
#181
Jul803, 07:17 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101





#182
Jul803, 07:36 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,101

(not to mention the trivial fact that the Doppler interpretation makes no sense in general relativity since different coordinate charts would yield different relative velocities) 



#183
Jul803, 08:58 PM

P: 228

Others mentioned it before, but the to ask where the center of the Universe it is almost similar to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen at?"
The issue about that question is the Big Bang did not happen in space. It happened to space. 


#184
Jul803, 10:39 PM

P: n/a





#185
Jul803, 10:52 PM

P: 499

I most agree with Warren on this one as Hurkyl pointed out. The Einstein equation is the basis of general relativity. A lack of actually knowing what it is, or having studied it and what it does, you cannot talk about the theory. All you can talk about is what you have read about the theory from sources. An actual understanding of the equation and you can reach the same conclusions and have a much much better understanding of General Relativity.



#186
Jul803, 10:52 PM

P: n/a

Does that make sense to you? BTW it is more accurately called the "velocity to distance" interpretation of redshift. It means essentially the same thing as the doppler interpretation (in the confused language of BBT) as they are used interchangeably. 


#187
Jul803, 10:57 PM

P: n/a

The audacity of the BB claim is mindblowing considering that it claims to understand the "origin" of the Universe down to the first nanoseconda Universe whose extent is entirely unknown and seems to just go on infinitely and whose composition is supposedly formed from %99 dark matter of unknown properties. If %99 percent of the universe is unknown, doesn't this put a %99 improbability rate on any extrapolation of the ultimate nature of this universe? 


#188
Jul803, 11:16 PM

P: n/a




#189
Jul803, 11:22 PM

P: n/a





#190
Jul803, 11:23 PM

P: 499

Again you fail to realize that it is indeed relevant. But you kinda sorta need to understand the equations and the mechanisms first.



#191
Jul803, 11:25 PM

P: n/a

[[[ relevant to relativity perhaps ]]] 



#192
Jul803, 11:30 PM

P: 499

Relevant to physical reality.
example: GR predicts orbiting bodies (such as pulsars for example) will radiate away energy and slow down. This has been observed and is true. Or that time is affected by one's location in a gravitational field, also proven true. Or that gravity redshifts light trying to escape, also shown to be true. All this is predicted from GR (and yes, on low energy scales by newtonian physics), and is very much physically relevant. 


#193
Jul803, 11:32 PM

P: n/a

See this article: http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm "There are four Light Postulates in Einstein's paper. Each has a different meaning than the others. Together, they impose an entirely different basic physical theory than that set forth by the Theory of Relativity. They require that moving systems physically deform in the ways Lorentz described in 1904. This will be mathematically demonstrated herein; thereby proving that Minkowski's thesis, that the deformations are exclusively due to geometrical reasons, is mathematically and physically false." 



#194
Jul803, 11:34 PM

P: 499

Yes of course, they must be. I guess that is why based on these interpretations of it we have been able to conduct sucessful experiments that we know what is going on with. Because all our interpretations are wrong.



#195
Jul803, 11:36 PM

P: n/a

The interpretations simply justify the abandonment of the erroneous classical solid ether. Einstein himself (who I would argue was an expert in the theory of Relativity) said that the MM experiments simply proved that the ether was dynamic and that his notion of curved space was entirely meaningless without this dynamic ether. In an address titled “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” delivered on May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leyden, Einstein said, “It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility… What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations…”. The new "quantum vacuum" fits this description rather well as it is essentially a "zeroenergy superfluid". All one needs is to ascribe physical reality to the substance that the equations model and then add a few basic fluiddynamic properties to the mix and....presto!! A unified Field Theory!!! [:D] [[[It's a bit more complex than that of course!!]]] 



#196
Jul803, 11:39 PM

P: 499

Listen closely.
Just having math and number does not tell us what sort of experiments to do or what happens. We MUST interpret what these equations actually are talking about to perform experiments and collect meaningful data. 


#197
Jul803, 11:43 PM

P: n/a




#198
Jul803, 11:46 PM

P: n/a




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Center of gravity (it's not center of mass!!!)  General Physics  28  
the geometric center of the Earth and the center of mass  Classical Physics  9  
u think that the univers is realy expanding?? think again  Cosmology  10  
Can two objects with the same center of mass oscillate about that center?  Introductory Physics Homework  0  
The center of Mass perfectly match the center of Force>  General Physics  9 