Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
25 online now:
(25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(2)
Message 20 of 181 (672495)
09-08-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 5:42 PM


It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole". Not even a confirmed event horizon. Even if gravity does indeed bend space one has to admit a "Black Hole" is a suspiciously handy object to explain away all sorts of inconvienent astronomical observations and cosmological test data; which don't fit the Big Bang Theory.

Well, Einstein created a theory which predicted the perihelion of Mercury and the bending of light by massive objects. When observations were made, these predictions were confirmed. Since that same theory then predicts the existence of black holes and the Big Bang history of cosmology, people were naturally curious about whether these same predictions would be confirmed.

The Big Bang and black holes are two separate predictions of General Relativity. One was not created as a handy tool for the other.

Both predictions have been confirmed by observational evidence. So as odd as some of what it predicts might seem, General Relativity is currently the only theory matching all the data we receive from the cosmos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 5:42 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:00 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(2)
Message 22 of 181 (672497)
09-08-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:35 PM


Yes. I am doubting that gravity can bend space.

General Relativity does not say gravity bends space. It says that what we perceive as gravitation (the tendency of massive objects to move along certain paths in each other's presence) is just our perception of these objects following straight paths in curved spacetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:35 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:03 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 38 of 181 (672537)
09-09-2012 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
09-09-2012 2:17 AM


Re: A few choice comments...
I must say, like Dr. Adequate, I often struggle to understand the meaning of your sentences. I will try to deal with one paragraph as best as I can.

zaius137 writes:

As for the warping of space-time, it stands as an icon of empirical evidence. It is the rock on which shatters fantasies like Quantum gravity or the fictitious Higgs Boson.


I don't really understand how:
(a) Quantum Gravity shatters on the warping of spacetime. The warping of spacetime is a feature of classical gravity, which would be a subset of quantum gravity. It would be like saying Quantum Electrodynamics shatters on the Coloumb potential a standard part of classical electrodynamics. It doesn't since the quantum theories contain the classical theories.
(b) The Higgs boson has nothing to do with the warping of spacetime. Just because physicists deal with and write papers about two topics doesn't mean the two topics themselves are directly related in some way. The Higgs boson has nothing more to do with the warping of spacetime than electric charge or chemistry does.

I mention the Boson here because it is also a casualty of General Relativity in that it cannot impart mass to a black hole.

This doesn't make sense. A Black Hole has the mass of the object that formed it and any additional matter that fell into the black hole. The Higgs boson isn't really involved.

You know that same Black hole that is the stumbling block to unification and man’s pride.

Black holes don't prevent unification in any sense. Could you explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 7:36 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 39 of 181 (672539)
09-09-2012 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 8:00 PM


Not enough.
Son Goku,

I believe Mercury's orbit problem was calculated as consitent with a Euclidean concept of Space by another astronomer at the time. I will find it.

Trou

Mercury has a perihelion in Newtonian gravity due to the gravitational influence of the outer planets. However it's not enough by a wide margin to account for the full perihelion.

Of course it still must be calculated to match observations exactly, since it does affect the perhelion.

Abstract of one of the early papers to calculate the effect here:
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v47/i6/p531_s1?isAu...

Basically, since the outer planets have such a slow orbit compared to mercury, their effects on its orbit a very similar to the effects of a uniform ring of dust of equal mass to the planet spread along their orbit. (You can prove the effect on mercury's perihelion is almost identical.) These rings of dust are much easier to model and you can explicitly work out the perihelion of mercury using them.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:00 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 40 of 181 (672540)
09-09-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 8:03 PM


Spacetime
Son Goku,

It is conventionally held that the "fabric" of something we call "SpaceTime" is actually warped by gravity.

Trou.


It is not. No textbook of General Relativity says spacetime is warped by gravity. Rather that what we perceive of as gravitation, is the result of the geometry of spacetime. Quotes from textbooks available if requested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 8:03 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 50 of 181 (672576)
09-09-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
09-09-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Not enough.
Sorry, yes.

I should have said the fine details of the orbits of the outer planets, the original hope for the discrepancy in the perihelion, don't provide a large enough correction beyond the standard Newtonian result which, as you said, is the largest contributor to the perihelion of Mercury.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019