Would you go back in time to prevent your own birth for $1b?

[Crezth]

@Ondskan:

I am not judgmental "to" new propositions, I am dismissive of arrogant inarticulate babble.

You might be ESL or whatever, but it remains as a point of due importance that you haven't really presented a consistent or legible frame for your arguments. Whether this is because of a language barrier or because you lack a coherent framework for talking metaphysics is anyone's guess, but suffice to say until such a time as there is substance in itself capable of refutation, I am under no obligation to treat your posts as anything more than a joke.

Let me illustrate my point. To return to your original post there are two sentences in particular that stand out as meaningless:

"The basic fallacy of the theory lies in the concept that the fastest thing in the world equals time." - Notably not the concept.

"But it is not time, it is the the nature of the mass that has changed." - What does this even mean?

Let me expand a bit and focus on some of your specific instances of incoherence and address them summarily.

Photons are a type of particle though and it can accelerate and - god, oh! Decelerate. [...]

I also never said that space could be bent. Heck that's worse than time.
Please point where I said that.
You're actually standing and saying that the lack of anything, empty space, can be manipulated into something. Your claim is backed by nothing. No evidence exists of this.

Sure - acceleration and deceleration are quantities that can be endowed on massless items. There's certainly no theoretical blocks there. Practical, sure, but I'll get to that shortly. The issue at hand is that a massless item's momentum is always zero.

The issue this creates with gravity - again, something you have yet to address with any significant weight (hehe) - is that gravity as presented by Newton and as commonly understood is a force (instantaneous change in momentum per unit time) between two objects with mass. The photon, irrespective of its ability to accelerate or decelerate, cannot experience a change in momentum and should fundamentally be immune to gravity. It is not.

The evidence we have that it is space which is bending is that we do see light's path changing in a euclidean sense as a result of gravity. Since the change of its course can not be due to a change in momentum, since light has no momentum, it must be that light isn't changing its course due to gravity and that it must be the course itself which is changing. Space is bending.

Do you actually suggest that if I were to fly through the sun, make a hole through it, and at the same time project light around it that if I was flying at near light speed I could actually travel in time?

What? I don't even understand what you're asking.

Do you actually claim that the absence of light is the absence of time?

No, and I don't believe anybody has. The claim is that space and time are the same thing, or two aspects of one thing, not that light equals time or is in any fundamental sense proportional to it.

This is why I think you don't understand what you're talking about. All your objections are as senseless as this, it's like reading the timecube page.

Is the theory of relativity creating more problems today than it is solving?

Yes. That's what happens when you make discoveries. The most problemless explanation for everything would be "God did it" but for some reason it doesn't serve to think in that way.

It measures the fluctuation of atoms. These fluctuations are constant at one speed and change at an other or depending on gravity and other factors can also change. But because you are so embedded into your stubborn way of thinking you do not even comprehend that it is your manipulation of the mass that is creating the changes the readings of your device. You believe that you are manipulating the very fabric of time while in fact you are merely manipulating just your little atoms and your clock.

You need to explain exactly what you mean and describe mathematically how your point is born out by evidence. Until then it's just gobbledygook that relies on some vague understanding of "manipulation of the mass."

As such todays string theorists, to be accepted in the mainstream club have finally given up and conceded to the theory and are now trying to formulate it around his calculations. Just as Quantum Physicians are.

So when a student is working on his homework and gets a wrong answer, he should redefine the entire theoretical framework to fit his answer? Good to know.

Not to say that would necessarily be bad in every instance, especially if there was some profound insight to be gleaned from such a process, but so long as they can show their work there should be no issue.

And the prevailing scientists, meanwhile, have shown their work in spades.

Can you understand that theorists, both string theorists and physicians and others that came before the theory who tried to challenge Einsteins theory were silenced, even threatened or simply ignored? This is not out of some huge conspiracy, it is simply so much that is on stake on this theory, so many who have bet their entire careers on it that it is near impossible to dislodge.

Whether you intend it to or not, this makes you come off as a conspiracy theorist of the worst variety. That torpedoes your credibility right there.

A supporter of natural, empirically provable science. That I am.

The science is all there for you to see and confirm for yourself.

edit: Don't you dare start asking people to solve physics problems for your confirmation.

 

[Arakhor]

Theories are fine but when one unproven theory takes over an entire field, then we have a problem.

