The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?)

[Graybeard]

Obviously the flaw in the comprehension of General Relativity is that it was a mathematical solution that fails simple comprehension, or rather comprehension of any degree. But I'll try!

MJA ... I agree with this. It is a mathamatical solution that does not provide a logical concept. Comprehension is up to the us, not the theory.

Newtonian mechanics mathematically explained or tried to explain gravity as interactive forces between moving bodies in space.

Yes. I agree

Einstein defined it mathematically as the relationship between a body effecting space or time which can effect other bodies in space or time.

Yes. I agree

Or more simply,
In Newton's gravity the Sun has a gravitational force or effect on the Earth.
In Einsteinian gravity, the Sun effects spacetime which effects Earth.
Is that right?
If so, what's the big difference?

There is a subtle difference which becomes much less subtle as objects approach light speed. In fact it becomes a BIG DIFFERENCE. Thats the big difference.

Instead of thinking of the Gravity of a Star as being some kind of 'thing' that reaches out to affect any passing object, just think of it the other way.

Think of all objects as having stored potential that is inhibited by the resistance of the objects 'lack of mass'. The more mass, the free'er it is to shake off its inhibitions and express its potential. Stars contain enormous amounts of mass, so in their presence an object is free to break all inhibitions ..... and it now begins to travel thru a different route in Spacetime ... a less inhibited one, a chute, its spends less of its precious resource 'time' and gobbles up more of the 'resource' space ... the ratios have changed

As you can see, or perhaps you can't because I admit this is not the best description, there is no 'force' acting on it just a different degree of freedom.

cool bananas ... greg

MJA ... there are heaps of books where you can read up on this ... some provide excellent concepts ..... but the equations don't change

[MJA]

Hi Greg,

While I appreciate your help in interpreting Einstein's Gravity,
Interpretation is all it is.
Interpretation is a form of freedom in itself, isn't it?
Choosing someone else’s interpretation is the freedom of choice.
Whose interpretation of theories do you choose as the best, is it your own or another’s'?
Is there truth in an interpretation of a theory?
Is there truth in a theory?
And what of Faith?
Have you ever tried to find a true interpretation of the Bible?
Can you understand it yourself?
How about Shakespeare, what did he mean?
And if you find a true interpretation of anything, are you sure it is true?
Where is the truth; that is my question?
What interpretation should I read Greg about truth?
Has the book been written?
Is starlight truly curved by the Sun?

=
MJA

[Graybeard]

1.. While I appreciate your help in interpreting Einstein's Gravity,
Interpretation is all it is.
2.. Interpretation is a form of freedom in itself, isn't it?
3.. Choosing someone else’s interpretation is the freedom of choice.
4.. Whose interpretation of theories do you choose as the best, is it your own or another’s'?
5.. Is there truth in an interpretation of a theory?
6.. Is there truth in a theory?
7.. And what of Faith?
8.. Have you ever tried to find a true interpretation of the Bible?
9.. Can you understand it yourself?
10..How about Shakespeare, what did he mean?
11. And if you find a true interpretation of anything, are you sure it is true?
12.. Where is the truth; that is my question?
13.. What interpretation should I read Greg about truth?
14.. Has the book been written?
15.. Is starlight truly curved by the Sun?

1.. We all have our own 'pictures' in our minds for numbers, colours, concepts, visual and audio perceptions. In this sense we each speak a different language ... Scientists realise this and in order to understand each other they all learnt to 'speak' a common language .. a language highly improbable of misinterpretation ... a language that provides the same answer to the same experiment every time. This is Maths. The interpretation of the answer is individual ... but the interpretation, regardless of spindoctoring, or the path it takes, must always agree with the answer. Otherwise its a mis-interpretation.

2.. Yes

3.. Yes

4.. I stick to the Maths, but use my own concepts. Everybody does ?

5.. Yes. We use concepts to rationalise. But they do not effect the result.

6.. A theory proposes truth. Experiment determines it.

7.. Faith is anything you care to believe that is not supported by experiment. Faith requires you take it as truth on someone elses interpretation.

8.. Yes. But the bible is not supported by maths? its just an ancient and superstitous peoples 'interpretation.'

9.. Yes.

10.. Shakesphere painted word pictures that reflected and enthralled the lives of the people who became his audience. For them he provided a common language (like maths) that allowed them to compare experiences in a new and common way.

11.. We have already agreed, interpretations are only concepts of the truth. Not the truth itself ?

12.. The truth is indisputatable. 2 + 2 = 4. Regardless of our differing interpretations of 2 or four or + or =

13.. For you ... you should read the 'Journey to Ixtlan' but bear in mind it is semi-fiction ... nevertheless it will provide an avenue that may lead you to the truth.

14 .. see above

15.. Yes. What you perceive (interpret) as a straight line is a curved path (geodisic) in Spacetime.

No more questions MJA, I've had enough ... you will have to read up some buddy. Your debating style is to ask 'leading' questions in order to trip the other up and show how foolish the other persons point of view is. But when questioned on your own interpretations you just rubber-stamp your equals sign all over the forum as a sign of great knowledge. This is an insecurity in your own belief. You should reread the forum rules.


cool bananas ... greg

[MJA]

Thanks Greg,

The only problem I see in the usage of mathematics to define nature,
is that math is an inherently confining discipline of rules and restraints that cannot possibly coexist with the absolute freedom of nature's natural truth.
It is only simply what I see!
And I don't see star light in a straight line or curving around our own star.

=
MJA

PS: I don't fully understand science, religion, Shakespeare, or anything more, than a simple grain of truth.

[Graybeard]

MJA .... we are way off thread track here. I have posted a new thread for discussion in Neutralino suggestion box.

I think you will have an input ....

its here

http://www.toequest.com/forum/cosmic...html#post41308

[MJA]

I think that beyond man's finite minuscule event horizon, is an infinite, grand and beautiful universe of truth.
The horizon is closer than you think.

=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

I think that beyond man's finite minuscule event horizon, is an infinite, grand and beautiful universe of truth.
The horizon is closer than you think.

=
MJA

For those who may have time to peruse it, might this help get the key elements of this thread back on track?

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...#content_start

RSVP

- RP