Relativity, version 2

[The Gregorian]

Light is affected only insofar as the path it follows is bent. The particle itself has no idea that space is curved.

Obviously you don't understand the math.

It's been understood as a force since the time of Newton. Einstein just explained how it works.

Newton's theories have been accepted for centuries! Entire courses from very expensive colleges have been dedicated to newtonian physics!


... actually, on a serious note here, people are suggesting that due to our proximity to the earth, the bending of space is so small we don't notice it. Yet, gravity grows stronger the closer to the mass it is. So, shouldn't the earth's surface have the greatest spatial/temporal distortion? Shouldn't space be more noticably curved the closer to the planet one gets? For example, if there is no "force" of gravity... but we jump up... and come back down within a foot or two, does that not imply that space is curved to such an extent that our straight travel was turned entirely around in that distance? So, why are our bodies not affected by the space time so dramatically cuved when not jumping? Just sayin'

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Obviously you don't understand the math.

It's just first-order integrals. Even a GCSE student could do it.

But if you want to throw about ad hominems instead of responding to my points, be my guest.

Newton's theories have been accepted for centuries! Entire courses from very expensive colleges have been dedicated to newtonian physics!

Ah, I see! You're trolling. Gotcha. You don't have a serious point to make, you just want to get people angry with your inane posts.

... actually, on a serious note here, people are suggesting that due to our proximity to the earth, the bending of space is so small we don't notice it. Yet, gravity grows stronger the closer to the mass it is. So, shouldn't the earth's surface have the greatest spatial/temporal distortion?

There are so many things wrong with this.
First, gravity is not strongest at the surface. It's strongest on the top of Mt. Everest (on Everest, you have the entire Earth pulling you down as hard as it can. At sea-level, all mountains and above-sea-level masses pull you up).
Second, even at its strongest, Earth's gravity isn't particularly strong, and we humans aren't that large. There is indeed a warping of the space between our heads and our legs (specifically, it's very slightly stretched), but because the distance is so short, and because the warping is so mild, we are completely oblivious to it. It's like quantum mechanics: we know it happens, but it's so small that our bodies cannot detect quantum mechanical effects.
Third... y'know what? It can wait.

Shouldn't space be more noticably curved the closer to the planet one gets?

No, it shouldn't be noticable. It's noticable for very large objects near a very large gravitational well, but we're neither large nor near such a well. The only thing we experience is a force pulling us down (and, more generally, the tides and seasons).

For example, if there is no "force" of gravity... but we jump up... and come back down within a foot or two, does that not imply that space is curved to such an extent that our straight travel was turned entirely around in that distance?

No, not in the slightest.

So, why are our bodies not affected by the space time so dramatically cuved when not jumping?

Because it's not "dramatically" curved. It's very mildly warped, stretching space downwards.

 

[The Gregorian]

Ah, I see! You're trolling. Gotcha. You don't have a serious point to make, you just want to get people angry with your inane posts.

Nah, I'm trying to fit in. When I bother to spend time with well-thought-out explanations and illustrations, it's usually met with "You don't agree with the book? Obviously you should read it until you agree with it" instead of any actual discussion of the points being made. I figured I'd take a turn and see what people liked so much about it... and it is kind of fun.

There are so many things wrong with this.
First, gravity is not strongest at the surface. It's strongest on the top of Mt. Everest (on Everest, you have the entire Earth pulling you down as hard as it can. At sea-level, all mountains and above-sea-level masses pull you up).

Did I ever say "at sea level?" I said "on the surface." On any given terrain, is gravity strongest at the surface or flying a few miles above the surface? Gravity is strongest the closer you get to the mass. That was my point. In response to yours, you realize the earth isn't flat, right?

Perhaps standing directly next to a mountain, there may be some pull at a slightly upward angle... but the further you are form it, the less "up" it's going to be. Also, I disagree with your assumption that gravity is strongest at the top of mount everest... I've tried typing it a few different ways, and it's just not worth the time to debate. Yes, you get a mountain under you, but being farther away from the entire rest of the earth... I don't think it will net more gravity. Either way, the whole topic is off topic, because the POINT is that gravity is stronger the closer you get to the massive object.

