The Proper Theory Of Relativity

[A-wal]

I guess you never learned the math or the LaTeX. That post is so full of misconceptions that I really don't know where to start. Have you ever even read a book on SR? I'm not insulting you here intentionally, just trying to point out that you clearly don't understand, even heuristically, the way in which SR is formulated.I imagine any further discussion will not be fruitful until you stop hand waving and pony up the math.

You're all mouth son! All you're doing is criticising without understanding what you're talking about. That's the real reason that you "don't know where to start". If you have a genuine example of a misconception from SR then please share it. Any further discussion with you will only serve to get me banned unless you stop hand waving and realise that I am describing it mathematically and that the equations are nothing but shorthand for the relationships that I'm describing accurately and in great detail.

 

Can I please talk to someone who actually has a basic grasp of relativity, and if someone has a problem or disagreement with anything I've written then please point it out and dont just post a generic you're wrong because I want you to be piece of crap like the one above. If you think there's a flaw then please let's discuss it. I'm open to criticism, just not from people who dont know what they're talking about.

Edited December 5, 2012 by A-wal

[hypervalent_iodine]

You're all mouth son! All you're doing is criticising without understanding what you're talking about. That's the real reason that you "don't know where to start". If you have a genuine example of a misconception from SR then please share it. Any further discussion with you will only serve to get me banned unless you stop hand waving and realise that I am describing it mathematically and that the equations are nothing but shorthand for the relationships that I'm describing accurately and in great detail.

 

Can I please talk to someone who actually has a basic grasp of relativity, and if someone has a problem or disagreement with anything I've written then please point it out and dont just post a generic you're wrong because I want you to be piece of crap like the one above. If you think there's a flaw then please let's discuss it. I'm open to criticism, just not from people who dont know what they're talking about.

 

!

Moderator Note

A-wal,

 

Part of the rules of the Speculation forum is that you provide evidence to support your claims. If you can't do that, then this thread gets closed. You don't get to pick and chose who responds to you and you would certainly be wise not to tell someone they don't know what they're talking about without first showing that you do.

 

This is going to be your final warning in this thread. You've been asked countless times to show the math. If you're struggling with it or with LaTex, we have tutorials on this site for the latter and you would be surprised just how helpful people will be if you genuinely would like help working out the fineries of the former.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Furthermore, I’d like to make a small note regarding the section of your post that I’ve bolded. The only person who will get you banned is you. If you can't take criticism without becoming hostile, then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far with your endeavor, both here and within the scientific community as a whole

[ydoaPs]

Can I please talk to someone who actually has a basic grasp of relativity

 

FYI, swansont is a professional physicist and has been disagreeing with you the entire thread.

[A-wal]

!

Moderator Note

A-wal,

 

Part of the rules of the Speculation forum is that you provide evidence to support your claims. If you can't do that, then this thread gets closed. You don't get to pick and chose who responds to you and you would certainly be wise not to tell someone they don't know what they're talking about without first showing that you do.

 

This is going to be your final warning in this thread. You've been asked countless times to show the math. If you're struggling with it or with LaTex, we have tutorials on this site for the latter and you would be surprised just how helpful people will be if you genuinely would like help working out the fineries of the former.

 

Please provide evidence that free-fall is inertial or that following a curved path through space-time isn't the definition of acceleration.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Furthermore, Id like to make a small note regarding the section of your post that Ive bolded. The only person who will get you banned is you. If you can't take criticism without becoming hostile, then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far with your endeavor, both here and within the scientific community as a whole

Please actually point out where I've misunderstood or misapplied a particular aspect of sr, or where I've said something incoherent or wand wavy and I'll be happy to take criticism.

 

FYI, swansont is a professional physicist and has been disagreeing with you the entire thread.

But mississippichem isn't, I hope. Edited December 5, 2012 by A-wal

[mississippichem]

A-wal,

 

That's just the thing, I can't really critique your theory point by point because of the way it is written. As written, I don't even know if you are referring to rest mass or relativistic mass! I don't know what definition of acceleration you are using either. The proper way to go about this would be for you to show, mathematically, how the relativistic 4-acceleration (the derivative of the 4-velocity with respect to proper time) as measured from a momentarily comoving reference frame (look that up, it has a precise meaning) has the same derivative with respect to mass (of some concocted definition I suppose) as it does with respect to energy (whether or not you mean kinetic energy or total energy will be dependent on how you define mass here). It's really even hard for me to write this as it doesn't really make sense.

