Relativity Unmasked

[Anon_Ghost]

I believe our interpretation of Relativity needs to be simplified. Time travel is not LITERAL it is figurative. In Steven Hawking's "Briefer History Of Time" he uses the analogy of a man bouncing a ping pong ball on a train to describe relativity. The man on the train bounces the ball, and from his point of relativity it bounces in the same spot twice. A man standing along the rails though would see the ball bounce in two different spots from his point of relativity. The realization of relativity, found by Einstein, was that both men were right! The ball had bounced in the same spot on the train, but the train was in two different spots as the time between bounces transpired. To fully understand this one must use what I like to call the "God View" where one can pause/FF/rewind time while zooming in and out to fully understand what transpired(like the view one has while running a simulation).

Relativity has confused many scientists who, encouraged by Steven Hawking, believe that time is curved and can be manipulated by speed. This is false. Relativity is the understanding that when you conduct an experiment your observations will be relative to the scale at which you observe! Zoom in and you may see a ball bouncing in the same spot, then zoom out and you realize that the trains speed changes the location of the spot as time moves forward, and the results of your experiment change. I predict that if one were to zoom in on the inner workings of a clock you would find that they are effected by gravity, so as you increase/decrease the gravitational pull on the clock the time between ticks will change effectively fooling humanity into believing they had just went forward/backward in time, like the guy on the train. Time is a measurable dimension that is constant and consistent.
Time Travel is commonly thought of in it's literal form such as a time machine, or relativity's twist on this using a space ship traveling faster than light. These are both fictitious. Time travel is not LITERALLY possible, however it is RELATIVELY possible! Have I got you confused yet? LOL! Relatively speaking when we look at a star 4 light years away(Proxima Centauri) we are seeing 4 years into it's past because it's light takes 4 years to reach our eyes. If we were flying in a space ship at the speed of light twords the star we would have witnessed 8 years of the stars history in 4 years, and thus we would have relatively "fast forwarded" in time. The God View however would be able to see the lights long journey to earth, watched the space shuttle travel twords the star and all things would happen in sequence without any disruption or "singularities".
Now we should have a common understanding of "Relativity's" meaning, so lets talk about realistic time travel. In order to bring this into the realm of universal understanding I am going to use our Galaxy as the point of the topic, however once grasped it makes one wonder about the implications once the whole body of the Universe is taken into account!

A Solar System is the area in which planets orbit a star. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is filled with solar systems approximated by NASA to be some tens of billions. NASA places our solar system somewhere about halfway between our black hole and the outer rim of the galaxy. Taking into consideration the long term scale on which galactic events happen, one could imagine that just as our planet evolved so to must other, much older, planets have evolved. A solar system with conditions similar to ours, and nearer to the black hole, would have had the chance to produce life long before our planet was anything more than dust. Therefore, if the planet's lifeforms had discovered science, their lifeforms would most likely have escaped their planet before it's eventual doom and effectively became a space faring species! If we traveled twords this species space station and learned to communicate(given they are peaceful) we would have relatively traveled to the future, learning all kinds of technologies from these beings. Because our Galaxy is roughly 100,000 Light Years across(NASA) we can say that if we were observing this planet we would be seeing about 50,000 years into it's past, possibly before it was developed by life. If these lifeforms had learned to travel faster than light it seems likely they would send their scientist's to other planets similar to their's to observe the creation of life and the advancement of intelligence, possibly explaining UFO sightings across the globe! Also they would likely be searching for resources and possibly even a relocation home. Of coarse "History 2" experts claim to have found planets made entirely of diamonds, water, and even marijuana! This too would make sense if this civilization had invented a "Universal Assembler", nanobot technology that takes any raw material and reconfigure it's atoms to create any product you desire.

If you made it through this with your brain in one piece, bravo! You now understand the universe through God's eyes and see the possibility of other intelligent lifeforms! Even if we all agree we are the only life in this Galaxy, only a prideful man could claim we are the only life in the Universe! Assuming the Big Bang theory's single starting point, travelling closer to the center of the universe would almost certainly end with the discovery of other space-faring species, billions of years older than humanity. Thank You for reading, I hope all our ambitions of understanding this universe may be fulfilled! -James Weninger

 

I feel as though I must add that Steven Hawking's teachings on time are throwing off science entrepreneurs with his theories. One must understand that he see's things the way he does because he has a SPECIFIC goal to his research, to discover time travel. If I wanted to become the size of an atom bad enough I could create a delusional world where this was possible too, but that doesn't mean that it will ever actually work. He is looking at the universe relatively while I am looking at it from "God View" and that is how I have come to these conclusions. Although I must refrain from defaming him too much as my "White Hole/Black Hole Cycle Theory" is based on his discovery of Hawking Radiation! I look forward to hearing your comments! -James Weninger

Hawking Time.bmp

Weninger Time.bmp

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Relativity does NOT confuse scientists, but it seems to confuse you. This is NOT Science News, it's personal Speculation, so I've moved it to that section. Please take the time to read the special rules for that section.

