None, SR and GR are theories.
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I assume that you understand that I said that curvature of spacetime is not a force. It has the same effects as a force.
You remain ignorant: The curvature of spacetime is caused by mass and energy.
Can't you see you have a problem to claim you have any underswtanding at all.
Do not make up fantasies about what I claim: "united understanding" is gibberish.
Bjarne;7045094And by the way said:And by the way, you have been told this many times before and are too dumb to understand it.
Here you go again:
If you want more details wither ask coherent questions or try learning some physics by reading some textbooks.
- The cause of attraction beween mass is called gravity.
- The cause of gravity is the curvature of spacetime which is caused by mass and energy.
You of course will ignore this for your nonsensical fantasies.
Here is somethig that will really confuse you!
Strictly speaking, gravity does not exist in General Relativity! There is only the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. That curvature means that objects travelling in a "straight" line in that spacetime follow paths that are curved. But there is no concept in GR of a force that makes the objects follow that path.
A force of gravity comes in when GR is compared to Newtonian gravity in flat space. Newtonian mechanics in flat space requires that a force acts to curve an objects path. So we associate the curved paths caused by the curvature of spacetime with the curved paths caused Newtonian force of gravity. Thus mass + energy causes curvature of spacetime and curvature of spacetime cauasdes gravity.
Also: GR gravity is not the same as Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity is a relatively simple force. GR gravity is a complex non-linear force that only reduces to Newtonian gravity in weak gravitational fields.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Watches are attached to wrists.
The aircraft you are thniking about carried clocks (Hafele–Keating experiment) and successfully tested both SR and GR.
That is right. GPS satellites would lose money if they did not work. In order to work they have to have clocks that are adjusted for both SR and GR. However the GR adjustment is built in to the clocks on the ground. There is no "auto" adjustment.
The first GPS satellite did not have the adjustment and the clocks shifted as predicted.
For the full explanation see: Relativity in the Global Positioning System
See what happens, Bjarne, when you ask coherent, sensible questions? You get coherent, sensible answers!
Now the only question is whether you can understand the science that shows that SR and GR work.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Wow you really are lazy, Bjarne: The first GPS satellite did not have the adjustment and the clocks shifted as predicted.
Are you smart enough to click on a link and read a web page
?Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Relativistic Resistances
Imaging a hole the whole way through the Earth, and we will drop a stone into the whole. Imaging there were no resistances at all.
Now the stone would reach the opposite at the Earth and speed here would be exactly zero at the surface at the other end..
Now we will repeat the experiment but this time “Relativistic Resistances” would still count.
It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. – This means that when the stone would reach the center it would not have achieved that speed it is necessary to escape to the surface at the opposite end.
So the stone would now stop before reaching the surface at the other end. (?)
Is that false or correct?
If it is false, - why ?
Imaging a hole the whole way through the Earth, and we will drop a stone into the whole. Imaging there were no resistances at all.
Now the stone would reach the opposite at the Earth and speed here would be exactly zero at the surface at the other end..
Now we will repeat the experiment but this time “Relativistic Resistances” would still count.
It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. – This means that when the stone would reach the center it would not have achieved that speed it is necessary to escape to the surface at the opposite end.
So the stone would now stop before reaching the surface at the other end. (?)
Is that false or correct?
If it is false, - why ?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Wow you really are lazy, Bjarne: The first GPS satellite did not have the adjustment and the clocks shifted as predicted.
Are you smart enough to click on a link and read a web page
I mean what is the time difference compared to a clock at the ground...
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The first GPS satellite did not have the adjustment and the clocks shifted as predicted.
Are you smart enough to click on a link and read a web page
?Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
There is no such thing as "relativistic resistance".
False: When the stone would reach the center it would have achieved that speed it is necessary to escape to the surface at the opposite end. The conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy guarantees this. The kinetic energy gained by the stone at the Earth's center will be converted to the same amount of gravitational potential energy, i.e. the same distance from the center.
P.S.
Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (19 days and counting!)
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Still we have a problem here.
Because the speed for example Wasp-18B or 17B, would reach by perihelion is NOT that what Newtonian orbit mechanic predicts, but much lower.
Hence the speed is not that what is necessary to maintain the classic orbit. - At least it seems to be so.
It don’t seem that planets will be affected by this.
