New Holistic view (Relativity)

[Chriton]

I am new to this Forum but I am looking forward to reading all the Theories that are there, I personally do not believe in The "Big Bang Theory" the speed of light being constant, so E=Mc2 is wrong, and linear Time,I will have many alternative points of view, I am an Electronic Engineer so I do know from the Atom, and I am looking forward to other input, but it is late at the moment in my time zone so am going to bed, looking forward to Ideas!!!!

[mooeypoo]

I am new to this Forum but I am looking forward to reading all the Theories that are there, I personally do not believe in The "Big Bang Theory" the speed of light being constant, so E=Mc2 is wrong, and linear Time,I will have many alternative points of view, I am an Electronic Engineer so I do know from the Atom, and I am looking forward to other input, but it is late at the moment in my time zone so am going to bed, looking forward to Ideas!!!!

Awesome.

 

Now, can you bring some actual evidence and support to your claim to stand in opposition to the INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of support relativity has?

 

 

 

Thread moved the speculations forum.

[toastywombel]

I am new to this Forum but I am looking forward to reading all the Theories that are there, I personally do not believe in The "Big Bang Theory" the speed of light being constant, so E=Mc2 is wrong, and linear Time,I will have many alternative points of view, I am an Electronic Engineer so I do know from the Atom, and I am looking forward to other input, but it is late at the moment in my time zone so am going to bed, looking forward to Ideas!!!!

 

Hmmm. Well I wonder how the GPS satellite system we have works? The calculations it makes are based off of relativity and how fast light moves. Furthermore, linear time has nothing to do with E=mc2. Another final point, the big bang theory might not be right, but it is rather obvious from observations that the visible universe was at one point collected together near or at a single point.

[Klaynos]

The universe doesn't care for what people believe... it just is... evidence always wins.

[michel123456]

I am new to this Forum (...)

 

Welcome.

[Chriton]

OK! Perhaps I should have posted this in Theoretical Physics..I only wanted to introduce myself and my theories but as usual I have got critics already without even hearing my points of view, TOASTY, I never associated relativity with Linear time, read what I was saying about my theories.

The single point for your Big Bang is called a Singularity or a Potential, which is a point of energy that is, or can be released if the Catylist is there to release it, in other words, you can have a million volt cable, but if it is not attached to anything then it cannot release the energy within, same with the Big Bang theory, the energy was there but was it a Big Bang?

Where did the energy (Singularity) come from?

What released it?

And Why?

OK! Relativity, E=MC2, Einstine was only trying to find a Formula for Energy that could be used to relate Gravity and movement of the planets, so in Mathmatics, when you have two Variables you need a Constant, he used the speed of light as his constant as it was a large number, he could have used anything Pi for instance but his outcome would have been too small as his Energy measurement was in Jules.

I do not believe the speed of light is constant as Gravity effects the speed of light, a Black Hole effects the speed of light and as light can be in two places at the same time the speed is irrelevant, only what we observe.

Linear Time!!

Time is Relative to the Observer, all things have relative time, time is related to the Energy produced by the object or thing, therefore no linear Time only the decay of, or ammount of Energy produced.

Pleast all dont criticise at once...lol

Edited January 13, 2010 by Chriton

[Phi for All]

That's a lot of things to prove/disprove in one thread. Perhaps you should take them one at a time, so it doesn't get confusing for anyone.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Phi for All
clarification

[mooeypoo]

Well, Chriton, to be fair, you didn't just introduce yourself, you introduced yourself and said you're here to propose a theory opposing mainstream science. While we welcome you to the forum, of course, we asked for some evidence for these proposed 'groundshaking' ideas.

 

So, on that note, pick a subject that you want to concentrate on (Phi's right, you have way too many subjects in that post to cover properly), and we can discuss it. That's what we're here for, right?

 

~moo

[swansont]

OK! Relativity, E=MC2, Einstine was only trying to find a Formula for Energy that could be used to relate Gravity and movement of the planets, so in Mathmatics, when you have two Variables you need a Constant, he used the speed of light as his constant as it was a large number, he could have used anything Pi for instance but his outcome would have been too small as his Energy measurement was in Jules.

 

E=mc^2 drops out of special relativity, and has nothing to do with gravity. And no, you can't use just any constant for it.

 

I do not believe the speed of light is constant as Gravity effects the speed of light, a Black Hole effects the speed of light and as light can be in two places at the same time the speed is irrelevant, only what we observe.

 

The speed of light is a constant in inertial frames of references. That excludes frames in gravitational fields.

[Chriton]

Sorry "swansont" totaly disagree with both your points, I have my points of view and as you cannot prove your theories, as Math is flawed and inexact and Physics is only Theory then I will continue to express my thoughts as a Human Being, I am a sceptic when it comes to Dogma and Scientific "Fact"...not...Sorry again, but I am my own person

[mooeypoo]

Sorry "swansont" totaly disagree with both your points, I have my points of view and as you cannot prove your theories,

That's not swansont's "theories", those are validated, proven concepts. I suggest you get a modern physics book and read it.

