|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 26, 2019 2:08:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jul 26, 2019 6:05:24 GMT
It's unsurprising that Einstein's predictions are confirmed once again in regards to how massive objects curve spacetime. The unresolved question is how to account for the black hole paradox, where the suspended observer apparently describes a different reality from the falling observer. The popular explanation is the so-called ADS/CFT correspondence, popularly referred to as the holographic principle. This is nothing but a conjecture, and has run into problems no one really knows how to resolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 18, 2019 18:37:34 GMT
It's unsurprising that Einstein's predictions are confirmed once again in regards to how massive objects curve spacetime. The unresolved question is how to account for the black hole paradox, where the suspended observer apparently describes a different reality from the falling observer. The popular explanation is the so-called ADS/CFT correspondence, popularly referred to as the holographic principle. This is nothing but a conjecture, and has run into problems no one really knows how to resolve. Karl, I am in no position to solve any of the problems of modern physics. As a matter of fact, I do not believe in the reality of space-time (a conceptual frame of reference which is spoken of as if it were the nature of space in time). Galileo described the motion of a massive body in terms of distances [space] and moments [time; time-beats or heartbeats], but he never attributed the motion to the medium in which a body moves. Thus he never explained how or why a body moves at all; Newton introduced the notion of the interplay of forces, which remain mysterious to this day. The problem is that we do not know how masses are formed, … how electromagnetic waves/streams (as from stars) merge ["interfere"]. (The darkness that results from the interference of different wave-lengths does not imply that the lights have vanished; the darkness or "black holes" that result are real gravitational vortices, not nothings or space-time funnels. Consider also the "radiations" of electrons (such as the telluric currents) and related phenomena (of piezo-electricity). I like to be a "naturalist" before being an abstract theorist. To other readers: Welcome to the wonderful world of electricity and of gravity, the world in which we move, live, and have our being (as the ancient Stoics used to say).
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 18, 2019 19:02:29 GMT
It's unsurprising that Einstein's predictions are confirmed once again in regards to how massive objects curve spacetime. The unresolved question is how to account for the black hole paradox, where the suspended observer apparently describes a different reality from the falling observer. The popular explanation is the so-called ADS/CFT correspondence, popularly referred to as the holographic principle. This is nothing but a conjecture, and has run into problems no one really knows how to resolve. Karl, I am in no position to solve any of the problems of modern physics. As a matter of fact, I do not believe in the reality of space-time (a conceptual frame of reference which is spoken of as if it were the nature of space in time). Galileo described the motion of a massive body in terms of distances [space] and moments [time; time-beats or heartbeats], but he never attributed the motion to the medium in which a body moves. Thus he never explained how or why a body moves at all; Newton introduced the notion of the interplay of forces, which remain mysterious to this day. The problem is that we do not know how masses are formed, … how electromagnetic waves/streams (as from stars) merge ["interfere"]. (The darkness that results from the interference of different wave-lengths does not imply that the lights have vanished; the darkness or "black holes" that result are real gravitational vortices, not nothings or space-time funnels. Consider also the "radiations" of electrons (such as the telluric currents) and related phenomena (of piezo-electricity). I like to be a "naturalist" before being an abstract theorist. To other readers: Welcome to the wonderful world of electricity and of gravity, the world in which we move, live, and have our being (as the ancient Stoics used to say).
I am not 100% certain I understand what you mean when you state that you do not believe in the reality of space-time. In fact, when it comes to modern physics, I see a possible distinction between what the mathematics of a theory predicts, and whether this mathematics itself actually represents reality. I don't look at the mathematical framework of the relativity theory and think that this is reality, but I do acknowledge that it makes predictions confirmed through countless observations. If one is to take the mathematics of the theory literally, one would have to accept that events can unhappen, for as long as you will never be in a position to observe the event. If I throw a ball at the black hole's event horizon and decide to jump myself after a while, but with rockets on my back to stop before I actually cross the event horizon, then according to my reference frame, the ball will pass the event horizon as I'm falling. But when I fire up the rockets, this event "unhappens", and as I hover above the event horizon (no longer falling), the ball is now, again according to my reference frame, outside of the event horizon. This is patently absurd, and has me conclude that one should not see the mathematics of the theory as representing reality by itself.
