Why does mass curve space-time?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To staff: do something.

Can't you get banned for rudeness or something?

 

Please report posts when you believe there's a problem. Staff do not read every post, so reports draw our attention to the problems.

 

 

He/she's a moderator, he/she's not on probation anymore...but, it's the only way most people can think for a forum to work properly.

No, he isn't, he's a resident expert, as noted by the "Expert" icon and not the "Staff" icon.

 

Can we all calm down and be sane for a while?

 

If someone uses a spectrometer to show that some element is present in some star, where is the math?

If someone uses a spectrometer, they must measure the angular separation of lines in the spectrometer's images and use trigonometry and mathematics to find the wavelength of the diffracted light. This is then compared with results of other elements, which can be computed mathematically from models or determined experimentally through similar mathematics.

[steevey]

Please report posts when you believe there's a problem. Staff do not read every post, so reports draw our attention to the problems.

 

 

 

No, he isn't, he's a resident expert, as noted by the "Expert" icon and not the "Staff" icon.

 

Can we all calm down and be sane for a while?

 

 

If someone uses a spectrometer, they must measure the angular separation of lines in the spectrometer's images and use trigonometry and mathematics to find the wavelength of the diffracted light. This is then compared with results of other elements, which can be computed mathematically from models or determined experimentally through similar mathematics.

 

 

ok, the name "D H" is on the list of forum moderators here http://www.sciencefo...tats&do=leaders

 

Unless by forum moderators do you actually mean "residential experts"?

 

And also, when did I ever ask about a spectrometer? Is it from a different topic? I remember saying something about analyzing the light from stars somewhere, but certainly not in this topic.

Edited December 19, 2010 by steevey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ok, the name "D H" is on the list of forum moderators here http://www.sciencefo...tats&do=leaders

 

Unless by forum moderators do you actually mean "residential experts"?

 

And also, when did I ever ask about a spectrometer? Is it from a different topic? I remember saying something about analyzing the light from stars somewhere, but certainly not in this topic.

Whoops. That was this post, as I quoted incorrectly:

 

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__578852

 

And yes, "forum moderators" are resident experts, as they have limited abilities to move threads to the appropriate forums.

[swansont]

What is just wrong is to think that one's credentials give one the right to "own" language and concepts. You may have a broader range of reasoning at your disposal because of your years of study that give you the power to show where amateurs' ideas fail, but you have to provide those reasons for us to see it. We're not just going to fall on our knees and believe we are totally lost because you say so. You have to ground your claims in specific reasoning.

 

 

See, there you go. Claim without giving any reason. Your credentials don't give you the right to make unreasoned claims. If anything they're supposed to have learned you that unreasoned claims are valueless.

 

You don't get to make up your own definitions to words that already have definitions. You can't communicate that way. If you want to visit physics-land, you need to speak physics.

 

You were given reasons why your post was word salad. One being that energy is not a substance, and assuming something is true because it has not been proven false is the opposite of how science works and a logical fallacy to boot. This being a science board, the people who are knowledgeable in physics often do explain where someone's hypothesis goes astray, but pointing out errors comes before explaining details, and when all is said and done, I/we don't have to do anything. I don't think the experts and moderators ask for very much in exchange for our time and expertise, but expecting a modicum of respect and recognition is not out of line, and if there is a sense of obligation it is make sure that the casual user is not subjected to bad information.

 

I'll tell you something else. The resident experts are occasionally wrong, too. You know what typically happens when someone points out the error? They acknowledge their mistake and quite often thank the person who corrected them. Pointing out errors is not considered rude within the science community.

[lemur]

Considering that you called a member of the staff "arrogant", I'm sure you'll be the first to know.

