time is what the clock measures. This definition
makes
time into a relative quantity. This definition enables a clock second
to
measure the same speed of light by all observers. Why? Because a
clock
second can have any amount of time as long as this amount of time
allows us
to measure the same speed of light by all observers.
I sort of understand. Would it be fair to say that Claim B is purely an
interpretation of the 1905 paper, and not an unavoidable consequence of
the special relativity postulates?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 09:10:02 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
I think this is a common misconception. Newton didn't think that time
was absolute.
Not so. Read -Principia Mathematica-.
[Note: This is the Scholium to the definitions in Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica, Bk. 1 (1689). The translation is by Andrew Motte
(1729) as revised by Florian Cajori (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1934).]
Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less
known and explained the sense in which I would have them to be
understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space,
place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe that
the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but
from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise
certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to
distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent,
mathematical and common.
1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time
is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of
duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true
time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
2. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some
movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces, which our senses
determine by its position to bodies and which is commonly taken for
immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or
celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth.
Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and magnitude, but
they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for
instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect of
the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of the
absolute space into which the air passes; at another time it will be
another part of the same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be
continually changed.
3. Place is a part of space which a body takes up and is, according to
the space, either absolute or relative. I say, a part of space; not the
situation nor the external surface of the body. For the places of equal
solids are always equal; but their surfaces, by reason of their
dissimilar figures, are often unequal. Positions properly have no
quantity; nor are they so much the places themselves as the properties
of places. The motion of the whole is the same with the sum of the
motions of the parts; that is, the translation of the whole, out of its
place, is the same thing with the sum of the translations of the parts
out of their places; and therefore the place of the whole is the same as
the sum of the places of the parts, and for that reason it is internal
and in the whole body.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
20 Nov 2004 01:04:50 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<306gn0F2rteosU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Mike Helland wrote:
I think this is a common misconception. Newton didn't think that time
was absolute.
Not so. Read -Principia Mathematica-.
You don't understand Prncipia. You lack the right frame of mind and
the questioning foundation that led to Principia. Newton went as far
as a reasonable and sane person can go. After that, paranoia starts.
Paranoids are known to appear as extremely intelligent people. Al was
one of them. He mixed personal fantasies with physics. He lacked
completely understanding of the foundational problems of mechanics.
Every false formula implies a true formula.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
21 Nov 2004 12:59:43 AM |
|
|
(Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.0411201104.173df5fb@posting.google.com>...
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<306gn0F2rteosU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Mike Helland wrote:
I think this is a common misconception. Newton didn't think that time
was absolute.
Not so. Read -Principia Mathematica-.
You don't understand Prncipia. You lack the right frame of mind and
the questioning foundation that led to Principia. Newton went as far
as a reasonable and sane person can go. After that, paranoia starts.
Paranoids are known to appear as extremely intelligent people. Al was
one of them. He mixed personal fantasies with physics. He lacked
completely understanding of the foundational problems of mechanics.
Every false formula implies a true formula.
Mike
So Einstein was sick in the head Huh Mike?
I say you're the mentally ill one. You think you have what you don't.
Go fly a kite in a thunderstorm you slime aspiring to authority.
You're nobody.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 09:21:23 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
I think this is a common misconception. Newton didn't think that
time
was absolute.
Not so. Read -Principia Mathematica-.
Bob, you snipped out: "He thought there was absolute time and relative
time.
Thats pretty clear if you read his stuff:
http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html"
And then you went and cited the same source I cited! So lets look at
it:
1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called "duration";
relative, apparent, and common time
is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure
of
duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of
true
time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
So Newton, in his own words, clearly believes there are two types of
time, absolute and relative.
And Einstein doesn't disagree with this. In the following exchange
between Einstein and Heisenberg (Heisenberg speaking), the phycists
clearly recognize that there is absolute time, the just know that
relative time is the version that concerns science:
<quote>
"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but
observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in
some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is
impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time
cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving
reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the
determination of time."
"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but
it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more
diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep
in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite
wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In
reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides
what we can observe."
</quote>
(In 'Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations', Harper
Torchbooks, 1972, p. 63.)
So it is clearly a myth that Newton didn't know time was relative.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig **************" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
19 Nov 2004 01:47:58 AM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2004 20:21:30 -0800, (Mike Helland)
wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
.........
GPS positioning down to the meter accuracy.
Simple enough for you?
w.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 02:16:35 PM |
|
|
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004 20:21:30 -0800, (Mike Helland)
wrote:
Hey, I just want to hear the most remarkably simple answer to this.
.........
GPS positioning down to the meter accuracy.
Simple enough for you?
Not really. I don't think Einstein new about GPS when he went about
conjecturing Special Relativity.
There must have been some problem that he saught an answer for. Other
posters have said "putting Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics
into agreement."
That definitely sounds closer to what I'm asking, but I do not see the
"problem" with Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics, probably
because I don't know what Maxwell's equations actually mean.
Could anyone take a stab at dramatizing the actual "problem" between
Maxwell and Newton?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 02:39:27 PM |
|
|
Relativity is a self consistent theory that agrees with observation better
than any alternative. It have never made a prediction that contradicted
an observation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 02:46:57 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Relativity is a self consistent theory that agrees with observation
better
than any alternative. It have never made a prediction that
contradicted
an observation.
I don't doubt that at all.
You should really read my posts before you try to quell objections or
doubts to the theory when there are none.
Uncle Al said this:
'Special Relatvity [brings] Newtonian physics into agreement with
Maxwell's equations.'
I'm trying to understand what the original disagreement was. I've read
on the subject, but I don't feel like it is very clear to me. I've
noticed on this board that some posters have a knack for making
difficult topics crystal clear.