 

Sorry if I sound testy, but it's been a bad week for science denial. Relativity, and even Quantum Mechanics just HAVE to be wrong if someone doesn't get it intuitively, it seems. Big gusty sigh. Have a good weekend, good luck with evidence to outweigh what Relativity has to support it.

[Anon_Ghost]

I originally wrote this in reply to a "scientist" minded individual that WAS confused. I am in complete favor of science and in no way am I trying to deny it! But when you leave the realm of reality to try and make things fit into place you are doing no more science than a child with toys! Science is the ultimate truth! It has no room for misunderstanding and it's truth takes no ones feelings into consideration.
Relativity does NOT mean: the way you see it is the way it is.
Relativity does NOT prove: that time is anything other than what it has always been, a measurement. It does not prove that time can be altered in any way other than that I have described(which isn't alteration it's just...relative)...I don't think you fully read my article...maybe before taking offence you should fully read a scientific discovery, and do so with an open mind, before dismissing it as "speculation". This article has more proof, realism, and scientific implications than any article suggesting black holes as a time traveling device! But go ahead and jump in one to find out!

Maybe you should read my White Hole/Black Hole Cycle Theory in astronomy and cosmology after re-reading this article and see if i'm not starting to make sense to you...

[imatfaal]

The relativity you describe is a closest match to that explained by Galileo centuries ago - he used a ship rather than a train obviously but the principle is the same. Einstein's relativity is not the same and is much more complex in both concepts and mathematically.

 

Simplisitically general relativity (one of the most tested and well evidenced theories in the history of science) uses the concept of curved spacetime to explain gravity; this is most certainly not Hawkings idea and even more importantly it is not incorrect as far as our best instruments, experiments, and observers can tell.

 

Time is affected at the most fundamental level by various factors when considering Einstein's relativity; a difference in gravitational potential will cause the clock further away from the massive object to tick faster than the closer clock AND relative velocity will cause clocks in the moving frame to tick slower than those in the rest frame.

 

That is by my count at least two points which you made that I believe that you got totally incorrect; that curved spacetime is an incorrect addition by Hawking and that it is the measurement of time and not time itself that it altered. It is for reasons like this that your idea got moved to Speculations and away from the main fora.

[ajb]

To fully understand this one must use what I like to call the "God View" where one can pause/FF/rewind time while zooming in and out to fully understand what transpired(like the view one has while running a simulation).

I really do not understand this. There is no privileged observers in general relativity. Therefore what could one mean by the "God View"?

 

 

Relativity has confused many scientists who...

Sure, relativity is a difficult subject with lots of subtleties and interesting mathematics. Every scientist working on the subject will face confusion every day! (The same is true of any subject)

 

 

...encouraged by Steven Hawking, believe that time is curved and can be manipulated by speed.

You will need to explain what 'time' you are talking about here. For sure, the best model of gravity we have says that space-time is in general curved. But take note we mean something quite technical and mathematical here.

 

This is false.

Maybe this is just your misunderstanding, but remember that general relativity has passed every test asked of it to some huge degree of accuracy. I can give you references if you ask.

 

Relativity is the understanding that when you conduct an experiment your observations will be relative to the scale at which you observe!

Not really the scale. On a small enough scale we think that all the non-gravitational physics takes the form it does in special relativity. This is one way of describing the equivalence principal via what we call 'weak coupling'.

 

What relativity does say quite generally, is that there are no privileged observers and all points of view are 'correct'. This is even if they at first seem contradictory. You just have to be very careful with 'who sees what and when'.

 

Zoom in and you may see a ball bouncing in the same spot, then zoom out and you realize that the trains speed changes the location of the spot as time moves forward, and the results of your experiment change.

This is not an issue of scale, but a choice of reference frame.

 

I predict that if one were to zoom in on the inner workings of a clock you would find that they are effected by gravity, so as you increase/decrease the gravitational pull on the clock the time between ticks will change effectively fooling humanity into believing they had just went forward/backward in time, like the guy on the train.

We have gravitational time dilation, this is well tested. This is not really what we mean today by time travel. You should look up Closed-Timeline-Curves. (I suggested this in another thread also)

 

Time is a measurable dimension that is constant and consistent.

Coordinate time you mean? No, this is just a choice of coordinates. Maybe you mean proper time? This depends on the path taken, so I am not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

 

Time Travel is commonly thought of in it's literal form such as a time machine, or relativity's twist on this using a space ship traveling faster than light. These are both fictitious.

We are pretty sure that going faster than the local speed of light is impossible for a massive object. Thus, superman whizzing round the Earth will not save Louis Lane.

 

However, in general relativity one can have situations where one can beat the global speed of light but changing the geometry. Wormholes and warp drives work in that way. That said, such things require exotic matter, so matter that is very different to standard matter, for instance we have negative energy. So how physical these things really are is in question. Moreover, there are questions about the quantum stability of such objects. Loosley, when you include quantum effects we end up with infinities and the time machine is broken.

 

Case by case, various time machines in general relativity have been shown to be 'sick'. This led Hawking to his chronological protection conjecture; nature cannot realise time machines. But as far as I know there is not full general proof of this, just example by example.

 

...the center of the universe...

Our best theories of cosmology tell us that there is no centre of the Universe. Basically this is the cosmological principal.

 

I feel as though I must add that Steven Hawking's teachings on time are throwing off science entrepreneurs with his theories. One must understand that he see's things the way he does because he has a SPECIFIC goal to his research, to discover time travel. If I wanted to become the size of an atom bad enough I could create a delusional world where this was possible too, but that doesn't mean that it will ever actually work. He is looking at the universe relatively while I am looking at it from "God View" and that is how I have come to these conclusions. Although I must refrain from defaming him too much as my "White Hole/Black Hole Cycle Theory" is based on his discovery of Hawking Radiation!

Be aware that Hawking, while influential is not the only scientist working on gravity, quantum gravity, semi-classical gravity and so on. I think you put too much weight on his words.

 

Anyway, in conclusion, what you have written seems to be largely based on your misunderstandings of relativity and general relativity in particular.

[Sensei]

Relatively speaking when we look at a star 4 light years away(Proxima Centauri) we are seeing 4 years into it's past because it's light takes 4 years to reach our eyes. If we were flying in a space ship at the speed of light twords the star we would have witnessed 8 years of the stars history in 4 years, and thus we would have relatively "fast forwarded" in time.

 

This is definitely not what special relativity is predicting. And actually shows your misunderstanding of SR.

Space ship, in SR, flying in direction of Proxima Centauri with speed close to speed of light would have slowed time in its FoR.

With v=0.866 c, flight would take 2 years on-board of space ship time.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Sensei

[studiot]

You may have noticed that several types of relativity have been mentioned by different posters here.

 

Simple relativity is taught in high school applied maths courses under the guise of relative motion.

This works just fine for vehicles, ships and aircraft on Earth. Schools are careful to remain within the limitations of this theory and not present the inherent philosophical difficulties with this theory.

 

In fact Galileo and Newton had already enunciated relativity to this level and beyond several hundred years ago.

In particular they put forward ‘Principle of Relativity’ which later workers, including Einstein, adopted as one of the foundations of our modern theories. I will describe this important idea after completing the history.

 

Einstein originally presented the theory of Special Relativity more or less complete in itself by adding a second axiom to the Principle of Relativity, based on experimental evidence that had become available.

This second idea (or insight) was that all observers measure the same speed for all light, regardless of whether they are receiving it or generating it and regardless of their motion relative to the source.

 

Special Relativity, however, only applied to non accelerating systems.

This obviously means that it does not deal with forces, since force is related to acceleration.

 

Special Relativity was also the first theory to introduce a connection between methods of measurement and observations Quantum Mechanics also introduced a second connection about twenty years later.

 

Up to this time, relativity theories did not deal with Gravity, since Gravity was reckoned as a Force.

 

Einstein then introduced a prototype General theory of Relativity to include gravity, forces and accelerating systems.

 

There have been several versions of GR over the succeeding years.

These have incorporated some terms that were sometimes included and sometimes omitted and there have been some variations in the constants employed.

