Accepted Lies vs. Half-Truths: Why Do We Choose?

[chroot]

chronos, I've done the "homework". I've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. I've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now.

Show us your reading list. We can determine exactly what you know (and don't know) by examining your bibliography.

and math can be manipulated into whatever it is u want.

Mathematics is a closed system. You cannot make math say "whatever you want."

he used the math from the CC to prove his false assumptions (the universe was static) correct.

No, he didn't prove anything. You don't prove anything with mathematics, and indeed you don't prove anything in science at all. (It sounds to me like you have a poor grasp of the scientific method.) He tried to make his model fit the empirical evidence available to him at the time, which indicated that the universe was static. Every scientist does this. Sometimes it works out (relativity, for example), and sometimes it doesn't (your neutrino-push model of gravitation). You're doing exactly what you fault Einstein for doing -- trying to make his model fit the empirical evidence available to him.

what?! he may have only had 1 yr of academic physics, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't researched and studied the current theories well enough to make his own decisions.

Ohhhhhhh yes indeed it does. Part of growing up is realizing how little you really know about the world. Part of education is realizing the limits of that education. You really seem to have no idea what a real graduate degree in physics entails. You really seem to have never seen an actual graduate level physics textbook. You are basing your conclusions about physics education from what you've seen in high school and what you've read on the internet and in popular books.

Frankly, both you and urtalkinstupid remind me of an obstinate little fourth grade boy I tutored for a year when I myself was in high school. This little boy told me over and over how stupid school was and how he didn't need it. He was convinced that he already knew all there was to know about math, since he had recently learned his multiplication tables. "What more is there?" he said knowingly.

i agree with shin. that was a biased thing to say, chroot. I've only had a year of academic physics, but I've done my own studying, independent of school.

I applaud your enthusiasm and motivation to read outside of school. Really, you're making a wonderful effort and I want you to realize how impressed I am that you've taken the initiative. Such self-discipline will take you far in life.

On the other hand, you must recognize how little you know. Go to your local college bookstore and browse through some textbooks on general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or conformal field theory, or anything else you'd like. Realize that your education has only just begun.

are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do?

As russ said, you're misusing the term 'research.' You have been reading, not researching.

i'm not saying that teachers aren't useful and that don't help or encourage well education, but it's not just about that. i think the best research is done when u are interested and curious enough about a subject. teacher's can threaten u and tell u what they want u to study, but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe, i.e., GRAVITY!

You have not gone beyond it. Going beyond something would involve first getting to that something, and you're not there yet. Here's a pop quiz, let's see how you do:

Can you explain to me what the Einstein equation is in your own words?

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

E=mc2

hmmm... did i actually say that i knew all there is to know about physics?? i am sorry if u got that impression. i said i know enough to make my own decisions about what i want to believe. i will continue studying the current model, but i will also keep believing my own theory.

Frankly, both you and urtalkinstupid remind me of an obstinate little fourth grade boy I tutored for a year when I myself was in high school.

i AM a 4th grade boy..

I applaud your enthusiasm and motivation to read outside of school. Really, you're making a wonderful effort and I want you to realize how impressed I am that you've taken the initiative. Such self-discipline will take you far in life.

thanks

On the other hand, you must recognize how little you know. Go to your local college bookstore and browse through some textbooks on general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or conformal field theory, or anything else you'd like. Realize that your education has only just begun.

i know, i know. i probably know less physics than u, that i'll admit, but i do have enough understanding of the way things work in the current theory. but, like i said, i'll continue studying it...

Here's a pop quiz, let's see how you do:

Can you explain to me what the Einstein equation is in your own words?

i love quizzes!
ok. i assume u mean e=mc2, cause that's what put einstein on the map. it shows us how much energy mass equals if the mass itself was energy.

i am really trying not to repeat what einstein said, what with energy being mass and vice-versa, so i put it "in my own words"...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

The Sun is a strong source of neutrinos, beatrix. Since Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth, it will intercept more of those neutrinos. (Just like a flashlight seems much brighter when you hold it right at your eye than it does when it's a mile away.)

As a result, objects on Mercury would be pushed harder into Mercury than they would be on Earth.

