‘Einstein was wrong!’ Scientists call for new theory
The general theory of relativity was published by the physics genius more than a century ago, to refine Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime, this model is still currently used by scientists as an explanation of gravitation in modern physics.
Einstein’s theory has important astrophysical implications as it alludes to the existence of black holes – cosmic phenomenons in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape.
At the centre of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.
But while mathematics says a singularity is possible, nature apparently proves these do not exist, Discovery Channel’s ‘How The Universe Works’ exposed.
The series explained: “When a giant dying star collapses, the mass of the star falls in and keeps falling in crushing down into an infinitely small point.
“This is called the singularity.”
But physicist Max Tegmark believes the “singularity” is “just a fancy way of saying ‘we have no idea what is happening here’.”
Astronomer Phil Plait explained why some experts have an issue with using this theory.
He said: “The way our physics describes black holes when they form is you’re taking a finite amount of mass and you’re collapsing it down. Its volume should shrink all the way down to zero, but that means it has infinite density and infinite gravity. That doesn’t make sense.”
Theoretical physics Lawrence Krauss then explained why some are questioning Einstein’s theory.
He added: “If you make a prediction and the answer is infinite, then it tells you that there is something wrong with your prediction.We have never seen infinity in the universe. Maybe a black hole with an event horizon described by general relativity just isn’t the proper description of the physics.”
Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.
Leading astronomer and assistant director for Science Communication at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, Michelle Thaller, explained why it is key to the debate.
She said in 2018: “Have you ever thought about the term quantum mechanics and what those terms actually mean Everything in the universe is broken up into tiny units and there is a basic unit of energy, time and space that cannot be divided any smaller.There is a limit to how small those things can be.”
The smallest unit in the universe is what is known as a Planck Length to physicists.
Michelle Thaller explained quantum mechanics (Image: DISCOVERY)
But if there is a universal limit on the smallest size, then something infinitely small cannot exist, according to some scientists.
Quantum mechanics expert Sean Carroll explained:
“If infinity doesn’t exist, then singularities don’t exist. And if singularities don’t exist, then Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is not correct.The simplest thing we can do is change some equations, change his theory of gravity.
“Let’s invent what we would call exotic speculative physics.”
Read more at www.express.co.uk
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
I am sure Einstein would welcome attempts to prove him wrong. He was a genuine scientist seeking the truth. It is a big step from saying he was wrong to proving it. I look forward any of these people doing that.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
I quite agree. I too look forward to the day, but I’m not holding my breath
Reply
Tom O
| #
I think you need to distinguish between the words “scientist” and Mathematician.” Although he supposedly said that nothing could prove his theory right, but a single failure would prove it wrong. There are many things that would tend to disprove the theory, but they are always alibied away – light being bent by gravity is one such thing. If nothing can travel at the speed of light without infinite mass, then light would itself have to have zero mass AT the speed of light to do that, and thus could not be “bent” by the gravity of the Sun. This is alibied away by suddenly making light an electromagnetic wave with “pseudo” mass, or as having zero mass at rest.
As for quantum theory and “there is a universal limit on the smallest size,” I have to say it is no more realistic than a “universal speed limit.” We simply do not know enough to be able to determine such things, and I don’t care how pretty the manipulations of the mathematical equations are, you are talking in the “universe of mathematics,” and that is not a mirror image of the universe we live in.
in both cases, they have already completed what Sean Carroll said. – ““Let’s invent what we would call exotic speculative physics.” That is all it is. There may be “real universe” responses that are supportive, but you will always note that as the math gets more esoteric, the supportive data becomes far less than unity.
Reply
Wally
| #
“He was a genuine scientist seeking the truth.”
That’s laughable.
– Exposing the Real Albert Einstein: https://principia-scientific.org/exposing-the-real-albert-einstein
– The Great Einstein Hoax: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Einstein-Hoax-Herb-Rose/dp/1478748095
– Albert Einstein was a Fraud: http://coconutrevival.com/?p=5656
Einstein, plagiarist of the century: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einstein.htm
and:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/efWhgxlziT40/
Albert Einstein: Time Magazine’s Undeserving Person of the Century
By John Wear : https://codoh.com/library/document/6743/?lang=en
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The problem with proving Einstein wrong is that physicist consider him god and infallible.
If an object accelerates in a gravitational field in increases in both energy (v^2) and mass (E=mc^2) which in turn increases the gravitational force and velocity of the object. When you’re willing to swallow that nonsense you will continue your belief and ignore or create elaborate explanations for any contrary evidence or logic.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have read that Einstein was never absolutely certain that his ideas were correct. Quite unlike you who can tell others that their ideas are wrong without citing the evidence that would prove they are absolutely wrong. For science (observation and measurement) can prove scientific ideas are absolutely wrong but these observations and measurements can never prove a scientific idea to be absolutely correct.
