• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.

New research confirms Einstein's theory of gravity but brings scientists a step closer to the day when it might be supplanted by something new.

Albert Einstein can explain a lot, but maybe not black holes. Scientists believe that within the inky depths of these massive celestial objects, the laws of the universe fold in on themselves, and the elegant model of gravity laid out in Einstein’s general theory of relativity breaks down.

They don't know precisely how or where that happens, but a new study brings them closer to the answer.
======================================================
'The study, to be published Aug. 16 in the journal Science, shows that gravity works just as Einstein predicted even at the very edge of a black hole — in this case Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. But the study is just the opening salvo in a far-ranging effort to find the point where Einstein’s model falls apart.'

Apparently conditions within a black hole are such that the present day physical principals behind things like gravity fail to apply. We have never looked at things under very extreme conditions, such as what happened when light from the star S0-2 passed Sagittarius A*, which is four million times more massive than the sun. Will Einstein's space-time curvature model still work? It did during a 1919 solar eclipse, but will it in this much more extreme case?
 
JacksinPA said:
Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity. Now scientists are coming for Einstein.

New research confirms Einstein's theory of gravity but brings scientists a step closer to the day when it might be supplanted by something new.

Albert Einstein can explain a lot, but maybe not black holes. Scientists believe that within the inky depths of these massive celestial objects, the laws of the universe fold in on themselves, and the elegant model of gravity laid out in Einstein’s general theory of relativity breaks down.

They don't know precisely how or where that happens, but a new study brings them closer to the answer.
======================================================
'The study, to be published Aug. 16 in the journal Science, shows that gravity works just as Einstein predicted even at the very edge of a black hole — in this case Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. But the study is just the opening salvo in a far-ranging effort to find the point where Einstein’s model falls apart.'

Apparently conditions within a black hole are such that the present day physical principals behind things like gravity fail to apply. We have never looked at things under very extreme conditions, such as what happened when light from the star S0-2 passed Sagittarius A*, which is four million times more massive than the sun. Will Einstein's space-time curvature model still work? It did during a 1919 solar eclipse, but will it in this much more extreme case?
Click to expand...
I have often wondered that if gravity is simply a wave, like any other portion of the EM spectrum,
could we build a quarter wave plate, and become invisible to the effects of gravity?
 
longview said:
I have often wondered that if gravity is simply a wave, like any other portion of the EM spectrum,
could we build a quarter wave plate, and become invisible to the effects of gravity?
Click to expand...

Gravity is definitely not a part of the EM spectrum. If it did work in this fashion, you’d still need a material capable of polarizing gravity somehow. I’m not aware of any reason to think that is a thing that exists.

I think you’d need what that “warp drive” concept needs: matter with a negative mass. Makes the math work out, but no observations or physical theories really suggest negative mass is a meaningful concept.
 
Deuce said:
Gravity is definitely not a part of the EM spectrum. If it did work in this fashion, you’d still need a material capable of polarizing gravity somehow. I’m not aware of any reason to think that is a thing that exists.

I think you’d need what that “warp drive” concept needs: matter with a negative mass. Makes the math work out, but no observations or physical theories really suggest negative mass is a meaningful concept.
Click to expand...
And yet, gravity does interact with the EM spectrum!
 
I think a better understanding of dark matter will give us a lot of insight into gravity and how black holes work.

I've pondered gravity a lot over the years and it makes me very curious. I also have my doubts that gravity is really the driving force of cosmology. It would be nice to see science moving away from that.
 
Northern Light said:
I think a better understanding of dark matter will give us a lot of insight into gravity and how black holes work.

I've pondered gravity a lot over the years and it makes me very curious. I also have my doubts that gravity is really the driving force of cosmology. It would be nice to see science moving away from that.
Click to expand...

“The driving force?”

It’s a force.
 
Deuce said:
“The driving force?”

It’s a force.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that gravity seems central to the direction that the study of cosmology is headed, partly because of Einstein. I wish they would shift their attention more toward plasma cosmology and electricity as being the more driving forces, beginning with a better understanding of our own Sun. I think if we can understand our own Primary more thoroughly the rest of the universe will make more sense. That, and dark matter. Until we do, we are looking at outer space with a faulty model.