Futhermore, it would mean that you'd weigh more during the daytime (when the Sun's neutrinos push on you directly) than at night (when some of the neutrinos get absorbed in going through the Earth). In fact, if your model of gravity depends on neutrinos pushing you, then you'd actually be pushed off the ground at night.

Do you think the evidence available to you supports or refutes this model, beatrix?

- Warren

mercury doesn't block out all the neutrinos to the other planets. and not all the neutrinos hitting mercury get absorbed. some of them are just going straight through. (evidence proves the latter portion, it will eventually prove the first part). and the sun isn't the only source of neutrinos. all bodies in the solar system produce them. all bodies in the solar system are pushing against each other. the Earth is, if u can imagine, almost evenly "coated" with neutrinos every second. even at night. i will do a very sensitive test to see whether a person weighs less at night or not. i am imagining so, by a very small amount, but i will do it. (this is the part of my theory where i don't need a neutrino detector)

now it's my turn for a question!

do u think einstein adequately explained mercury's off-centered orbit? if so, tell us in ur own words what u think about it..

 

[Math Is Hard]

i AM a 4th grade boy

How old does that make you, around nine or ten?

chronos, I've done the "homework". I've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. I've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now. (that includes the current model of gravity)

You've been "researching" since you were about five or six years old then?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

come on dude.. i was kidding.. I'm 15 going into the 11th grade...

 

[chroot]

hmmm... did i actually say that i knew all there is to know about physics?? i am sorry if u got that impression. i said i know enough to make my own decisions about what i want to believe. i will continue studying the current model, but i will also keep believing my own theory.

One day you'll realize that you honestly do not know enough to make those decisions. Hopefully you'll continue studying.

Are you really in 4th grade? I got the impression you had taken a year of physics in high school.

i know, i know. i probably know less physics than u, that i'll admit, but i do have enough understanding of the way things work in the current theory. but, like i said, i'll continue studying it...

You do? Demonstrate your knowledge by giving me some examples of invariant quantities in relativity.

i love quizzes!
ok. i assume u mean e=mc2, cause that's what put einstein on the map. it shows us how much energy mass equals if the mass itself was energy.

Wrong. The Einstein equation is a four-dimensional tensor equation that relates mass and energy (...) to the curvature of space.

$$R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu}$$

Where $R_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor, $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric, R is the scalar curvature, and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the stress-energy tensor. This equation is the central edifice in the general theory of relativity.

If you did not understand every word of that description, then you do not have any right to say you understand anything about general relativity other than perhaps the concept that mass warps spacetime. That concept alone does not provide you with a deep enough understanding to discuss the theory.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

mercury doesn't block out all the neutrinos to the other planets.

I never said it did. I said the total amount of neutrinos a planet intercepts is a function of its distance from the sun. A closer planet will get hit with more of them.

and not all the neutrinos hitting mercury get absorbed. some of them are just going straight through. (evidence proves the latter portion, it will eventually prove the first part).

In fact, neutrinos virtually never interact with ordinary matter. In reality, they interact so rarely that they could never account for any realistically observable force like that of gravity. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean "some particle" rather than the neutrino specifically. The arguments against a pushing theory of gravity are the same regardless of the particle(s) doing the pushing.

and the sun isn't the only source of neutrinos. all bodies in the solar system produce them.

How do the other bodies in the solar system produce them? If that's true, then shouldn't you weigh more during those times when, say, Mars is closer to the Earth as it was last August? Wouldn't that mean that a nearby comet would make you weigh more, too?

all bodies in the solar system are pushing against each other.

Then what's keeping them together? Why aren't they just flying apart?

i will do a very sensitive test to see whether a person weighs less at night or not. i am imagining so, by a very small amount, but i will do it. (this is the part of my theory where i don't need a neutrino detector)

I look forward to hearing your conclusions.

do u think einstein adequately explained mercury's off-centered orbit? if so, tell us in ur own words what u think about it..

It's not "off-center." It has a perhelion advance of 43" per century that is not explainable by Newtonian gravitation. You don't really have to take anyone's opinion on the matter, you can do the math yourself. Relativity predicts the correct value. That doesn't mean the theory is absolutely correct, but it certainly supports it.

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

WHAT?! I'm not wrong. mass is energy and energy is mass. so what if i didn't go all into it like u did, but it's still correct. what i said is the samething as what einstein said, just worded differently. and yes i do understand what u were describing. ricci tensor- curvature in space-time, stress-energy tensor (or energy-momentum) describes what energy and momentum are doing at a certain pt. in space-time, scalar curvature: think planes and high dimension. i have studied that equation a couple of months ago but it looked like Rik- (gikR/2)+ V(upside down)gik=(8piG/c^4)Tik
the upside down V is the cosmological constant.. but scientists use it to explain some of their observations... hmm. maybe I'm not as clueless as u thought, chroot! (oh yeah G is the gravitational constant.. i believe!)

 

[chroot]

E=mc² is not called "the Einstein equation," and is not the same as the Einstein equation. They're two totally unrelated equations, and not just "worded differently" at all. Your assertion that it's the same just shows your incredible ignorance.

I can use google, too, beatrix kiddo: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/e.eq.html

If you don't even know what a lambda is, $\lambda$, the "upside down V," and have to resort to plagiarizing sites you found on google (and didn't even understand), how can you seriously expect me (or anyone else) to believe that you know your ass from a tensor? Ring, ring, beatrix kiddo -- it's the clue phone. You don't know anything about relativity, and you know you don't. Quit pretending, it just makes you look desperate and stupid.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

And no, kiddo, the stress-energy tensor does not describe what "energy and momentum are doing at a certain point in spacetime." Since when is a tensor a dynamical equation? Keep digging!

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

How Dare U!

i have never plagiarized in my entire life! i don't know latex so i said upside down V! OMG... u got to be kidding me. i always give my sources. LOOK AT ALL OF MY POSTS! i got that equation from my old notebook. stop trying to scar my rep on this site u big meanie!

 

[beatrix kiddo]

and i have found a source that goes along with my old notes, chroot. describing stress-energy as energy and momemtum. the reason why i said upside down v was because i couldn't read my writing too well.. (scratchy) i can't believe u'd get all upset and accuse me of something i didn't do! http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/st/stress_energy_tensor.html (stress energy)
geez... i always site my sources. look back at most of my posts...

 

[cookiemonster]

stress-energy tensor (or energy-momentum) describes what energy and momentum are doing at a certain pt. in space-time

What they're "doing," huh. Just what exactly does that mean anyway? I could probably find a source saying that a guy named Energy and a guy named Momentum are flipping burgers at the local McDonalds on Thursday and it'd support "what they're doing at a certain point in spacetime"!

Okay, that's my foray into the TD forum for the week. Back to chroot's one-man show.

cookiemonster

 

[beatrix kiddo]

whatever.. if u're going to falsely accuse me of plagiarism, (even though my history says other wise) warn me, not respond to my private message, then tell me that i know nothing about GR (even though i have been studying it for 2 years now), just forget it. u won't have to worry about me on this thread anymore and I'm shocked that an admin of the physics forums would sink so low... shutup cookiemonster, this doesn't involve u...

 

[cookiemonster]

Eh, you're right. I should have made a more constructive post. So here's a link to a previous push gravity thread found using the wonderful search feature.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=16216&highlight=push+gravity

As for studying for 2 years, neither you nor I are even qualified to fairly say that we can study GR. We simply haven't established the necessary mathematical foundation to give it a proper treatment.

And, just for reference, you're not getting a very warm response because you haven't put in much workinto your idea to see if it's already been thought of, or even to try to prove it wrong yourself. You've shifted all the work from you to everybody else. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate a classmate giving you their homework to do for them, would you? Same concept.

cookiemonster

 

[shintashi]

hmnn...

funny haha equations.

I would like to know if that curvature of space equation takes into account that the universe is flat like a pancake and not spherical like a ball ?


Who says its flat ? I do. Nyaahh !

 

[chroot]

When you say "flat," are suggesting the universe is two-dimensional, or are you suggesting that spacetime is not curved?

- Warren

 

[Alkatran]

Oh good, the thread went downhill since I last checked in. I'll post the same proof that push gravity can't work as I did in the other thread.

1: Neutrinos move away from the sun as if they were on an expanding sphere. The more area this sphere has, the less neutrinos in one area.
2: A certain percent of neutrinos will be absorbed for every Kg of matter they must pass through.