What exactly does it mean to be a naturalist in this context? Could you elaborate?
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 18, 2019 19:45:38 GMT
It's unsurprising that Einstein's predictions are confirmed once again in regards to how massive objects curve spacetime. The unresolved question is how to account for the black hole paradox, where the suspended observer apparently describes a different reality from the falling observer. The popular explanation is the so-called ADS/CFT correspondence, popularly referred to as the holographic principle. This is nothing but a conjecture, and has run into problems no one really knows how to resolve. Karl, I am in no position to solve any of the problems of modern physics. As a matter of fact, I do not believe in the reality of space-time (a conceptual frame of reference which is spoken of as if it were the nature of space in time). Galileo described the motion of a massive body in terms of distances [space] and moments [time; time-beats or heartbeats], but he never attributed the motion to the medium in which a body moves. Thus he never explained how or why a body moves at all; Newton introduced the notion of the interplay of forces, which remain mysterious to this day. The problem is that we do not know how masses are formed, … how electromagnetic waves/streams (as from stars) merge ["interfere"]. (The darkness that results from the interference of different wave-lengths does not imply that the lights have vanished; the darkness or "black holes" that result are real gravitational vortices, not nothings or space-time funnels. Consider also the "radiations" of electrons (such as the telluric currents) and related phenomena (of piezo-electricity). I like to be a "naturalist" before being an abstract theorist. To other readers: Welcome to the wonderful world of electricity and of gravity, the world in which we move, live, and have our being (as the ancient Stoics used to say).
Since gravitons haven't been discovered and probably never will be, they must exist in a separate and fourth spatial dimension that matter in this universe interfaces with and is embedded in. These subsurface parts of matter either drag the detectable surfaces of masses together through tentacles or knock them together through an emitted boomerang motion, all done behind the seen scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 18, 2019 19:52:10 GMT
A naturalist is an observer and analyzer of Observable phenomena of nature (of what e call Electricity, Gravity, etc.) before going in depth in a system of them, or explanation as to how they take place. Franklin's kite experiment yielded a significant fact about the relationship of light and electricity. He was a "naturalist" who, above all, learned the ways of the world (Nature), prior to any synthetic speculation. (I am always referring to my childhood plays with electricity and their thundering outbursts, not to mention amazing jolts. Nothing serious.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 19, 2019 0:25:34 GMT
As a point of sheer logic the Relativists claim that gravity moves at the speed of light. They also claim that nothing that moves at that speed can escape from a black hole. And then they conclude that the black-hole is still emitting gravity! The article itself states: But none of this stops them from typing that inevitable sentence which claims that relativity has been proven! This is atheist dogma, blindly illogical, and stubbornly refusing to admit their faults. Furthermore they claim times stops for their 'black-holes' but they are observed to spin! There are dozens of other contradictions, in fact their theories are nothing but contradictions. The scientists from the 1600's understood this better. And as for the idea of gravity red-shift being from Einstein, that is just blatantly wrong, it originates with Laplace who certainly new gravity was instantaneously propagated. Here is more (fairly succinct) proof against Einstein: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmand that same logic I later found was part of Laplace's proof too. But in this article you will see in-depth how I compute the various aspects of Relativity and how they would alter the orbits of the planets in our solar system: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmPiltdown man is rolling in his boggy grave! |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 19, 2019 9:54:36 GMT
A naturalist is an observer and analyzer of Observable phenomena of nature (of what e call Electricity, Gravity, etc.) before going in depth in a system of them, or explanation as to how they take place. Franklin's kite experiment yielded a significant fact about the relationship of light and electricity. He was a "naturalist" who, above all, learned the ways of the world (Nature), prior to any synthetic speculation. (I am always referring to my childhood plays with electricity and their thundering outbursts, not to mention amazing jolts. Nothing serious.)
