You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Re: The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?) -
11-29-2007, 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
Newtonian mechanics mathematically explained or tried to explain gravity as interactive forces between moving bodies in space.
Yes. I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
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
'Blondie says I must hate all Brunettes. I'll try, but if I can't ... I'll love them both' ... graffiti on Tavern wall, Pompeii, circa AD 70.
Re: The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?) -
11-29-2007, 11:47 AM
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?
Re: The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?) -
11-29-2007, 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
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
'Blondie says I must hate all Brunettes. I'll try, but if I can't ... I'll love them both' ... graffiti on Tavern wall, Pompeii, circa AD 70.
The Following User Says Thank You to Graybeard For This Useful Post:
Re: The 'Event Horizon' (A can of wormholes?) -
11-30-2007, 12:08 AM
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.
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Linear Mode