“”No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” (Einstein)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Einstein never cited evidence or did experiments. He postulated theories to explain observations or problems with current theory. When experiments were done that showed E=mc^2 (not his theory) did not give the correct,t answer for the energy produced by radioactive decay the neutrino was invented in order to make it correct.
The problem for you Jerry is that you only accept evidence that supports your beliefs and when other evidence is presented you demand the credentials (completely irrelevant) of the one citing the evidence or completely ignore it. When I cited Dr Gerald Pollack’s experiments on water you refused to accept it because he didn’t answer your e-mails. You will accept no evidence that water in the atmosphere is not a gas because it conflicts with your beliefs.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote; “When I cited Dr Gerald Pollack’s experiments on water you refused to accept it because he didn’t answer your e-mails. You will accept no evidence that water in the atmosphere is not a gas because it conflicts with your beliefs.”
I did not accept Dr Gerald Pollack’s observations because the pure water of his experiment was not pure. It has been exposed to the natural atmosphere of his laboratory and could no longer be pure. For it had to quickly absorb carbon dioxide from the laboratory atmosphere. And it is generally accepted by the chemistry community that the molecule with the name carbonic acid is only stable in liquid water.
Yes, I know that chemists are not near as ‘intelligent as physicists and you, but it is a historical fact that a chemist, because of experimental observations by him (John Dalton) and other chemists, first discover the evidence that matter had to be composed of tiny indivisible particles which are now named ‘atoms’.instead of the endlessly divisible particles that the ‘intelligent’ philosophers who only debated (argued) about two thousand years earlier.
So when Dr Pollack did not respond to my emails, I observed he most not be the scientist he (and you) claim he is.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Your claim of “pure” water is an excuse to discredit evidence you don’t like.Pure water is very corrosive and doesn’t exist in nature. Do you recall when the Russians discovered a new heavier water only to learn later it wad a result of the water dissolving silicates from the container?
You claim the water droplets in clouds are super cooled liquid water despite your also claiming that in order for droplets to form there must be particles around which they condense which, would also cause crystal formation and prevent super cooling. You pick evidence that supports your beliefs and ignore all other. Instead of thinking you look for “answers” from experts with credentials. Here’s some help for your article on ozone. 3 O2 + energy -> 2 O3: 2 O3 – energy -> 3 O2.
Have a good day, Herb
Reply
Wally
| #
Indeed, such is the way with promoted, marketed mythology.
Cui Bono?
“To question “Einstein”, the god, either “his” theories, or the priority of the thoughts he repeated, has become the sin of heresy. “His” writings are synonymous with truth, the undecipherable truth of a god hung on the wall as a symbol of ultimate truth, which truth is elusive to mortal man—no one is to understand or to question the arcana of “Einstein”, but must let the shepherd lead his flock, without objection. Do not bother the believers with the facts!”
– Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Downers Grove, Ill.: XTX Inc., 2002, pp. 161-162.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Typical of the limitations of the imagination and critical thinking in physicists minds.
Of course General relativity is correct, it has been proven correct many times and is passing every test we can throw at it. Anyone who doubts the theory is just plain dumb or deranged.
The thing we don’t know, is whether GR applies below the event horizon, but it certainly does above it, for the rest of the universe.
.The point is that time stops altogether at the event horizon, relative to the rest of the universe, (the observer). But physicists seem unable to come to terms with this absolute state of affairs. They ASSUME that somehow events carry on below the horizon, otherwise they would have all the fun of playing with their mathematics for entities that fall “through” the horizon. They CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that somehow, time must carry on for someone/something passing through the horizon. They IMPOSE a potentially mistaken belief into the problem and that is frankly, unscientific. It breaks the scientific method.
When time stops relative the the rest of the universe, then it bloody well stops forever. Any notion of events continuing below the horizon is purely speculative and without any scientific justification. After all, if time has stopped there, and the rest of the universe carries on in time, until the end of everything, then it really has stopped in absolute terms.
This is the crux of the matter. “Is time purely relative, some ethereal progression with no physical limitations, or is it a finite process, a finite amount of energy input to the universe that actually does run out if you use all the energy up at the same rate as the input?”.
No physicist has even asked the question, let alone come up with any better ideas or challenges to this one.
The obvious clue lies in the collapse of the mass, (star). It is accepted, proven science that if the Sun were to suddenly collapse into a black hole, then our orbit would be unaffected. We would continue around our elliptical orbit, about 8 light minutes from the Sun or black hole n total disregard to the form the Sun has taken. The ONLY relevant thing is the MASS of the Sun, NOT how its mass is distributed within itself.
Now think of the mass of a collapsing star as it approaches a density of its black hole. The event horizon forms first when there is sufficient mass density below it to produce it. At that instant, time stops on the horizon and so any further, HYPOTHETICAL collapse
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
My first post seems to have resulted in some malfunction. Please ignore this one.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
‘Typical of the lack of imagination and critical thinking with today’s mathematical physicists. Too focused on the equations and number crunching and incompetent when it comes to sticking to reality. When they do attempt to use their imaginations, the results are pathetic, particles passing through two slits at once, taking all paths simultaneously, universe splitting in two at every event,….. come on now, give me a break!