 

Another example of your propensity for imprecision is found in your "magnet" analogy. Are we talking about being close enough to the manget to approximate it as a monopole? If not, the vector field has a non-zero curl so your analogy is broken.

 

My knowledge of relativity is not what is on trial here. I am not a physicist, but I know enough about math and relativity to knlw that your idea is incorrect. See all the posts in the thread. There are physicists who are disagreeing with you.

[A-wal]

I think I'm normally clear when I say mass, which bit are you referring to? Proper acceleration. The magnet analogy is just that, the point is that acceleration is mathematically the same when is caused by mass as it is when it's caused by energy.

[A-wal]

Htf could an object reach an expanding event horizon when it's expanding at outwards at the speed of light so the first thing any object could become aware of is a full size black hole?

 

Why is it assumed that tidal force isn't proper acceleration?

 

Why do physicists say they don't know what happens when an object reaches a singularity when the word singularity means that it occupies a SINGLE POINT IN SPACE-TIME and it's really dumb to think that it could be reached?

 

Why is it assumed that approaching the point when mass would accelerate an object to a relative velocity of the speed of light if it were able to reach it is somehow different to approaching the point when energy would do the same if that were possible?

 

Why is gravity allowed to accelerate objects to relative velocities faster than light?

 

Why are white holes that can't possibly form even in theory considered a credible explanation for the fact that gravity behaves in exactly the same way when the arrow of time is reversed but doesn't in the case of an object crossing the event horizon of a black hole because it would have to move back across the event horizon in the opposite direction to a gravitational pull supposedly strong enough to accelerate objects to relative velocities faster than light rather than assuming that objects accelerate in exactly the same way that objects using energy to accelerate can't ever move faster than light relative to other objects?

 

Wtf do trained physicists think that following a straight line through curved space-times means anything other than following a curved path through flat space-time when they're clearly the same thing?

[MigL]

"HTF" could an event horizon expand outward @ c, unless mass-energy was infalling at an equivalent rate ? That is the worst example of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

Tidal force is a characteristic of gravity, which is a proper acceleration, so I don't understand your point.

Physicists don't know if there are such things as singularities. GR does not have a validity in such circumstances. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Gravity, not even an event horizon, will accelerate any massive object to the speed of light. Massless objects, though already moving @ c, do not accelerate.

Entropy, time's arrow, is directly proportional to the area of the event horizon, Under time reversal if entropy is 'allowed' to decrease, then the horizon's area has to decrease, ie it loses mass. If entropy is not decreased under time reversal then of course the BH doesn't need to lose mass.

GR can, and has been formulated in flat space-time and is perfectly valid. But where 'traditional' GR curves space-time and keeps our 'rulers' and 'clocks' unchanged, flat space-time GR requires our 'rulers' and 'clocks' to be variable.

 

I was hoping that if enough people ignored you, you'd go away.

Edited December 6, 2012 by MigL

[A-wal]

"HTF" could an event horizon expand outward @ c, unless mass-energy was infalling at an equivalent rate ? That is the worst example of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

The question was how could a black holes event horizon ever reach an object when it's impossible for the object to become aware of the black hole before the horizon reaches them when the event horizon is moving towards them at the speed of light? It's not circular reasoning.

 

Tidal force is a characteristic of gravity, which is a proper acceleration, so I don't understand your point.

The point is that free-fall is not inertial and the fact that a free-falling object can't claim that it feels no acceleration because it does and it's called tidal force, which is feeling proper acceleration when an object's using mass to accelerate rather than energy.

 

Physicists don't know if there are such things as singularities. GR does not have a validity in such circumstances. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I'm not getting ahead of myself. They have validity in that they occupy a single point in space-time that can never be reached. The event horizon marks the closest any object could have gotten at the time that they're looking at it.

 

Gravity, not even an event horizon, will accelerate any massive object to the speed of light. Massless objects, though already moving @ c, do not accelerate.

