Is Relativity Wrong?

[krash661]

We understand General Relativity, GR is wrong as it is presently written with a constant that predicts expansion, period.

 

Bignose's post -demonstrate 'more accurate or more predictions' and 'will be displaced' -is correct.

 

Snell's theory does demonstrate, more accurate, better predictions, so as to disprove present GR and more perfectly match theory/science with the universe/mass/space etc.

 

The questions about relativity are not just because some dont understand, its because they do and GR presently does not make sence/logic etc. in the real universe; it leads to too many mysteries-inventions-necessities etc.

 

Snell's theory addresses it all, and supplies the answers, scientifically.

 

The questions by many have been posed, now the answers (Snell's Theory) has been supplied; its all for a reason, if you care to reason.

 

Peace

oh my,

so you made your way here huh.

 

anyways,

 

this does not exist.

it's your own thought.

 

simple.

 

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than side step it,

so i used my access and found nothing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Prophet12,

 

You have your own thread for your ideas, do not hijack this thread with them as well.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Really? Was my modnote that incomprehensible? I've removed your comment, Prophet12. Do not hijack this thread again.

[Windevoid]

If all terms of the equation E=mc² are in an equation, then, that means all terms are the same unit.

 

Hence, all terms should be energy and have mass.

 

So light (as energy) would also have mass.

 

(Unless light is not an energy.)

 

Thus light could not be massless.

[ACG52]

That's not the entire equation, that's the simplification.

 

The equation is E² = m²c⁴ +p²c² where p is momentum. For photons where m = 0 the equation simplifies down to E = pc.

[MigL]

The simple explanation for why light does not move faster than c when falling through the event horizon of a black hole is because the event horizon is defined as the radial distance where the escape velocity is equal to c.

 

If light were to move superluminally, it would be able to escape the event horizon, the event horizon would be luminous and there would be NO BLACK HOLE !!

 

Thanks for the laughs !

[krash661]

The simple explanation for why light does not move faster than c when falling through the event horizon of a black hole is because the event horizon is defined as the radial distance where the escape velocity is equal to c.

 

If light were to move superluminally, it would be able to escape the event horizon, the event horizon would be luminous and there would be NO BLACK HOLE !!

 

Thanks for the laughs !

if you point a flash light at a black hole event horizon, the light will bend,

and form a circle/halo around the event horizon.

 

if you turn off the flash light pointing at it,

it will hold that light in a circle/halo.

Edited July 13, 2013 by krash661

[ACG52]

if you point a flash light at a black hole, the light will bend,

and form a circle/halo around the event horizon.

 

if you turn off the flash light pointing at it,

it will hold that light in a circle/halo.

No, the geodesic is bent into the BH, not around it. Light will enter the EH, and that's the last the universe will see of it.

[krash661]

Black Holes: Facts, Theory & Definition

http://www.space.com/15421-black-holes-facts-formation-discovery-sdcmp.html

 

watch from 1:03:00 -1:06:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-fe9TkeItc&list=FLfSW20kus6vS2HUzQ0rXhhA&index=1

 

Black Hole absorbs Star - Not even light can escape

[ACG52]

if you point a flash light at a black hole event horizon, the light will bend,

and form a circle/halo around the event horizon.

 

if you turn off the flash light pointing at it,

it will hold that light in a circle/halo.

Krash, neither one of those videos support your statements. They show matter streaming into an accretion disk, not light.

[krash661]

http://faculty.etsu.edu/gardnerr/planetarium/relat/blackhl.htm

 

i did not read all of it, but scroll down to,

 

" light geodesics near the event horizon of a black hole "

and also,

" light cones near the event horizon ".

 

not sure if this will help.

[md65536]

No, the geodesic is bent into the BH, not around it. Light will enter the EH, and that's the last the universe will see of it.

I'm not an expert, corrections are appreciated...

 

 

Before black holes were called that, they were called "frozen stars". While light theoretically travels at c *locally*, that doesn't mean that from our perspective far from a black hole, that the light would be zipping around and back into the BH as fast as light zips around Earth's neighborhood. Near the event horizon, time slows so much that photons (which we can't see because they don't escape to us) would seem to be moving very slowly, even frozen. Yet locally they'd still be traveling at c.

 

The event horizon at the Schwarzschild radius is called a "light-like surface". That means it is moving at the speed of light relative to any observer. As per the name it seems frozen to outside observers. If you fell in to a BH, you'd pass it---or rather it would pass you; since it is light-like there is no valid rest frame of reference there which other things can move relative to---at the speed of light.