Of course General relativity is correct, it has been proven correct many times and is still passing every test we can throw at it. Anyone who doubts the theory is just plain dumb or deranged.
The thing we don’t know, is whether GR applies below the event horizon, but it certainly does above it, for the rest of the universe.
.The point is that time stops altogether at the event horizon, relative to the rest of the universe, (the observer). But physicists seem unable to come to terms with this absolute state of affairs. They ASSUME that somehow events carry on below the horizon, otherwise they would lose all the fun of playing with their mathematics for entities that fall “through” the horizon. They CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that somehow, time must carry on for someone/something passing through the horizon. They IMPOSE a potentially mistaken belief into the problem and that is frankly, unscientific. It breaks the scientific method.
When time stops relative the the rest of the universe, then it bloody well stops forever. Any notion of events continuing below the horizon is purely speculative and without any scientific justification. After all, if time has stopped there, and the rest of the universe carries on in time, until the end of everything, then it really has stopped in absolute terms.
This is the crux of the matter. “Is time purely relative, some ethereal progression with no physical limitations, or is it a finite process, a finite amount of energy input to the universe that actually does run out if you use all the energy up at the same rate as the input?”.
No physicist has even asked the question, let alone come up with any better ideas or challenges to this one.
The obvious clue lies in the collapse of the mass, (star). It is accepted, proven science that if the Sun were to suddenly collapse into a black hole, then our orbit would be unaffected. We would continue around our elliptical orbit, about 8 light minutes from the Sun or black hole in total disregard to the new form the Sun has taken. The ONLY relevant thing is the MASS of the Sun, NOT how its mass is distributed within itself.
Now think of the mass of a collapsing star as it approaches the mass density of its black hole. The event horizon forms first when there is sufficient mass density inside the EH to produce the EH. At that instant, time stops on the horizon and so any further, HYPOTHETICAL collapse becomes irrelevant to the rest of the universe. WE SIMPLY DON;T CARE HOW ITS MASS IS DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THE BLACK HOLE. It makes no difference to its external gravitational field. just like the Sun example I have given.
If you choose to believe in some ethereal version of time, yet to be understood and defined, then this allows physicists to play whatever mathematical games they wish. However, if you choose to believe that the energy of time is finite, then this prevents all the mathematical game playing and forces us to confront reality, the reality of a finite universe (finite in the temporal sense).
So common sense and critical thinking suggest that the internals of a BH never actually completely collapse into a singularity, but are frozen (in time) in the state they were in at the point when the EH formed. This continues for as long as our external continuum lasts. Hawking radiation does not conflict with this view since any loss of mass due to Hawking radiation simply results in a reduction is size of the EH right up until it has shrunk to the radius it was, on the original formation of the BH. Any further loss of mass will result in time gradually restarting at the EH since the BH is no longer dense enough to form an EH. It is no longer completely black, but more dark grey.
This idea gets rid of the impossible infinitely dense singularity and presents a practical, logical view, in complete agreement with known science. In accordance with the scientific method, I present this as a postulate, but I don’t suppose it will be accepted until physicists come up with the same idea themselves.
Today, physicists have no idea.
Reply
Tom O
| #
You say “of course general relativity is correct.” I say no. If gravity can bend the path of light, then light has mass. If light has mass, under general relativity, it has to have infinite mass. Since it appears to have mass, having its path altered by a large gravity field, one of two things has to be the truth. Light is not a particle with mass or general relativity is wrong. Since there is evidence that a stream of light can move a mass, then again, that tends to support that light has mass, something it cannot have under general relativity, and no “special case alibi” such as light has zero rest mass, can take away from its apparent physical characteristics. If it takes but one proof to disprove the general theory, I suggest that does.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
As far as I understand it, Tom O, a large mass warps space time. The light follows that ‘curve’. As far as light is concerned, it is traveling in a straight line. The observer however, sees light bend.
As far as black holes go, I tend to agree with Max Tegmark.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Finn,
One only sees light coming directly into your eye so how would one see the light bend?
The illustration of the bending of light is a fraud. The three dimensions of space are represented by a two dimensional plane. The mass causing the distortion is pictured as a sphere. Does that mean it already has four dimensions? Shouldn’t the mass be represented as two dimensional disc sitting on the plane? That wouldn’t produce the vortex pictured. It reminds me of the diagram showing that when you go down four flights of stairs you end up at your starting point.
As for the singularity if it is causing an object to accelerate towards it, it must be increasing the objects velocity/energy. If its velocity increases then the objects mass increases. Since energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed doesn’t this require the singularity to transfer mass to the object and its own mass must decrease.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The solar eclipse measurement of a star was the first proof of Einstein’s Theory. I will bet on Einstein over Herb any day. The reason that science fiction Star Trek machines can’t travel near the speed of light is not mass – it is the unbelievable amount of energy that would be required. The LHC propels protons to very high speeds but it runs out of energy at some point and the max speed of protons in the LHC is reached…better build a bigger machine if you want to get closer to the speed of light. A 20 year plus study of the motion of stars around the large black hole in the middle of our galaxy is in accordance with Einstein. All humans have clay feet and all humans are replaceable….Einstein was apparently wrong about entanglement…spooky action at a distance.
Finn McCool
| #
Hi Herb
I had a good chuckle when you said that the sphere should be replaced by a disc. You are right. But it wouldn’t give the same visual analogy.
The hard part is changing the 2d to 3d around the sphere. I often imagine it as blocks of space surrounding a point. the blocks are pulled, squeezed and curved towards the point. The ‘sphere’ itself is irrelevant and the geometrical calculations work. That’s been ‘proven’ by observation. One can see light being bent around a mass (like the sun) but as space and time have been squeezed and curved by the mass of the object it is passing, the light does actually travel in a straight line, as far as it is concerned.
Although I am Scottish, I am no James Clerk Maxwell, so chances are, I am wrong!
As for black holes? I haven’t got a scooby how that works.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
Have to correct you as I correct Herb. No scientific theory can be ‘proven’ to be correct.
And I have reviewed the observed fact that the gaseous atmosphere of the Earth refracts the incoming solar radiation. Hence relative to the observation observed during the total solar eclipse it is possible that the plasma (proton and electrons–solar wind) could refract the light of the star. An possible alternative to the gravitation of the Sun bending the light
Plus, we observe a twilight at higher latitudes hours before sunrise and after sunset. And while the moon shaded the disk of the Sun we (i) saw the light of the flares beyond the ‘blackhole’. Which I consider evidence evidence of twilight being caused by the atmosphere of the flares..
We cannot dismiss what has been and is being simply seen.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Finn,
Whar constitutes a large mass is determined by what the distance is to it. Light should bend around atoms and molecules just as it bends around stars. This would mean that light never travels in a straight line and is continuously accelerating. (Acceleration being a change in speed or direction.)
The fact that not even light travels in a straight line negates Newton’s first premise for gravity: An object will continue in a straight line unless a force acts upon it. Nothing in the universe travels in a straight line and the primary premise should be that an object will maintain its energy unless energy is gained or lost by it. The second premise is that an object will equalize with the energy field it is in. Planets orbit, not because a force is acting upon them, but because they are in equilibrium with the energy field coming from the sun. If a satellite moves into a weaker field (increased distance) its energy (V^2) will decline.
The speed of light is not constant but is a wave whose velocity (speed and direction) changes with the strength of the field it is in. When light coming from a distant star enters the sun’s energy (gravity/magnetic) field it will increase in speed and bend (refract) as it travels towards the sun. After passing the sun its will slow until it enters the field from another sun.
The reason objects underwater appear closer is because the light is traveling faster in the stronger fields of the water.
There is no photon (mass of light) and the speed of light is not constant but continually varying with the strength of the fields it is in. All of Einstein’s theories, based on the photon and constant speed of light, are wrong.
Herb
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“If you make a prediction and the answer is infinite, then it tells you that there is something wrong with your prediction. We have never seen infinity in the universe.”
If there are boundaries to the universe, then the universe could not exist. The universe exists in its state because there are no boundaries.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Einstein’s theories are useless. Most over-hyped psyentist of all time. He has been completely debunked many times, but his fans continue the game.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
You disappoint me. (Not that I am important).
I ask you: “If not for E = m C^2, if not for his letter to the President of the USA at that time, if not for the known fact that the German physicist and engineers were getting close to make their ‘atomic’ bomb would have anybody saw the potential of an ‘atomic’ bomb.
Yes, there were the experiments of others involved in this scientific understanding, but what you just wrote establishes your level of ignorance about the fundamentals of what is termed SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Jerry,
Maxwell had m = E/c^2 in the 1880s!
Not impressed.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
I am not a physicist so I had to do a little research. I could find your claim about Maxwell’s equations. And I found that Maxwell died in 1879.
I am quiet familiar with Einsteins ‘simple’ thought problem he proposed. And when he started I believe he had no idea of where his analysis would lead.
And I certainly am not impressed by your arrogance. Just whom do you consider his fans? The ones I know have been Nobel Prize winners in physics. Who is it that have debunked his ideas. Einstein clearly acknowledged that he could be wrong, but it seems you do not have this problem.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe and PSI Readers,
I have to correct my terrible error. I intended to write: I could NOT find your claim about Maxwell’s equation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Jerry,
Did I say Maxwell put pen to paper in the 1880s?
Death doesn’t stop publications. Apparently it also doesn’t stop voting, but that’s a separate matter.
As for the rest … seek and ye shall find or doubt and write useless comments.