First, I don't think it should matter what someone's status is when you're replying to or commenting on their post. Second, I didn't just use the word "arrogant" as a general personal insult. It was in regard to a general write-off of a post as being "nonsense," or "word-salad" without even bothering to consider the intended meaning of the post. I don't find it groundless to distinguish between photons and other kinds of particles in terms of their having inertia. It is perfectly logical that C is the absolute speed-limit of energy simply because particles with inertia cannot achieve infinite energy, whereas photons achieve/express their ultimate energy level by moving at C. It is thus not ridiculous to consider EM radiation as purely radiant energy while particles with inertia can move linearly with momentum but that part of their energy is expressed as inertia or "matter-ness," if you want to call it that. I like to call it "bound energy" because the (radiant) energy appears to be bound up in some kind of configuration that converts ability to radiate into inertia. Thus the "word salad" post that suggested that bound-particles could have some tendency (or maybe "potential" would be a better word) toward achieving C is not as crazy as it may sound to someone with a bias in favor of another description. This is similar to saying that any form of potential energy has a "tendency" to be expressed as kinetic energy, no? A true crackpot would argue irrationally against any counter-argument why this is a poorly conceived thought, but that's not what I am doing (and I don't think it's what the other poster was doing either). I think we were just discussing the idea in a way that gave some credence to the notion that energy can radiate at C or be bound as sub-C inertial particles. Obviously we would like someone with more physics expertise to comment on this idea in a constructive way to push us toward more critical evaluation of such ideas. It's just that it seemed arrogant/rude to refuse us this courtesy because the wording of the idea was not immediately transparent to the (impatient imo) reader.

 

1. It's a waste of time to engage with argumentative crackpots. They typically refuse to acknowledge accepted understanding, so any attempt to help them be better informed will be brushed aside.

Probably so, but don't be too quick to dismiss me/us as total crackpots, please.

 

2. Math really is the key to go from idea to theory. An idea may be judged good or bad depending on opinion (the wilder the idea, the better it will seem to some and the worse to others). All of our wild ideas are typically vague, with parts that "make sense" but leave room for interpretation or simply let the details remain clouded in a mental fog. There are so many ways that the details can manifest, that it's unlikely to get them right via a guess based on common sense. So you take an idea, and you express it mathematically, and it lets you determine if your idea makes precise sense (whereas "word salad" can be shown neither true nor false because it's so vague). BUT BETTER YET, if the math doesn't work you can change it and fix it, and make it work, and in doing so that will give you the details needed to let you express the idea in words properly. Either by making the ideas precise, or by changing them completely, a good idea can become a good theory that may look nothing like the original idea. An idea in words may be good or bad, but the same idea in math can be right or wrong, and "good" doesn't always correspond directly with "right".

I can see how precise mathematical expressions allow for more exact critique. I have nothing against math and I try to express things with mathematical logic even though I don't have any equation writing/interpreting skill for the most part. Still, the idea that radiation energy can be bound up as inertia-particles is not mathematically expressible, as far as I know. Still, there are clearly precedents in other forms of PE/KE. E.g. planets orbiting the sun in a stable orbital pattern have linear momentum but that momentum can be viewed as PE insofar as that momentum can be transferred to other objects through collisions. A solar system can thus be seen as a system of "bound energy" in that the planets are bound in stable orbits, yet they express energy as momentum. How can you call this pure "crackpottery?"

 

 

An example is Mach's Principle, which "was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity," "but because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." Through words, Mach's principle doesn't tell you much about how the universe works. But Einstein did the math, and the math tells us how the idea works, and tells us so much more and in precise detail, than what Mach's principle says.

 

Mach's principle on its own sounds like crackpot science. Yet it is a useful idea. I'm sure that Mach didn't have to fight with Einstein to prove his idea was right, and that if he had tried he wouldn't have been able to.

Thanks for this example. It's the first I've heard of it.

 

 

[D H]

I don't find it groundless to distinguish between photons and other kinds of particles in terms of their having inertia.