I presume this means that unless a theory uses concepts you can directly relate to in what you experience through your senses, you would tend to reject it. The problem is that when it comes to some physical phenomena, like the weird orbit of Mercury, or that time moves slightly faster for GPS satellites than on the surface of the Earth, it's the mathematics of the relativity theory one uses to describe it. My point earlier was that this doesn't mean one has to conclude that this mathematics is reality.
It has been proposed by some physicists that perhaps everything that happens in the universe is coded on a two dimensional surface infinitely far away. That is a claim I regard as beyond right or wrong, as I don't even find it meaningful to ask whether that could actually be reality. -Since it is completely detached from the concepts upon which we build our conception of reality in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 19, 2019 17:31:50 GMT
A naturalist is an observer and analyzer of Observable phenomena of nature (of what e call Electricity, Gravity, etc.) before going in depth in a system of them, or explanation as to how they take place. Franklin's kite experiment yielded a significant fact about the relationship of light and electricity. He was a "naturalist" who, above all, learned the ways of the world (Nature), prior to any synthetic speculation. (I am always referring to my childhood plays with electricity and their thundering outbursts, not to mention amazing jolts. Nothing serious.) That is merely idle curiosity. Such mind-candy controlled science for 2,000 years and stopped material progress dead in its tracks. To avoid a millennium of stagnancy, we must not indulge spoiled and useless escapist geeks and their mental masturbation any longer. Both descriptive science and theoretical science must be kicked off their throne of snobbish superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 19, 2019 17:39:19 GMT
As a point of sheer logic the Relativists claim that gravity moves at the speed of light. They also claim that nothing that moves at that speed can escape from a black hole. And then they conclude that the black-hole is still emitting gravity! The article itself states: But none of this stops them from typing that inevitable sentence which claims that relativity has been proven! This is atheist dogma, blindly illogical, and stubbornly refusing to admit their faults. Furthermore they claim times stops for their 'black-holes' but they are observed to spin! There are dozens of other contradictions, in fact their theories are nothing but contradictions. The scientists from the 1600's understood this better. And as for the idea of gravity red-shift being from Einstein, that is just blatantly wrong, it originates with Laplace who certainly new gravity was instantaneously propagated. Here is more (fairly succinct) proof against Einstein: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmand that same logic I later found was part of Laplace's proof too. But in this article you will see in-depth how I compute the various aspects of Relativity and how they would alter the orbits of the planets in our solar system: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmPiltdown man is rolling in his boggy grave!
Unless everything is interconnected, which sounds like one of these faddish Postclassical theories, gravity moves at the velocity of a light-year every three minutes. At the present time, such a rate is impossible to distinguish from instantaneous effect. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 19, 2019 18:46:59 GMT
As a point of sheer logic the Relativists claim that gravity moves at the speed of light. They also claim that nothing that moves at that speed can escape from a black hole. And then they conclude that the black-hole is still emitting gravity! The article itself states: But none of this stops them from typing that inevitable sentence which claims that relativity has been proven! This is atheist dogma, blindly illogical, and stubbornly refusing to admit their faults. Furthermore they claim times stops for their 'black-holes' but they are observed to spin! There are dozens of other contradictions, in fact their theories are nothing but contradictions. The scientists from the 1600's understood this better. And as for the idea of gravity red-shift being from Einstein, that is just blatantly wrong, it originates with Laplace who certainly new gravity was instantaneously propagated. Here is more (fairly succinct) proof against Einstein: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmand that same logic I later found was part of Laplace's proof too. But in this article you will see in-depth how I compute the various aspects of Relativity and how they would alter the orbits of the planets in our solar system: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmPiltdown man is rolling in his boggy grave! The speed of light has been found to change, it is not a constant like they keep pushing. Under this premise even gravity is subject to change and as subject to gradation does not exist at all in some cases. Gravity is just pulling or pushing, when pulling and pushing occur simultaneously and are equal then gravity is negated. If the apple is being pulled to earth but being pushed up by an opposing force simultaneously, it levitates. Gravity is just the observation of movement in one direction, and as such gravity and relativity and synonymous. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 19, 2019 18:52:23 GMT
