Einstein was wrong!

[Russell797]

No, not at all! I have shown how rubber is pressed etc etc. It is a very bad and wrong analogy. Hence...



Indeed. Cause space can not be curved at all.I don't accept nonsense.



No it doesn't and it is never been proven. It is a fairy tale. Nothing more.


I agree that light follows a certain path........according to optics! NOT relativity. There is no 'that path".

So you think space is perfectly Euclidean? Straight lines never cross?
Light curves around massive objects. Are you saying that the Sun's atmosphere bends the light in the solar eclipse experiment?


What refractive index does the vacuum have?

Yes, because people are waking up to all the scams and lies aroudn them, including science! Good sign, very good sign!

Sorry that you renounce science for the fraud you perceive it to be. When irrationality is your guiding light your evidence based understanding of reality evaporates. You may as well just attribute everything to god and be done with it.

Oh? And why is that? Because you don't like what I write, you put me in a group so that you can dismiss it all?!
That is called denial. You can tell yourself I have no credibility. That's ok with me, but you still haven't been able to refute what I wrote.

Do you have even the faintest clue where the term 'conspiracy theorist' came from? Maybe research that first before you dismiss the whole thing.

Not because I don't like what you write, but because I have seen you offer no reasoning other than that Relativity is "ridiculous".

 

[Pin dÁr]

No, the General Theory of Relativity describes space as geometry rather than a force. Action and reaction is in response to an applied force. Push a massive object about as dense as you and it pushes back with equal force. Push "empty" space and it doesn't push back.

Right on then! And now, suddenly, space is.......empty! whoaa!!!! agan space can not be curved.

But the curvature of space does act on massive bodies. Your body, for instance, changes length and width ever so slightly from place to place as the Moon orbits the Earth. When the Moon is overhead the curvature is steeper at your head than at your feet. We call these effects tidal forces, but there is nothing pushing or pulling.

I agree there is nothing pushing and pulling. It's more of a correlation instead of causation.
But for other reasons. Not because space is 'curved' of course . Again, space can not be curved.Because there is nothing to curve.

 

[Pin dÁr]

So you think space is perfectly Euclidean? Straight lines never cross?

You are confusing math with physics as far as I can see.

Light curves around massive objects.

Well , it bends, yes, but again, it doesn't curve. That's an impossibility.

Are you saying that the Sun's atmosphere bends the light in the solar eclipse experiment?

Not only the sun's atmosphere. There is more in the universe.

What refractive index does the vacuum have?

?? why are you asking?

Sorry that you renounce science for the fraud you perceive it to be.

I used to love science and have studied it as I have written before. Now have seen it for what it is, garbage for the most.

When irrationality is your guiding light

Is it now? Kind of an ad hominem eh?!

your evidence based understanding of reality evaporates.

The second follows from the first, yes, but then the question becomes was the first right? Nope.

You may as well just attribute everything to god and be done with it.

I might, but I didn't. I just point at some huge holes in relativity bollocks.

Not because I don't like what you write,

Sure, you really like it, eh?!

but because I have seen you offer no reasoning other than that Relativity is "ridiculous".

You simply do not accept my arguments, I wrote much more then "relativity is ridiculous"
This posting of yours is even proof ot that! lol
And that is fine with me. I really have found relativity theory to be wrong, pointless and senseless and of no worth whatsoever. You on the other hand think that gobbledygook all to be true.
Well, that is your right. I have no problem with that.

 

[gamolon]

Not because I don't like what you write, but because I have seen you offer no reasoning other than that Relativity is "ridiculous".

I just remembered one of Pin's quotes dealing with what he actually believes.

everything in this world is fake

9-11, moonlandings, global warming, science, politics, medicine, food..you name it.




but times are changing and love is going to 'win'.


we are preparng a paradise on earth!

How can you debate someone about anything if the world is all fake? Arkantos is right though. Pin is a good troll. I myself won't be feeding it any longer.

 

[Pin dÁr]

And there is more, there is always more..

Curved Space: The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
The concept of a distorted space around massive physical objects for instance, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects.


Physics Myths and physics facts

 

[Pin dÁr]

And then relativity talks of space-time. Well, the whole of physics is filled with equations that use time (t). However, no one really knows what time is! Hence those equations aren't really understood then. Shouldn't science not first find out what time is? They haven't.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Even assuming space can be curved. The curved space must react on the bodies as well, therefore producing the opposite effect, right? Thus straightening out the curves. Action and reaction, right? Hence curvature of space is..again..an impossibility!

Assuming? You've admitted here several times now that space is, indeed, curved.

 

[Russell797]

And then relativity talks of space-time. Well, the whole of physics is filled with equations that use time (t). However, no one really knows what time is! Hence those equations aren't really understood then. Shouldn't science not first find out what time is? They haven't.

Time is an interval between events. Where nothing happens there can be no time. Space is a distance interval. Together they represent space-time. In order to position an event you must specify when and where relative to some arbitrary standard frame of reference.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Time is an interval between events.

Nope ,that is a length of time. It doesn't say what time itself is. Time is in reality very circular defined. That actually means then, that nobody knows what 'time' is.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Together they represent space-time.

I have referred to this before. It can't be because space (in space-time) are vectors and hence have an inverse vector. Time hasn't.

 

[Russell797]

Nope ,that is a length of time. It doesn't say what time itself is. Time is in reality very circular defined. That actually means then, that nobody knows what 'time' is.

Time does not exist in the sense that you wish to pursue it. It's a construct of the human mind. WE define the interval between events by the word time. Things change because the universe is a heat engine. That's why it can be defined by the laws of thermodynamics. One of those laws involves entropy. Entropy is why things happen and probabilities dictate that things are far more likely to happen than others. This imposes an arrow to time, it flows in only one direction. Otherwise, the laws of physics are time invariant... they work equal well forwards in time or backwards...but as it is due to entropy it always moves forward....

What you say?

 

[Russell797]

I have referred to this before. It can't be because space (in space-time) are vectors and hence have an inverse vector. Time hasn't.

Time has no vectors which you can draw out in three dimensional space. That is not to say time has no "vector". There is a past and a future.

If we decided to meet up and argue this face to face we would have to agree to a place and a time. If you showed up an hour late and I had given up waiting and moved on, then you would have gotten there in my past. I would have gotten there in your future.

To arrive at the same set of coordinates we must both show up at the same place and at the same time.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Time does not exist in the sense that you wish to pursue it. It's a construct of the human mind.

I agree it is a product of the human mind.

WE define the interval between events by the word time.

That is circular.

Things change because the universe is a heat engine.

A heat engine?????? duh? define 'heat engine".

That's why it can be defined by the laws of thermodynamics. One of those laws involves entropy. Entropy is why things happen and probabilities dictate that things are far more likely to happen than others. This imposes an arrow to time, it flows in only one direction. Otherwise, the laws of physics are time invariant... they work equal well forwards in time or backwards...but as it is due to entropy it always moves forward....

What you say?

imposes an arow of time?????? it flows??????? How can something that is a 'mental construct,( see your first reaction.) "flow and having an 'arrow?", Like it is something real and tangibale in the real world.
But maybe I understand you wrong?


Oh and btw as I have said earlier gravity is in conflict with the mentioned: "laws of thermodynamics."

 

[Pin dÁr]

Time has no vectors which you can draw out in three dimensional space. That is not to say time has no "vector". There is a past and a future.

Time is no vector. And besides that, no one even knows what time is anyway.
In reality there is of course no past and future. There is only the 'now'.

If we decided to meet up and argue this face to face we would have to agree to a place and a time. If you showed up an hour late and I had given up waiting and moved on, then you would have gotten there in my past. I would have gotten there in your future.

I am not saying it is convenient for daily use. It sure helps. But it still isn't something 'real".

To arrive at the same set of coordinates we must both show up at the same place and at the same time.

again, yes, for all practical purposes. But that's all. Nothing more nothing less. So the use of time and time-dilation in relativity bollocks is useless.

 

[Pin dÁr]

This is the definition of time in wikipedia:

Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

How more circular can you get???

 

[Russell797]

Time is no vector. And besides that, no one even knows what time is anyway.
In reality there is of course no past and future. There is only the 'now'.



I am not saying it is convenient for daily use. It sure helps. But it still isn't something 'real".



again, yes, for all practical purposes. But that's all. Nothing more nothing less. So the use of time and time-dilation in relativity bollocks is useless.

"It" isn't real the same way a material object is real.

Events are real. Things happen. Do we agree to that much? You take a breath and then you take another. From our perspective all possible events do not occur simultaneously. There is an interval of some degree between events as viewed from our perspective. That interval is real is it not? We have invented a word for this perceived interval. We call it time. It's as simple as that.

 

[Russell797]

This is the definition of time in wikipedia:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

How more circular can you get???

Time is fundamental and it is unique. There are no direct analogies for it.

Define left and right or up and down. Your left can easily be my right. I stand at the north pole, you at the south. Which direction is truly up?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Time is fundamental and it is unique. There are no direct analogies for it.

What exactly do you mean with 'fundamental'. And fundamental to what exactly? and what exactly do you mean with "unique"? Unique in regards to what?

Define left and right or up and down. Your left can easily be my right. I stand at the north pole, you at the south. Which direction is truly up?

What has this to do with time??????

 

[Pin dÁr]

"It" isn't real the same way a material object is real.

Exactly!

Events are real. Things happen. Do we agree to that much?

Yes.

You take a breath and then you take another. From our perspective all possible events do not occur simultaneously. There is an interval of some degree between events as viewed from our perspective. That interval is real is it not? We have invented a word for this perceived interval. We call it time. It's as simple as that.

No it is not., again, , that is a duration measured in time-units. it doesn't explain time in any way.

