The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[ben m]

The short answer I don't know, I didn't have teachers and my friends cannot understand this type of discussion, so their are gaps.

You might not see it yet, but I think I am learning.

Just a suggestion: don't start learning by trying to come up with a new theory. If you want to understand light, time, space, and gravity, go get a standard textbook and learn the well-known version first. This way, you'll learn a lot of reliable mathematical tools, reliable theory-testing-methods, etc., without which it is impossible to uncover (and know that you've uncovered) a good theory.

You don't want to try to learn these methods at the same time that you're trying to write down something new. First of all, you won't know what methods exist. Second, you'll make mistakes in trying to use a new method, and if you're applying it to something unknown you'll be unable to catch those mistakes. Third, you won't be able to ask for help because no one will understand you.

Go get a basic special-relativity textbook, spend six months digesting it (do all the problems). Then get an introductory General Relativity textbook and do the same thing. Even if it takes three years, this is a better use of your time than plugging away at your own theory---that's true even if your theory actually overturns GR (you'd be able to show that it works using understandable language), and it's doubly true if it does not.

 

[rwguinn]

[knuckle-dragging engineer] How can something which must be measured over time, and which has time as an intrinsic part of its definition, be non-time dependent?[/knuckle-dragging engineer]

 

[DeathDart]

[knuckle-dragging engineer] How can something which must be measured over time, and which has time as an intrinsic part of its definition, be non-time dependent?[/knuckle-dragging engineer]

My bad, it is time dependent but I argue that when the atom is non moving, within a region of faster time, that it responds by producing a photon that is equivalent to the photon that it would produce in normal time. When the photon moves from fast time to our slower time, the photon loses velocity.

The photon would have the same wavelength in all frames.

I am just arguing that until someone logically whacks me on the knuckles.

 

[Complexity]

My bad, it is time dependent but I argue that when the atom is non moving, within a region of faster time, that it responds by producing a photon that is equivalent to the photon that it would produce in normal time. When the photon moves from fast time to our slower time, the photon loses velocity.

The photon would have the same wavelength in all frames.

I am just arguing that until someone logically whacks me on the knuckles.

Consider your knuckles logically whacked.

Get a good book. Read it until you understand it.
Get a bood book. Read it until you understand it.
Repeat for years.

 

[DeathDart]

Just a suggestion: don't start learning by trying to come up with a new theory. If you want to understand light, time, space, and gravity, go get a standard textbook and learn the well-known version first. This way, you'll learn a lot of reliable mathematical tools, reliable theory-testing-methods, etc., without which it is impossible to uncover (and know that you've uncovered) a good theory.

You don't want to try to learn these methods at the same time that you're trying to write down something new. First of all, you won't know what methods exist. Second, you'll make mistakes in trying to use a new method, and if you're applying it to something unknown you'll be unable to catch those mistakes. Third, you won't be able to ask for help because no one will understand you.

Go get a basic special-relativity textbook, spend six months digesting it (do all the problems). Then get an introductory General Relativity textbook and do the same thing. Even if it takes three years, this is a better use of your time than plugging away at your own theory---that's true even if your theory actually overturns GR (you'd be able to show that it works using understandable language), and it's doubly true if it does not.

Because I haven't interacted with anyone who knew what they were talking about, I didn't get the nomenclature and terminology down pat. My learning curve is fairly good.

I have been working on the Pioneer Anomaly since it came out (90's?) It looked easy.
Does your dog bite?
No
Snap Snarl Tear
I though you said that your dog doesn't bite.
That is not my dog.

Then the anomaly of the galactic velocity curves brought about the rise of Sauron (sorry, Dark Matter). It was interesting except for no one could find the stuff in the lab.

MOND was also interesting, but it couldn't explain it all.

So I have been rooting around, just outside the light of the camp fire.

Perhaps I don't know my place, being just a Truffle Hound, and so I masquerade as a Chef.

 

[RussDill]

An object that is not moving should be in the same time frame as it's environment (time space).

Wait, how can I measure if an object is moving?