I think you take a fawning approach to scientists: fame equals correctness.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
I waiting for the reference to the 1880’s publication the it seems no one else seems aware. So, please correct that which we fans of Einstein seemed to have missed. And please provide the references to the many ideas of Einstein that have debunked.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
I am slow and missed the importance of “but his fans continue the game.” You seem to consider SCIENCE is a game. Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Dalton,Maxwell, Einstein, the Curies, etc. etc. and all actual scientists did, do not, not consider their SCIENCE to be a game.
But I must acknowledge the critical importance of the technologists who were doing their ‘thing’ long before Galileo wrote his book about ‘Two New Sciences’. To whom did he write it?
First, it was published in common language of Italian. And it began (as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio); “The constant activity which you Venetians display in your famous arsenal suggests to the studious mind a large field for investigation, especially that part of the work which involves mechanics; for in this department all types of instruments and machines are constantly being constructed by many artisans, among whom there must be some who, partly by inherited experience and partly by their own observations, have become highly expert and clever in explanation.” My definition of explanation in this context is the word ‘understanding’.
Now, I ask you: Why do you think Galileo wrote his book after he had been forbidden to write a book and after he had lied so he could write his last book?
His ‘Two New Sciences’ were not a new game. And yes, Galileo clearly made some mistakes as all scientists after him probably have, for we are all human.
Have a good day, Jerry
I
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“You seem to consider SCIENCE is a game. Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Dalton,Maxwell, Einstein, the Curies, etc. etc. and all actual scientists did, do not, not consider their SCIENCE to be a game.”
Firstly, Strawman.
Secondly,
I like how you placed Einstein along with much more credible people, and then circularly use that to support your argument. You are a transparent game player.
Space Commando
| #
Einstein was a plagiarist and a fraud, pure and simple.
Reply
Joe
| #
So much science and figures. So many theorists and wanabees. Please tell me why we are still dying from COVID-19. While you statter along on explaining last century’s theory of the universe, humanity is getting plundered by viruses and man made killer deasease. Please get a life.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The average age of “covid19 deaths” is EQUAL to life expectancy (LE). In some places it’s higher than LE.
Science is the antedote to media-induced panic. Keep reading PSI.
Reply
Brian Steere
| #
No one is dying from covid19.
It a theory driven by wannabees. I understand if you cannot hear this. If you are willing to look at your thinking instead of running with it you may ‘get’ a perspective that restores you to to an embracing Life.
If you choose to engage you are contributing to what you attack and deny..
Accepted theory – like a virus – can be said to replicate and mutate in the human mind.
The hijack of Natural Philosophy by scientism and technologism, is a corporately invested intent to marketise and weaponise the emergent narratives from directed and funded research.
The hijack of a true account, is a cover story given meaning, priority and funding as the basis for a New Solution – by which the bury the still active toxic debts from ‘last century’ and beyond.
The Pied Piper calls the tune by which to willingly climb into a computer model in place of a relational experience of being moved within life as distinct from a control system imposed upon such freedom of being. Who pays the piper?
Everyone who chooses NOT to know by the persistence in believing they already know – and reacting from such conditioned identity.
Awakening responsibility – not blaming – is re-evaluating a true account as part of a recognition or willingness to accept that we do not know life, but are entangled in our own versions – that are reactively part of other versions.
To get, is in truth to receive. Giving and receiving is the nature of life, but getting, takes one pole and operates monopolistically to deny, overcome, erase or eradicate opposition, obstacle or adversity. It is then a death wish set in misidentification of giving as personal loss and getting as a private gain.
This pattern will persist to the point of recognition and release.
Those who have life – give life – as the nature of sharing the blessing of awareness for being. This extends the opportunity to receive and resonate in like kind. If grievance is valued above healing, the gift will be denied acceptance – but that does not mean it was not given.
While we pile up grievance and toxic debt, all that is truly given us is discarded and in one way or another deferred, delayed and denied a current acceptance.
Then when we find the conditions in which life is Let In – a backlog of unresolved conflict comes in to awareness as IF to rob us as of even the ‘little that we hath’.
The seduction into a ‘computer model’ is a replication of ‘where we came in’.
We are in the process of reliving ‘separation trauma’ without much recognition of the en-trance-ment.
The phishing ruse masks the deceit agenda in some forms of an established ‘identification’. such as to induce emotional reaction – by which identity is ‘stolen’ while the target runs off under a belief thief.
Reclaiming Reason, Sanity and Science from theorists and wanabees, is fundamental. A false foundation guarantees a false result. Garbage in; garbage out. If you want to receive a coherent life experience, look to what you are giving out. Not in ‘critical blame’ that has already gouged out the eyes the might offend the ‘Model’, but in the simple and native curiosity of (your) being. It is only yours to share in. Not to get just for yourself under some masking narrative – that is so compelling in its moment – and so soon replaced by another.