 

 

After rambling I don't know what my point was going to be. Distance and time are so distorted (for lack of a better word) in and around a BH, that you can't get far imagining light behaving as it might in more ordinary spacetime. Geodesics bend back toward the BH, yes but...

 

...actually this is a question: If light is traveling directly away from a BH, where does its geodesic "point"? Does it point straight back down to the center? From what I understand, light pointing straight out of a BH, from our perspective, would keep traveling outward forever, seeming to us to be "frozen" at the event horizon???

 

 

Edit: After thinking about it, I don't think that "light pointed straight out of a BH" even makes sense. Inside the event horizon, it would still move toward the center even if it was aimed directly out.

Edited July 13, 2013 by md65536

[MigL]

First off, the comment 'thanks for the laughs' was meant for the poster who said light travels faster than c upon crossing the event horizon.

 

If we were to draw a simplification of a black hole with one spatial and one time dimension, the singularity and the event horizon would both be vertical lines, ie light like. A horizontal line would be space like. Outside the event horizon, light cones are right side up, expanding foreward in time. A horizontal line would be impossible as it implies infinite distance travelled in zero time. Light speed would be the slope of the cone, 45 deg. with suitable units. Motionless for all time would be a vertical line ( NOT moving at c ).

 

Upon crossing the event horizon, the future light cone is flipped over on its side opening towards the singularity. This implies that a position, not a time is in its future, and that position can only be the singularity.

 

There are valid frames of reference all the way to the singularity, at which point GR ceases to be a valid descriptor of space-time, and in all those frames lightspeed is still measured as c. Even for a distant frame, where you would expect to see light slow down as it approaches the event horizon ( frozen star ), light would still travel at c in a local frame. What we are actually doing is measuring time intervals between events, and the time intervals are getting longer. Light, being a time varying transverse wave would have the time base of its frequency stretched to infinity, and effectively disappear ( no energy left ), but it would still be travelling at c in its local frame. All this means is that you can't measure c in one frame from another frame.

[md65536]

If we were to draw a simplification of a black hole with one spatial and one time dimension, the singularity and the event horizon would both be vertical lines, ie light like. A horizontal line would be space like. Outside the event horizon, light cones are right side up, expanding foreward in time. A horizontal line would be impossible as it implies infinite distance travelled in zero time. Light speed would be the slope of the cone, 45 deg. with suitable units. Motionless for all time would be a vertical line ( NOT moving at c ).

 

Upon crossing the event horizon, the future light cone is flipped over on its side opening towards the singularity. This implies that a position, not a time is in its future, and that position can only be the singularity.

I googled "black hole time cones" to find images of what I was imagining.

 

The following shows how the light cones gradually tip over, and time becomes spacelike. Time is normal to the "spacetime fabric" shown, I think.

 

From http://212.201.48.1/course/fall02/c210101/students/BlackHoles/Black%20holes%20and%20Schwartzschild%20geometry_files/image030.gif

 

 

 

The following shows what happens at the event horizon.

 

From http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/black_holes/bh_lightcones_st.gif

 

 

Not sure if I have this right:

At the horizon, time and distance is light-like, to an observer in flat spacetime (at an infinite distance)?

Light (if directed outward?), which locally covers distance and time in equal measure, in the distant observer's coordinates passes time without covering any distance.

 

Inside the horizon, all light vectors point toward the singularity, some more directly than others. But they don't point directly at it (horizontal in the diagrams), because...

One more complication (and an error in the above diagram) is that the cones get narrower as they get closer to the singularity...

From http://faculty.etsu.edu/gardnerr/planetarium/relat/eventho2.gif

 

I don't think the time axis ever becomes horizontal except at the singularity, and the cone becomes thin enough that a light-like path is never horizontal from any distant observer's frame. In other words, no one ever measures calculates light traveling some distance in zero or negative time.

 

Light, being a time varying transverse wave would have the time base of its frequency stretched to infinity, and effectively disappear ( no energy left ), but it would still be travelling at c in its local frame. All this means is that you can't measure c in one frame from another frame.

So if we say "light seems to be moving slow near the event horizon" we're not talking about the speed of light.

 

The diagrams of cones suggest that to a distant observer (who "sees" a tipped cone), light would not seem to move at the same rate in all directions. Is it only outbound light that seems to be slow, while inbound light seems to move quicker than usual?

