Then Einstein was also wrong. For Einstein time is a dimension.
Past and future are like east and west. For example, if I am in California then Michigaan is east. If I am in Massachusetts, Michigan is west. Similarly, 1492 is past for me, but to someone in 1230, 1492 is future.
If time passes,how fast does it pass? Seconds per what? The question makes no sense.
Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
EInstein was absolutely correct. His theory was built on solid experimental evidence and it predicted countless others that were all verified for over 110 years.
If you really want to understand relativity, I suggest you read a good popular book on the subject, such as "Humane Physics" !
If you really want to understand relativity, I suggest you read a good popular book on the subject, such as "Humane Physics" !
-
David Handeye
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:39 pm
- Location: Italia
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
I don't know. If I don't mistake for Einstein space-time was a dimension, the 4th dimension. I think we are aware of time thanks to the space; if there is a space there can be movement; when we see a thing that before was there and then is here, we can state that time has passed. Hours, seconds, days, are all inventions of ours. Time flows, independently from our way of measuring it.raw_thought wrote:Then Einstein was also wrong. For Einstein time is a dimension.
Past and future are like east and west. For example, if I am in California then Michigaan is east. If I am in Massachusetts, Michigan is west. Similarly, 1492 is past for me, but to someone in 1230, 1492 is future.
If time passes,how fast does it pass? Seconds per what? The question makes no sense.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
Imagine a chess board. The files (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h) represent space (miles, inches or whatever unit of measure you want). The ranks (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) represent time (hours, minutes or whatever unit of measure you like).
The chessboard does not change. Similarly, spacetime does not change even tho it includes time.
The chessboard does not change. Similarly, spacetime does not change even tho it includes time.
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
I had a conversation once with a physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. I asked him how he would explain the invariance of the space-time interval in relativity theory to laymen, without using mathematics. He scratched his head for a while and then proceeded to verbalize the equation using words instead of symbols. When I told him that, he laughed and admitted what we both knew: relativity theory is a mathematical construct, a direct consequence of Einstein’s postulates.
It is not open to speculation and analogies. If you don't follow the theory from basic foundation to its inevitable mathematical consequences, you will NEVER understand it, regardless how many analogies you try to concoct.
Science is a very precise discipline and it requires an honest effort to understand it.
Sorry, but there are no substitutes!
It is not open to speculation and analogies. If you don't follow the theory from basic foundation to its inevitable mathematical consequences, you will NEVER understand it, regardless how many analogies you try to concoct.
Science is a very precise discipline and it requires an honest effort to understand it.
Sorry, but there are no substitutes!
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
So all those spacetime diagrams are useless? Basically, that is what my chess board anaolgy was illustrating.
My Dad was from Canada. Know how Canada got its name? They put all the letters in a hat. The first letter picked was a "C" Everyone said "eh". Then a "N" was drawn. Everyone said,"eh".Then a "D" was drawn. Everyone said, "eh"!
My Dad was from Canada. Know how Canada got its name? They put all the letters in a hat. The first letter picked was a "C" Everyone said "eh". Then a "N" was drawn. Everyone said,"eh".Then a "D" was drawn. Everyone said, "eh"!
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
You need to start with the framework of the foundation.
Relativity theory deals with moving systems, observers and laws of nature. The moving system can be a planet, a spaceship, a train or a ship crossing the ocean.
On top of system ‘A’ there is an observer sitting at his workbench and doing experiments in mechanics, electrodynamics, etc. He observes the results of his experiments and deduces the laws of nature governing the behaviour of material objects and processes. On top of another system ‘B’, which is moving relative to system ‘A’ at uniform speed, in a straight line, another observer is doing the same.
For Einstein, it was inconceivable that the laws of nature would appear different to the two observers doing their experiments. If they play billiard in their system, the billiard balls behave the same way in both systems. If they connect a wire to a battery and run electric current through it, the magnetic field created around the wire will be exactly the same. The relative uniform speed of the two systems should not affect the outcome of the experiments in either system.
Uniform speed is important because if you allow one system to accelerate (change speed and/or direction) than the behaviour of the billiard balls in the accelerating system would definitely be different.
The famous paper
Einstein published it in 1905 under the title On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it starts:
“It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics - as usually understood at the present time - when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet.”
On the face of it, the two experiments seem quite different. In one case, I have the loop of wire on my workbench and wave a bar magnet over it. In the other case I have the magnet lying still on my workbench and move the wire over it. This is how Faraday saw it and described the two experimental results in two different ways. The second Maxwell equation, which is Faraday’s Law, describes the induced electric field as the function of the changing magnetic field. The ‘changing magnetic field’ assumes an observer for whom the field is changing.
If the observer moved with the magnetic field (uniformly drifting eastbound, for example), then the field would not change for him. Does this mean that no electric field is generated by the same magnetic field? How could an ‘objective’ physical phenomenon depend on where we observe it from? If something is happening in nature, it should be happening whether we watch it or not, never mind the location of our work-bench.
What Einstein made us realize is that the exact same thing is happening in both cases: the loop and the magnet are moving relative to each other. How we see them depends entirely on the vantage point from which we observe the experiments. If we place our chair on top of the magnet, then it is the loop that moves. If we sit on the loop, then the magnet moves. If we jump up and down between the two, then both the magnet and the wire move. Einstein’s great breakthrough consisted in realizing that an entirely physical process, the actual physical thing happening, should be completely impervious to the location in space from which we observe it.
Maxwell’s equations contain the constant ‘c’ which was measured by both Maxwell and Weber-Kohlrausch as the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light, relative to what? - Einstein asked. The general assumption at the time held that light was transmitted through a hypothetical medium, called the luminiferous aether; however, all experimental attempts to locate and describe this aether failed. Einstein then proceeds:
“… the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”
Here is the heart of the special relativity theory: the famous two postulates:
1. The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
2. Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity ‘c’ which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The consequences of these postulates are as fantastic as they are inevitable. What Einstein gained by these assumptions was clarity and consistency of the theories and experimental data collected in physics for the last 300 years. What he gave up was a common-sense view of the universe.
Relativity theory deals with moving systems, observers and laws of nature. The moving system can be a planet, a spaceship, a train or a ship crossing the ocean.
On top of system ‘A’ there is an observer sitting at his workbench and doing experiments in mechanics, electrodynamics, etc. He observes the results of his experiments and deduces the laws of nature governing the behaviour of material objects and processes. On top of another system ‘B’, which is moving relative to system ‘A’ at uniform speed, in a straight line, another observer is doing the same.
For Einstein, it was inconceivable that the laws of nature would appear different to the two observers doing their experiments. If they play billiard in their system, the billiard balls behave the same way in both systems. If they connect a wire to a battery and run electric current through it, the magnetic field created around the wire will be exactly the same. The relative uniform speed of the two systems should not affect the outcome of the experiments in either system.
Uniform speed is important because if you allow one system to accelerate (change speed and/or direction) than the behaviour of the billiard balls in the accelerating system would definitely be different.
The famous paper
Einstein published it in 1905 under the title On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it starts:
“It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics - as usually understood at the present time - when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet.”
On the face of it, the two experiments seem quite different. In one case, I have the loop of wire on my workbench and wave a bar magnet over it. In the other case I have the magnet lying still on my workbench and move the wire over it. This is how Faraday saw it and described the two experimental results in two different ways. The second Maxwell equation, which is Faraday’s Law, describes the induced electric field as the function of the changing magnetic field. The ‘changing magnetic field’ assumes an observer for whom the field is changing.
If the observer moved with the magnetic field (uniformly drifting eastbound, for example), then the field would not change for him. Does this mean that no electric field is generated by the same magnetic field? How could an ‘objective’ physical phenomenon depend on where we observe it from? If something is happening in nature, it should be happening whether we watch it or not, never mind the location of our work-bench.
What Einstein made us realize is that the exact same thing is happening in both cases: the loop and the magnet are moving relative to each other. How we see them depends entirely on the vantage point from which we observe the experiments. If we place our chair on top of the magnet, then it is the loop that moves. If we sit on the loop, then the magnet moves. If we jump up and down between the two, then both the magnet and the wire move. Einstein’s great breakthrough consisted in realizing that an entirely physical process, the actual physical thing happening, should be completely impervious to the location in space from which we observe it.
Maxwell’s equations contain the constant ‘c’ which was measured by both Maxwell and Weber-Kohlrausch as the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light, relative to what? - Einstein asked. The general assumption at the time held that light was transmitted through a hypothetical medium, called the luminiferous aether; however, all experimental attempts to locate and describe this aether failed. Einstein then proceeds:
“… the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”
Here is the heart of the special relativity theory: the famous two postulates:
1. The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
2. Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity ‘c’ which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The consequences of these postulates are as fantastic as they are inevitable. What Einstein gained by these assumptions was clarity and consistency of the theories and experimental data collected in physics for the last 300 years. What he gave up was a common-sense view of the universe.
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
Conflict in Physics
There seemed to be a conflict here. If we choose the Galilean transformation, then the laws of mechanics remain the same, but the laws of electrodynamics do not. On the other hand, if we choose the Lorentz transformation, then the laws of electrodynamics remain the same, but the laws of mechanics do not. The only way to reconcile this conflict is to decide to correct either Newton’s equations or Maxwell’s equations. We can not leave both unchanged, because it is inconceivable that any natural law would behave differently in two systems moving at uniform speed relative to each other.
Experimental data eventually convinced physicists to keep the Maxwell equations unchanged and modify Newton’s equations. This modification is a simple one: all we have to do is introduce a correction factor into Newton’s second law: “Force equals mass times acceleration”.
Using the definition of acceleration and speed, we will have:
F = ma = m d/dt v = m d/dt (d/dt x’)
In another system moving relative to the stationary one, we have to use that system’s measurement for x, according to the Lorentz transformation formula described above: x = (x’ + v t’)
Therefore the correction factor needed is: = 1 / (1 - v2/c2) ½ so the new form of Newton’s second law will become:
F = m a / (1 - v2/c2) ½
The physical meaning of this modification: the mass is dependent on the speed of the observer relative to the mass, according to the following formula:
m = m0 / (1 - v2/c2) ½
where ‘m0’ is the mass of the object measured by an observer who is at rest relative to the object, and ‘m’ is the mass measured by another observer moving at uniform speed ‘v’ relative to the object. If the observer is not moving relative to the mass, that is v=0, then m=m0. That is why m0 is the rest mass of the object.
Since v<c (according to Einstein’s postulate), (1- v2/c2) < 1, so we divide m0 by a true fraction which results in m > m0
The mass of an object measured by an observer in a system moving at uniform speed relative to the object, is greater than the mass measured by an observer at rest relative to it.
With this modification in place, if we use the Lorentz Transformation formulas, then the laws of mechanics will also stay the same in both systems moving uniformly relative to each other.
There seemed to be a conflict here. If we choose the Galilean transformation, then the laws of mechanics remain the same, but the laws of electrodynamics do not. On the other hand, if we choose the Lorentz transformation, then the laws of electrodynamics remain the same, but the laws of mechanics do not. The only way to reconcile this conflict is to decide to correct either Newton’s equations or Maxwell’s equations. We can not leave both unchanged, because it is inconceivable that any natural law would behave differently in two systems moving at uniform speed relative to each other.
Experimental data eventually convinced physicists to keep the Maxwell equations unchanged and modify Newton’s equations. This modification is a simple one: all we have to do is introduce a correction factor into Newton’s second law: “Force equals mass times acceleration”.
Using the definition of acceleration and speed, we will have:
F = ma = m d/dt v = m d/dt (d/dt x’)
In another system moving relative to the stationary one, we have to use that system’s measurement for x, according to the Lorentz transformation formula described above: x = (x’ + v t’)
Therefore the correction factor needed is: = 1 / (1 - v2/c2) ½ so the new form of Newton’s second law will become:
F = m a / (1 - v2/c2) ½
The physical meaning of this modification: the mass is dependent on the speed of the observer relative to the mass, according to the following formula:
m = m0 / (1 - v2/c2) ½
where ‘m0’ is the mass of the object measured by an observer who is at rest relative to the object, and ‘m’ is the mass measured by another observer moving at uniform speed ‘v’ relative to the object. If the observer is not moving relative to the mass, that is v=0, then m=m0. That is why m0 is the rest mass of the object.
Since v<c (according to Einstein’s postulate), (1- v2/c2) < 1, so we divide m0 by a true fraction which results in m > m0
The mass of an object measured by an observer in a system moving at uniform speed relative to the object, is greater than the mass measured by an observer at rest relative to it.
With this modification in place, if we use the Lorentz Transformation formulas, then the laws of mechanics will also stay the same in both systems moving uniformly relative to each other.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
I understand all that.
What you were saying was that analogies dont work. Tell that to Einstein,when he created relativity. What started his inspiration was daydreaming about what the world would look like sitting on a photon. He then used elevators, trains etc in his thought experiements.
What you were saying was that analogies dont work. Tell that to Einstein,when he created relativity. What started his inspiration was daydreaming about what the world would look like sitting on a photon. He then used elevators, trains etc in his thought experiements.
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
He was sixteen, walking in a forest in Switzerland, when he mused about that.raw_thought wrote:Tell that to Einstein,when he created relativity. What started his inspiration was daydreaming about what the world would look like sitting on a photon.
When he eventually developed his 'Special' Theory of Relativity, he had had years of university education behind him.
Elevators have to do with the General Theory of Relativity that took him 10 years to develop, with a lot of help from his mathematician friends.
Simon Singh tells us an amusing story about Arthur Eddington in his excellent book: Big Bang
“Eddington became so closely associated with the theory that the physicist Ludwig Silberstein, who also considered himself an authority on general relativity, once said to Eddington: ‘You must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity’. Eddington stared back in silence, until Silberstein told him not to be so modest. ‘On the contrary’ replied Eddington, ‘I am trying to think who the third person is.’”
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
I just played (3 minutes ago) a guy that called himself "ned" and he is from Canada! at chess.com
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
Not me, I am afraid! I have never been on chess.com.
-
raw_thought
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
- Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
Here is an honest question. (I do not know the answer and it is not a way to start a debate.
Crazy coincidences happen to me all the time.
A few examples, I was at Smith college (my daughter went there). She and my wife were having a girl's day and so I went to the library. I always read science or philosophy. However, this time I decided to randomly choose a book with my eyes closed and read a chapter. I read the collexted works of Calhun.Then when I went back to our room, my wife had yhe southern poverties magizine on the table, opened to an article about respected academics that went over to the dark side. You guessed it, the author of the collexcted works of Calhoun was menrtioned. He is a respected historian that says that slavery was a good thing!
Anyway, stuff like that happens to me everyday. I dont think anything supernatural is happening. But it made we wonder if there is a way to tell.
For example, suppose I spill my bowl of cherries on the floor and then on the TV is a story about a train carring cherries that turned over. Then 5 minutes later, my dog walks in with a bird in his mouth and then I pick up a magizine about bird dogs. Suppose this goes on (every 5 minutes) is there a math formula that tells me when the coincidences are so outrageous that something must be going on.
Not probability, but metaprobability. The odds of unlikey (improbable ) events happening for a certain time segment.
Crazy coincidences happen to me all the time.
A few examples, I was at Smith college (my daughter went there). She and my wife were having a girl's day and so I went to the library. I always read science or philosophy. However, this time I decided to randomly choose a book with my eyes closed and read a chapter. I read the collexted works of Calhun.Then when I went back to our room, my wife had yhe southern poverties magizine on the table, opened to an article about respected academics that went over to the dark side. You guessed it, the author of the collexcted works of Calhoun was menrtioned. He is a respected historian that says that slavery was a good thing!
Anyway, stuff like that happens to me everyday. I dont think anything supernatural is happening. But it made we wonder if there is a way to tell.
For example, suppose I spill my bowl of cherries on the floor and then on the TV is a story about a train carring cherries that turned over. Then 5 minutes later, my dog walks in with a bird in his mouth and then I pick up a magizine about bird dogs. Suppose this goes on (every 5 minutes) is there a math formula that tells me when the coincidences are so outrageous that something must be going on.
Not probability, but metaprobability. The odds of unlikey (improbable ) events happening for a certain time segment.
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
Sorry, I am not qualified to answer questions such as these. 
Re: Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?
"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" begins with just such a series of events.raw_thought wrote:Here is an honest question. (I do not know the answer and it is not a way to start a debate.
Crazy coincidences happen to me all the time.
A few examples, I was at Smith college (my daughter went there). She and my wife were having a girl's day and so I went to the library. I always read science or philosophy. However, this time I decided to randomly choose a book with my eyes closed and read a chapter. I read the collexted works of Calhun.Then when I went back to our room, my wife had yhe southern poverties magizine on the table, opened to an article about respected academics that went over to the dark side. You guessed it, the author of the collexcted works of Calhoun was menrtioned. He is a respected historian that says that slavery was a good thing!
Anyway, stuff like that happens to me everyday. I dont think anything supernatural is happening. But it made we wonder if there is a way to tell.
For example, suppose I spill my bowl of cherries on the floor and then on the TV is a story about a train carring cherries that turned over. Then 5 minutes later, my dog walks in with a bird in his mouth and then I pick up a magizine about bird dogs. Suppose this goes on (every 5 minutes) is there a math formula that tells me when the coincidences are so outrageous that something must be going on.
Not probability, but metaprobability. The odds of unlikey (improbable ) events happening for a certain time segment.