Reply
Brian James
| #
Nov 10, 2019 Neutron Stars – The Most Extreme Things that are not Black Holes
This year’s calendar focuses on the future of humanity and how we will explore space in the next 10,000 years.
https://youtu.be/udFxKZRyQt4
Reply
Brian James
| #
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” Albert Einstein
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Einstein might have brought up the idea of blackholes, but he also demurred with the fact that the rotational momentum of even a neutron star would tear the object apart. Oppenheimer agreed. They seem to ignore the applications of physics when talking about their pet objects.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
A fantasy starts with the denial of reality then progresses by trying to make the unreal conform to reality, usually by using some form of magic that abandons reason. Einstein’s fantasy begins with the creation of the photon which is both a wave and a particle. The magic it uses is quantum physics and the resulting absurdity is the black hole
A black hole starts with a sun 100 times the mass of our sun.This sun is moving in a galaxy. As it burns it converts mass into energy, losing both mass and gravitational force. It eventually shrinks to a sphere 7 miles in diameter where it emits its final energy/mass and collapses into a singularity. Since the singularity has less mass and gravity than before its collapse the event horizon of the lack hole must be less than 7 miles.
An object attracted to the singularity will gain energy/mass as its velocity increases. The force will always be directed towards the singularity but the momentum of the object will be in the direction of motion. As the object approaches the singularity there will be a divergence in the direction of the force and the momentum as the singularity moves. The object will never enter the event horizon just as comets (which lose mass as they gain energy) never hit the sun they’re attracted towards, because the sun continuously moves out of the way.
Because of the conservation of energy objects gaining mass/energy from the singularity, that do not hit it, must remove mass/energy from the singularity and since light is attracted to the singularity it will have its direction changed and bend around it also. The result is that instead of black hole being hundreds of light years in size their maximum size is 7 miles and decreasing.
Herb .
Reply
Brian Steere
| #
https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.com/2020/11/seeking-so-as-not-to-find-calls-on.html
In the above linked response I do not engage the controversy so much as to ponder its context.
“Seeking so as NOT to find, calls on complexity to divert and obfuscate the Obvious”
Reply
Sonny
| #
I have in my possession a book (in swedish, I am afraid: https://www.bokus.com/bok/9789197518512/solens-barn-del-1/ ) presenting a hypothesis in line with the statements by Max Tegmark expressed in this article. The problem when it comes to “proof” is that it is impossible to prove the non-existance of anything which is not able to prove the existence of – for example black holes or god. If the scientific claim is “Now we have proved x”, is just to say “So far our working model has not been proven false”. Einstein would probably applaud if his theories were proven false, since that would raise the knowledge level for humanity. In this book I am talking about Einstein is described as a true scientist, dependent on false background data, but there have never in the history of mankind been a statement about universe that has not been proven wrong in some degree – with the exceptions of those who has not i.e. are the working models of today. 150 years ago scientists were positive that the level of knowledge could not improve more than in the details – they believed in the perfection of thier working models. If mankind still exists in the year 2170 they will look back and find that was also the case regarding those who lived 2020.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sonny,
You wrote (and I only quote for emphasis): “If the scientific claim is “Now we have proved x”, is just to say “So far our working model has not been proven false”. Einstein would probably applaud if his theories were proven false, since that would raise the knowledge level for humanity.”
Buckminister Fuller stated that we can only learn from our mistakes. For if something works it may not for the reason we claim to understand. But if doesn’t work, we know our understanding was wrong.
Einstein wrote: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Richard Feynman stated (in a public address given at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences): “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true.”
Thank you for your calling this simple truth about this thing, which we term SCIENCE, to our attentions.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Jerry, here is a free suggestion…..proof your posts 3 times before submitting. The solar eclipse star measurement nearly a century ago supports Einstein’s Theory…in fact it is a proof but just not a conclusive proof….like the two atomic clock experiments….one was flown around the world in jet aircraft and the other experiment was one of the clocks was located atop a mountain for a year. The more recent image of a black hole taken by an array of radio telescopes is supportive….but not conclusive proof. The measurement of black hole and neutron star mergers by the LIGO adds more proof, but not conclusive. You use the term “bend” in regard to gravity and light….gravity “curves” space-time and the light follows the curves….light does not have mass…now that recent image of the black hole showed light flowing around it….Herb would claim that we could not see this light….but, some of the light would be reflected from hitting dust particles and reach earth, no? And, finally, there is the term “lenses” used by astronomers to describe light from far away stars being imaged twice due to a galaxy between earth and the star.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
I would not pay any person for a suggestion who cannot see that there is no possible comparison between an atomic clock flown around the world in a few days and one on a mountain for a year.
And especially to one who seems unable to admit that he/she cannot prevent mistakes from being made. Again, I remind you that you only recognize an error because you know what an author intended.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T.C. Clark
| #
Uh, Hi Jerry. There were 2 atomic clock experiments…sorry, I assumed that you were aware of them…..one involved 2 atomic clocks being synchronized and then one being sent around the world and returned to discover a small decrease in its time compared to the clock that remained behind. The second was again 2 clocks….one remained near sea level….the other at the top of a mountain for a year….the one from the mountain was slightly faster than the sea level one. Both indicate Einstein was correct….proofs, but not conclusive proofs, eh? Now, that airplane experiment meant altitude was working against speed but apparently speed was more dominant than altitude. Please feel free to comment or ask any questions …but please PROOF any reply.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C.,
It is true that I am not familiar with these atomic clock experiments. But I a very familiar with the uncertainty of measurements. So, would you please share with me and the readers of PSI the reported time differences observed in these two experiments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T.C. Clark
| #
Jerry, you can search and find all the details….please use DuckDuckGo rather than Google. The results were in agreement with Special Relativity and General Relativity….it was way back in 1971…..all about gravitational time dilation and kinematic time dilation…you know.
Moffin
| #
Hi Jerry.
Your above comment contains no errors which supports the observation that men may be able to do anything.
An editor of the Oxford dictionary could suggest starting a sentence with the word “but” is inappropriate but PSI is a science website not an English Language website.
Your response is instructive to this reader as TL’s request for more considered proof reading is absolutely correct.
Congratulations to all and have a nice day. Matt
WhoKoo
| #
Oops! It contains “I a very familiar” rather than “I am very familiar”
which illustrates why I cannot find employment as a proof reader.
Damn! Matt.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TC,
When I look at the chart for time dilation of satellites it appears that the greater the altitude the greater the dilation. The greater the altitude of a satellite the slower its velocity. So is the time dilation a function of altitude or velocity?
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Details are not important when there are bigger fish to fry.
Did you notice that I still do not know what the measured ‘time’ differences actually were.
And after Picasso I do not really worry about the finer things of life.
Have a good day, Jerry
T.C. Clark
| #
Uh, Herb, it is both time dilation due to gravity and velocity. The GPS satellites have to compensate for time dilation….over time of course. Kip Thorne was hired to consult on some movie a few years ago…the story included some astronauts visiting a planet orbiting a black hole and they experienced time dilation and when they returned to earth, their peers had aged years beyond the astronauts. I haven’t seen the movie but that must have been some space ship to approach a black hole and return.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TC,
So a weaker gravitational force and a slower velocity leads to an increase in time dilation. When an object accelerates towards a black hole withers greater gravitational force time moves faster?
Herb
T.C. Clark
| #
Herb, gravity slows time…..velocity slows time. Velocity also increases mass and flattens a body in the direction of travel….but the mass change and dimension change are reversible…the time change is permanent.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TC,
Why then do the satellites show a slowing of time as their velocity and gravity decreases?
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Yes , I am taking a break and checking any updates and as turning on the computer was wondering about the time difference with out checking duck duck drown.
And as for Picasso in art and music mistakes can often be deemed “spontaneous genius”.
I do not understand “time dilation”. It could be my quantum stupidity or relative simplicity.
Enjoy your Sunday. Matt
T.C. Clark
| #
Herb, let me refer you to Don Lincoln – Fermilab – on youtube….visit there and he has numerous videos on these subjects.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TC,
I am using the evidence you offered as proof of Einstein’ contention of time dilation, but my interpretation of the evidence is that it contradicts Einstein’s theory. Is my reading of the data wrong or is there something I’ve overlooked I am open to clarification. If you chose to continue belief in Einstein’s theory, that is fine but you need to find other data to support your beliefs.
Herb
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Hi TC
I think all you have to say is that, the faster you travel through space the slower you travel through time. Seems self-evident.
We have a hangup about the term ‘gravitational force’. It is not a force. It is warped space time. Herb may not agree, but Einstein’s equations work. In a hundred years, no one has had any better theory.
Herb. You talk about energy fields and electrical fields and interaction with photons. If you really want to go into quantum field theory that’s great. Just don’t expect me to understand it 🙂
Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein by Rodney Brooks is an excellent introduction.
For me, the most interesting part from the article was the question: Is time quantised?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Finn,
Beware of the obvious. Einstein’s contention that the speed of light is constant means that no matter what your speed, time will flow at the same rate for you. Any observed change in time will occur from a different perspective (speed) where there is a different reference for the speed of light.
Einstein’s thought experiment on the dilation of time using the clock tower is wrong. He said that as you travel away from the clock the time on the clock would appear to go slower because of the time necessary for the light coming from the clock to reach your eyes. The faster you travelled the slower the clock would go. but the slowing of the clock has nothing to do with speed but is a function of the distance the light must travel.
If you and an assistant synchronized your watches with the clock at the base of the clock then the assistant started hiking away from the clock, after he travelled for a while his watch would show the clock being slow. Your watch would still be synchronized with the clock. If you were then to travel at a faster speed and catch up with the assistant your watches would again read the same time and have the same discrepancy with the clock. If you both were then to travel back to the base of the clock all the time pieces would again be synchronized regardless of the speed at which you returned.
