The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

DeathDart said:
We agree on the result, we just took different paths getting there.
Click to expand...

If you agree with what I wrote there, then you've abandoned your theory. According to what I wrote, the flow of time in empty space is not infinite.

DeathDart said:
Mass 1 to infinity
Zero velocity to Speed of light
Click to expand...

No one knows what you mean by "Mass 1 to infinity", DD. Mass can be anywhere from 0 to infinity.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're referring to the factor that relates "relativistic mass" to rest mass, namely gamma. It's true that the range of [latex]$\gamma = {1 \over \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}$[/latex] is 1 to infinity. Why you regard that as a problem, I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
You don't stand a chance with computers. They just allow you to make your mistakes faster. What you should actually try is learning some fundamentals.
Click to expand...

You want, I should make mistakes, SLOWER? That doesn't get me any where quick.
 
sol invictus said:
If you agree with what I wrote there, then you've abandoned your theory. According to what I wrote, the flow of time in empty space is not infinite.



No one knows what you mean by "Mass 1 to infinity", DD. Mass can be anywhere from 0 to infinity.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're referring to the factor that relates "relativistic mass" to rest mass, namely gamma. It's true that the range of [latex]$\gamma = {1 \over \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}$[/latex] is 1 to infinity. Why you regard that as a problem, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I read at college level in the sixth grade, I must be going downhill fast. I usually wouldn't garble that much information in a technical area.

Well if I am correct, I currently put the odds at no better then even. Then I must thank all the people, who educated so many generations, with such a strict, formalistic point of view.

Because the concept of infinite time affects mass, it would change it from the current 1 to infinity, to 0, to infinity. It is not a point of logic, it is a point of aesthetics.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus

You're a Dunning-Kruger posterchild, DD.
16th September 2011 09:18 PM

Dunning-Kruger sufferers have found a home with like minded individuals in the Tea Party and other NeoCon organizations.

We in the working class, refer to people with Dunning-Kruger syndrome, as educated idiots. They usually have a degree, but no one knows how they got it.

I would have preferred getting a much better formal education. It wasn't one of the choices that I had. I have also known Phd's that I don't think I could ever match , let alone beat. I am not against education, I am just envious.
 
DeathDart said:
Because the concept of infinite time affects mass, it would change it from the current 1 to infinity, to 0, to infinity. It is not a point of logic, it is a point of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

You are in the wrong forum.
 
DeathDart said:
Uh, Yeah I think I am familiar with the reciprocal.
Click to expand...
Then the problem evaporates. In STR, dt = γdτ describes time dilation, where t is the time measured in your inertial frame and τ is time measured by a traveling clock. It also has the same relationship to the energy (which one can put in units of mass if you really like): if m0 is the rest mass-energy of the clock, then the mass-energy in your inertial frame is γm0.

Note that the relationship for time dilation and mass-energy has the exact same form. Since you say you care about aesthetics.

DeathDart said:
You want, I should make mistakes, SLOWER? That doesn't get me any where quick.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, making mistakes slower is a good idea. You get to spend more time with each mistake and learn from them, which helps in avoiding not just the same kind of mistake, but usually others too.

DeathDart said:
I read at college level in the sixth grade, I must be going downhill fast. I usually wouldn't garble that much information in a technical area.
Click to expand...
More good reason to slow down a bit, then.

DeathDart said:
Because the concept of infinite time affects mass, it would change it from the current 1 to infinity, to 0, to infinity. It is not a point of logic, it is a point of aesthetics.
Click to expand...
Er... on one level, there's no practical difference, but there's actually a good aesthetic reason to use γ rather than another parameter γ' = 1/γ: it straightforwardly corresponds to the inner product, which defines the behavior of angles in your space.
Euclidean space: x·y = xy cos θ. Minkowski spacetime: x·y = xy cosh α = xyγ,
where γ = cosh α and x,y are the respective lengths of vectors x,y.


Though frankly I don't get what you're even trying to accomplish at least half the time, much less how you're going about it.
 
Vorpal said:
Yes, actually, making mistakes slower is a good idea. You get to spend more time with each mistake and learn from them, which helps in avoiding not just the same kind of mistake, but usually others too.


More good reason to slow down a bit, then.


Er... on one level, there's no practical difference, but there's actually a good aesthetic reason to use γ rather than another parameter γ' = 1/γ: it straightforwardly corresponds to the inner product, which defines the behavior of angles in your space.
Euclidean space: x·y = xy cos θ. Minkowski spacetime: x·y = xy cosh α = xyγ,
where γ = cosh α and x,y are the respective lengths of vectors x,y.


Though frankly I don't get what you're even trying to accomplish at least half the time, much less how you're going about it.
Click to expand...

Well at least your criticism is honest.

Since you mention Minkowski Space , can the Einstein Field equations be run in a program like MathCad?