Second, even at its strongest, Earth's gravity isn't particularly strong, and we humans aren't that large. There is indeed a warping of the space between our heads and our legs (specifically, it's very slightly stretched), but because the distance is so short, and because the warping is so mild, we are completely oblivious to it.

If it's such a mild distortion, why, when we jump up... do we come back down? If there is no active "force" of gravity, and only a "very mild" spacial distortion. Can you answer that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nah, I'm trying to fit in. When I bother to spend time with well-thought-out explanations and illustrations, it's usually met with "You don't agree with the book? Obviously you should read it until you agree with it" instead of any actual discussion of the points being made. I figured I'd take a turn and see what people liked so much about it... and it is kind of fun.

Uhuh. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Did I ever say "at sea level?" I said "on the surface." On any given terrain, is gravity strongest at the surface or flying a few miles above the surface? Gravity is strongest the closer you get to the mass. That was my point. In response to yours, you realize the earth isn't flat, right?

Yes, which is why I mentioned Everest.

Perhaps standing directly next to a mountain, there may be some pull at a slightly upward angle... but the further you are form it, the less "up" it's going to be. Also, I disagree with your assumption that gravity is strongest at the top of mount everest...

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Newton's Shell Theorem is all you need to prove it.

I've tried typing it a few different ways, and it's just not worth the time to debate. Yes, you get a mountain under you, but being farther away from the entire rest of the earth... I don't think it will net more gravity.

Which is not why it happens.

Either way, the whole topic is off topic, because the POINT is that gravity is stronger the closer you get to the massive object.

Only up to a point. Inside the object, gravity rapidly drops off, until you're weightless at the barycentre.

If it's such a mild distortion, why, when we jump up... do we come back down? If there is no active "force" of gravity, and only a "very mild" spacial distortion. Can you answer that?

Sure, it's hardly a difficult problem.
First, despite your claims to the contrary, no one says that there is no force of gravity. There quite clearly is a force of gravity.
Second, we come back down because there is a distortion of space. It's mild, so we don't see relativistic effects when we look at our legs. But it nonetheless exists, which is why we still fall to Earth.
It's mild, but non-zero. It's like how, to us, gravity appears to exert a constant acceleration of -9.81 m s[sup]-2[/sup], but a more complete model shows that this is just a first-order approximation. Another way to think of it is iron filings near a magnet: the individual filings are so small that they don't percieve the curvature of the magnetic field; to them, it's a straight line. The curvature is minute, but it does exist.

 

[The Gregorian]

First, despite your claims to the contrary, no one says that there is no force of gravity. There quite clearly is a force of gravity.

You suggesting that einstein was suggesting temporal/spacial distortion -in addition- to the force of gravity, as opposed to a functional replacement?

Sure, it's hardly a difficult problem. ... we come back down because there is a distortion of space. It's mild, so we don't see relativistic effects when we look at our legs. But it nonetheless exists, which is why we still fall to Earth.

let's see... I said "If it's such a mild distortion, why, when we jump up... do we come back down? If there is no active "force" of gravity, and only a "very mild" spacial distortion."

You responded with:

"we come back down because there is a distortion of space. It's mild, so we don't see relativistic effects when we look at our legs. But it nonetheless exists, which is why we still fall to Earth."

... So... We come back down within a matter of a foot or two due to spacial distortion even though that distortion is so mild, we can't observe it... and you... don't see a problem with that?

Put it this way: if the space you exist in was bent in half on itself... would "you standing in bent space" not cause you to be just as bent? Or does it only affect your motion through that space?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You suggesting that einstein was suggesting temporal/spacial distortion -in addition- to the force of gravity, as opposed to a functional replacement?

No. Einstein was simply explaining how the force of gravity works. Just as particle physicists explain that the force of electromagnetism works by photons, and the strong nuclear force by gluons.

let's see... I said "If it's such a mild distortion, why, when we jump up... do we come back down? If there is no active "force" of gravity, and only a "very mild" spacial distortion."