 

[RussDill]

Then the anomaly of the galactic velocity curves brought about the rise of Sauron (sorry, Dark Matter). It was interesting except for no one could find the stuff in the lab.

I'm not sure why you find it surprising that there are massive particles that do not interact with em. We already know of light particles that do interact with em, light particles that don't interact with em, heavy particles that interact with em, and ....?

 

[edd]

Then the anomaly of the galactic velocity curves brought about the rise of Sauron (sorry, Dark Matter).

Nah, SAURON will do - http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/sauron/

 

[Complexity]

Because I haven't interacted with anyone who knew what they were talking about, I didn't get the nomenclature and terminology down pat. My learning curve is fairly good.

I have been working on the Pioneer Anomaly since it came out (90's?) It looked easy.
Does your dog bite?
No
Snap Snarl Tear
I though you said that your dog doesn't bite.
That is not my dog.

Then the anomaly of the galactic velocity curves brought about the rise of Sauron (sorry, Dark Matter). It was interesting except for no one could find the stuff in the lab.

MOND was also interesting, but it couldn't explain it all.

So I have been rooting around, just outside the light of the camp fire.

Perhaps I don't know my place, being just a Truffle Hound, and so I masquerade as a Chef.

That's a nice little story.

Quit putting it off.

Find out where you need to start in the standard sequence of learning, buy the right book, read it and work the problems. Thoroughly.

The world is full of wannabes who aren't willing or able to do the work - they think there ought to be an easier way - so they try to cheat and discover profound things without having a clue what they are talking about.

Stop this nonsense and settle in for years of hard work.

 

[DeathDart]

Wait, how can I measure if an object is moving?

Good point, I could use a circular argument....
and say that if we had a laser with a tight bandwidth within the fast time region of space and it is pointed at an observer outside the region....

we would also have to prove that the observer wasn't moving....

the laser would be slightly off frequency if the laser was moving relative to its time space...

this is only if we could prove that the observer wasn't moving....

 

[DeathDart]

That's a nice little story.

Quit putting it off.

Find out where you need to start in the standard sequence of learning, buy the right book, read it and work the problems. Thoroughly.

The world is full of wannabes who aren't willing or able to do the work - they think there ought to be an easier way - so they try to cheat and discover profound things without having a clue what they are talking about.

Stop this nonsense and settle in for years of hard work.

Oh, I must have left out the tragic part.

I was once enrolled as a Engineering Physics major. ACT Science 35/36 Math 28/36

Results1 Dead, 1 Insane.

It goes downhill from there.

It wouldn't matter if I spoke your language perfectly and made no mistakes.

If I am right, and I am not using If to seem reasonable, I am not certain that I am right. I have probably shot down more of my own ideas than most people will ever generate.

New ideas will struggle, that is the way of it.

What I am learning is some of the arguments that I will have to address in writing a paper, that is if one of you doesn't launch a logical torpedo that I agree sinks it.

 

[RussDill]

Good point, I could use a circular argument....
and say that if we had a laser with a tight bandwidth within the fast time region of space and it is pointed at an observer outside the region....

we would also have to prove that the observer wasn't moving....

the laser would be slightly off frequency if the laser was moving relative to its time space...

this is only if we could prove that the observer wasn't moving....

Continue on this line of thought of trying to tell if an object is moving, it might lead somewhere.

 

[sol invictus]

What I am learning is some of the arguments that I will have to address in writing a paper, that is if one of you doesn't launch a logical torpedo that I agree sinks it.

That's already happened, DD - or at least, several potentially lethal objections have been proposed, and you have not addressed them.

Here, I'll give you a gift: an equation...

[latex]$\nabla^2 \Phi = G \rho + A/\rho$[/latex]

Here Phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential, G is Newton's constant, rho is the matter density, and A is the DeathDart constant. This equation will force Phi to go to infinity in empty space, where rho=0, which in turn will have the effect of speeding up time there.

A variant would be

[latex]$\nabla^2 \Phi = G \rho + B/\Phi$[/latex],

which has similar properties. Enjoy!

 

[DeathDart]

That's already happened, DD - or at least, several potentially lethal objections have been proposed, and you have not addressed them.