What do you mean by inertia? "Inertia" is one of those words that physicists now eschew (exception: Moment of inertia). Without a qualifier, inertia has an ambiguous meaning. In some contexts it means mass, in others, momentum. Why use a word with ambiguous meaning when there are two perfectly good words that do not suffer that ambiguity? If you mean momentum, photons have non-zero momentum.

 

 

A true crackpot would argue irrationally against any counter-argument why this is a poorly conceived thought, but that's not what I am doing (and I don't think it's what the other poster was doing either).

Look back at what you wrote. That is exactly what you are doing.

 

 

I can see how precise mathematical expressions allow for more exact critique. I have nothing against math and I try to express things with mathematical logic even though I don't have any equation writing/interpreting skill for the most part. Still, the idea that radiation energy can be bound up as inertia-particles is not mathematically expressible, as far as I know.

Then do it. Don't put the burden on us.

 

If you are not using mathematics you are not doing physics. Period.

[swansont]

E.g. planets orbiting the sun in a stable orbital pattern have linear momentum but that momentum can be viewed as PE insofar as that momentum can be transferred to other objects through collisions. A solar system can thus be seen as a system of "bound energy" in that the planets are bound in stable orbits, yet they express energy as momentum. How can you call this pure "crackpottery?"

 

Because it is. A planet does not "express energy as momentum." Momentum is momentum and energy is energy. They have precise definitions. While they can be related, via mathematical expressions, they are not substitutes for each other. In a collision, momentum is conserved. KE may not be.

[md65536]

How can you call this pure "crackpottery?"

"Explanations" that are neither backed up with math, nor predict observations that existing theories do not, might be considered crackpottery. This doesn't mean they're wrong. They may be simply incomplete, and not ready to be accepted by others.

 

What I was referring to is another aspect of crackpottery seen in this thread, which is a tendency toward sweeping claims that what has been established is wrong. This can be good in moderation, because our existing understanding is always evolving and some of it is wrong. As you've said, claiming that something is wrong without understanding it is bad, and a poor understanding of established science is where most of the bad crackpots seem to fail.

 

 

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with crackpot science, but crackpots have to follow the same rules as everybody else. As it is, the evidence is stacked in favor of what is already established. Crackpots must speak the language of what has been established to show that it is incorrect. New contending theories must be backed up with math and/or empirical observations, at least as much as the theories they intend to replace.

 

 

What good is a theory that makes no new predictions about what is observable, and also can't be shown to be true or false or even consistent? What can it be used for? At best (as far as I can fathom) it can lead to a testable theory, or it can influence other testable theories. So it may warrant additional work, possibly involving others who also willingly believe that it is worth investing in. If others aren't interested and you don't have the evidence needed to convince them, arguing your side will get you nowhere. Clearly, anyone who agrees with you must be of a similar mindset and easily convinced. Either way, having to strongly argue your case without evidence is probably wasted effort.

[Incendia]

If you are not using mathematics you are not doing physics. Period.

 

That's not true...maths is just important in physics...physics can be expressed through words.

[Mr Skeptic]

That's not true...maths is just important in physics...physics can be expressed through words.

 

Math can be expressed through words too, so of course physics can as well. The trick is that the words to describe physics in words have to be very exact, and in general its harder to do physics with words than with equations.

[Incendia]

...but harder to understand if you don't know what the equation means...Not everyone knows what the letters and greek letters in physics equations mean.

/ including me...

[Mr Skeptic]

And even less people would know what the words mean. For example, express maxwell's equations in words, and then to test that they understand it see if they can derive the classical equation for light (or the equivalent in words), including its speed. Even if you tell them about the sinusoidal nature of the light equation they really aren't going to figure it out without math.

[michel123456]

"number salad" is more detectable than "word salad".

[Simpleton]

Often, many possible explanations and equations are given for seamingly the same thing. I can feel for everyone that can not deal with equations. I certainly can't understand equations and more often then not can't make sense of explanations. Lots of times, explanations are like fashion statements to me, telling me what is the current trend and is in fashion. For instants, there must be ten or more different explanations dealing with Vacuum Energy. Every one having there own names, explanation and calculations, all of them dealing with more or less the same thing. It is not long ago that the explanation for most things to do with and around a black hole was frosen in time and I am sure that there is a lot more.