What? When does gravity accelerate massive objects to the speed of light in the absense of an event horizon? Massless objects? You mean energy.

 

Entropy, time's arrow, is directly proportional to the area of the event horizon, Under time reversal if entropy is 'allowed' to decrease, then the horizon's area has to decrease, ie it loses mass. If entropy is not decreased under time reversal then of course the BH doesn't need to lose mass.

If think you're confusing cause with affect. It looses mass from the moment it's observed as the event horizon moves inwards at the speed of light locally, at a progressively slower rate as the distance squared increases.

 

GR can, and has been formulated in flat space-time and is perfectly valid. But where 'traditional' GR curves space-time and keeps our 'rulers' and 'clocks' unchanged, flat space-time GR requires our 'rulers' and 'clocks' to be variable.

There's no way conventional gr could be formulated in flat space-time using a single coordinate system because standard gr says that free-fall is inertial and event horizons can be crossed, which means energy and mass don't match up properly when you compare the horizons and you end up with really weird stuff like white holes and odd shaped black holes.

 

I was hoping that if enough people ignored you, you'd go away.

So you thought you'd reply?

[swansont]

The point is that free-fall is not inertial and the fact that a free-falling object can't claim that it feels no acceleration because it does and it's called tidal force, which is feeling proper acceleration when an object's using mass to accelerate rather than energy.

 

A tidal force is present for an extended object in the presence of gravity which depends on r. If g is a constant with position, or one discusses a point object, there are no tidal forces to consider. Tidal forces and free-fall are not the same thing.

[A-wal]

Proper acceleration is present for an extended object in the presence of energy which depends on r. If energy is a constant with position, or one discusses a point object, there is no proper acceleration to consider. Tidal forces and proper acceleration are the same thing because energy and mass accelerate objects relative to each other in exactly the same way. Free-fall is not inertial and a point-like object can't feel anything.

[MigL]

You still fail to see the basic flaw in your first argument.You say something is impossible because of an impossibility. An event horizon CANNOT expand at the speed of light, as a matter of fact it cannot expand at any rate unless 'fed' by an influx of mass-energy. Just the fact that you consider its expansion means that you aknowledge the influx of mass-energy, not the impossibility of the influx.

 

And again any gravitational field is distance dependant, so unless we consider point particles, which may not really exist, then every gravitational field has a tidal component of varying degrees.

 

And yeah, if you're willing to exchange ideas in a civil fashion, with me and the rest of the members, I will respond.

Edited December 9, 2012 by MigL

[A-wal]

Every gravitational AND energy field is distance dependent and has a tidal component. Point particles wouldn't feel either. Acceleration works in exactly the same way when it's caused by gravity as it does when it's caused by mass because they're equivalent and free-fall isn't inertial.

 

The event horizon moves at c in gr as well. You obviously know very little about the things you're trying to argue. This is why it's frustrating talking to someone who doesn't even understand how gr says it works. I have to explain what gr says happens, which isn't even self-consistent, and then I have to explain the difference between that and how it actually works.

 

The event horizon expands outwards at the speed of light locally, but slower the further away you are as square of the distance. It can't reach any objects during its expansion because no information from the black hole can overtake the expanding event horizon. The first thing any object will see is a contracting horizon moving at the speed of light locally, but slower the further away you are as square of the distance. Objects can't overtake it because it's moving at the speed of light. This makes its shape in four dimensions a perfect sphere, which it has to be. It represents the edge of space-time, you can't treat it like an actual object. That's silly.

 

Influx is stupid. The event horizon represents the closest any object can be accelerated towards the singularity. You're talking about objects moving beyond the closest point they could have gotten to the singularity and being accelerated to a relative velocity faster than light. It can't happen. Objects approach an event horizon in the exact same way that they approach the speed of light because it's the exact same thing. What gr says happens when an object reaches an event horizon is the same as what would happen if an object were able to accelerate to the speed of light using energy, and it makes about as much sense. It would cross a horizon where no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction could move it back from as it moves out of view. That's really silly!

[ydoaPs]

What is an "energy field"?

[A-wal]

It's like a gravitational field, but using energy instead of mass. Have you ever heard of the electro-magetic field?

[ydoaPs]

You know that energy is a property rather than an object, right? Electro-magnetic fields have energy; they aren't energy.

[A-wal]

They're caused by energy and gravitational fields are caused by mass, and it makes a lot more sense to think of them as objects than it does black holes.

[ydoaPs]

EM fields are caused by having energy? o.O

[swansont]

I'm pretty sure EM fields are caused by having charged particle(s) somewhere, which may or may not be moving.

[MigL]

Maybe your definition of an event horizon is different than anyone else's. An event horizon's radius ( they are all spherical after all ) is solely determined by the mass-energy which formed it, it is not physical, but a mathematically defined position at a specific radial distance. It increases in radius with the influx of more mass-energy and decreases in radius by only one method that I know of, a semi-quantum mechanical effect called Hawking radiation, which believe it or not, actually involves the influx into the BH of virtual particles.

 

So please do explain the intricacies of GR to us uneducated folk, that allow an event horizon to increase its radius, ie expand, unless there is an influx of mass-energy. Oh, and don't be afraid to use math, I'm sure we can muddle through. ( sarcasm ).

Edited December 13, 2012 by MigL

[A-wal]

This is getting annoying now. You all want so badly for me to be misunderstanding or overlooking something. You can't stand that I've found something that you all missed. You must be able to see it now. I can't believe even scientists could be this mentally challenged. Do you think I don't know what you're doing? You jump on any little thing you think you can pick apart while completely ignoring the important stuff because you haven't got a leg to stand on. You want it to be complicated so you can feel important but it just isn't. It's really simple if you look at it in the right way and you don't like that I can do that. Too bad. Sorry but it's just so dam frustrating talking to people who have already made up their minds and wouldnt listen whatever I say. I might as well be talking to creationists.

 

An electro-magnetic field is caused by energy in the same sense that a gravitational field is caused by mass. All the things I've said in this thread and that's what you choose to attack? Getting desperate aren't we?

 

My definition of an event horizon is the point that no object can reach because that would require infinite proper time and energy, like the speed of light event horizon when using energy to accelerate as well as the event horizon of a black hole which is the exact equivalent when using mass to accelerate.

 

Tidal force is caused by the difference in the strength of gravity over different parts of the same object that are different distances away from the mass. Proper acceleration is cased by the difference in the strength of energy over different parts of the same object that are different distances away from the energy. Tidal force is proper acceleration.

 

Of course an event horizon is a perfect sphere, because it's the singularity from a distance. Locally it doesn't cover any amount of space-time at all but time dilation and length contraction decreases as the observers distance from it increases, making it last longer bigger the further away you view it from, but the affect is less pronounced the further away they are.

 

I'm sure gr says the event horizon moves outwards at c, but I'm not sure about the mechanism. It might just be that object are time dilated to infinity so if an object could defy reality and reach the horizon then every object that ever will reach the horizon does it at the same time so it expands outwards as fast as it can locally. I doubt it though, gr never makes that much sense. It doesn't matter anyway, the whole point is that gr says that objects can reach an event horizon when that simply isn't the case. An object can't reach an event horizon for the same reason that it can't reach a relative velocity of the speed of light, because they're the same thing.

 

Either way, when an object accelerates it follows a curved path through space-time and that's what's responsible for the difference in age between an object that has accelerated and one that stayed inertial if they meet back up afterwards. The inertial object took a longer path through space-time because they were moving in straight lines while they accelerator was taking a shortcut by following a curved path. The angle of the curve changes less dramatically as a square of the distance between time and the direction of acceleration (90 degrees for an inertial object). An object would need to be infinitely accelerated to reduce the angle to zero and would be frozen in time as the two dimensions merge into one, but that would require infinite energy.

 

Why are you all so obsessed with equations? If I can communicate what I'm saying clearly without using them then what's the point, and what's the problem? You don't need equations to show how this works, it's very simple but you people seem intent on making it seem as complicated as you possibly can so you can try to make yourselves look clever. It's pathetic. It's either that or your brains really do work that convolutedly. You want to talk maths? Okay. An objects speed through space-time remains constant when it accelerates so its speed through time has to slow as its speed through space increases. This is also exactly describing what would happen if an object were able to reach the event horizon of a black hole because it's the same thing accept that it's an inward curve instead of outward when it's caused by mass rather than energy. The mathematics of acceleration comes from following a curved path in a simple four dimensional geometry. Now tell me why I should bother to learn the equations.