You responded with:

"we come back down because there is a distortion of space. It's mild, so we don't see relativistic effects when we look at our legs. But it nonetheless exists, which is why we still fall to Earth."

... So... We come back down within a matter of a foot or two due to spacial distortion even though that distortion is so mild, we can't observe it... and you... don't see a problem with that?

You were unclear with what you meant by "a foot or two". I figured you meant a foot or two to the left, due to some peculiar warping of spacetime. I then pointed out that any warping to the left (say) would be utterly imperceptible to us.

Spacetime is warped, and we perceive this as acceleration towards the Earth. There's no perceivable left-right acceleration, but there is perceivable up-down acceleration.

Put it this way: if the space you exist in was bent in half on itself... would "you standing in bent space" not cause you to be just as bent? Or does it only affect your motion through that space?

You would not be bent, because, from the point of view of your body, everything's following straight lines. It's the straight lines themselves that are bent.
Consider space as a large 2D sheet of graph paper. A beam of light follows a straight line; that is, it moves along one of the printed lines.
Now, when space is warped, you get the following:

The photon has no idea what's going on. From it's point of view, it's following a perfectly straight line. But, in actuality, the 'straight line' has been bent.

 

[The Gregorian]

Indeed, I'm familiar with the illustration... nevermind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Indeed, I'm familiar with the illustration... nevermind.

Then why ask the question? I'm happy to answer any question you might have on physics (or whatever), but if you already knew the answer...?

 

[The Gregorian]

"Your answer" and "the answer" are two very different things.

If you asked me for proof that God exists, and I responded with nothing more than "The bible says so." ... would you repent of your sins and look for the nearest water deep enough for baptism?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

"Your answer" and "the answer" are two very different things.

If you asked me for proof that God exists, and I responded with nothing more than "The bible says so." ... would you repent of your sins and look for the nearest water deep enough for baptism?

Except that there is evidence for the warping of space by massive objects, gravitational lensing springs to mind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Your answer" and "the answer" are two very different things.

If you asked me for proof that God exists, and I responded with nothing more than "The bible says so." ... would you repent of your sins and look for the nearest water deep enough for baptism?

No, but then, I've already been baptised.

 

[Doveaman]

Except that there is evidence for the warping of space by massive objects, gravitational lensing springs to mind.

Not all minds believe in gravitational lensing:

Gravitational Lensing or the Death of a Theory?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not all minds believe in gravitational lensing:

Gravitational Lensing or the Death of a Theory?

So what're these?

 

[Alunyel]

So what're these?

Magic Space Dust!

Light's affected by gravity. Simple answer.

 

[Doveaman]

So what're these?

Instead of light from distant quasars being bent around nearby galaxies to produce “gravitational lensing”, another theory exist which states that quasars are ejected from their nearby parent galaxy and will evolve into mature galaxies over time:

New Evidence for Quasar Ejection
Quasar in Front of a Galaxy

So, instead of “gravitational lensing”, what we are actually observing are quasars that were ejected from the nucleus of their parent galaxy and continue to remain linked to that parent galaxy to form companion galaxies or galactic clusters.

The theory of "gravitational lensing" has no place in the universe...I'm afraid Einstein was wrong on this theory. Sorry!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Instead of light from distant quasars being bent around nearby galaxies to produce “gravitational lensing”, another theory exist which states that quasars are ejected from their nearby parent galaxy and will evolve into mature galaxies over time:

New Evidence for Quasar Ejection
Quasar in Front of a Galaxy

So, instead of “gravitational lensing”, what we are actually observing are quasars that were ejected from the nucleus of their parent galaxy and continue to remain linked to that parent galaxy to form companion galaxies or galactic clusters.

The theory of "gravitational lensing" has no place in the universe...I'm afraid Einstein was wrong on this theory. Sorry!

First you say an alternate theory exist, and then you declare that Einstein is categorically wrong. Riiiiight...

 

[Doveaman]

First you say an alternate theory exist, and then you declare that Einstein is categorically wrong. Riiiiight...