All I can say is; the speed is NOT as predicted by Newton.
Let us say Einstein and Newton both was living at the space station, and both would drop a stone at the same time. – Einstein would know that 100 km/h + 100 km/h not is 200 km/h but 199.999 …etc.. – if not extra energy was added. – Therefore Einstein would calculate more precisely when the stone would hid the Earth.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Still we do not have a problem here. IMO that is what GR would predict. That the velocity at perihelion is less than that predicted by Newtonian orbit mechanics.
What ever made you think that GR predicts the same things as Newtonian gravity? That is obviously wrong, e.g. GR predicts the correct value of the perihelion precession of Mercury while Newton gets it wrong.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Why can't curvatuRe excert a force?
We?
I don't claim united understanding, you do.
Can't you see YOU are?
You will never understand.
Idiot.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Correct.
It is false.
Because the effect is reversible. It takes more an and more energy to accelerate an object to relativistic speeds, but it also takes more energy to decelerate it. So when the stone passes the center of Earth, it moves a little slower than we would think from a non-relativistic POV, but it has more kinetic energy than we would expect, so it can deliver more energy on the way up.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Keep it simple
The short answer is that the stone reaching the have more increased its mass, and hence it require more force to stop it on the way out.
You should know that
false, it can only deliver the same as it gain when falling in.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
That is another way to explain it, yes. The increased mass is what eneables it to store more KE.
More energy than it's speed suggests, of course.
Bjarne you ask a simple and elementary questions. Expect simple and elementary answers.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Simple ?
Well yes when understood it is very simple
But you know this is one of the 2 causes to the Mercury precession anomaly?
You wrote some weeks ago "the mass increase" not was correct in this context, today you understood it was.
So I can see you have changed your mind.
Well it is always good to do so when you are wrong, but it is also good to admit that I believe first now you begin to understand the one of the 2 causes to the precession anomaly, - right ?
And this time included relativistic mass.
Now it should also be easy to understand that acceleration of the mass of the Universe will create more mass, and hence gravity increase and this again cause stronger acceleration, and this again cause more mass and then more gravity and then one day BOOOOMMMB or if you prefer BAAANNNGGG, - due to mad / speed / mass / gravity.
It will happen again, - it is born to do so.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The conservation of energy is very simple, i.e. the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy as the stone falls will be equal to the conversion of kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy as it rises. This applies both in Newtonian and GR gravitation.
Thus the stone will always reach the surface.
N.B. The concept of energy conservation is unsure in GR. Energy is conserved locally (small scales, weak gravitaional fields). No one is sure what happens globally.
But you know that you are lying?
The Mercury precession anomaly was caused by applying Newtonian gravitation to the orbit of Mercury and seeing that it did not match the observations.
The Mercury precession anomaly was solved by GR.
The Mercury precession anomaly no longer exists.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
No. I don't know if you do this to annoy people, or you are simply thinking this way, but it is pretty annoying:
First you ask some very naive and poorly phrased question and demand an answer even cows can understand.
So people give you a very simplified answer, in hopes that you will understand.
Then, you point out the simplifications and claim that you need to teach us about the subject.
So Bjarne, I have read and understood the details about the Mercury perihelion precession, and I could lecture you at some lenght about them, but probably you would not understand it, and anyway I have better things to do with my time. If you wantthe details, find a book and read about them (or you can probably find it on the internet), but in short: Educate yourself.
Nonsense. Thermodynamics, Bjarne. I'll give you another simplified explanation, and if you start nitpicking it, instead of educating yourself, you will go on my ignore list:
- The amount of energy, including that which has the form of matter, in the universe is constant.
- The mass increase due to velocity is merely a conversion of energy (from potential to kinetic energy).
- Thus, some big universal acceleration can only convert the existing energy, not increase the whole energy level.
- Therefore it cannot be a run-away process as you claim.
Now, there is much more to it, but as long as you show no inclination to educate yourself, this is what you'll get from me.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Slight correction: It never existed.
But, in principle, you could say that about all anomalies.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Btw, apart from air resistance and the inner Earth not being solid, there is one more complication to this thought experiment: The hole needs to be drilled from pole to pole. Otherwise the stone won't free-fall very far.
Can you figure out why, Bjarne?
Hans
- Status