1 and 2 mean - things further away or with matter between them and the neutrino source will receive less neutrinos and, as a consequence, not weigh as much.


Alright, on to a hypothetical situation. We will assume the Earth is flat and the neutrinos are approaching as a straight surface (eliminating the constants imposed by (1), this will prove 2 can't work for gravity).

All observers and objects are assumed to have the right mass, density, and size, for every neutrino to pass through 1 Kg of matter as it passes through them. The only exception to this will be the "Earth", which will be 1000 Kg thick instead of 1.

Observer 1 is standing outside.
Observer 2 is standing under a tree.
Observer 3 is on the opposite of the planet, directly "under" observer 1.
Observer 4 is on the opposite of the planet, directly "under" observer 2.

Now, here is how we calculate the force exerted by the neutrinos coming from the sun:
x(1-n)^y*n

where x is the number of neutrinos (per wave), n is the absorption rate (percent absorbed for each Kg of matter passed through), and y is the number of Kg already passed through. We will set x at 1000 and n at 10%.

Force on observer 1: 1000*(1-.10)^0*.10 = 1000*.10 = 100
Force on observer 2: 1000*(1-.10)^1*.10 = 1000*.9*.1 = 90
Force on observer 3: 1000*(1-.10)^1001*.10 = 1.57*10^-44
Force on observer 4: 1000*(1-.10)^1002*.10 = 1.42*10^-44

Alright, so if you're under a tree you weigh 10% less. Right, that makes a lot of sense. So let's just set n to a lower value, k? How about .001%, alright, sounds good to me too.

Force on observer 1: 1000*(1-.00001)^0*.10 = 1000*.10 = 100
Force on observer 2: 1000*(1-.00001)^1*.10 = 1000*.99999*.1 = 99.999
Force on observer 3: 1000*(1-.00001)^1001*.10 = 99.004
Force on observer 4: 1000*(1-.00001)^1002*.10 = 99.003

Alright, now we have values that make a bit more sense! I mean, now if you stand under a tree you don't lose 10% of your weight, you only lose .001% of it. But wait, those guys on the other side of the Earth are being pushed OFF at the same speed we're being pushed down! Oh darn! Well, let's just compensate for that by putting another neutrino source on the other side! Alright, now since all the numbers are somewhere around 99.. well everyone weighs 1. Hurrah!

See the problem? If the absorbtion constant is low, the force is nullified (since it mught be coming in from all sides for equal gravity) but if it's high, you weight a lot less when you're under anything.

BAM! Crushed.

Oh, and I don't remember weighing less during solar eclipses. Funny.
Come to think of it, why didn't the moon come crashing down on us? I mean, all of a sudden the Earth isn't being pushed away by as much (and it's being pushed on the other side, so it starts accelerating towards the moon, which is accelerating towards us...)

 

[shintashi]

curved spacetime paper ?

neither. I'm suggesting that the universe is flat like a pancake, not two dimensional, but not a bubble. if you imagine a sombrero galaxy for instance, or the way a cyclotron toy looks, then you have the basic idea. While toying with the numbers for about a year, my assistant and I concluded that the radius of the universe seemed to correlate with our estimation of the mass, on an x^2, and not X^3 basis.

At first we thought this might be because the space was mostly empty, but now we realize that would be wrong. While space is not 2 dimensional, the vast majority of the third dimension is fractional at best, like a saucer with a central spire, and less like a big shiny ball of light.

The model we are using right now, while still eeking inbetween finer ends of equations, still mandates that we some how account for the angles of the electromagnetic field ejection from macrocosmic jets (a big ugly version of the same thing ejected from Quasars) and figuring out, geometrically, how this works together.
one possible "riptide" explanation is wave recoil, which oddly might mean, cosmically anyways, that the anti-wave of everything is recoiling, and would represent the "EM" field return of gravitational vortexes. In even more simple terms, imagine you have a pencil tip bobbing in the center of a glass of water- the wave ripples out to the rim, and then returns back to the center, and back and forth, like a dance.
Hopefully though, this isn't the model for the whole universe, and we might find that a "90 degree" angled shape could manifest itself.

- Shin

 

[chroot]

Jesus, no wonder I make it a policy not to bother to post in TD...

- Warren