I used an old copy of MathCad to run those Galactic Velocity curves and it was a lot easier then trying to use a spread sheet.

The other impression I got about Einsteins field equations is that every symbol or character seems to represent another series of equations. If I can't begin running something that spits out numbers in less than 7 to 10 days I am real hesitant to start it. When I am employed, the only usable, lucid, hours I have, are on the weekend. So 7-10 days represents a month of my free time
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
Since you mention Minkowski Space , can the Einstein Field equations be run in a program like MathCad?
Click to expand...
There is a good package for Maple. But it won't help you much right now.

DeathDart said:
The other impression I got about Einsteins field equations is that every symbol or character seems to represent another series of equations. If I can't begin running something that spits out numbers in less than 7 to 10 days I am real hesitant to start it. When I am employed, the only usable, lucid, hours I have, are on the weekend. So 7-10 days represents a month of my free time
Click to expand...
A better use of your time is to fist learn Newtonian gravitation and understand the relationship between the potential Φ and the Newtonian gravitational field -∇Φ. I know that's not what you want, but it really is the best possible place to start, and will get you much closer to GR, because under weak fields and non-relativistic velocities (v/c small), you can still use the same scheme for the GR's gravitational field:
ds² = -(1+2Φ/c²)(cdt)² - (1-2Φ/c²)(dx²+dy²+dz²).
If you know the Lagrangian for Newtonian mechanics and the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations, you'll also be understand why that's the case.

If you do that, then you will understand what, for example, Sol was talking about way in the beginning of the thread about the time-time component of the metric, how it's connected to time dilation, and for simple models of the galaxy, be able to calculate some rotation curves to see how closely they match reality (actually getting billions of stars would take much larger investment of time). You won't need to worry about the Einstein field equations, just the much simpler geodesic equation.
 
Vorpal said:
There is a good package for Maple. But it won't help you much right now.


A better use of your time is to fist learn Newtonian gravitation and understand the relationship between the potential Φ and the Newtonian gravitational field -∇Φ. I know that's not what you want, but it really is the best possible place to start, and will get you much closer to GR, because under weak fields and non-relativistic velocities (v/c small), you can still use the same scheme for the GR's gravitational field:
ds² = -(1+2Φ/c²)(cdt)² - (1-2Φ/c²)(dx²+dy²+dz²).
If you know the Lagrangian for Newtonian mechanics and the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations, you'll also be understand why that's the case.

If you do that, then you will understand what, for example, Sol was talking about way in the beginning of the thread about the time-time component of the metric, how it's connected to time dilation, and for simple models of the galaxy, be able to calculate some rotation curves to see how closely they match reality (actually getting billions of stars would take much larger investment of time). You won't need to worry about the Einstein field equations, just the much simpler geodesic equation.
Click to expand...

A path, no more bulling my way straight through the brush, what a concept.

I will see if I can make sense of your advice, but you may have given a typewriter to a chimp. I will see. I believe the galactic model by Miyamoto has elements that I can use to understand the points you bring up .

I have rarely found that what I want, is what is best. It would be a nice change, if it were so.
 
DeathDart said:
You want, I should make mistakes, SLOWER? That doesn't get me any where quick.
Click to expand...

I was suggesting learning the basics, then avoiding elementry mistakes entirely (or as much as possible, everyone makes occasional mistakes). Making mistakes quickly seems an odd aim.
 
DeathDart said:
Maybe I am just thick, or their is something about our viewpoints that just don't have common points of reference.

Does a clock run slower in the middle of a hollow shell than it would if it was hundreds of diameters away from outside of the shell ?

I say it runs slower. Do you agree that it is running slower Yes or No?
Click to expand...

WHY do you say it runs slower? You aren't providing any explanation for your viewpoint, you are merely asserting it as factual. That's not how science works.

If we agree it is running slower then we disagree on how to describe the mechanism or the mathematics. If you say the clock is unaffected, then there is a deeper issue.

When I say conservative I am referring to the fact that Gravity always appears to attract matter. Is there some distance where gravity repels matter. Locally it attracts matter, if at some distance it would begin to repel matter, gravity would then be conservative as far as the universe is concerned. It sums to zero. It's not practical, more of a Gedanken experiment.

Unless you are philosophically opposed to Gedanken experiments?
Click to expand...

None of the rest of what you wrote matters until you address my point about "why" above. And until you realize that, you are simply going to waste your time spinning your wheels here.
 
DeathDart said:
Time and mass are intertwined.

When time slows down, mass increases.

When time speeds up, mass decreases.

Currently time only has a span of 1 to zero.

Currently mass has a span of 1 to infinity.

Does it seem like some something is missing here?
Mass and time are intertwined, while mass can approach infinity, time can only go as fast as 1.

What stops time from going to infinity?
Click to expand...

For one thing, some kind of mathematical analysis to back up your claims seems to be missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom