Philosophy Now Forum

who is not satisfied with mainstream physic? I am afraid I can only wish you happy a next eighty years with quantizing Einstein's gravity and Einstein's (empty) space-time

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the only people who's posted here in the last month or so that does believe in modern science, so I think you'll probably find lots of support.

converge wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm one of the only people who's posted here in the last month or so that does believe in modern science, so I think you'll probably find lots of support.

I can think of a few who would support him. I'm not one of them though.

Hi, Cerveny! I'm not exactly dissatisfied, but I would like to see the current issues in physics be resolved in my lifetime.

But then I remember that it took a long, long time to get away from the geocentric view of the universe to the current view of the earth being part of a solar system within a galaxy, and that there are a huge number of galaxies. How long will it take to resolve the issues between quantum mechanics and relativity, or with attempts to quantize gravity? Science has a history of building theories and then having to revise them or throw them out for new ones, as more data are acquired and new thought put into the theories. This can take a long time.

Is your dissatisfaction with physics as a science, or with the unresolved problems within physics?

John wrote:

converge wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm one of the only people who's posted here in the last month or so that does believe in modern science, so I think you'll probably find lots of support.

I can think of a few who would support him. I'm not one of them though.

Can you bring some new idea, some doubt, some question, whatever we can not read in Wikipedia please?

Cerveny wrote:who is not satisfied with mainstream physic? I am afraid I can only wish you happy a next eighty years with quantizing Einstein's gravity and Einstein's (empty) space-time :)

Perhaps to wish you next ten dimension in fruitful string theory too :)

Mike Strand wrote:Hi, Cerveny! I'm not exactly dissatisfied, but I would like to see the current issues in physics be resolved in my lifetime.

But then I remember that it took a long, long time to get away from the geocentric view of the universe to the current view of the earth being part of a solar system within a galaxy, and that there are a huge number of galaxies. How long will it take to resolve the issues between quantum mechanics and relativity, or with attempts to quantize gravity? Science has a history of building theories and then having to revise them or throw them out for new ones, as more data are acquired and new thought put into the theories. This can take a long time.

Is your dissatisfaction with physics as a science, or with the unresolved problems within physics?

I am dissatisfied with STR - incoming body acts to subject by different way then outgoing does - see Mercury trace
I am dissatisfied by all singularities in real physical world - frankly, it is nonsense
I am dissatisfied by space-time schema - there is not time "after" (the future) yet of course - it will be build only
I am dissatisfied by Minkowski metric - perhaps it is useful for some calculation, but searching it in real world it is nonsense
I am dissatisfied by empty space schema - there are permittivity, permeability, gravitational susceptibility...
I am dissatisfied by GTR - it deals with antimatter by the same way as with the matter without any experimental or theoretical support
I am dissatisfied by absence of explanation inertial motion - there is plain analogy to light (inertia/gravity ~ magnetism/electricity - proton ~ electron)
I am dissatisfied by absence of elementary particle explanation - it is clear their relations to the physical space (some space defects)
I am dissatisfied by “expanding” space – what is expanding against the other? (Physical constant should have been changed in this case) – space grows, condensates from some other (causal) phase
...

Please, please, please do not answer to me by any citation from Wikipedia or other mainstream source. Perhaps it seems to be strange but I am able to somehow read. Before you answer me by some "proving measurement or experiment", send me the right gravity calculation (explaining "dark matter" effect) or derivation of the proton…

Cerveny wrote:

John wrote:

converge wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm one of the only people who's posted here in the last month or so that does believe in modern science, so I think you'll probably find lots of support.

I can think of a few who would support him. I'm not one of them though.

Can you bring some new idea, some doubt, some question, whatever we can not read in Wikipedia please?

I'm not that interested in debating science here. I have a scientific background that's somewhat behind me now (University in the late 80s) and the finer points of theoretical physics are no longer relevant to my daily life. I therefore tend to accept the dominant theories in highly complex areas unless I have some reason not to. Someone claiming to be heavily versed in science spouting off on a philosophy forum isn't a good enough reason I'm afraid.

If you really are that knowledgeable why aren't you writing academic papers and trying to change the minds of the people that matter, i.e. other scientist, rather than wasting your time on a Philosophy forum?

Cerevny,

If you will not accept any material from the science community, then what do you expect people in this forum to provide you with? You ask for an equation for gravity that incorporates dark matter, but you've already said you won't accept any of the information from any "mainstream" scientific resource. What sort of equation would make you feel like it was the correct equation? I'm guessing you don't have a homemade particle accelerator in your back yard, nor do you have any access to advanced scientific equipment that could actually measure gravitational effects on the necessary level, so how would you ever know the "right" formula if you saw it? Are you hoping it would just somehow intuitively feel right?

converge wrote:Cerevny,

If you will not accept any material from the science community, then what do you expect people in this forum to provide you with? You ask for an equation for gravity that incorporates dark matter, but you've already said you won't accept any of the information from any "mainstream" scientific resource. What sort of equation would make you feel like it was the correct equation? I'm guessing you don't have a homemade particle accelerator in your back yard, nor do you have any access to advanced scientific equipment that could actually measure gravitational effects on the necessary level, so how would you ever know the "right" formula if you saw it? Are you hoping it would just somehow intuitively feel right?

I do not accept such material to avoid wasting of time. I know it all quite well. But it deeply dissatisfied me as you can read... I do not like to admire "Emperor new clothes" :( I do not have any particle accelerator at my cottage, I use by modest way the brain and the logic only...

Cerveny wrote:

converge wrote:Cerevny,

If you will not accept any material from the science community, then what do you expect people in this forum to provide you with? You ask for an equation for gravity that incorporates dark matter, but you've already said you won't accept any of the information from any "mainstream" scientific resource. What sort of equation would make you feel like it was the correct equation? I'm guessing you don't have a homemade particle accelerator in your back yard, nor do you have any access to advanced scientific equipment that could actually measure gravitational effects on the necessary level, so how would you ever know the "right" formula if you saw it? Are you hoping it would just somehow intuitively feel right?

I do not accept such material to avoid wasting of time. I know it all quite well. But it deeply dissatisfied me as you can read... I do not like to admire "Emperor new clothes" I do not have any particle accelerator at my cottage, I use by modest way the brain and the logic only...

But again, if you have no particle accelerator, and thus no way to actually verify if anything anyone tells you is true, how are you going to know if someone shows you the "right" formula? You seem convinced that the current ones are false even though you have no way to verify that on your own, so how would you decide that a new one was true without any way to actually test it in practice?

converge wrote:But again, if you have no particle accelerator, and thus no way to actually verify if anything anyone tells you is true, how are you going to know if someone shows you the "right" formula? You seem convinced that the current ones are false even though you have no way to verify that on your own, so how would you decide that a new one was true without any way to actually test it in practice?

I very appreciate your good natured support but it is necessary to leave common level of discus and use simple logic for case by case...

For example: Where is to find physical reason of the spinning Mercury trace in spherically symmetric gravitational field? It can be found in different relation of approaching and receding bodies to subject only ... It is simple consideration that incoming body acts shorter time then outgoing one (incoming body goes parallel with the force signal). But SR deals with both cases by same way! What is the purpose of some “own” time for example for a photon when such time is frozen? Does not photon meet some particle (say electrons) on its way? Does it meet electrons in the same time?

Every from my objections mentioned above is based on some logical problem... No high math is needed... I do not want you to throw out all TR at once, I want you only to doubt…

Cerveny wrote: I very appreciate your good natured support but it is necessary to leave common level of discus and use simple logic for case by case...

For example: Where is to find physical reason of the spinning Mercury trace in spherically symmetric gravitational field? It can be found in different relation of approaching and receding bodies to subject only ... It is simple consideration that incoming body acts shorter time then outgoing one (incoming body goes parallel with the force signal). But SR deals with both cases by same way! What is the purpose of some “own” time for example for a photon when such time is frozen? Does not photon meet some particle (say electrons) on its way? Does it meet electrons in the same time?

Every from my objections mentioned above is based on some logical problem... No high math is needed... I do not want you to throw out all TR at once, I want you only to doubt…

I apologize, some of your English is difficult to understand so I might not know what you're asking. Are you talking about the problem with the precession of Mercury's orbit? As I understand it, Mercury's orbit precession is off by what it should be in Newtonian gravity, but it is correct if you assume that space-time becomes curved by gravity. The "physical" reason is that space-time is not flat, it's curved near gravity. The example I've always seen is that if you imagine three dimensional space as just a two dimensional flat grid, and then put a bowling ball on it, it will dent around the bowling ball. Mass has the same effect. This seems logical to me; I'd agree it's unintuitive and certainly strange, but all the evidence matches up with that being the case.

In the second part, are you asking about the apparent paradox in SR where two people moving quickly towards each other would both see the other as moving in slow motion? The apparent paradox can be solved with General Relativity or by some fancy integrals on SR... the more intuitive way to understand it in my opinion is using GR, and understanding that acceleration acts like gravity. In order for one person to fly past another and then turn around and come back and stop, he needs to go through a series of accelerations. When he's speeding up he undergoes g-force which will cause him to see the other person moving fast instead of slow. This happens as he starts or as he puts on the brakes and returns. When he gets back to the other person, he's younger and the other is older. Even though the parts of his trip where SR dominated (when he's moving at a constant velocity) had him seeing the other person in slow time, the parts of his trip where GR dominated (the beginning acceleration and the turning around and the stopping at the guy at the end) would have him seeing the other person in fast time.

As for the photon experiencing time, it's hard to explain because the photon doesn't actually "experience" time. The photon has no mass, so it doesn't deal with space and time the way massy things like us do. From our perspective, the photon is moving through space and time, it hits the electron, and then get destroyed. From its own perspective, I imagine it would just picture itself as a line that stretches from when it started to when it hit the electron, and its existence just "is", there is no before or after. It's like imagining that for us, there is some special twelfth dimension that we exist in at all points at once. If someone came up to use and said "But I see you moving from one point to another in the twelfth dimension, how can you not notice it at all from your perspective?" we would just say "Huh? Twelfth dimension? I don't know what you're talking about."

converge wrote:

Cerveny wrote: I very appreciate your good natured support but it is necessary to leave common level of discus and use simple logic for case by case...

For example: Where is to find physical reason of the spinning Mercury trace in spherically symmetric gravitational field? It can be found in different relation of approaching and receding bodies to subject only ... It is simple consideration that incoming body acts shorter time then outgoing one (incoming body goes parallel with the force signal). But SR deals with both cases by same way! What is the purpose of some “own” time for example for a photon when such time is frozen? Does not photon meet some particle (say electrons) on its way? Does it meet electrons in the same time?

Every from my objections mentioned above is based on some logical problem... No high math is needed... I do not want you to throw out all TR at once, I want you only to doubt…

I apologize, some of your English is difficult to understand so I might not know what you're asking. Are you talking about the problem with the precession of Mercury's orbit? As I understand it, Mercury's orbit precession is off by what it should be in Newtonian gravity, but it is correct if you assume that space-time becomes curved by gravity. The "physical" reason is that space-time is not flat, it's curved near gravity. The example I've always seen is that if you imagine three dimensional space as just a two dimensional flat grid, and then put a bowling ball on it, it will dent around the bowling ball. Mass has the same effect. This seems logical to me; I'd agree it's unintuitive and certainly strange, but all the evidence matches up with that being the case.
...

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html
Sorry for bad english

Cerveny wrote: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html
Sorry for bad english

No problem on the bad english... you should hear how terrible my Spanish is

So, that article is really long; I don't know when I'll have time to read it all. But looking at the beginning, and his paper that he links to to base it on ( http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein ... 5.html#top ) I noticed a few things that don't add up.

First, he tries to disprove general relativity by starting with "E=mc2", but that equation is part of Einstein's relativity. Without relativity, there is no mass-energy equivalence. You can't simultaneously say you don't need relativity and then use the relativistic mass-energy formula. Next, he seems to be confused about what E=mc2 actually means. It doesn't actually mean that you can transform energy into mass like he is suggesting. Mass and energy are both conserved separately; you can't transform mass into energy and you can't transform energy into mass. The equivalence just means that if you remove mass from a system, you also remove the equivalent amount of energy, and if you remove energy, you remove the equivalent amount of mass. Einstein and folks used E=mc2 to figure out how much binding energy was in the nucleus of atoms when they built the atomic bombs. But fission doesn't actually convert the mass of the atom into energy. The mass is still there, it just spreads out in the explosion, and the energy that is released is equivalent to the amount of mass that dissipates in the reaction.

Next, the paper is based on his idea that matter actually "leaks" mass when it produces kinetic energy. His example is that if you moved the Earth away from the sun, and then let gravity pull it back, the planet would produce kinetic energy, which you could then harness with a pulley or whatever, and convert into mass. Since the mass you create has to come from somewhere, he says it must come from Earth, so that the new mass of Earth would be its old mass minus the amount of kinetic energy equivalent mass it produced by falling. He suggests that the atomic mass of each atom would become less. This is wrong in several ways. First, as above, E=mc2 doesn't actually mean you can transform energy into mass. Second, even if you could, if you converted the kinetic energy into mass, it would be the energy itself turning into mass, it wouldn't need to "come from" anything, so there's no need to subtract it from the Earth's mass. Third, he's using some sleight of hand to ignore potential energy and only focus on kinetic. His theory rests on the idea that after you pull the planet away from gravity and let it go, that it produces "new" kinetic energy, which must somehow be accounted for by leaking mass. But that's not how it works. When you pull the planet away, you have to expend energy to get it there, and once it's there, it has gravitational potential energy. When it falls, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There's no need for mysterious mass leakage.

In fact, you could test his theories yourself without needing any fancy equipment. Find a heavy object, like a bowling ball, and weigh it. Now, carry it to the roof of your house, and drop it. Do this a few times. If his theory is correct, every time the kinetic energy is created by dropping the ball, it would have to "leak" atomic mass to account for it. You should be able to weigh the ball afterward and see that it weighs less. However, I'm quite certain that you will find that, unless pieces of it break off because of all the dropping off the roof, it's going to weigh the same when you're done.

His idea that atomic mass gets "leaked" from atoms that move around enough also has no evidence to support it. The atoms around us all have very different stories. Some were recently shot out of the sun, some have been sitting around inside rocks for ages, some are floating around as water, some have been moving around in different chemical reactions, etc. If what he was saying was true, we should see a wide variety of atomic weights, since some atoms have moved a lot more than others. But we never see any discrepancy in atomic mass. Atomic mass is the same for all atoms we've ever measured. Every proton and neutron we've ever seen has the same exact mass.

I haven't read all the way to the end, but I'm guessing the way he gets to the same formula as Einstein is through some sleight of hand using these fake laws.