|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions in Relativity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Then I stand as demonstrably "misconceived" and now educated. My congrats to Nosy for his superior knowledge.
I now go off to hide my public shame. But I have learnt something which must after all be the point of this thread. More annoyingly misconceived questions to follow....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I knew what a citation was, but i didn't know of the concept CD described (comparing papers threw their numbers of citations)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
*We* haven't - we are a long way from the Sun. All we care about is how much mass/energy is contained within our orbital radius. We don't give a damn how dense it is, just so long as it is a spherically symmetric distribution. Blow the Sun up, and as long as the entire debris cloud remains within our radius, and remains spherically symmetric, we'll keep orbiting. Likewise, should the Sun collapse. The only difference the collapse will make is that we can know get much closer to the interesting parts of the Solar space-time: r=2M (the event horizon, about 3km for the Sun), and r=0 (the singularity). Normally, we cannot encounter these regions of space-time as they don't exist, as the Sun occupies that space. I have been thinking about this and have come to appreciate just how dum my previous response in fact was. Embarressingly so in fact. However it does raise the folowing question: Where do "we" need to be in order to be affacted by the (hypothetical again) transition of our Sun into a black hole? Would it only affect bodies on the surface of the Sun or (somehow) within it's radius? Or would a body in close enough orbit be affected in any way by this restructuring of spacetime that makes up the focus of that orbit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Or would a body in close enough orbit be affected in any way by this restructuring of spacetime If the Sun were to simply collapse inwards, maintaining spherical symmetry, there is absolutely no change to space-time outside of the Sun's original volume. The only space-time that would change would be in the new "space" left behind as the Sun collapses. SO if you were in orbit, just above the Sun's surface, you woudld remain in that orbit. To experience any of the "weirdness" of the new space-time, you would have to venture inwards into the newly accessible depths of the Sun's original core. It starts to get fun a few km from the centre.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Not be tedious, but I wanted to get an idea of how g would change as we got closer to the center of the Sun compared to the center of an equal mass black hole. In another thread it was mentioned that there would be no net g inside a shell. I, therefore, assumed I would only have to contend with the mass inside of a radius to determine the net g that would be experienced. I was unable to find a table for ρ as a function of r to get the amount of mass inside r so I sort of guessed my own: 0<ρ<6; logρ=-0.7r+5.2105 kg/m3 and a bit of fudge. That very well might have made the exercise silly, but I'd think it could be close enough to have some value. It does behave as I suspected it would. Since I went to the trouble of doing the work I might as well share it.
Distance = r (x108 m) Acc. with Sun (m/s2) Acc. with black hole 10 133 133 9 164 164 8 207 207 We're now just above the surface about to enter the body of the Sun. 7 271 271 6 368 368 5 526 530 4 800 830 3 1220 1480 2 2090 3320 1 3540 13300 .9 3190 16400 .8 2835 20700 .7 2480 27100 .6 2130 36900 .5 1760 53100 .4 1417 82900 .3 1070 147000 .2 717 332000 .1 354 1330000 0 0 ∞ Of course, because relativistic effects. it doesn't really go to infinity, but I've haven't a clue as to how that would be calculated. I trust someone will let me know if I've done something obviously stupid. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I was unable to find a table for ρ as a function of r to get the amount of mass inside r so I sort of guessed my own... Try this page on polytropes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Thank you, cavediver. I'm surprised, I thought I was being daring but I didn't make the gradient nearly steep enough. This makes the peak higher and nearer the center. The over all shape is the same, however.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Actually they are not obervational facts. They are interpretations of observational facts. The time dilation effect that has been observed can be explained as clock's mechanism slowing down. quote:http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611077 And the lenght contraction has actually never been observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Well, let's take a look and see if this is worth reading...
abstract writes: In particular, they enable to solve an apparent paradox that special relativity cannot explain (see chapter 4). Interesting - this has to be worth a read:
According to conventional relativity, contrary to aether theory, nothing differentiates the co-ordinate systems 0 S and 1 S , because there is no preferred inertial frame; in other words, motion is only relative, and one can consider that 0 S moves relative to 1 S , in the same way as 1 S is moving relative to 0 S . Therefore SR predicts a complete symmetry between the frames: for example, a clock in 1 S slows down with respect to a clock standing in 0 S , but conversely a clock in 0 S is subjected to slow down with respect to a clock in 1 S . Of course this result appears paradoxical. It defies logic and cannot be rationally explained if this total equivalence between frames is assumed. Yet, as we shall see, the paradox can be solved if we assume the existence of a preferred aether frame in which case the measurements are affected by systematic distortions, and the complete symmetry proves only apparent. And there we have it - abject stupidity, parading as science. Since when is science advanced by claims of "defies logic and cannot be rationally explained" As the kids say, epic fail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:So you basicly don't have an argument, fine... It would been easier if you said it like that. Let me explain something to you. The first thing in science is that something has to be logicals to be correct. If it is not logical, than it is not correct. So if you have a theory that says, for an example let's say, that an object can go in two different directions in same time, you have an illogical theory, which is wrong. So SR fail the first test to be a real scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So you basicly don't have an argument, fine... I don't have an argument because there is nothing to argue. The symmetry of time dilation in S.R. is not paradoxical, it is bloody obvious if you have the first clue about the theory. The reason the Twins' Paradox is so-called, is because the ASYMMETRY is (incorrectly) regarded as paradoxical. Not appreciating this, yet thinking that one can write a critique of S.R. just makes one an idiot and a laughing-stock...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:The point was not even the Twin Paradox. You obviously don't know what I'm talking about. I was trying to explain to you, that time dilation was not actually observed and that it can be explained by clock's mechanism slowing down, and not the time itself slowing down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The point was not even the Twin Paradox. You obviously don't know what I'm talking about. the cluelessness is strong with this one
I was trying to explain to you, that time dilation was not actually observed and that it can be explained by clock's mechanism slowing down, and not the time itself slowing down. I know - but that doesn't change the obvious facts that, 1) you are completely wrong, and 2) you are so out of your depth, that you have no clue as to the fact you are wrong. Tell me, when the physicist-engineers designed the LHC, did they use the mathematics of Special Relativty, or your bullshit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
[/quote]the cluelessness is strong with this one[/quote]Why don't you ask your mom how strong it is?
quote:No, you don't know. If you did you wouldn't go off topic. quote:Yes it does, since it explains why you are switching topics. quote:Explain why. quote:Explain why? quote:When your mom screems, does she think of you or, me at night?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes: I was trying to explain to you, that time dilation was not actually observed and that it can be explained by clock's mechanism slowing down, and not the time itself slowing down.
Without the time dilation phenomena as described in SR, the GPS navigation and locating services would be an impossibility. It is only by taking time dialation into effect that we can achieve accurate localization using the global positionitioning satellite system in all types of navigational applications from the military to the Tom Tom in your SUV. The aether hypothesis has been dead for over 100 years. Only crackpots and nutcases continue to breath life into this idea. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024