Every body can have a bad day or two. For me, the day or two often has to be replaced with a week or two. Tolerance and kindness lets progress go forward regardless of a bad, stupid or even ignorant moment. It would be sad if, do to a lousy slip taken personal this interesting thread has come to an end.

[Simpleton]

Like to remove one of the two. Do not know how.

 

Often, many possible explanations and equations are given for seamingly the same thing. I can feel for everyone that can not deal with equations. I certainly can't understand equations and more often then not can't make sense of explanations. Lots of times, explanations are like fashion statements to me, telling me what is the current trend and is in fashion. For instants, there must be ten or more different explanations dealing with Vacuum Energy. Every one having there own names, explanation and calculations, all of them dealing with more or less the same thing. It is not long ago that the explanation for most things to do with and around a black hole was frosen in time and I am sure that there is a lot more.

Every body can have a bad day or two. For me, the day or two often has to be replaced with a week or two. Tolerance and kindness lets progress go forward regardless of a bad, stupid or even ignorant moment. It would be sad if, do to a lousy slip taken personal this interesting thread has come to an end.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Simpleton

[md65536]

http://www.smbc-comi...=comics&id=1995

 

You can deal with equations. If you understand that gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance squared, then the equation g = GM/r² makes sense.

If the equation doesn't make sense, you probably don't really understand that gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of distance.

 

If you understand that the gravitation force on an object is the same as the sum of the force on all its constituent parts (or particles), then some equation involving integration should make sense.

If you don't know integration, or don't understand how to manipulate simple equations, then you may understand something about gravity but may be unable to use that information to figure anything else out.

 

To get back to the original topic, perhaps in 2 generations time there will be children's books that explain stuff about which we can only say "We don't really know" today.

 

Today, there are many explanations of special relativity that don't use math, but use trains and rockets and light signals etc. These are great for providing a children's or layperson's understanding of the topic, but not a scientific understanding of it. On the original topic of this thread, the point is moot, because there is not yet a broad enough understanding of the topic to provide a children's level understanding of it.

 

 

As a side note, in high school I found it puzzling why gravity should be proportional to 1/r²... why exactly 2? Now I have a (speculative, maybe "not quite science") answer, but it comes in the form of math.

 

 

Also, asking and/or pondering "why" questions can lead to good science (possibly along a long and winding road), however in this case the answers are either speculation or misinformation.

Edited December 22, 2010 by md65536

[Simpleton]

School is close to half a century ago and was a difficult and unpleasant experience for me. I am in many ways. what my name is supposed to imply. I spent in excess of an hour in constructing this comment to make it reasonably understandable to my selfs and hopefully acceptable to read by some one else. Strange to my self is that many or even most of the subjects discussed hear are easy to understand as they make sense to me and therefore are not thought provoking. There is those subjects that do not make sense to me, it is them that occupy my head against my will, take weeks month or years of grumbling, reading and searching to try to get my selfs in to a position where it makes sense and leaves me alone, to run around and do what I have to do without my head constantly occupying it self on that what does not make sense. It seams that I have little control over what is going on inside my head. When something makes sense to me, does not mean that I can easily explain why, so it might make sense to someone else, but it lets me sleep and function. To explain, takes lots of times riding, reading, re riding and re reading, re searching and re reading just so that I feel that "maybe" it is in a way that there is a chance that some one else can understand what I am talking about without and before getting impationed, nasty or even ignorant.

I much appreciate your reply, thank you.

Some times, a bad Idea is what gives some one else a good Idia.

[between3and26characterslon]

Hello reader,

According to general relativity mass curves space-time giving the effect of gravity...

 

I have a challenge for you. Think of (a) reason(s) why mass causes space-time to curve. I have tried...You people are more qualified than I. So you should try too.