 

as Math is flawed and inexact and Physics is only Theory

I don't quite know what to answer to that. "Only" theory? The *entire* of physics? Are you sure you're in the right site?

 

then I will continue to express my thoughts as a Human Being, I am a sceptic when it comes to Dogma and Scientific "Fact"...not...Sorry again, but I am my own person

You can express your thoughts but if they stand in opposition to evidence, and you have no evidence to support *your* thought, then your thoughts are worthless.

 

We're not a myth forum, Chriton, we're a science forum, we follow the scientific method and we require validation, mathematics and evidence to claims made.

 

Seems you need to read a bit about the theories you claim to disagree with, seeing as you don't QUITE seem to understand what they say and the sheer amount of evidence they have backing them up.

 

~moo

[Chriton]

Sorry!.. I do not wish to disprove of any views held by others, I started this thread by saying I have a Holistic view of the way things are, I respect the views of others but I only wish to put my point of view, I have read many books on Physics and Particle Physics but have my own conclusions, I am still questioning things and am looking for answers, Sorry if I come accross as a sceptic...but I am...I, like everyone else, am looking for answers, not just the Math.

[mooeypoo]

Sorry!.. I do not wish to disprove of any views held by others, I started this thread by saying I have a Holistic view of the way things are, I respect the views of others but I only wish to put my point of view, I have read many books on Physics and Particle Physics but have my own conclusions, I am still questioning things and am looking for answers, Sorry if I come accross as a sceptic...but I am...I, like everyone else, am looking for answers, not just the Math.

 

That's fine, Chriton, but in order to explain to us how your views are comparable to the "views" of mainstream science, you need to do a bit better than just lay them out.

 

You seem to think that our views are the same.. "science" has views and you ahve views and we each have our rights for our views. While technically speaking we all have a right to hold any view we want, in science we strive to describe reality, not just 'have a view' about it.

 

Your views, so far at least, are opinions that are not backed up by facts, seem to outright oppose observation and evidence and have no logical validation or structure.

 

Scientific "views" follow the scientific method, which demands objectivity, factual reference, observations, mathematics and the ability to produce predictions.

 

The two are, by far, not comparable. If you want to continue debating your views on the thread rationally (which is what we do), you need to explain what are the basis of those views and start supplying a bit of evidence-based substantiation.

 

Since science describes reality, it has no room for opinion, only descriptions that are based on facts.. your "interpretations" *oppose* the existing evidence. You need to give us some logic and evidence of your own, then, if you want to continue the debate.

 

~moo

[Chriton]

My views do not have to compare to mainstream science, I as a human being have a thought process and as an individual I have a right to express what I think in my own right, I am not debating what others think but giving an alternative point of view, you can use all the "Facts" but opinion is individual, Science uses "evidence" to prove anything but the evidence can change, my Logic is what I have lived, learned and observed, The basis of my views is My Knowlege of life, I have nothing to prove.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then why present your ideas?

 

The point of science is to improve our understanding of how the universe works. We use evidence because it reveals the behaviors of the universe -- if the evidence does change, it just tells us something else about how the universe changes.

 

Your knowledge of life and your thought processes just reveals how you think; it doesn't show us anything about the universe. That is why science tests views to see how they compare with how the universe really acts.

[Chriton]

The point of science is to improve our understanding of how the universe works. We use evidence because it reveals the behaviors of the universe -- if the evidence does change, it just tells us something else about how the universe changes.

 

Yes I agree, all my knowlege comes from the science but I also have my own conclusions for the science, and my own interpretation of the evidence, I do not go along with all their conclusions, Scientist get a pet theory and go out to prove it, they are not objective, Individuals have to filter out the reality of their findings...only my opinion...lol

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Fair enough. Sometimes scientists do get a pet theory and go overboard trying to prove it. But the matters you brought up in your original post are not the work of one scientist, they are theories agreed upon widely by all scientists.

 

So while it's good to be skeptical and to examine the evidence, it's also worth pointing out that for mainstream science, people have been examining the evidence already for decades. The end result is the agreed-upon conclusions you learn about now. Of course, for new discoveries, reaching a conclusion can be more difficult...

[Phi for All]

My views do not have to compare to mainstream science, I as a human being have a thought process and as an individual I have a right to express what I think in my own right, I am not debating what others think but giving an alternative point of view, you can use all the "Facts" but opinion is individual, Science uses "evidence" to prove anything but the evidence can change, my Logic is what I have lived, learned and observed, The basis of my views is My Knowlege of life, I have nothing to prove.

The main value of the scientific method is to take personal views and individual logic out of the equation and present an objective case for any idea. While personal observation is valid, it must be weighed against other observations and evidence to make testable predictions.

 

Many people who think as you do assume that scientists merely study what has already been done, that there is a fundamental flaw in science because it's just building upon flawed premises by "good old boys" who benefit from keeping quiet. In reality, most scientists would give anything to be able to disprove an accepted theory, and many try full time.

 

Theories, pet or no pet, have to undergo rigorous peer review by other scientists who are brutal in their examination of the methodology used and the conclusions drawn. There is no conspiracy to cover up evidence, nothing that could convince every serious scientist in the whole world to overlook sloppy work or specious conjecture. What would be the point? You would make your mark much more quickly by offering proof that a theory is wrong than you would by simply following the pack.