 

Acceleration can be thought of as absolute velocity. Relative velocity is just that, the same for both observers because the situation is symmetric but acceleration gives a frame independent measurement of velocity relative to energy that all observers agree on because if for example an object were to catch up to its own light then it would have to do it from every frame of reference. An object can't catch up to its own light/energy/information because to close the gap by the same amount takes more acceleration the harder it's accelerating. An accelerating object measures its velocity relative to energy in the same way that an inertial object measures its velocity relative to mass. It takes more energy for an inertial object to increase its velocity relative to another inertial object as time dilation and length contraction keep shortening the distance in space-time between them, making them take more time to cover the same distance and cover less distance over the same amount of time, which an object that started alongside them and stayed inertial would measure as an increase in mass.

 

For an accelerating object it takes far more energy to close the gap in front of it on the expanding edge of the light/energy/information coming from it as its acceleration increases. There's also a horizon behind it called the Rindler horizon that marks the point behind the accelerating object where not even light/energy/information would ever be able to catch up to it as long as it keeps accelerating at at least the same rate. These two horizons approach at an ever decreasing rate if the object increases its acceleration at a steady rate so that the horizons can never actually reach an object no matter how hard it accelerates. The rate that this affect increases itself increases as an inverse square of the distance. The reason this ratio keeps cropping up is because we're talking about movement in four dimensions. In five dimensions for example it would be an inverse cube instead.

 

All of this applies just as much to acceleration due to mass. There's a Rindler horizon behind the accelerating/free-falling object that gets closer to them at exactly the same ever decreasing rate as their acceleration increases and would catch up to them if they were able to reach an event horizon, which wouldn't make sense. There would also be a horizon in front of them that closes in at a slower rate as their acceleration increase in exactly the same way that light/energy/information can't be caught when using energy to accelerate. This is the event horizon, and sure enough it would accelerate objects to a relative velocity of the speed of light if it were reachable, which still doesn't make sense.

 

I've given you everything you need and Ive made a case that I don't think any fair minded person with a decent grasp of relativity could refute. It's much simpler and it explains far more than general relativity. I've also shown gr to be inconsistent with logic as well as itself. It should be clear by now that energy can be thought of as causing outward curvature as opposed to the weaker (E=mc^2) inward curvature caused by mass and that the two different causes of acceleration are mathematically equivalent with either creating an event horizon behind it as it starts to move relative to energy (accelerates).

 

What the hell do I have to do to show you people something that should be glaringly obvious? This is ridiculous! You should be exited by this. It answers the questions raised in relativity by unifying acceleration and making relativity even more beautiful. Forget that you don't like who's giving you the information and try to judge it on its own merit. If you care at all about scientific truth then get over that you want me to be wrong and show some honesty. I know you can. All I wanted to do from the start was talk about relativity and share something amazing that I found, but all everyone seems interested in is bitching. That's okay. I can do that too, but I'd much rather be discussing something that I love without all the attitude.

[ydoaPs]

An electro-magnetic field is caused by energy in the same sense that a gravitational field is caused by mass.

No, it's not. An electromagnetic field is caused by charge in the same sense that a gravitational field is caused by mass.

 

Why are you all so obsessed with equations? If I can communicate what I'm saying clearly without using them then what's the point, and what's the problem?

The problem is that you can't.

 

What the hell do I have to do to show you people something that should be glaringly obvious?

Math? Predictions? Anything even resembling evidence?

[Ringer]

This is getting annoying now. You all want so badly for me to be misunderstanding or overlooking something. You can't stand that I've found something that you all missed. You must be able to see it now. I can't believe even scientists could be this mentally challenged. Do you think I don't know what you're doing? You jump on any little thing you think you can pick apart while completely ignoring the important stuff because you haven't got a leg to stand on. You want it to be complicated so you can feel important but it just isn't. It's really simple if you look at it in the right way and you don't like that I can do that. Too bad. Sorry but it's just so dam frustrating talking to people who have already made up their minds and wouldnt listen whatever I say. I might as well be talking to creationists.