 

Unlike Special Relativity, General Relativity is regarded as yet unfinished and may even be one day replaced altogether.

Of course, a hundred years of refinement has made it agree with most observations.

 

A bang up to date history of this is to be found in the excellent (and quite readable) book by Professor Pedro Ferreira, called ‘The Perfect Theory ‘

 

There are many populist books on the subject. Unfortunately most contain some passages that are simplifications at best and just plain wrong at worst. The above book avoids is pretty good at avoiding these.

 

I promised a quick passage on ‘The Principle of Relativity’

 

This is no more that our desire to assert the homogeny and isotropy of space and time, or that the laws of Physics are the same on Earth and Alpha Centauri.

We want the distance between the 1cm and 2cm points on our ruler to be the same as the distance between the 99cm and the 100cm, and for this not to change if we rotate our ruler to point it in a different direction. And we want this to extend throughout the universe, not just as far as the end of our ruler.

 

We assert that a metre and a second is the same on Earth and Alpha Centauri so if we take a metre ruler and a clock with us from Earth to AC they will match exactly the local metre and second.

 

However severe difficulties arise if we wish to consider measuring from Earth, an AC metre and second or vice versa.

This is probably the major source of misunderstandings in popsci books.

[ajb]

Special Relativity, however, only applied to non accelerating systems.

This obviously means that it does not deal with forces, since force is related to acceleration.

This is not quite true, you can deal with non-gravitational forces and acceleration in special relativity. You have the notion of proper acceleration and so on.

 

The thing is that you will need to consider non-inertial frames, but that is no real problem. Doing so takes you most of the way towards the mathematics of general relativity. The space-time is still flat, but you have to use more 'exotic' coordinate systems. It is similar to passing from Euclidean to polar coordinates. The space does not change, but how you describe it does.

[imatfaal]

 

This is definitely not what special relativity is predicting. And actually shows your misunderstanding of SR.

Space ship, in SR, flying in direction of Proxima Centauri with speed close to speed of light would have slowed time in its FoR.

With v=0.866 c, flight would take 2 years on-board of space ship time.

 

 

Sensei - I am not sure if your post is incorrect or badly phrased.

 

Time is never dilated in your own frame of reference - which this phrase seems to imply "would have slowed time in its FoR"

 

Time in a relatively moving frame of reference is slowed when viewed from the another frame. The distance between Earth and Proxima Centauri would be contracted from the perspective of the relativistically moving ship - this is why the on board clocks would not measure 4 years of travel. It is observers on Earth or on Proxima Centauri who would notice time dilation on board the spaceship.

 

Within your own frame of reference nothing is length contracted and nothing is time dilated - SR predicts what happens to frames in relative motion when observed from the frame of the experimenter.

 

This is directly analogous to the muons in the atmosphere - they travel further than we expect because from our frame of reference they are in a relativistically moving frame and time is slowed for them AND (to exactly the same extent) from the muons frame of reference their time must remain exactly the same but the frame of the earth and atmosphere is in motion and is thus length contracted .

[Sensei]

It is observers on Earth or on Proxima Centauri who would notice time dilation on board the spaceship.

 

Within your own frame of reference nothing is length contracted and nothing is time dilated - SR predicts what happens to frames in relative motion when observed from the frame of the experimenter.

 

According to SR, passengers of space ship should see blueshift of light from stars in direction of travel, and redshift of light from stars in opposite direction.

 

Spectral lines of Hydrogen plasma should be shifted from f.e. 656 nm to 176 nm, when v=0.866c, [math]f=f0*\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1-v}}[/math]

 

Suppose so we have three clocks.

One on Earth, second one on Proxima Centauri, third one on space ship.

Ignoring fact that PC is ~4 ly from Earth, we reset clocks "at the same time", so each one is 00:00:00.

And space ship is starting travel (immediately at full speed, to ignore variable velocity calcs).

Then after arriving to PC, Earth's clock is showing ~ 4 years passed, PC's clock is showing ~ 4 years passed, and clock on space ship is showing ~ 2 years passed.

[imatfaal]

"at the same time" ?

 

STR is reciprocal so that time dilation in one frame (ie the moving frame when viewed from another frame) is balanced by distance contraction when viewed with the frames switched. The frame of the observer is never time dilated and never contracted. Your comparison relies on return to a single frame or starting seperate or something else that stops it being the nice simple example that you hope it would be.