Edited July 16, 2013 by md65536

[DimaMazin]

 

Some crackpots think that "if only I disprove relativity I will be more famous than Einstein".

Yes.Let's check relativity.Twin and twin' are moving to each other.Twin is radiator of two photons to twin'.Twin' atomic clock recieves the photons.The first photon includes the clock.The second photon switches off the clock.

dt_i - time between radiation of first photon and radiation of second photon in twin frame

dx/c - time of travel of first photon in twin frame

(dx-v * dt_i)/c - time of travel of second photon in twin frame

T₁=0 - indication of the clock before collision with first photon

T_{2 =} T₁+[(dx-v*dt_i)/c+dt_i-dx/c]/gamma -prediction(by twin) of indication of the clock after collision with second photon

Please show the indication predicted by twin' .

[swansont]

Yes.Let's check relativity.Twin and twin' are moving to each other.Twin is radiator of two photons to twin'.Twin' atomic clock recieves the photons.The first photon includes the clock.The second photon switches off the clock.

dt_i - time between radiation of first photon and radiation of second photon in twin frame

dx/c - time of travel of first photon in twin frame

(dx-v * dt_i)/c - time of travel of second photon in twin frame

T₁=0 - indication of the clock before collision with first photon

T_{2 =} T₁+[(dx-v*dt_i)/c+dt_i-dx/c]/gamma -prediction(by twin) of indication of the clock after collision with second photon

Please show the indication predicted by twin' .

 

!

Moderator Note

This isn't your thread. Do not hijack it to discuss your particular beef with relativity.

[Windevoid]

 

!

Moderator Note

This isn't your thread. Do not hijack it to discuss your particular beef with relativity.

But this thread is called Is Relativity Wrong?

[krash661]

But this thread is called Is Relativity Wrong?

it's not so this thread is just a waste of space,

 

if it was wrong, you would not have things that you use everyday in life.

[Windevoid]

Tesla didn't agree with Einstein, but he got along just fine in his research.

[md65536]

Tesla didn't agree with Einstein, but he got along just fine in his research.

I think the lol means:

 

Getting along fine without agreement implies that agreement is not a practical necessity in life. Not needing something doesn't imply that it is wrong.

 

Eg. people disagree with evolution and get along "fine" in other things.

[MigL]

Sorry MD65536, when I wrote in my previous post that vertical lines in the space-time diagram are lightlike, I meant timelike. You used the term lightlike and I mistakenly repeated it ( damn this middle age befuddlement ). I really have no idea what you meant by lightlike as its not a commonly used term like timelike and spacelike.

 

And when we say light moves slower near an event horizon, as I said, because we are measuring elapsed time between events from a distant frame, light pulses or signals arrive at greater and greater intervals until the horizon is eached and the time between intervals becomes infinite. We would no longer see or receive these pulses or signals and so this is equivalent to the time base of the EM wave becoming infinite. Two different ways of looking at the same effect.

 

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

Edited July 16, 2013 by MigL

[md65536]

Sorry MD65536, when I wrote in my previous post that vertical lines in the space-time diagram are lightlike, I meant timelike. You used the term lightlike and I mistakenly repeated it ( damn this middle age befuddlement ). I really have no idea what you meant by lightlike as its not a commonly used term like timelike and spacelike.

Light-like is a null interval... ie. the surface of a light cone... where the space between two events is equal to c times the time between them.

 

The event horizon, like all vertical lines in the diagrams, are (purely) time-like to the distant observer (whose coordinates are used to plot the diagrams). The EH is light-like to an observer free-falling into the BH, as the EH passes the observer.

[Windevoid]

Does any of this commentary have to do with relativity being wrong?

[MigL]

Does any of this have anything to do with relativity being wrong????

 

Well someone mentioned FTL speeds when crossing an event horizon and we were making the opposing argument, so I guess it does!

 

As for the idea that relativity is wrong, those who support said idea should give their heads a shake. It may not be complete as it fails at certain boundaries, but it has made predictions which have been found to be accurate to arbitrary precision.

 

What predictions have the detractors of GR made ad how accurate are they ?????

[swansont]

But this thread is called Is Relativity Wrong?

 

!

Moderator Note

This is your thread on relativity being wrong. DimaMazin can have (or has) his/her own thread on relativity being wrong.