 

[Russell797]

Exactly!


Yes.



No it is not., again, , that is a duration measured in time-units. it doesn't explain time in any way.

The events are real. The interval between events from our perspective is real. The interval duration IS TIME.

Time is a concept. Left and right, up and down are concepts.

What exactly do you mean with 'fundamental'. And fundamental to what exactly? and what exactly do you mean with "unique"? Unique in regards to what?


Define left and right or up and down. Your left can easily be my right. I stand at the north pole, you at the south. Which direction is truly up?
What has this to do with time??????

Fundamental in physics means the lowest allowable state, not consisting of constituent parts. Can't be broken down any further.

Unique means "One of a kind".

Time can not be described as the sum product of it's parts because it has no parts. It is a fundamental quality. Like the concept of a singularity, it has no parts, no boundaries, no size, no inside or outside. It can't be logically described. Like god, it's a concept only.

You keep claiming ambiguity on my part. I assume since you claim some advanced level degree in physics that you understand common terminology and don't need to be led by the hand like a first grader. I do appreciate your apparent reductionist position however, just so that we both understand on a "fundamental" level what we mean by our statements.

 

[Pin dÁr]

The events are real. The interval between events from our perspective is real. The interval duration IS TIME.

Nope, that isn't time, of course, it is measured in time.

Time is a concept. Left and right, up and down are concepts.

true, so we agree there is no real 'time' then?

Fundamental in physics means the lowest allowable state, not consisting of constituent parts. Can't be broken down any further.

Yes I know, but what in godsname has that to diwth time,.Please explain how time is 'fundamental'. You haven't done that here, And how in godsname can time be 'fundamental' when it is only a concept??

Unique means "One of a kind".

Yes, so, what has that to do with time?

Time can not be described as the sum product of it's parts because it has no parts.

Even wiorse, it is non existing.

It is a fundamental quality. Like the concept of a singularity, it has no parts, no boundaries, no size, no inside or outside. It can't be logically described. Like god, it's a concept only.

Well, again if it is a concept, it isn't real, right? So, how can a concept has a fundamental quality???????????

You keep claiming ambiguity on my part. I assume since you claim some advanced level degree in physics that you understand common terminology and don't need to be led by the hand like a first grader.

This is an ad hominem. I really want you to explain what you exactly mean, because I think that to be important.Good strong thinking needs good definitions, That's why I ask and assume nothing here.
It has nothing to with 'led by the hand". Maybe it annoys you that I show you to be very very vague, right?!

I do appreciate your apparent reductionist position however, just so that we both understand on a "fundamental" level what we mean by our statements.

well, I don't understand what you mean, sorry to say.

 

[Russell797]

true, so we agree there is no real 'time' then?

Yes we do. There is no entity... time. It's a word we give to a measured interval between observed events.

Yes I know, but what in gods name has that to do with time? Please explain how time is 'fundamental'. You haven't done that here, And how in gods name can time be 'fundamental' when it is only a concept??

Describe the color blue. You can't. The best you can do is say it's a wavelength of light that we perceive. "Blue" does not exist either. It's not a characteristic of what emitted the light. Thus the sky is not blue even though at times it looks to be what we agree looks like our individual concept of the word blue. Blue is fundamental because there is no analogue for it.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Yes we do. There is no entity... time.

Ok then.

It's a word we give to a measured interval between observed events.

Again, no you are talking about the duration, not time itself.

Describe the color blue. You can't. The best you can do is say it's a wavelength of light that we perceive. "Blue" does not exist either. It's not a characteristic of what emitted the light. Thus the sky is not blue even though at times it looks to be what we agree looks like our individual concept of the word blue. Blue is fundamental because there is no analogue for it.

well, it is a wrong analogy, blue we can 'see' time we can't see. time isn't fundamental because it does not exist at all.Still, ;s cience' uses this concept ....as if it is real. Funny eh?!

 

[Russell797]

Ok then.

Again, no you are talking about the duration, not time itself.

There is no time as a thing, we agree to that. We use the word time to mean the duration of an interval between events. It's as simple as that.

There is no 'time' field or time particle.

well, it is a wrong analogy, blue we can 'see' time we can't see. time isn't fundamental because it does not exist at all.Still, ;s cience' uses this concept ....as if it is real. Funny eh?!

I can see time...I just watch the hands of a clock tic tic tic. Events and process occur over a particular kind of interval. We call the interval time. The duration IS time. It's nothing more than that.

 

[gamolon]

I can see time...I just watch the hands of a clock tic tic tic. Events and process occur over a particular kind of interval. We call the interval time. The duration IS time. It's nothing more than that.

Makes you wonder...

ok, I have to correct that. Everything in the mainstream world (media, science, politics, banking etc) is fake.


Love is a very real force in the world actuall, the ONLY one.

I can't SEE love as an entity/item, but I see people interact with each other and use the term/concept of "love" to explain that interaction. Yet he considers love a very real force, but time is not?