 

Look at the muon atmosphere lifetime - the whole point of this is that what is seen as time dilation from earth frame is seen as length contraction in the muon frame

[Anon_Ghost]

First I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback. My philosophy is that time is a dimension, like length, width, and depth, and is used as a measuring device. A day is not 24 hours it is one sun cycle broken up in 24 segments so that we may measure it. I might have created a little confusion with my "God View" term. God View is, as ajb says, a privileged observer hence the term "God". I think of this as a person looking at a simulation on their desktop running a universe model simulator, such as those used in planetariums, but let me explain that it is not currently possible. Because our only reference point in the universe is earth, or satellites orbiting earth, and so we view things much like the man in the train. If we were able to view our solar system from outside though, we would have a much better "platform" to view from and make better, more accurate predictions

I may have put a lot on the shoulders of Steven Hawking which I did not intend to do, but the scientific youth look to him as the new Einstein and if he wishes to wear the title of Genius he had better be ready for a little scrutiny here and there. The main point I was trying to make is that time is not something you can manipulate to create time travel, any more than you can manipulate length to make a doorway strait to mars!

Example: Imagine you are running a simulation on a trip from earth to the center of the galaxy. Tossing the limitation of light speed in the trash, lets say that this space ship is traveling at twice the speed of light. Now, technically the space ship would be invisible to a distant observer because he would have to wait for the light bouncing off the ship to reach his eyes, but because we are in a simulation we ALWAYS know exactly where the ship is. So in this simulation, no matter how fast the ship goes, the speed of the ship will never rip apart the coding for the simulation. All speed is, is a measurement of distance traveled in a measured amount of time. Just as breaking the sound barrier is possible so to should the "light barrier" be able to be broken.

Anyways the whole point of this article was to explain that although the man on the train was right in his observations, the man outside the train would ALSO see these observations, along with the added observation of the train moving through time, making him MORE right than the man on the train. If you were to zoom out and watch the earth rotate as well as the train moving you would then realize that the balls movements were even more dramatic.

One should use many views of relativity when confirming or discrediting scientific theories, and no matter how many observations support a theory one rightful piece of discrediting evidence is enough to take down the whole theory for review.

I wrote this in a rushed state of mind and I hope I haven't further confused anyone on my theory. I will get on later to make some corrections.

[Sensei]

The frame of the observer is never time dilated and never contracted.

 

I never said time dilation, or length contraction, is directly visible from our FoR.

 

But because of redshift/blueshift, and spectroscopy knowledge, observer in rocket will be able to tell his/her speed, relative to neighborhood stars.

I wrote this in a rushed state of mind and I hope I haven't further confused anyone on my theory.

 

So far you don't have scientific theory.

Scientific theories are based on observations, from which there is derived mathematical formula, that can be used to predict past state or future state, of physical object or system.

You can have no word, and formula, but not reverse. So far you have only words.

 

I suggest reading what is scientific theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

to get familiar with it.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Sensei

[Strange]

My philosophy is that time is a dimension, like length, width, and depth, and is used as a measuring device.

 

That is a fundamental part of the mathematics of relativity.

 

 

Just as breaking the sound barrier is possible so to should the "light barrier" be able to be broken.

 

No, it really isn't possible.

 

 

I wrote this in a rushed state of mind and I hope I haven't further confused anyone on my theory. I will get on later to make some corrections.

 

"Your theory" seems to be just a slightly confused description of relativity.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Strange

[studiot]

Thank you, ajb for your clarification, I could have worded my thoughts better if I took more time to organise them.

 

 

Special Relativity, however, only applied to non accelerating systems.

This obviously means that it does not deal with forces, since force is related to acceleration.

 

Special Relativity was also the first theory to introduce a connection between methods of measurement and observations Quantum Mechanics also introduced a second connection about twenty years later.

 

Up to this time, relativity theories did not deal with Gravity, since Gravity was reckoned as a Force.

 

It was difficult to sequence the paragraphs suitably but the above should be read that SR does not deal with 'acceleration due to gravity' as a motivation for going on further to GR.

 

 

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration

 

Gravitation therefore does not cause proper acceleration, since gravity acts upon the inertial observer that any proper acceleration must depart from (accelerate from).

 

It just goes to show how difficult it is to get a clear statement on this subject that is more than a half truth.

 

[Anon_Ghost]

It's not really a theory, I'm disproving the theory that relativity effects time. I have a question though, does gravity have a limit? or does it just decrease to such a small force you hardly notice it? and what evidence?