Even though a theory cannot be proven to be categorically right, it certainly can be proven to be categorically wrong. And you go with the theory that makes more sense.

Space-Time fabric has no basis in reality.

A gravity-only model of the universe require dark fabric, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes to hold that model together.

You should take a look at the electric model, there is nothing dark about it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Even though a theory cannot be proven to be categorically right, it certainly can be proven to be categorically wrong. And you go with the theory that makes more sense.

No, you go with the theory that has more evidence. Sensibility is just a bonus. Quantum mechanics is hardly sensible, now, is it?

Space-Time fabric has no basis in reality.

A gravity only model of the universe require dark fabric, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes to hold that model together.

They're consequences of the model. You may as well protest fusion theory because it requires delay neutrons, or the standard model because it requires antimatter.

You should take a look at the electric model, there is nothing dark about it:

THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS

I'd rather read a peer-reviewed paper than a stylised video on Google. When the summary has gems like:

• "The Thunderbolts Project calls into question ... the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding..." - which puts the video as the noble rebel seeking to reveal the truth from a tyrannical State, and
• "...corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories - elevating them to the status of doctrine - while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status-quo" - which likens the current scientific consensus to a state religion, stamping out any innocent thinkers who dare speak heresy,

I'm inclinded to think I was watching the trailer for Expelled!.

Once plasma cosmology can explain things like the CMBR (or, y'know, make testable predictions on par with the Big Bang model), I might take it more seriously. As it stands, it smacks of such double-talk and propaganda that it could make Creationists stand up and take note.

On the other hand, if you actually want to discuss the merits and downfalls of the Big Bang and Plasma Comsomology theories, I'd be more than happy. But let's not derail this thread any further.

 

[Doveaman]

No, you go with the theory that has more evidence. Sensibility is just a bonus.

Yes, evidence. Evidence makes sense. There is no evidence for space-time fabric or curves. There is just good math being misapplied.

I'd rather read a peer-reviewed paper than a stylised video on Google.

Typical.

Once plasma cosmology can explain things like the CMBR

There is a wealth of information regarding CMBR in plasma cosmology. Such information is ignored by those who disagree with plasma cosmology. But, the information is there for those who are interested.

(or, y'know, make testable predictions on par with the Big Bang model), I might take it more seriously.

I don't see how anyone can take the big bang seriously.

The two major foundations of the big bang are that redshift is proportional to distance and is a measure of velocity. Meaning that the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be and the faster it is moving away from us. Combined, these two foundations become the expanding universe, which is then traced backwards to the so-called big bang.

However, many high redshift quasars have been found to be in front of low redshift nearby galaxies, which, according to the big bang theory, should not be. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter.

Such observations are evidence that redshift has nothing to do with distance or velocity, hence, big bang busted.

But let's not derail this thread any further.

Yes, lets not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, evidence. Evidence makes sense. There is no evidence for space-time fabric or curves. There is just good math being misapplied.

The perihelion of Mercury would beg to differ.

Typical.

I'm glad you agree. Peer-review is an important part of the scientific process, and serves to weed out pseudo-science.

There is a wealth of information regarding CMBR in plasma cosmology. Such information is ignored by those who disagree with plasma cosmology. But, the information is there for those who are interested.

Funny how you cited exactly none of this information. I'm curious: could you explain it yourself, without the use of cheesy Googlevideos?

I don't see how anyone can take the big bang seriously.

The two major foundations of the big bang are that redshift is proportional to distance and is a measure of velocity. Meaning that the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be and the faster it is moving away from us. Combined, these two foundations become the expanding universe, which is then traced backwards to the so-called big bang.

However, many high redshift quasars have been found to be in front of low redshift nearby galaxies, which, according to the big bang theory, should not be. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter.

Such observations are evidence that redshift has nothing to do with distance or velocity, hence, big bang busted.

Hardly. The Big Bang theory is supported by a little more than just redshift . I've already mentioned the CMBR, but the distribution of elements and stellar dating are two other, independent lines of evidence that draw the same conclusion.

If you could cite examples of these quasar-galaxy pairs, I'll take a look.