Einstein's theories were incomplete and we are not that much closer to figuring it out.
 
longview said:
And yet, gravity does interact with the EM spectrum!
Click to expand...

It does not "interact" with the EM spectrum. The light travels the shortest path between two points.
 
Northern Light said:
What I mean is that gravity seems central to the direction that the study of cosmology is headed, partly because of Einstein. I wish they would shift their attention more toward plasma cosmology and electricity as being the more driving forces, beginning with a better understanding of our own Sun. I think if we can understand our own Primary more thoroughly the rest of the universe will make more sense. That, and dark matter. Until we do, we are looking at outer space with a faulty model.

Einstein's theories were incomplete and we are not that much closer to figuring it out.
Click to expand...

The electric universe theory was debunked a while back.

Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Electric Universe theory debunked - list of all EU theory wrong articles
 
Northern Light said:
What I mean is that gravity seems central to the direction that the study of cosmology is headed, partly because of Einstein. I wish they would shift their attention more toward plasma cosmology and electricity as being the more driving forces, beginning with a better understanding of our own Sun. I think if we can understand our own Primary more thoroughly the rest of the universe will make more sense. That, and dark matter. Until we do, we are looking at outer space with a faulty model.

Einstein's theories were incomplete and we are not that much closer to figuring it out.
Click to expand...

Electricity is not what determines the path that planetary bodies take in space. The observations disprove that rather strongly.

Plasma cosmology was tested. Did not match observations. So it was dropped. The only way for it to be even hypothetically possible is for it to be also untestable: our “pocket” of matter is larger than the observable universe and the corresponding antimatter pocket is therefore permanently unobservable. (The hypothesis has numerous other issues too)
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
What I mean is that gravity seems central to the direction that the study of cosmology is headed, partly because of Einstein. I wish they would shift their attention more toward plasma cosmology and electricity as being the more driving forces, beginning with a better understanding of our own Sun. I think if we can understand our own Primary more thoroughly the rest of the universe will make more sense. That, and dark matter. Until we do, we are looking at outer space with a faulty model.

Einstein's theories were incomplete and we are not that much closer to figuring it out.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
spud_meister said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Einstein’s math stops working at the event horizon of a black hole, and nobody can yet explain the observed phenomenon that is labeled “dark matter.” It’s not a very good name, the observation is that galaxies move on a very large scale in a way that suggests there is more mass in the universe than we can observe. A LOT more. Either we are missing a piece on how gravity works on a large scale, or there is an astounding amount of matter floating around that we can’t see for some reason. It has apparent mass but no apparent interaction with the EM spectrum at any level. Doesn’t emit or reflect or absorb light at any wavelength.

“Missing a piece” is far more likely than “completely and fundamentally wrong.” Because not only would Einstein have to have been wrong about gravity, he would have had to be wrong in a way that perfectly explains everything we see at a sub-galactic scale completely by coincidence.

“Dark energy” is an even worse label. That is basically “the universe appears to be expanding, and that expansion appears to beaccelerating. We have no explanation for this.”

Some people take this as permission to declare any wild bull**** to be the correct answer. “Einstein didn’t explain every single aspect of the universe at once, therefore it’s magic space goo.” Or, in this case, long-disproven ideas about electricity.
 
Last edited:
Put more simply: Isaac Newton wasn’t wrong about gravity. Einstein was just more right. Eventually someone will be more right than Einstein.
 
AProudLefty said:
It does not "interact" with the EM spectrum. The light travels the shortest path between two points.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ!, The gravity of the Sun has been show bend the path of light into something other than it's rectilinear propagation.
This is an interaction!
 
The problem with gravity is that it doesnt have a unit of measurement, nobody knows how to test it properly. Even Freeman Dyson doesnt believe that gravitons exist because they are impossible to detect.
 
PoS said:
The problem with gravity is that it doesnt have a unit of measurement, nobody knows how to test it properly. Even Freeman Dyson doesnt believe that gravitons exist because they are impossible to detect.
Click to expand...

The acceleration it generates is measurable, and acceleration has a unit of measurement. This derives an amount of force, which also has a unit of measurement.

Gravitons, if I remember right, don’t actually fit with Einstein’s work but are rather a hypothetical piece of string theory. But that’s getting a bit over my head when it comes to physics.
 
Deuce said:
The acceleration it generates is measurable, and acceleration has a unit of measurement. This derives an amount of force, which also has a unit of measurement.

Gravitons, if I remember right, don’t actually fit with Einstein’s work but are rather a hypothetical piece of string theory. But that’s getting a bit over my head when it comes to physics.
Click to expand...

Acceleration is more of an effect than a unit of measurement, you cant test for free standing gravity without some sort of cause and effect.

Scientists have postulated that the graviton is the unit of measurement, but the trouble is, nobody can detect it so it may not exist.
 
Deuce said:
Gravity is definitely not a part of the EM spectrum. If it did work in this fashion, you’d still need a material capable of polarizing gravity somehow. I’m not aware of any reason to think that is a thing that exists.

I think you’d need what that “warp drive” concept needs: matter with a negative mass. Makes the math work out, but no observations or physical theories really suggest negative mass is a meaningful concept.
Click to expand...

And since mass is no more than the measure of an object's energy content, you're talking more about negative energy which is incoherent.
 
longview said:
I have often wondered that if gravity is simply a wave, like any other portion of the EM spectrum,
could we build a quarter wave plate, and become invisible to the effects of gravity?
Click to expand...

If you're going to engage in things like quarter-wave resonators, wouldn't you rather use them as an energy source instead?
If gravity did turn out to be a wave that functions in a manner similar to the EM spectrum, then wave periodics are energy and one can observe the leveraging of hysteresis in sea wave power generation, therefore it be ventured that similar properties can be exploited in gravitational waves.

And why stop at 1/4 wave, why not go for half-wave?
 
Deuce said:
Einstein’s math stops working at the event horizon of a black hole, and nobody can yet explain the observed phenomenon that is labeled “dark matter.” It’s not a very good name, the observation is that galaxies move on a very large scale in a way that suggests there is more mass in the universe than we can observe. A LOT more. Either we are missing a piece on how gravity works on a large scale, or there is an astounding amount of matter floating around that we can’t see for some reason. It has apparent mass but no apparent interaction with the EM spectrum at any level. Doesn’t emit or reflect or absorb light at any wavelength.

“Missing a piece” is far more likely than “completely and fundamentally wrong.” Because not only would Einstein have to have been wrong about gravity, he would have had to be wrong in a way that perfectly explains everything we see at a sub-galactic scale completely by coincidence.

“Dark energy” is an even worse label. That is basically “the universe appears to be expanding, and that expansion appears to beaccelerating. We have no explanation for this.”

Some people take this as permission to declare any wild bull**** to be the correct answer. “Einstein didn’t explain every single aspect of the universe at once, therefore it’s magic space goo.” Or, in this case, long-disproven ideas about electricity.
Click to expand...

We already have the Flat Earthers and Moon Hoaxers, so I've long been wondering where the "aether" people are. It appears they're late to the party.
 
longview said:
I beg to differ!, The gravity of the Sun has been show bend the path of light into something other than it's rectilinear propagation.
This is an interaction!
Click to expand...

When theres a curvature in the space time continuum, naturally the light travels the shortest path.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
If you're going to engage in things like quarter-wave resonators, wouldn't you rather use them as an energy source instead?
If gravity did turn out to be a wave that functions in a manner similar to the EM spectrum, then wave periodics are energy and one can observe the leveraging of hysteresis in sea wave power generation, therefore it be ventured that similar properties can be exploited in gravitational waves.

And why stop at 1/4 wave, why not go for half-wave?
Click to expand...

True enough on the energy source!
the 1/4 wave means the reflected signal is 2, 1/4 waves out of phase, 180 degrees, so total destructive interference.
This would create a shadow without any gravity.
 
AProudLefty said:
When theres a curvature in the space time continuum, naturally the light travels the shortest path.
Click to expand...
That curvature is an interaction between light and gravity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom