Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what is the big bang and how do i understand it?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 46 of 122 (235294)
08-21-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Caravaggio
08-21-2005 1:42 PM


Re: another chance?
It's nothing to do with not being there to observe time after the big crunch. Think of my globe analogy. Time points along lines of longitude towards the south pole (big crunch). Very close to the south pole, the arrows of time are pointing inwards towards the south pole. If you push your time arrow through the big crunch singularity, it remains on the same globe, just now moving back towards the north pole. There is no mechanism for the arrow to leap off this globe onto another globe, even if you say they are touching. The big cruch is not an edge, beyond which we say "what comes after" It is just a badly behaved point on an otherwise smooth surface. The only thing beyond the big crunch are those moments before it. What is south of the south pole?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Caravaggio, posted 08-21-2005 1:42 PM Caravaggio has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 12:50 AM cavediver has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 47 of 122 (235692)
08-22-2005 7:28 PM


OK I have been trying to get my head around some of these concepts. To start with I wish that they wouldn't use the same term, (singularity), for both a black hole and the BB.
On the assumption that string theory is basically correct then wouldn't it make sense that at T=0 all that existed was energy? All the mass that existed would be in the form of energy but there would be no such thing as matter.
The initial expansion was so massive I have to assume that there would be an instant event horizon for any place, (if place has any meaning), in the entire universe, and that the event horizon has been shrinking our visible universe ever since. The speed of light isn’t affected by the relative motion of bodies within a galaxy, but it is affected the rate of expansion in the universe. It seems to me then that the theories that suggest time and space are illusionary make the most sense.
I keep trying to figure out infinity and spacetime with my 3d and finite brain and I’m not having much luck. It seems to me that in the same way my 3d mind can’t grasp 4d spacetime, my finite mind can’t grasp infinity. As we know 4d space is reality, couldn’t it be just as possible that infinite space is reality. I have no idea how this works mathematically but doesn’t it make sense that the source of energy at the BB would be infinite and as a result our universe would be infinite?
If time and space are illusionary or a projection, it must mean the final solution has to be a mathematical one, and that would indicate to me that an infinite solution is perfectly reasonable.
I hope this makes a little sense to someone because I’m sure having trouble to to grasp it. Have I just joined the lunatic fringe or is there something to what I’m saying?

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2005 11:02 PM GDR has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 122 (237089)
08-25-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
08-21-2005 11:17 AM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
ps -- if you use [ blockcolor (equals) white ] and [ /blockcolor ] (without spaces inside the brackets) behind your last image you get
gifs and pngs take on background color rather than have it in the image like jpgs
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*25*2005 10:41 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 08-21-2005 11:17 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2005 3:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 122 (237101)
08-25-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
08-22-2005 7:28 PM


GDR writes:
To start with I wish that they wouldn't use the same term, (singularity), for both a black hole and the BB.
Again this goes back to what sylas said about the meaning: it isn't a thing so much as it is a mathematical part of the laws of physics as we know them, a point on the curves with a "singular" significance
All the mass that existed would be in the form of energy
More correct would be plasma, a kind of {energy\mass} blend continuum
I have to assume that there would be an instant event horizon for any place
mmm, black holes have "event horizons" ... "within you without you" boundaries ... ever wondered what it would look like from the inside?
Again you are trying to use logic with incompete knowledge. Sylas says counterintuitive: believe it. There are some fascinating videos of Richard Feynman talking about some experiments that he used to show the particle nature of light that are downright bizarre based on intuition and logical thoughts: take a mirror place it flat move 10 feet to the right, shoot a photons out at the mirror and a recording device records the reflected photon ... to the right, beside you (percentage based on his model of behavior); take and cover parts of the same mirror (again according to his model) and the amount of light detected is brighter ... less mirror, more light.
It seems to me then that the theories that suggest time and space are illusionary make the most sense.
very buddhist
it must mean the final solution has to be a mathematical one
why? why not pure magic? (or just "being")
Sidney, BC, Canada
I see you believe in ferries ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 08-22-2005 7:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 08-25-2005 11:47 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 52 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-26-2005 2:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 50 of 122 (237107)
08-25-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
08-25-2005 11:02 PM


Thanks for the reply.
One thing you are very right about is the incomplete knowledge. It has to be frustating for people who have studied this for years listen to a guy spout off as if he knows what he's talking about because he's read Brian Greene.
The trouble is, it is just so incredibly fascinating. I just sorta stumbled on to this world that I knew nothing about and it turns out its the one I live in.
RAZD writes:
More correct would be plasma, a kind of {energy\mass} blend continuum
I thought a singularity had zero volume. Plasma sounds like matter to me.
RAZD writes:
mmm, black holes have "event horizons" ... "within you without you" boundaries ... ever wondered what it would look like from the inside?
I'm probably using the wrong terminology. I'm talking about the part of the universe that we will never see because expansion is expanding it away at a rate greater than the speed of light. I assume that the initial rate of expansion would have created parts of the universe that have never been and never will be accessible to other parts of the universe.
RAZD writes:
very buddhist
Well I'm Christian with a lot of respect for Buddhism.
RAZD writes:
why? why not pure magic? (or just "being")
I'm just thinking from a naturalistic point of view. This is a science forum and you'll get me in trouble with admin.
RAZD writes:
I see you believe in ferries ...
I guess I have to but they're slow and expensive.
Thanks again. I keep reading and trying to learn but it's like trying to drink out of a fire hose.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2005 11:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 7:11 AM GDR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 122 (237119)
08-26-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver
08-21-2005 6:14 PM


a question and favor?
I brought this up on that other thread on relativity.
I realize that from our perspective, time and space are real, and I can accept that mathematical concepts are "real", but one of the things I have wanted to get at is what aspect of reality is "more real" and thinking the way to do that is to consider qualities that are true across the board, and qualities that are not always true or existing.
In trying to do this, and reading and listening to physicists, and considering theological ideas as well, it appears to me that time and space are somewhat "less real", or not always existing.
Let me explain. I had realized from school that a photon travelling at the speed of light, if we could measure from that perspective, experiences no time due to special relativity, right? Everything is just now.
I didn't realize until a couple of weeks ago that length contraction would also eliminate space if we did a measurement from the photon's perspective, but learned that from the other thread.
Well, that being the case, it seems to me that we cannot say that time and space exist from every vantage point in the universe, and thus the universe must consist of something more fundamental than space and time. Maybe it's those mathematical concepts and equations, the information, that is primary and time and space are secondary or derived aspects, which are not always present from every perspective.
As a layman, this is how it appears to me.
Maybe you could tell me how I'm wrong? Or if not, surely some physicists have thought along these lines and you could point me in the direction of where to see what they have to say in this regard?
I know I'm asking for info while you are busy, but hey, you get to show off, and your ego can be stroked by sharing tidbits with the rest of us.
Also, I would be interested in anyone else's answers or thoughts in this area that is reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 08-21-2005 6:14 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2005 4:10 AM randman has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 122 (237156)
08-26-2005 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
08-25-2005 11:02 PM


OT: Richard Feynman
RAZD writes:
There are some fascinating videos of Richard Feynman talking about some experiments that he used to show the particle nature of light that are downright bizarre based on intuition and logical thoughts: take a mirror place it flat move 10 feet to the right, shoot a photons out at the mirror and a recording device records the reflected photon ... to the right, beside you (percentage based on his model of behavior); take and cover parts of the same mirror (again according to his model) and the amount of light detected is brighter ... less mirror, more light.
You can find them here:
Page Redirection
Excellent site.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2005 11:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 7:03 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 53 of 122 (237175)
08-26-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
08-25-2005 10:40 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
Thanks for the tip... however, on my screen the images are identical! Both have a white background???
BTW, was this a "ps" to a post you've made, as I don't have any other replies to my posts 42-44?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2005 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 6:58 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 54 of 122 (237178)
08-26-2005 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
08-26-2005 12:50 AM


Re: a question and favor?
There is a confusion here between Space, space-time and distance. Distance betwen points in the universe is given by a field called the metric. By field, I mean a thing that takes a value at every point in the universe. In the case of the metric, it is not a single value but a matrix of values at each point (it is a 2nd rank tensor field in the language of mathematics). The metric tells us the distance between infinitesimally separated points in the universe. You can add up (integrate) the metric along a path to find the total distance between two points.
If the distance is negative, it means the points are separated by what we call time. But this division into space and time is not fundemental to the universe, simply a property of the metric.
Between certain points (those possibly connected by a light-ray), the distance comes out as zero - not separated by space or time. But this doesn't mean the actual Space of the universe has been "eliminated", just that this distance function has value zero. Our experience of time and distance are simply measurements of the metric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 12:50 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 08-26-2005 4:37 PM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 122 (237201)
08-26-2005 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by cavediver
08-26-2005 3:45 AM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
as I don't have any other replies to my posts 42-44?
I know. I'll try to get to them this weekend.
however, on my screen the images are identical! Both have a white background???
Not here. I use firefox. I've had trouble with this myself before, hence the trick. black on blue is hard to read (bruises the eyeballs )
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*26*2005 07:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2005 3:45 AM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 122 (237205)
08-26-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Primordial Egg
08-26-2005 2:49 AM


Re: OT: Richard Feynman
yep those are the ones. I was too tired\lazy to look them up last night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-26-2005 2:49 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 122 (237209)
08-26-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
08-25-2005 11:47 PM


GDR writes:
you are very right about is the incomplete knowledge.
I have incomplete knowledge, and yes it is frustrating when {your\my} knowledge base runs out in the middle of trying to understand a point.
We try to help each other eh?
I thought a singularity had zero volume. Plasma sounds like matter to me.
I think of it as too 'hot' for matter too dense for energy
I'm talking about the part of the universe that we will never see because expansion is expanding it away at a rate greater than the speed of light.
worse than that, every day some new objects reach that horizon. it kind of makes me feel like we better get out there before there isn't anything left to get to ...
thinking from a naturalistic point of view. This is a science forum and you'll get me in trouble
but the question is how you reached the conclusion you did.
but they're slow and expensive.
I used to live in Victoria, down by Cadboro Bay.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 08-25-2005 11:47 PM GDR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 122 (237456)
08-26-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by cavediver
08-26-2005 4:10 AM


Re: a question and favor?
Cavediver, thanks for responding, and I do appreciate it and may just be too dense to get this right away, but .....could you elaborate a little more?
Between certain points (those possibly connected by a light-ray), the distance comes out as zero - not separated by space or time. But this doesn't mean the actual Space of the universe has been "eliminated",
Well, if we were to measure distance and time from the perspective of the photon, would time and distance be apparent and "real" or not?
Your explanation almost makes it sound like this is a mere mathematical deviation from reality, and not what would be in reality; that distance and time would be measured.
I do realize that space and time are not eliminated in the sense that they still would exist, but just not apparent from that perspective; and if that's the case, then they only exist as part of a different perspective?
Right or no?
just that this distance function has value zero. Our experience of time and distance are simply measurements of the metric.
Arrghh! But if we measure the metric from one perspective, the distance and time is zero. That seems to suggest the metric can exist without distance and time from that perspective.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-26-2005 04:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2005 4:10 AM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 122 (237852)
08-27-2005 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
08-21-2005 12:25 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
cavediver, msg 42 (a portentious numbered post?) writes:
But you've still managed a post of Holmesian proportion
and I'm likely to sputter on for a few pages here ...
Heh. I have been known to post a pile of verbiage on occasion ...
EvC Forum: Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
just for starters ... you may want to invert that comment ...
also http://EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution:
adminjar writes:
Can you pair it down to about 300 words or so max. State the basics, you can expand it as questions come up. It's an interesting subject but you're trying to get too much in the intial post.
And that was before the addendums and added informations ...
ds = -c.dt + dx + dy + dz
This IS just Pythagoras, with a strange minus sign in front of time.
And if we measure distance in light-seconds then {c} drops out. But it sure shows a very small time vector related to human perceptions. This also seems to assume a measuring stick based on a changeable standard (relative to speed of light and location of observer)
So, ok, I cheated a little... I kept a plus sign in my calculation, but it illustrates the point... and adding or subtracting 10^2 makes little difference to the dominating time component.
That's why I questioned what "radius" you were measuring if it has an {i} component.
Not at all. All units were rendered into metres,
You mean the height element is orthogonal to time but the rest has a time element? Doesn't that assume that the center is always in plane with the time axis and that the chord of the arc is always parallel to it?
ds = dr + sinr dq
This is now very different. This surface now has curvature, and in fact it is the distance on a sphere. Changing the coefficients of the differentials in the metric introduces curvature to our surface.
So a theory of curved space-time simply takes the metric of SR and sticks in functions of the coordinates in front of each term of the metric... e.g.
Getting into the question of which is more based on math than observations. I don't mind models that are useful for explaining behavior. I just worry when time is spent delving into the wondrous world of math and ignoring {42}: "life, the universe, and oh, everything"
ds = -A(t,x,y,z)dt + B(t,x,y,z)dx + C(t,x,y,z)dy + D(t,x,y,z)dz (cross-terms are allowed as well, e.g. E(t,x,y,z)dt.dx )
Now GR tells us what A, B, C, and D are allowed to be
And empirical solutions (within allowed parameters) to match math to observation. Good. This refines the model(s)
cavediver, msg 43 writes:
No, N is whatever it needs to be to make the theory actaully work in the first place. N=26 comes from the simplistic bosonic theory. The real string theories have N=10. There is no choice, it is not a free parameter.
Okay, so one theory requires 26 and another theory requires 10 to make the theories predictive behavior match observations (I'm assuming, otherwise what's the point)
This is unlike GR, where N can be anything you want it to be. The maths works in all dimensions. This is a problem with GR... it doesn't tell us what the dimension of space-time should be.
In other words there could be more elements in the equations
ds = -A(t,a,b,c,...,x,y,z)dt + B(t,a,b,c,...,x,y,z)dx ...
And GR just tells you how to get around (mathematically).
The lack of gravity waves in Ekpyrosis is only their imprint in the Cosmic Microwave Background. It is not that gravitational waves in general do not exist in Ekpyrosis.
So the {spin-up of a neutron-star pair} does not invalidate the theory. Need more tests. Hard to rely on an {absence of evidence} for validity.
Well, if we're talking GR I would say that it is one of the most successfully tested theories ever...
But that does not make it immune to further {development\tweaking} to include new theories that would obviate the need for dark stuffs, especially when the area where it is {weakest\least tested} is in the areas that involve the dark stuffs eh?
. I'll be lazy and refer you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unfortunately I get sidetracked into GPS systems and .... but I did notice that they noted an absence of certain evidence.
I still can't help but think that a slightly different {metric\filter\concept} would allow the signal to be separated from the noise level.
No! The halo of the Galaxy, not the Solar System. Big difference. Apart from the Pioner Anomaly, there does not appear to be any deviation from GR in the Solar System.
Except for the Pioneer Anomaly. Size of effect or no, it is measurable within the neighborhood. I am interested in what some of the new specialized gravity satellites will {discover\measure\find}
Who said this? Given that the galactic rotation curves require 90% dark matter, this has to be complete nonsense.
A theoretical physicist, published in Discover mag some years ago, talked about what would be needed to adjust the theory to make it fit the observations. I believe there was also an article was titled something like "Einstein's Big Mistake" in the same issue, and he made the comment about correcting the predicted behavior to match the observed without needing the dark stuffs and ending up with a small accelleration component.
This appears related to but different from other "cosmological constant" thinking.
FROM: What is a Cosmological Constant? (click)(note the radical leaning website):
Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (L), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity.
The main attraction of the cosmological constant term is that it significantly improves the agreement between theory and observation.
There are a number of other observations that are suggestive of the need for a cosmological constant. For example, if the cosmological constant today comprises most of the energy density of the universe, then the extrapolated age of the universe is much larger than it would be without such a term, which helps avoid the dilemma that the extrapolated age of the universe is younger than some of the oldest stars we observe! A cosmological constant term added to the inflationary model, an extension of the Big Bang theory, leads to a model that appears to be consistent with the observed large-scale distribution of galaxies and clusters, with COBE's measurements of cosmic microwave background fluctuations, and with the observed properties of X-ray clusters.
Most of these usages of the cosmological constant make it a substitute for the dark stuffs. A little more "radical" is: Cosmic Voids and Great Walls (click)
... Thus, as one prominent astrophysicist put it, one needs to call on the Tooth Fairy twice, once to make cold dark matter for galaxy formation and once again to make hot dark matter for walls and voids. That is at least one call too many for many cosmologist wielders of Occam's Razor.
An alternative approach to the problem uses the cosmological constant, a venerable concept that call up a bit of history. In the early 1920's when Albert Einstein ... discovered a problem ... added a "cosmological constant" that offset the pull of gravity. Effectively it gave empty space a slight negative energy density that caused large scale repulsion to offset the large scale attraction of gravity.
It may have been Milgrom or Bekenstein. FROM: Was Einstein wrong? (click)
Modifying gravity with the goal of replacing dark matter is a long-standing project that has met with mixed success, most famously pursued by Milgrom and his friends. Milgrom has an idea called "Modified Newtonian Dynamics," or MOND for short. For some introductions see pages by Greg Bothun or Stacy McGaugh, or this review by Sellwood and Kosowsky. The idea is to slightly increase the Newtonian gravitational acceleration when that acceleration is very small, so that slowly-moving particles feel more force than they ordinarily would, mimicking the presence of unseen matter. This idea works extremely well for individual galaxies; indeed, Milgrom made predictions for the behavior of low-surface-brightness galaxies before they were directly observed, and the predictions were later confirmed very nicely.
Unfortunately, there are problems with the MOND paradigm itself. For one thing, it's not really a "theory", it's just a rule for making predictions in a very specific set of circumstances -- slowly-moving particles orbiting around massive bodies. (Just as an observational matter, it doesn't even seem to work very well for clusters of galaxies, although it does quite well for individual galaxies.) Since it's not a full-blown theory, it's hard to make predictions for other tests you might like to do, like deflection of light or cosmology. So people have been trying to invent an actual theory that reduces to MOND in the appropriate circumstances. In a recent proposal, Bekenstein has claimed to succeed; now people are at work putting this idea to the test, to see both if it makes sense and if it agrees with other things we know about cosmology.
Haven't been able to find a reference to the amount of acceleration needed here.
A is prediction with luminous matter, B is the observed. You're not going to get that with the Pioneer Anomaly!
Still can't see that image on your post.
I don't know what the explanation is, but when I see some references to adding a small acceleration to take care of the problem, I have to wonder if pursuing theoretical reasons for that aren't just as valid as pursuing dark stuffs.
cavediver msg 44 writes:
Ok, skipping your middle section just for now...
The part where Einstein G is based on Newton g is based on empirical data fitting?
but there is much deeper connection between the extra dimensions and "particles". For instance, in Kaluza-Klein theory, we have GR in five dimensions. We roll one dimension up into a small circle, to give us our usual 3+1 dimensions. You do the maths, and instead of just gravity in 4 dimensions, we have magically got electromagnetism as well!
Cute, but relation to reality is? This is one of the aspects I have most trouble with: enchantment with the mathematics and the clever things you can make the systems do. The object is to determine what is really happening and how to model that reality.
Ok, you're mixing ideas here... namely 3d Newtonian ideas with 4d GR ideas. There is no gravitational attraction, there is no gravitational force.
Intentionally. To mirror the relationship mentioned in that middle section:
The Einstein field equation reduces to Newton's law of gravity in the limiting cases of a weak gravitational field and slow speed relative to the speed of light. In fact, the constant, {8(pi)G/c4}, appearing in the EFE is determined by making these two approximations.
(bold red mine for emPHAsis)
Thus I use the Newtonian model in my thought experiment to {show\describe\model} how there could be an added acceleration that would be small in local {systems\tests\interactions}, small enough not to be measured but able to alter the behavior at large distances.
No matter how you mathematically model the universe the behavior of {stuff} is different on the time vector than on the space vectors because they are lines in time and points in space.
Oh. Just found a reference for the acceleration needed to nullify dark stuffs:
Dark Matter or Different Gravity 6
ao = 1.2 x 10^-10 m/sec^2
And that pioneer anomaly?
ap = 8 x 10^-8 m/sec^2
Maybe not {{one}} order of magnitude (closer to 2.8) but not that much different either.
Enjoy.
(yeah, that got long again ...)
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*27*2005 09:11 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 08-21-2005 12:25 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Son Goku, posted 08-28-2005 2:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 122 (238008)
08-28-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
08-27-2005 9:05 PM


Re: time shadows, empirical g forces, etc.
quote:
The part where Einstein G is based on Newton g is based on empirical data fitting?
Einstein's G is a bilinear form and Newton's small g is an acceleration, how are they related?
quote:
Cute, but relation to reality is? This is one of the aspects I have most trouble with: enchantment with the mathematics and the clever things you can make the systems do. The object is to determine what is really happening and how to model that reality.
To be honest it isn't really that sinister, one day Kaluza just went "Hey, I wonder what happens if I add one more space dimension to Einstein's Field equation".
He did and it turned out that it gave out General Relativity and Maxwell's electromagnetism and afterwards people thought that this might mean Gravity and Electromagnetism are both geometric phenomena and in fact the one phenomena.
There has never been any evidence of the 4th spatial dimension and so there is no evidence for what Kaluza said thus far.
People will explore the maths to see if there is more to the equations than what is initially apparent, it's just human curiosity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 9:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 7:19 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024