After discovering black holes scientists, SUCH AS Steven Hawking(just the most famous), have made claims that these black holes are some sort of "singularity", a spot where gravity pulls on time to create a wormhole through space and time, I find this to defy simple logic and mathematics. How can gravity change WHERE IN TIME you are? It's almost like saying that if you are at a stop light, with no other cars on the road, you have paused time. Although it may appear that way to you because you don't see change, but the rest of the world doesn't pause because you don't know it's happening.
As for my purpose, I am discrediting this theory to promote my Black Hole/ White Hole Cycle Theory, which does have some evidence for it collected by NASA Swift Satellite. I admit this theory(which is also posted in "Speculation") does still need some work and I am spending nearly night and day working on it. I feel my theory better suits the purpose and function of a black hole than current theories. If I'm right it could also lead to the discovery of using black holes on the atomic scale to produce energy somehow?

In my theory I imagine time starting at the creation of "space", an area made of particles that collided somehow to start the big bang, the first white hole. Some of the matter got sucked back into the black hole while some escaped. So how did the black hole ever reach it's maximum again you ask? Because it also sucked in particles bit by bit over billions of years, this can be observed as Hawking Radiation. Also since my theory does not restrict the white holes to "only a one time thing called the big bang", we can even imagine that possibly 3 or 4 galaxy forming black holes are created in the universe every __ Billion years. Still it seams unlikely that our black hole was the one to start this all off and so that does technically leave room for alien life...I like to stay open to things that have yet to be disproved.

[Strange]

It's not really a theory, I'm disproving the theory that relativity effects time.

 

Well, the evidence proves you wrong, then.

 

 

I have a question though, does gravity have a limit? or does it just decrease to such a small force you hardly notice it?

 

Gravity falls off with an inverse square law. So it never stops, just gets weaker and weaker.

 

After discovering black holes scientists, SUCH AS Steven Hawking(just the most famous), have made claims that these black holes are some sort of "singularity", a spot where gravity pulls on time to create a wormhole through space and time, I find this to defy simple logic and mathematics.

 

A singularity is where the curvature of space-time becomes infinite. It doesn't really have anything to do wormholes. It is also generally assumed to be because our theories no longer apply at that point, rather than representing a real thing.

 

 

How can gravity change WHERE IN TIME you are?

 

It doesn't change "where in time" you are (whatever that means. But it does change the (relative) rate at which time passes.

 

 

As for my purpose, I am discrediting this theory to promote my Black Hole/ White Hole Cycle Theory

 

The big bang was not a white hole and there is no reason to think that white holes exist. There is no known limit to the mass of black holes.

 

I think you need to master the mathematics of general relativity before trying to come up with theories like this.

[ajb]

First I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback.

No problem.

 

My philosophy is that time is a dimension, like length, width, and depth, and is used as a measuring device.

That is how we view time mathematically in Einsteinian relativity; coordinate time that is.

 

I might have created a little confusion with my "God View" term. God View is, as ajb says, a privileged observer hence the term "God". I think of this as a person looking at a simulation on their desktop running a universe model simulator, such as those used in planetariums, but let me explain that it is not currently possible.

It seems to be impossible for some deep reasons in physics. Importantly, there are no privileged observers in Einsteinian relativity. I cannot mathematically fathom what you mean by this. You will have to insert some mathematical structure into your ideas.

 

Because our only reference point in the universe is earth, or satellites orbiting earth, and so we view things much like the man in the train. If we were able to view our solar system from outside though, we would have a much better "platform" to view from and make better, more accurate predictions

We have a probe that has now left the Solar System... anyway what has this got to do with a privileged observer? What you have described is just another observer in the standard sense.

 

I may have put a lot on the shoulders of Steven Hawking which I did not intend to do, but the scientific youth look to him as the new Einstein and if he wishes to wear the title of Genius he had better be ready for a little scrutiny here and there.

Because of his popular science books. I understand now where you are coming from. You have over estimated his influence on physics, that is not to say that he is not influential in some circles.

 

The main point I was trying to make is that time is not something you can manipulate to create time travel, any more than you can manipulate length to make a doorway strait to mars!

But in general relativity you seem to be able to describe such strange situations. How physical these are is still an open question.