There is no prize.

Why am I making this thread? ...Because I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this question of why.

 

If you think of a reason you like I encourage you to make our own thread in the speculations section.

 

I don't like equations...Try to not use them. You can add them to your post in the speculations section later.

...And the challenge begins in...1...2...3...Now...Enjoy! I will be interested by your attempts to think of why mass = space-time curvature.

 

 

Getting back to the original question (I gave up reading all the replies because I wanted to say this, so I apologise if this has already been said)

 

I think the point you're missing is that curved spacetime, general relativity etc... are not how the universe works. They are models which describe observations to a high degree of accuracy. Asking why does mass curve spacetime is a nonsence question, we start with the postulate that mass does curve space time (this postulate being based on the logical conclusion of previously accepted ideas) and we find it give results that agree strongly with observation.

 

As Einstein said, in Euclidean geometry a straight line is defined as the shortest distance uniquely determined by two points situated on it. You can not ask if this is true, you can only say this is the rule we use.

 

So in physics there are rules we use, these rules may or may not be correct and they certainly do not describe what is happening or why it is happening, but these rules describe what we observe and they have stood the test of time and are therefore considered good models. If we interpert these rules in the correct manner we will find they have inevitable conclusions, if these conclusions agree with observation then it further supports the rules we use.

 

Einstein also said, "I wished to show that spacetime is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a seperate existance, independantly of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spacially extanded. In this way the concept of empty space looses its meaning."

 

So spacetime could only be truely flat if there was no mass to distort it but, if there was no mass, there would be no spacetime.

 

 

So to answer your question we can not answer why, we do not need to know why and we will never know why. All we can do is theorise models, which are the logical conclusions of the rules we accept as true and use these models to describe observations and make predictions.

Edited December 22, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[michel123456]

(...) we do not need to know why and we will never know why. (...)

 

I disagree on these. If you replace "we" by "I", I agree.

Edited December 22, 2010 by michel123456

[lemur]

What do you mean by inertia? "Inertia" is one of those words that physicists now eschew (exception: Moment of inertia). Without a qualifier, inertia has an ambiguous meaning. In some contexts it means mass, in others, momentum. Why use a word with ambiguous meaning when there are two perfectly good words that do not suffer that ambiguity? If you mean momentum, photons have non-zero momentum.

I use "inertia" because it is the big difference between photons and other particles. Photons can't move at speeds less than C because they don't carry energy as momentum the way particles with mass do. Inertia means a particle can resist force with an equal and opposite reaction. If it gets pushed, it pushes back with equal force. If it gets pulled, it pulls back with equal force. Photons just radiate until they hit something.

 

If you are not using mathematics you are not doing physics. Period.

I don't care what you call it when you discuss these issues other than physics. I think I actually use mathematics but I don't abstract it into equations and variables except as reference for convenience. F=MA, P=MV, etc. conveniently sum up the descriptions of what force and momentum mean, but I think about the relationship between force and momentum intuitively by thinking of a moving object having the potential to exert a certain amount of force over a certain distance as it encounters friction, for example, and this makes me think of work being force exerted over a distance. Sometimes I mix up definitions of things like work and power, but that doesn't really matter because it's not about getting 100% on an exam to me, it's about seeing relationships between physical phenomena that I previously didn't see.

 

Because it is. A planet does not "express energy as momentum." Momentum is momentum and energy is energy. They have precise definitions. While they can be related, via mathematical expressions, they are not substitutes for each other. In a collision, momentum is conserved. KE may not be.

Momentum is conserved in a collision, but the energy of one object can be transferred to another in the form of momentum being lost by one and gained by the other. What is wrong with using "express" to describe an object accelerating due to force? Forces are only observable in the behaviors of objects affected by them, which is easiest to describe by saying that the object "expresses" force as acceleration, etc. Why do you have to challenge the use of words because they're maybe unfamiliar to you instead of just understanding what they mean in the context they're used?