As a point of sheer logic the Relativists claim that gravity moves at the speed of light. They also claim that nothing that moves at that speed can escape from a black hole. And then they conclude that the black-hole is still emitting gravity! The article itself states: But none of this stops them from typing that inevitable sentence which claims that relativity has been proven! This is atheist dogma, blindly illogical, and stubbornly refusing to admit their faults. Furthermore they claim times stops for their 'black-holes' but they are observed to spin! There are dozens of other contradictions, in fact their theories are nothing but contradictions. The scientists from the 1600's understood this better. And as for the idea of gravity red-shift being from Einstein, that is just blatantly wrong, it originates with Laplace who certainly new gravity was instantaneously propagated. Here is more (fairly succinct) proof against Einstein: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmand that same logic I later found was part of Laplace's proof too. But in this article you will see in-depth how I compute the various aspects of Relativity and how they would alter the orbits of the planets in our solar system: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmPiltdown man is rolling in his boggy grave!
Unless everything is interconnected, which sounds like one of these faddish Postclassical theories, gravity moves at the velocity of a light-year every three minutes. At the present time, such a rate is impossible to distinguish from instantaneous effect. Everything being connected has been observed in buddhism, taoism, abrahamic religions (Gods will), monism of presocratics, and probably long prior. It is not new or post classical. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 20, 2019 20:07:23 GMT
As a point of sheer logic the Relativists claim that gravity moves at the speed of light. They also claim that nothing that moves at that speed can escape from a black hole. And then they conclude that the black-hole is still emitting gravity! The article itself states: But none of this stops them from typing that inevitable sentence which claims that relativity has been proven! This is atheist dogma, blindly illogical, and stubbornly refusing to admit their faults. Furthermore they claim times stops for their 'black-holes' but they are observed to spin! There are dozens of other contradictions, in fact their theories are nothing but contradictions. The scientists from the 1600's understood this better. And as for the idea of gravity red-shift being from Einstein, that is just blatantly wrong, it originates with Laplace who certainly new gravity was instantaneously propagated. Here is more (fairly succinct) proof against Einstein: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmand that same logic I later found was part of Laplace's proof too. But in this article you will see in-depth how I compute the various aspects of Relativity and how they would alter the orbits of the planets in our solar system: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htmPiltdown man is rolling in his boggy grave!
Unless everything is interconnected, which sounds like one of these faddish Postclassical theories, gravity moves at the velocity of a light-year every three minutes. At the present time, such a rate is impossible to distinguish from instantaneous effect. If it is impossible to distinguish it then how can you claim it to be true? Your intuition is based on the idea of multiplying the speed of light by 186000. Why not multiply it by 300000? If gravity is not instantaneous, then my estimates put it at 1 million times light-speed or probably much more. This is based on the sheer logical fact that the Alpha Centauri binary will separate at 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved at light-speed. That binary would be only 5000 years old at that rate - when they would have separated - somehow. If they formed 5 billion years ago it would imply that they could separate with gravity moving at 1 million xC If gravity was only 186000xC then they would have formed less than 1 billion years ago. The problem is that most stars are binaries, and most of them would thus require a similar time frame. You would first need to explain how binary stars separated so little time in the past. My thesis is still the only one without a logical contradiction that can explain how binaries form at all. It is based purely on n-body-gravity algorithms, which is essential to any understanding of gravity as a basic point of reference. These are just approximations, the full details are in this article: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htm |
|