 

Example: Imagine you are running a simulation on a trip from earth to the center of the galaxy. Tossing the limitation of light speed in the trash, lets say that this space ship is traveling at twice the speed of light. Now, technically the space ship would be invisible to a distant observer because he would have to wait for the light bouncing off the ship to reach his eyes, but because we are in a simulation we ALWAYS know exactly where the ship is. So in this simulation, no matter how fast the ship goes, the speed of the ship will never rip apart the coding for the simulation. All speed is, is a measurement of distance traveled in a measured amount of time. Just as breaking the sound barrier is possible so to should the "light barrier" be able to be broken.

Okay, throw the speed of light away for this thought experiment. Do some mathematics, even just simple Minkowski diagrams. You will see that if an object travels faster than light as measured in one inertial frame then you can always find another inertial frame for which the object travels backwards in time.

 

As with the speed of light being a barrier, it is for the local observations. It is not a speed limit globally. For example, if space-time itself is expanding or contracting then you can still keep the local speed limit but not have a global one.

 

Anyways the whole point of this article was to explain that although the man on the train was right in his observations, the man outside the train would ALSO see these observations, along with the added observation of the train moving through time, making him MORE right than the man on the train.

Not more right in any tangible way. All the observations are 'correct'. Both observers can mathematically describe the motion of the ball and match this to their observations. Even more, as they know some Galilean relativity (we can assume time universal here) they can properly change coordinates and match what they see to what the other sees.

 

If you were to zoom out and watch the earth rotate as well as the train moving you would then realize that the balls movements were even more dramatic.

Again, a change of coordinates.

 

One should use many views of relativity when confirming or discrediting scientific theories, and no matter how many observations support a theory one rightful piece of discrediting evidence is enough to take down the whole theory for review.

So far, and disappointingly, there is no evidence that suggests that general relativity is not a good theory, taking into account the domain of validity, experimental errors etc.

 

I haven't further confused anyone on my theory.

To make this a theory you need to describe this mathematically. This I think will be difficult as your 'God view' is just at odds with relativity.

 

As you are interested in describing astrophysics and cosmology, rather than general relativity itself, can you give some indication what the 'God view' is for the Observable Universe? How does this sit with the cosmological principal? How does this sit with the standard model of cosmology? Can this at all be reconciled with general relativity?

It's not really a theory, I'm disproving the theory that relativity effects time.

You have to do that within general relativity. You have not given one equation or calculation to show that time dilation, Closed-Timelike-Curves and so on are not a generic feature of general relativity.

 

You could of course try to construct some other theory that does not have these features. But then you would need to explain why we have measured effects of time dilation, both kinematic and gravitational.

 

I have a question though, does gravity have a limit? or does it just decrease to such a small force you hardly notice it? and what evidence?

For a lot of physical systems the other forces will dominate over gravity and so it is safe to ignore it. The evidence for this is all across physics where the gravitational field plays no significant role. For example, the hydrogen spectra.

 

After discovering black holes scientists, SUCH AS Steven Hawking(just the most famous), have made claims that these black holes are some sort of "singularity",

Classically in a non-spinning black hole there is a point singularity. This is a point where the nice structure of space-time breaks down.

 

 

a spot where gravity pulls on time to create a wormhole through space and time,

An Einstein-Rosen bridge. These are generic features of the maximally extended Schwarzschild metric and are a topological feature. Such things are unstable and not thought to be physical.

 

I find this to defy simple logic and mathematics.

The mathematics is okay... just that such things are thought to be unstable and not actually realised in our Universe.

 

 

How can gravity change WHERE IN TIME you are?

You mean your local clock? If so we have lots of evidence of gravitational time dilation.

 

It's almost like saying that if you are at a stop light, with no other cars on the road, you have paused time. Although it may appear that way to you because you don't see change, but the rest of the world doesn't pause because you don't know it's happening.

We don't usually think of time as being motion, but the two are intertwined and we use periodic motion to measure time.

 

As for my purpose, I am discrediting this theory...

All you have done is show some poor misunderstandings of general relativity. You have not discredited anything. To do that you will need to show that the observational evidence for general relativity is not correct, or at best come up with a theory that can match these observations just as well.

 

As a side note, there are some theories like that, but none as as simple as general relativity.

 

...to promote my Black Hole/ White Hole Cycle Theory, which does have some evidence for it collected by NASA Swift Satellite.

What theory?

 

You have not provided us any theory. Also, you should keep one topic per thread. So in your white hole thread, can you tell me what this maximum mass is and how you calculated it?

Edited August 30, 2015 by ajb