 

 

 

"Explanations" that are neither backed up with math, nor predict observations that existing theories do not, might be considered crackpottery. This doesn't mean they're wrong. They may be simply incomplete, and not ready to be accepted by others.

You can't accept or reject anything scientifically on the basis of appearance. You can reject it because it looks, sounds, or feels like "crackpottery" to you but this is not rigorous. If you want to insist that you are a bona fide scientist and that you don't have time to apply rigor to anything that appears to you as crackpottery, then why not just ignore the post in the first place? Do people really need to hear someone drown out any discussions they're uncomfortable with because they think they're a physics wizard and anything they don't immediately recognize as valid must be crackpottery?

 

What I was referring to is another aspect of crackpottery seen in this thread, which is a tendency toward sweeping claims that what has been established is wrong. This can be good in moderation, because our existing understanding is always evolving and some of it is wrong. As you've said, claiming that something is wrong without understanding it is bad, and a poor understanding of established science is where most of the bad crackpots seem to fail.

I don't have any general defense for crackpottery because it's not all the same thing. My concern is with being able to "pick the trash" of crackpottery for interesting ideas and discussion material without having to listen to rants about the difference between bona fide physics and crackpottery.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with crackpot science, but crackpots have to follow the same rules as everybody else. As it is, the evidence is stacked in favor of what is already established. Crackpots must speak the language of what has been established to show that it is incorrect. New contending theories must be backed up with math and/or empirical observations, at least as much as the theories they intend to replace.

Who is talking about following or breaking rules? Why can't ideas just be discussed and if part of that discussion is to consider in what ways they are mathematically expressible or not, so be it?

 

What good is a theory that makes no new predictions about what is observable, and also can't be shown to be true or false or even consistent? What can it be used for? At best (as far as I can fathom) it can lead to a testable theory, or it can influence other testable theories. So it may warrant additional work, possibly involving others who also willingly believe that it is worth investing in. If others aren't interested and you don't have the evidence needed to convince them, arguing your side will get you nowhere. Clearly, anyone who agrees with you must be of a similar mindset and easily convinced. Either way, having to strongly argue your case without evidence is probably wasted effort.

The question is why nay-sayers have to try to kill theoretical seeds instead of leaving them for someone who might feel like bothering. Also, why would you think that you can speak for "others" instead of voicing your own opinion and accepting that others may think differently?

 

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

I disagree on these. If you replace "we" by "I", I agree.

 

 

Point taken.

[michel123456]

If you are not using mathematics you are not doing physics. Period.

 

When one does, you don't answer.

[prove_it]

No.

 

A new theory in physics has to subsume what we already know. The existing physics is backed up by a lot of experimental evidence.

 

A new theory in physics has to explain something new. Why switch to some new theory if it doesn't have anything new to say?

 

A new theory in physics has to be expressed in mathematics. While we try not to get overly nerdy and delve into math when we talk to lay people, but amongst ourselves, we have no such constraints.

 

A new theory has to be well-justified. In the example at hand, what motivates for this claim that space consists of particles?

 

A new theory has to be elegant and simple. A good example is Lorentz Ether Theory. LET is mathematically indistinguishable from special relativity. Yet no legitimate physicist espouses LET. LET only lives on in the minds of cranks. LET has some ugly ad hoc axioms. In comparison, special relativity is a simple elegant theory.

 

 

A new theory has to be testable, from top to bottom. LET was not testable. Just the opposite. It postulated an absolute reference frame but said that there was no way to detect this frame. That alone makes LET non-scientific. Physicists are the ultimate Missourans (Missouri nickname is the "Show Me" state). The basis for a scientific theory has to be testable.

 

 

So could you get out their and test for me how mass newly applied to spacetime effects it ( you know if it curves or if it bends at all etc.) thanks. Or point me in the direction of the tests or experimental evedince that proves that mass causes space time curve. Assuming that that theory was not created by op but was a part of einstien's work. Now as for the claim that scientfic theory is testable is not true if it was it would become true or false as a result of testing that is why they call it theory because it cannot be proven altho they can find circumstantial evedince that supports it( last i knew that was not enough to prove anything). So I am a missouran show me the proof put mass in some space time and let me know what you come up with. You know what ill do it for you hold on.

 

Dear op jut look at a comet it has a feld and causes space time to curve witch causes a little gravity for it but only a little due it its amount of mass just like space trash and asteroides and can be pulled into our space-time well or gravity field where it meats our atmosphere and is either incenerated by the heat or falls to the earth ending its effect on space time because it either joins earth's mass that affects our space time or is incenerated. They say the proof is in the pudding well here it is

if mass can cause space time to cure and create gravity then it must be relative to the amount of mass and density of said mass and guess what it is and you can see that every time you see a shooting star or space trash burning up in the atmosphere well not every time just when it is pulled in by our gravitational field bucause our field is biger than its is because we have more mass. I hope this answers your ? as this is as simple as i can make it yes mass causes space time to curve how simple its called displacement just like a boat on water the more mass the more space time is displaced as space time is a form of mass or it could not exist at all it just happens to be a heaver mass than the planets and other stuff floating in it just like almost all theories sugest witch brings in to question is a black hole a exploded sun or just really really dence mass do to the more mass more gravity over itme with astroids adding to the mass till it becomes so dence that all you can see is the reflection of the distortion left on the serface of space time.

 

Even if you buy nothing of what i typed here today remember both of you seing how i can only tell you how i inturput what i see in nature that you both are probably now dumber for having read what i typed unless you dissagree then i will be happy to pretend that I am a smart fella even tho i am tired and cant spell straight.

 

You are traveling at 0.999999 c with respect to some object in the universe. Why haven't you become radiant again?

 

 

Umm relativity to your self and that object most likelysimply meaning if you where standingon that object and looking at him he would (duh). As for word soup o my bad dont want to get my physics terms mixed up word salad i make it all the time so i know how it tastes and yours is the best you have to give me the recipe.

 

SIG. As a lepton i pretty much only respond to weak forces wich explains why i felt i had to reply to this.

 

What a bunch of hogwash.

 

Who is more qualified to remove a tumor from your brain, a trained neurosurgeon, or someone who has read the wikipedia article on brain surgery? Who is more qualified to argue a case before the Supreme Court, a practiced constitutional lawyer, or an amateur pundit who has some twisted view of what the constitution means? What we have here is one of the key problems of the 21st century, the silly notion that people with no training in a specialized field can add any value to that field. If anything, this internet cult of the amateur subtracts value from society.

 

Moreover, this is not how science works. When someone throws out a bunch of excrement and someone knowledgable in the field calls BS, it is not our job to prove the person who made those excremental claims false. The burden of proof lies solely on the person who made the claims. In the field of physics, those claims need to be backed up with mathematics. Words alone are just armchair philosophizing, aka mental masturbation.

 

 

 

 

 

You know he is right Your credentials don't give you the right to make unreasoned claims ( the first amendment does). From what i hear from you i doubt you have any credentials. Likining your loose speculations to brain sugery is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. then to go on and try and i mean to try to say that a laywer dosnt twist things likining you avrage person to a second class citizen. In a proud exclamation that you think you are better than everyone else. Imo you sir subtract from society. I do agree however that thats not how science works however to claim the people with out a physics degree cant add to physics you need to go back to school and learn about the people who made the theories that physics is based on. And as for the rest of the bs you just said has made all people with expert next to their name on this site look more ignorant than a scared and angery third grader. Yes we need math for physics but any one can observe wich is the basics of physics. just like a arm chair fake going on the internet to masterbate you ego because no other scientist will take you seriously I sure wont and mit wont my professor would have sent you packing. I dont see how you think you are knowledgable in any situation.