I was taught back in school that you never prove theories: you simply fail to ever disprove them.

 

[Ondskan]

So the facts that do not stem from a conspiracy; that scientists have been threatened and excluded from publications and from their long and meritorious careers holds no merit because these facts sound like a conspiracy?

God Damn, your circular logic just keeps repeating itself in everything you do, no?

 

[Crezth]

I'm saying that they aren't facts ("prove it") and your belief in them indicates that your brain is broken because of an instinctive mistrust of authority. There's a word for it that I can't remember but basically you're doomed to forever talk irrelevantly.

Also "circular logic" rofl WTH.

 

[Ondskan]

I was taught back in school that you never prove theories: you simply fail to ever disprove them.

Fine, unsubstantiated.
The processes of the theory can be applied but the reasons behind them hold no merit and even the theoretical construct is cracking under the pressures of quantum physics and string theory almost demands at least substantial changes in it for it to work.

 

[Ondskan]

I'm saying that they aren't facts ("prove it") and your belief in them indicates that your brain is broken because of an instinctive mistrust of authority. There's a word for it that I can't remember but basically you're doomed to forever talk irrelevantly.

Also "circular logic" rofl WTH.

My belief in facts (statements, circumstances) you haven't reviewed indicates something?

Goddamn this just keeps on getting better.

 

[Crezth]

"This theory is unsubstantiated and wrong because a theory with absolutely zero empirical evidence of any kind is incompatible with it!"

My belief in facts (statements, circumstances) you haven't reviewed indicates something?

Present your facts, statements, circumstances and we'll see. Don't send me on a goddamn fetchquest because you're too lazy to back up your idiotic spewing with anything tangible.

 

[dutchfire]

Fine, unsubstantiated.
The processes of the theory can be applied but the reasons behind them hold no merit and even the theoretical construct is cracking under the pressures of quantum physics and string theory almost demands at least substantial changes in it for it to work.

For your information, the theory of special relativity, the concepts of Lorentz transformations, mass energy duality, space time and four vectors are essential to quantum field theory and have been since at least since Diracs work in friggin 1928.

 

[Ondskan]

@Cretzh
I didn't send you anywhere, you just proved your credibility or lack thereof.
Had you wanted the facts you would've asked for them.

Now you can go on the fetchquest. Bring me some cookies and do so fast - cause you know the faster you run the longer life you will have!

Ah yes, as much empirical evidence as your has.
You know I can show you a yellow frog, I can prove to you that light bends in water (no that doesn't mean water bends time!) and I can even explain to you how theoretical ion thruster would work in practice.

But you can't show me an ounce of evidence that something that doesn't exist has been bent! Hah, and you never will.


More importantly it's kinda sad to note that you do not even understand the very basic concepts behind your own theory. I know that time is defined by the speed of light.
Read this simple thread from a Relativity Theorist on why what is suggested in this thread is impossible. It is because Einstein defined the very concept of time as the speed of light. Heck, the weird thing is he defined time as a speed.

If you do not even know of this or believe in this then please explain, even from a relativists point of view how time has changed in a moving atom clock?

@dutchfire.

You're confusing me with someone who cares.
I am talking about the observations on the quantum level.
Besides it's not entirely true. Quantum Physicists have attempted to explain their observations and have been forced to attempt to comply them with the theory of relativity. Not the other way around: They are not dependent on it for their provable observations and theories.

There also exists a number of unsolved problems stemming not from the lack of understanding but from the inability to unify clear, provable(repeatable in a sense) observations with the theory of relativity.

 

[dutchfire]

Sure - acceleration and deceleration are quantities that can be endowed on massless items. There's certainly no theoretical blocks there. Practical, sure, but I'll get to that shortly. The issue at hand is that a massless item's momentum is always zero.

The issue this creates with gravity - again, something you have yet to address with any significant weight (hehe) - is that gravity as presented by Newton and as commonly understood is a force (instantaneous change in momentum per unit time) between two objects with mass. The photon, irrespective of its ability to accelerate or decelerate, cannot experience a change in momentum and should fundamentally be immune to gravity. It is not.

The evidence we have that it is space which is bending is that we do see light's path changing in a euclidean sense as a result of gravity. Since the change of its course can not be due to a change in momentum, since light has no momentum, it must be that light isn't changing its course due to gravity and that it must be the course itself which is changing. Space is bending.