Thats the post I'm look for with this thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 04:40:28 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Relativity is a self consistent theory that agrees with observation
better
than any alternative. It have never made a prediction that
contradicted
an observation.
I don't doubt that at all.
You should really read my posts before you try to quell objections or
doubts to the theory when there are none.
Uncle Al said this:
'Special Relatvity [brings] Newtonian physics into agreement with
Maxwell's equations.'
I'm trying to understand what the original disagreement was. I've read
on the subject, but I don't feel like it is very clear to me. I've
noticed on this board that some posters have a knack for making
difficult topics crystal clear.
Thats the post I'm look for with this thread.
Don't read idiots' spew. Physics works. There are no contradictions
or falsifications within it. Gravitation and quantum mechanics are
100% irresolvably incompatible where they overlap. However, that
region is not experimentally accessible by a huge number of orders of
magnitude.
Curiosities like the persistence of spiral galaxies over all visible
time are unresolved. The Pioneer anomalous acceleration will be
further tested with specialist probes. I expect Gravity Probe-B will
come in right on the money for gravitomagnetic effects and the absence
of Equivalence Principle violation of spinning masses (antiparallel
pairs of 10,000 rpm solid fused silica gyro balls) vs. stationary ones
(their housing, fractional rpm) in free fall.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 04:53:21 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Relativity is a self consistent theory that agrees with
observation
better
than any alternative. It have never made a prediction that
contradicted
an observation.
I don't doubt that at all.
You should really read my posts before you try to quell objections
or
doubts to the theory when there are none.
Uncle Al said this:
'Special Relatvity [brings] Newtonian physics into agreement with
Maxwell's equations.'
I'm trying to understand what the original disagreement was. I've
read
on the subject, but I don't feel like it is very clear to me. I've
noticed on this board that some posters have a knack for making
difficult topics crystal clear.
Thats the post I'm look for with this thread.
Don't read idiots' spew. Physics works. There are no contradictions
or falsifications within it. Gravitation and quantum mechanics are
100% irresolvably incompatible where they overlap. However, that
region is not experimentally accessible by a huge number of orders of
magnitude.
Curiosities like the persistence of spiral galaxies over all visible
time are unresolved. The Pioneer anomalous acceleration will be
further tested with specialist probes. I expect Gravity Probe-B will
come in right on the money for gravitomagnetic effects and the
absence
of Equivalence Principle violation of spinning masses (antiparallel
pairs of 10,000 rpm solid fused silica gyro balls) vs. stationary
ones
(their housing, fractional rpm) in free fall.
I really have no idea what point your post was making in light of the
question I asked.
I'm going to spend some time with Gregory's reply, and maybe taking
another crack at the references Sam has given me. It might click this
time.
Just one question, wouldn't the persistence of spiral galaxies be
explained for those who don't beleive in the Big Bang, or does it go
deeper than that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 06:03:26 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
[snip]
Just one question, wouldn't the persistence of spiral galaxies be
explained for those who don't beleive in the Big Bang, or does it go
deeper than that?
The visible and inferred ordinary mass distribution and its velocity
vs. radius are incompatible with the observed shape and its
persistence over time. The Big Bang is irrelevant. Two approaches to
explain spiral galaxies are
1) That there is indeed the necessary spherical distribution of
matter required by classical gravitation theories. It's curve fit to
be "dark matter," axions and/or neutralinos from supersymmetry beyond
the Standard Model.
2) That gravitation has a weak distance-dependent component,
so-called MOND theories.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
08 Dec 2004 10:08:41 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
[snip]
Just one question, wouldn't the persistence of spiral galaxies be
explained for those who don't beleive in the Big Bang, or does it
go
deeper than that?
The visible and inferred ordinary mass distribution and its velocity
vs. radius are incompatible with the observed shape and its
persistence over time. The Big Bang is irrelevant. Two approaches
to
explain spiral galaxies are
1) That there is indeed the necessary spherical distribution of
matter required by classical gravitation theories. It's curve fit to
be "dark matter," axions and/or neutralinos from supersymmetry beyond
the Standard Model.
2) That gravitation has a weak distance-dependent component,
so-called MOND theories.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but plainly stated we have:
1) missing matter
2) gravity gets weaker by distance (beyond the inverse square law,
naturally)
It seems slightly obvious that a third conjecture would be something
like:
3) missing distance
In other words, the distance from the center of the galaxy to the tip
of the spiral arm is far greater than what is measured.
We know there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy.
We also assume that black holes look like a big black hole, with all
sorts of light coming from around the edges.
But we don't see that in the center of the galaxy, do we? I know, I
know, there is alot of light covering it up, in the way, right?
Maybe our picture of black holes is wrong, and the surface area of the
event horizon is essentially equal to zero. Instead of a black hole
with light around it, like a nice big halo, maybe a black hole
including the event horizon really is a single point, and the light
coming from around the edges of a zero-dimensional point, obviously now
just looks like light.
That would mean... in addition to the black hole "hiding" mass in the
center of the galaxy, it is also "hiding" distance?
It seems like something worth at least worth refuting anyways.
In any case, it is a testable hypothesis. If we directly measure the
surface area of the event horizon, we should affirm General
Relativity's prediction, or affirm the zero prediction, and explain the
spiral galaxies at the same time?
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What problem does relativity solve? |
09 Dec 2004 02:38:09 AM |
|
|
about the galaxies moving in a spiral shape:
have you ever heared about the 'Circlon'?
that is a very basic particle that :
*moves **naturally** in a closed circle!
that 'Circlon' is responsible for any ttraction force *and*
the structure of matter *and*
sipral motion of even galaxies!
it is so basic that it is -*everywhere*!
it is an expantion to Newtons forst law of motion
not in conrtadictin to it because-
only that circlon moves that way !!
just a little revolusion in stiff frozen paradigma and minds
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