 

SIG.As a lepton i pretty much only respond to weak forces wich explains why i felt i had to reply to this.

Edited April 25, 2011 by prove_it

[ajb]

So could you get out their and test for me how mass newly applied to spacetime effects it ( you know if it curves or if it bends at all etc.) thanks. Or point me in the direction of the tests or experimental evedince that proves that mass causes space time curve.

 

 

You could have a look at the review article Turyshev [1].

 

The "classical evidence" was in the form of Einstein explaining the perihelion of Mercury and then slightly latter Eddington demonstrated that light was bent when passing near a massive body during the 1919 solar eclipse. Although one could argue about the accuracy of Eddington's work, it all agrees with general relativity rather than Newtonian gravity.

 

Since then many phenomena consistent with general relativity have been observed; gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation, the dynamics of binary pulsars etc. None of these observations deviate from general relativity (up to experimental and systematic errors).

 

The only real hint an a non-Einsteinian Universe is the question of dark energy. That is the mysterious force driving the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not so easy to directly include into Einstein's general relativity. Dark energy points towards physics beyond the usual context of general relativity.

 

The theoretical evidence for a non-Einsteinian Universe is very strong. In particular one cannot use the naive methods of quantum field theory to produce a quantum theory of gravity. Even in the "best case scenario" of a non-supersymmetric theory that is asymptotically safe would probably have to include higher curvature terms not present in the Einstein--Hilbert action. Then ideas like supergravity and string theory add more and more to the theory.

 

 

However, right now there is no tangible evidence to suggest what should replace general relativity as our best theory of classical gravity. It maybe expected that as a classical limit of some quantum theory some residual non-Einsteinian effects maybe be present in the Universe, but these have not been seen.

 

In short, general relativity seems to work very well and very few hints as to how to go beyond it exist.

 

 

References

 

[1]Slava G. Turyshev, Experimental Tests of General Relativity Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 207-248 (2008). Also available as arXiv:0806.1731v2 [gr-qc]

[prove_it]

You could have a look at the review article Turyshev [1].

 

The "classical evidence" was in the form of Einstein explaining the perihelion of Mercury and then slightly latter Eddington demonstrated that light was bent when passing near a massive body during the 1919 solar eclipse. Although one could argue about the accuracy of Eddington's work, it all agrees with general relativity rather than Newtonian gravity.

 

Since then many phenomena consistent with general relativity have been observed; gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation, the dynamics of binary pulsars etc. None of these observations deviate from general relativity (up to experimental and systematic errors).

 

The only real hint an a non-Einsteinian Universe is the question of dark energy. That is the mysterious force driving the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not so easy to directly include into Einstein's general relativity. Dark energy points towards physics beyond the usual context of general relativity.

 

The theoretical evidence for a non-Einsteinian Universe is very strong. In particular one cannot use the naive methods of quantum field theory to produce a quantum theory of gravity. Even in the "best case scenario" of a non-supersymmetric theory that is asymptotically safe would probably have to include higher curvature terms not present in the Einstein--Hilbert action. Then ideas like supergravity and string theory add more and more to the theory.

 

 

However, right now there is no tangible evidence to suggest what should replace general relativity as our best theory of classical gravity. It maybe expected that as a classical limit of some quantum theory some residual non-Einsteinian effects maybe be present in the Universe, but these have not been seen.

 

In short, general relativity seems to work very well and very few hints as to how to go beyond it exist.

 

 

References

 

[1]Slava G. Turyshev, Experimental Tests of General Relativity Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 207-248 (2008). Also available as arXiv:0806.1731v2 [gr-qc]

 

 

Nice you I have to give respect making the experts on here look good not like the other guy but i can understand how he might have got that upset. Turyshev does seem to have a lot on the subject and thanks to the internet you can get all his public work in english pdf.

 

yes general relativity does seem to work quit well. As for the other i like string theory for some reason I still cant figure out why tho.

 

Thank you for showing how Experts should reply.