To be fair, this is not really correct (or I misunderstood). Massless items do have momentum, in fact their (relativistic) momentum is equal to their energy (E^2=m^2+p^2, with c=1). Of course, for massless particles there is no link between velocity and momentum, their velocity is always c.

 

[dutchfire]

It is because Einstein defined the very concept of time as the speed of light. Heck, the weird thing is he defined time as a speed.

[Citation needed]

And yes, I have read Einsteins original articles on this topic.

 

[Ondskan]

Are you serious?
You didn't know about light refraction and you want me to argue this with you.

No, you do the arguing if you want to go there. Show me how time according to the theory of relativity is not based on the speed of light.

 

[dutchfire]

Dude, I know about refraction. I have actually got a degree in Physics. You were suggesting it is caused by gravity, which is bollocks.

 

[Crezth]

To be fair, this is not really correct (or I misunderstood). Massless items do have momentum, in fact their (relativistic) momentum is equal to their energy (E^2=m^2+p^2, with c=1). Of course, for massless particles there is no link between velocity and momentum, their velocity is always c.

Yeah, but the deviation this rule represents from the standard Newtonian explanation is of no small consequence, and fits into the larger puzzle of the role that general relativity serves in physics. Or do I have the wrong idea?

More importantly it's kinda sad to note that you do not even understand the very basic concepts behind your own theory. I know that time is defined by the speed of light.

I'm not a physicist, I admit my own understanding of relativity is glancing at best. But that doesn't mean it (relativity) is wrong. I don't limit the realm of what is possible to what I am able to comprehend when I'm at my finest.

The notion of speed of light is related to time is not a notion held because "light is the fastest thing." That is simply circumstantial to the larger question of space and time. Your attempt to shrink the theory of relativity down to an unimagined, unprincipled "durr nothings faster than light so it must be time itself" is indicative of your general ignorance.

Explain why light is bent by gravity. And refraction is a decisive non-answer because there is no medium to refract it in space.

 

[Ondskan]

To be fair, this is not really correct (or I misunderstood). Massless items do have momentum, in fact their (relativistic) momentum is equal to their energy (E^2=m^2+p^2, with c=1). Of course, for massless particles there is no link between velocity and momentum, their velocity is always c.

Don't mislead the guy now. First of all even this very basic thing is being question by quantum observations.

Secondly even if taken as truth then indeed the velocity is constant but only in a vacuum. Any other, more "dense" structure will slow it down.

 

[dutchfire]

Yeah, but the deviation this rule represents from the standard Newtonian explanation is of no small consequence, and fits into the larger puzzle of the role that general relativity serves in physics. Or do I have the wrong idea?

The Newtonian momentum-energy relation E=p^2/2m is the first order term of E^2=p^2+m^2 (not the zeroth order term! This is the famous E=mc^2), that is right. Since photons have m=0, all their energy is contained in their momentum.
A light ray is described by a "geodesic" (which in this case is just a straight line) in Minowskian space time(Time+Euclidian), and this is generalised to a geodesic in curved space time in general relatity. So basically, light still follows a straight trajectory in general relativity, but our notion of straight is different, since space is curved.
Does this clear it up a bit?

 

[dutchfire]

Don't mislead the guy now. First of all even this very basic thing is being question by quantum observations.

Ehm, no? Well, perhaps by you, but not by anyone who actually knows anything about physics. Please show me a scientific article with these "quantum observations" you keep talking about.

 

[Crezth]

Thanks for putting it in such terms, that is a very excellent description.

 

[Ondskan]

Dude, I know about refraction. I have actually got a degree in Physics. You were suggesting it is caused by gravity, which is bollocks.

I was simplifying it.
A big heavy circle creates a valley around itself of the "fourth dimension" which influences the direction of that particular item from which ever it may have had into one around the heavy object. Aka gravity.
This includes light.

Light is bent around a heavy object. Thusly my thought experiment about light going around it and you going through it.

(All this according to this lame theory).

 

[Ondskan]

Ehm, no? Well, perhaps by you, but not by anyone who actually knows anything about physics. Please show me a scientific article with these "quantum observations" you keep talking about.

You claim time is not defined by speed.
You claim gravity does not influence light.

I'm not going to go to any troubles over this except what pleasure I can derive from this argument.