 

Normally, we see people who rant against accepted theories who are just lazy and don't want to study all the mainstream work, or don't have the math to see that they are wrong, but you seem like a very learned person, a skilled engineer. Can you pick one of your "conspiracies" for this thread and expound upon why you think everyone is trying to cover up the truth about it?

[Chriton]

OK! I take all your points of view, I have been on Forums that just criticise but now I realise that you have good inteligent people, I will look forward to learning from you, I am a sceptic and an open minded person who is looking for answers, I distrust Scienctific Dogma, but I am interested in Quantum Physics, String theory, also Theoretical Physics....I will now shut up...lol

[mooeypoo]

OK! I take all your points of view, I have been on Forums that just criticise but now I realise that you have good inteligent people, I will look forward to learning from you, I am a sceptic and an open minded person who is looking for answers, I distrust Scienctific Dogma, but I am interested in Quantum Physics, String theory, also Theoretical Physics....I will now shut up...lol

Well, welcome to the forum, Chriton, we value curiousity here

 

Your previous questions were a but confusing. If you have something specific to ask, please pick a subject and we could debate it in more depth. Otherwise, feel free to roam around the forums and see if anything interests you.

 

Welcome.

[ajb]

Sorry "swansont" totaly disagree with both your points, I have my points of view and as you cannot prove your theories, as Math is flawed and inexact and Physics is only Theory then I will continue to express my thoughts as a Human Being, I am a sceptic when it comes to Dogma and Scientific "Fact"...not...Sorry again, but I am my own person

 

Anyone want to read my post http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47643 Have a look at my list

 

On the speed of light in general relativity, this is a little more subtle than one may first think.

 

1) In special relativity we have the speed of light a constant in all inertial frames. That is we have a very special collection of coordinates. We can chose coordinates that are not inertial. In this case the speed of light is almost never going to be that measured in an inertial frame. The definition of velocity is frame dependant in general.

 

2) In general relativity we have local inertial frames. Mathematically speaking this means space-time is a manifold and that we have coordinates (in the neighbourhood of a point) which make the space-time at a point flat. The equivalence principle states that the physics locally must reduce to that of special relativity. So, locally we have the speed of light being c.

 

3) A better way of thinking about c is as a "fundamental property" of space-time. It defines the causal structure via null-comes. It is not "just " the speed of light. Travelling at the speed of light means having world-lines tangential to null-vectors. Thus, in special relativity the speed of light being c is tied into the geometry.

 

And one last remark, the experimental evidence, both directly and indirectly for the speed of light constant in vacua as measured in (very nearly) inertial reference fames is overwhelming.

Edited January 14, 2010 by ajb

[swansont]

Sorry "swansont" totaly disagree with both your points, I have my points of view and as you cannot prove your theories, as Math is flawed and inexact and Physics is only Theory then I will continue to express my thoughts as a Human Being, I am a sceptic when it comes to Dogma and Scientific "Fact"...not...Sorry again, but I am my own person

 

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The existence of the derivation of E=mc^2, and the postulate of constant c (and the conditions where this applies) are not subject to your personal view.

 

And it doesn't matter how much you hide the blather in claims of skepticism and dogma. If you aren't going to use the rules of science to discuss science, it's just blather. Science is about empirical evidence. The short version is: put up or shut up.

[michel123456]

On the speed of light in general relativity, this is a little more subtle than one may first think.(...)

 

1) In special relativity we have the speed of light a constant in all inertial frames. That is we have a very special collection of coordinates. We can chose coordinates that are not inertial. In this case the speed of light is almost never going to be that measured in an inertial frame. The definition of velocity is frame dependant in general.

 

2) In general relativity we have local inertial frames. Mathematically speaking this means space-time is a manifold and that we have coordinates (in the neighbourhood of a point) which make the space-time at a point flat. The equivalence principle states that the physics locally must reduce to that of special relativity. So, locally we have the speed of light being c.

 

3) A better way of thinking about c is as a "fundamental property" of space-time. It defines the causal structure via null-comes. It is not "just " the speed of light. Travelling at the speed of light means having world-lines tangential to null-vectors. Thus, in special relativity the speed of light being c is tied into the geometry.

 

And one last remark, the experimental evidence, both directly and indirectly for the speed of light constant in vacua as measured in (very nearly) inertial reference fames is overwhelming.

 

Since AJB mentioned C, I'd like to take the opportunity of asking some question.

The general accepted concept is that Speed Of Light is absolute. AJB understands there is subtility in here, it is not a simple statement. And I have to admit I am confused most of the times in its interpretation.

So:

_an observator A in an inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_another observator B in his own inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_an observator C in an inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_same for observator D,E, etc.

Is that what we mean when saying "C is absolute"?

[ydoaPs]

_an observator A in an inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_another observator B in his own inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_an observator C in an inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_same for observator D,E, etc.

Is that what we mean when saying "C is absolute"?

 

Yes.

[michel123456]

Yes.

Well, IMO, that shouldn't be called an absolute. That should be called a horizon.