Here, I'll give you a gift: an equation...

[latex]$\nabla^2 \Phi = G \rho + A/\rho$[/latex]

Here Phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential, G is Newton's constant, rho is the matter density, and A is the DeathDart constant. This equation will force Phi to go to infinity in empty space, where rho=0, which in turn will have the effect of speeding up time there.

A variant would be

[latex]$\nabla^2 \Phi = G \rho + B/\Phi$[/latex],

which has similar properties. Enjoy!

Thank you, I hope it is as interesting as you say it is.

 

[sol invictus]

Thank you, I hope it is as interesting as you say it is.

I didn't say it was interesting.

 

[DeathDart]

That's already happened, DD - or at least, several potentially lethal objections have been proposed, and you have not addressed them.

Here, I'll give you a gift: an equation...

[latex]$\nabla^2 \Phi = G \rho + A/\rho$[/latex]

Here Phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential, G is Newton's constant, rho is the matter density, and A is the DeathDart constant. This equation will force Phi to go to infinity in empty space, where rho=0, which in turn will have the effect of speeding up time there.

A variant would be

[latex]$\nabla^2 \Phi = G \rho + B/\Phi$[/latex],

which has similar properties. Enjoy!

Is there a standard version without modification with DD constant to compare against

 

[sol invictus]

Is there a standard version without modification with DD constant to compare against

The fact that you ask that is....telling.

Set A and B to zero, and you have standard Newtonian gravity.

 

[marplots]

It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how could there have already been enough distance to accommodate the required speed? The quantum leap of an electron's energy state involves a tiny distance.
Isn't a violation implied in this first second?

I should confess I am regurgitating ideas I confronted when I wrestled with the same question. The answer revolved around ideas about the "thingie-ness" of light itself. Things without mass move at light speed. In a sense, this is the standard speed, not an increase, but how everything would move if there weren't constraints. The constraints come in the form of mass, our old, E = mCC thing. So the picture is one where having mass steals away the energy you would have had if you were massless and slows you down.

Another way of saying that is that to create light in the first place, you have to create something with this massless property that is moving at the cosmic normal speed. My gripe was with how something that is timeless (it moves at the speed of light) can "wave." I had the picture that from the light's perspective the same instant it was created would be the same instant it was destroyed (no time having passed for the light itself). Just to throw that in the mix.

I suspect the picture above is a rather poor framing of the actual physics, but that's how it fits in my head. I would love to hear Sol or another of the physics elite explain how it fits in their head.

 

[quarky]

I should confess I am regurgitating ideas I confronted when I wrestled with the same question. The answer revolved around ideas about the "thingie-ness" of light itself. Things without mass move at light speed. In a sense, this is the standard speed, not an increase, but how everything would move if there weren't constraints. The constraints come in the form of mass, our old, E = mCC thing. So the picture is one where having mass steals away the energy you would have had if you were massless and slows you down.

Another way of saying that is that to create light in the first place, you have to create something with this massless property that is moving at the cosmic normal speed. My gripe was with how something that is timeless (it moves at the speed of light) can "wave." I had the picture that from the light's perspective the same instant it was created would be the same instant it was destroyed (no time having passed for the light itself). Just to throw that in the mix.

I suspect the picture above is a rather poor framing of the actual physics, but that's how it fits in my head. I would love to hear Sol or another of the physics elite explain how it fits in their head.

I appreciate your response to my problem.
The 'elite' mostly ignore me, which is polite of them.
It could be worse.

 

[Roboramma]

It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how could there have already been enough distance to accommodate the required speed? The quantum leap of an electron's energy state involves a tiny distance.
Isn't a violation implied in this first second?

You're asking why light doesn't have to accelerate to get up to light speed, right? Why would it? What speed does it have when it doesn't exist? It's not 0. It's just non-existent. When it does exist, it moves at c. Why would it come into existence with 0 velocity? I'm assuming you're suggesting that it should come into existence with a velocity of zero relative to it's source?

Sorry, I'm just not quite sure what you're thinking should happen, so not quite clear about the issue.