note this is on topic with popular and his concepts. He had thoughts similar to my own that I thought would be benificial to discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebbysteiny
Very well, I'm not sure here is the right thread to discuss it, but I'll give it proper consideration nonetheless.
But my instinct alone is not sufficient to suggest that your idea is wrong. Instead, I'll propose a thought experiment.
Imagine an observer accellarating to a speed 0.99c relative to the Earth. According to you, energy is needed to compress the space-time of that observer. According to me, no such energy is needed other than that necessary to provide Kinetic energy. You might say that the Kinetic energy is linked to spacetime compressions. Okay, so far we can both be right.
But now, look at it from the observers point of view. He will not see his own frame compressed. Instead, he has compressed the frame of the entire Earth. So now, vastly more spacetime is compressed from his perspective than from the perspective of the Earth. Yet they have both used exactly the same amount of energy as measured in all frames. So if I'm right, this makes no difference. If you're right, you have created a paradox that I cannot see a way of resolving.
|
If a frame observes spacial contraction in the direction of motion, an outside frame will observe that speeding frame to expand in the direction of motion. I too am not fully sure if this is physical or optical.
Quote:
|
If you're right, you have created a paradox that I cannot see a way of resolving.
|
The energy is equal but in opposite forms in each frame. Let us say all events have an equal and opposite counterpart event. Know of an event, be sure of an equal opposite reaction.
This however excludes force. Force is a product of this relationship. Force is only movement from outside the event. But, to be in the event the collaboration of the event is a physical force. Two equal and opposite events form every force. respect to this theory and its postulates
Quote:
Okay, hypothesis 1, there is real space. When you fall, you actually travel through a clear spacetime.
Hypothesis 2 there is no real space. When you fall, it is the space between you and the Earth that contracts.
Experiment, A person falls from sky onto the ground.
Result: person collides with the ground and dies horribly. No relativistic effects are observed.
Conclusion. If there was no real space (Hypothesis 2), there is no reason to suppose that the Earth's ground will not shrink in the same proportions. The person should observe the Earth shrinking in the same way he observes the space between the Earth shrinking. If the air is observed to shrink by 100miles, so too should the ground. These relativistic effects should be clearly visable with the naked eye. However, according to hypothesis 1, no relativistic should be clearly visable with the naked eye.
No relativistic effects are visable with the naked eye. So hypothesis 1 wins.
According to hypothesis 2, the space between the leg (the lowermost part of the observers body) and the ground should continuously get smaller. But I find it difficult to see how there should actually be a collision. Hypothesis 1 expects a nasty collision with the ground resulting in death or hidious injuries.
There is a nasty collision with the ground resulting in death or hidious injuries. Conclusion, hypothesis 1 wins again
|
Call it a frequency. One frame sees distance contract, the other will see matter expand, only momentaraly, and only on a nuclear sized level.
An observation of gravity is, to move without feeling a force by means of this space-time distortion,, and it simply makes you observe space shrink, and the other frame sees objects grow, at the same moment and vice versa. When gravity appears to exert a force, that is when energy is being spent to prevent movement, and you feel acceleration, or experience your own mass.
frame1 +matterexpansion = frame2 -space contraction
>
m1 +matterexpansion = m2 frame2 -space contraction
m2 +matterexpansion = m1 frame2 -space contraction
>
back and forth by the frequency of atoms relativistic effects.
>
eventually into this where the constant G, relates to C. And the distance between centers of gravity is a squared relationship . Force is a product of the equal opposites.
we can claim there is space but, do you also agree all you can and have ever been able to observe is your present moment correct? A present moment is events occuring now, inside your frame, the physical actions of your atoms. Any distance, or let us say space outside this frame is your future.
So even though it makes perfect sense to claim there is space, none of us can technically leave our present to observe it. What one can do on the other hand is spend energy to have your observations measured distance to contract which at the same moment causes the observations to of objects physical size to expand.
So,
Quote:
|
In the mathematics of general relativity, the Einstein field equations become a set of simultaneous differential equations which are solved to produce metric tensors of spacetime. These metric tensors describe the shape of the spacetime, and are used to obtain the predictions of general relativity.
|
To apply property to space-time is as if to apply property to your thoughts. You can not ever find a place to view space-time where you are not a present moment, observer. So however accurate the model works in predicting what occurs, it is still fundamently impossible to experience the property of space-time and hold it, alike thought. You can create a geometry system on paper to understand it. Although the only way you can experience it is to watch things get bigger untill wham!!, that actions equal and opposite reaction takes on many forms!
In respect to observations, we can take einsteins general relativity warped space-time geometry, and turn it into first hand observation.
Instead of our perception of a bowl around earth, we could use a meter stick.
Let us say that gravity is a shorter meter stick for C to travel through, a relative C-meter.
Far from earth the meter is larger in comparison to the surface. Events that occur in the larger relative C-meter travel into a condensed smaller C meter. The speed of light remains constant, however the events occur in a smaller C-meter, thus the time observed quickens. Like wise, events that occur in a smaller C-meter like deep in a dense star, travel outwards, and when they enter an observers relatively larger C-meter, the events are stretched out in time, slowing them down.
This is einsteins space-time geomety model converted to the proper first hand observation.
Furthermore, an observe who is in large C-meter will always travel to where a smaller C-meter is.
Like the commanly known image:
(keep in mind It is acceptable at this stage to speak about space and distance as real)
So to an observer, you invetiably find that a large body of mass will grow, and space will decrease when you happen to be in its vacinity. The smaller the C-meter the more energy you will contain before impact, and the more time you allow to accelerate, the less massive you will act, and the more energy you will contain (aka distance, or potential gravitation energy). Energy that will inflict work on impact.
. 