The bold part is dangerously close to an ad hominem.

 

More to the point, people have been picking apart all the pieces of your idea that can be picked apart, which has been the majority of it. The rest that hasn't been picked apart is usually because it has no meaning without the math to make predictions.

An electro-magnetic field is caused by energy in the same sense that a gravitational field is caused by mass. All the things I've said in this thread and that's what you choose to attack? Getting desperate aren't we?

Only in the sense that they have been desperate for you to use proper terminology

Why are you all so obsessed with equations? If I can communicate what I'm saying clearly without using them then what's the point, and what's the problem?

Because equations are how you make predictions. If you could communicate clearly I should be able to understand what you mean when you say this:

It might just be that object are time dilated to infinity so if an object could defy reality and reach the horizon then every object that ever will reach the horizon does it at the same time so it expands outwards as fast as it can locally.

The problem is that this is pretty much word salad without a meaning. What is time dilated to infinity, in what way is something defying reality, what is expanding, etc.

 

That's why equations are so important, these things would all be explained without needing to redefine every other word.

What the hell do I have to do to show you people something that should be glaringly obvious? This is ridiculous!

Math

You should be exited by this. It answers the questions raised in relativity by unifying acceleration and making relativity even more beautiful. Forget that you don't like who's giving you the information and try to judge it on its own merit. If you care at all about scientific truth then get over that you want me to be wrong and show some honesty. I know you can. All I wanted to do from the start was talk about relativity and share something amazing that I found, but all everyone seems interested in is bitching. That's okay. I can do that too, but I'd much rather be discussing something that I love without all the attitude.

Answering one question while contradicting hundreds of others isn't how things work. The person behind the idea has nothing to do with being wrong or right.

[Bignose]

Now tell me why I should bother to learn the equations.

 

This is actually rather easy. It is because equations make exact predictions. And how close those predictions are to measured values is the best objective measure we have for judging how good a particular prediction is.

 

Let me make a simple example:

If I sat a box down in front of you and told you it was heavy, what do that mean? What if an Olympic weightlifter said the same thing? A ballet dancer? A toll booth attendant?

My point here is that 'heavy' has fairly different meanings depending on who is saying it. Words are inexact, fungible, and open to interpretations.

Look, words can be exceptionally powerful. The classics of literature are considered the classics because the authors chose their words exceptionally well and the readers are very moved reading those words. But, the classics are constantly be re-evaluated, re-interpreted, and dissected from different points of view.

On the other hand, if the measured force needed to lift that box above was 785 N, it is 785 N. It is not 1000 N, 100 N, or any other number other than 785 N. While an Olympic weightlifter may be able to exert 785 N a lot easier than I can, it is still 785 N.

And if you have two different models in front of you: model A predicts 783 N needed to lift the box and model B predicts 14 N needed to lift the box, model A is clearly superior in this instance. Model A is only a few tenths of a percent in error whereas model B is several orders of magnitude off.

THIS is the objective independent comparison that lets us judge these two models. There is no discussion over which model's words are better chosen, or which model is more logical, or prettier. Model A is clearly vastly superior at making predictions that conform to actual measurements. And THAT is really what science is about -- being able to predict was nature will do without actually having to measure it each and every time. e.g. our models for putting up buildings let us know how much steel to use without having to actually measure it every time.

We have moved past the dark ages where models were judged on how 'logical' they were, or on whose authority they were said. It once was logical to deduce the world was flat, and the moon was made of cheese. It used to be that the king or the church would declare that the bad humors inside you made you sick. Once real evidence came in, and compared with these 'predictions', they were dropped in favor of models that agreed with reality.

THIS is why you should 'bother to learn the equations'. So that you too can make objective predictions which can then be objectively compared to experimentally measured values, and one can see just how well your predictions agree.

If you make predictions with excellent agreement, I guarantee you will generate a lot of excitement in the scientific community.

edited for spelling

Edited December 16, 2012 by Bignose

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Now that I think of it, I can actually make a useful contribution to this discussion:

 

http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/unreasonable-math.html

 

My attempt to answer the question "why should I bother with the equations?"