The apparent time dilation has nothing to do with velocity only the distance the light must travel to your eyes.
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. You appear to be making the same observation I make below left..
Hmmmm.
MattH
| #
Hi TC. Thank you for the reference to Don Lincoln.
He explains things simply and clearly enough for this simpleton.
Even Jerry would appreciate his statement “much of physics” is intuitive.
Best wishes.. Matt
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I did not know Don said much of physics is intuitive….quantum mechanics is not intuitive to me…or Einstein’s General Relativity. Herb apparently believes that he is correct and Einstein was wrong….Herb is an unknown guy on the interweb….Einstein is a well known Nobel Prize winner and has been questioned for over a century….I have not seen anyone refute General Relativity entirely….there are some questions about parts of it. Some people seem to be to lazy to look up data and seek answers to their questions……I inform them of this thing called DuckDuckGo and they continue to apparently expect me to look things up for them….they will be waiting a loooooong time.
Damian
| #
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lwup7WD15w
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Yes , I am taking a break and checking any updates and as turning on the computer was wondering about the time difference with out checking duck duck drown.
And as for Picasso in art and music mistakes can often be deemed “spontaneous genius”.
I do not understand “time dilation”. It could be my quantum stupidity or relative simplicity.
Enjoy your Sunday. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
C.T. brought up this time dilation and the proposed experiments. When he doesn’t report what the time differences were from the results of these he diverts attention to something else. Because I am not a physicist, I have an intuitive idea (without thinking or any evidence) what the answers might be..
Which was why I asked C.T. to report what the results of these experiments were. Which he has not yet done. Instead he tells me to go back to 1971 articles to find the answer myself.
When people attack respected scientists, who cannot defend their scholarship because they are dead, I do try to expose them as not representing the SCIENCE of these ‘giants’, whose names many non-scientists recognize.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
If I travelled for an hour at twice the speed of light and upon the hour mark instantly turned around to observe myself I would see myself apparently travelling towards my self but getting further away with time until I saw myself begin the journey and to observe this entire journey would take half an hour.
I understand that what I am observing is like a slight of hand optical illusion magic trick but need to study some science to understand how one could get time dilation from this. Even if two of you made the journey and the other person only travelled at half the speed of light and you watched that person’s arrival.
I am going to do a lot of pondering for a few days and then study how the atomic clock test works.
Cheers Jerry.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
If I travelled for an hour at twice the speed of light and upon the hour mark instantly turned around to observe myself I would see myself apparently travelling towards my self but getting further away with time until I saw myself begin the journey and to observe this entire journey would take half an hour.
I understand that what I am observing is like a slight of hand optical illusion magic trick but need to study some science to understand how one could get time dilation from this. Even if two of you made the journey and the other person only travelled at half the speed of light and you watched that person’s arrival.
I am going to do a lot of pondering for a few days and then study how the atomic clock test works.
Cheers Jerry.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Everything we see happen in the past with the delay being the length of time it takes light to travel to our eyes.
Everything changes as energy moves with time just means for comparing the different changes of energy of objects. Separating the time unit from energy (V^2) is no more real than determine the weight off a bolt by the torque used to affix it.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
Thank you for the reply. I need to have a break from this. Check out the atomic clock test with a fresh brain in a week.
If light cannot escape from an event horizon that does not mean time has stood still on the other side of the event horizon. Relativity??? Totally beyond me.
Cheers Herb.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Yes, ponder as Einstein pondered and we know that Einstein’s pondering was quite productive even if there are some pretenders who maintain that which he admitted to: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” For he was never certain as they seem to certain. “No amount of experimentation [observation] can ever prove me right; a single experiment [observation] can prove me wrong.”
He proposed two fundamental problems: What do two viewers (observers) see who stand in two different locations in the single case being considered as each observer observes the result of a single experiment. These two viewers see two different observations. So the obvious problem was: How can one reconcile (believe this is a good word) these two different observations?
In your case, it seems to me that you have well defined a theoretical problem to ponder. However, in science any theoretical reasonings must have a testable prediction of something that is unknown. For if a testable prediction is already known, it should have been used in the pondering process.
I am an experimentalist (an observer). So, I ponder the why, or how, of what is simply (commonly) observed which seem to not have been considered in the pondering being done by others? For what commonly is observed, but not considered, has been a common problem from the being of this thing we term SCIENCE.
I have read that Galileo got an inspiration when he noticed the swinging of lanterns hung from high ceilings. I have not read that he tried to answer the question: Why were the lanterns swinging? Instead it seems he tried to answer the question: How are these various lanterns swinging? For the fact was the lanterns were swinging. And I have read that he used his pulse (a natural timing invention which had to have been ‘noticed’) to time the periods of these swinging lanterns.
In his book, ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’, he does not mention these common swinging lanterns. Instead he describes artificial pendulum ‘instruments’ and the experiments that can be preformed using these simple instruments. And he reports which can be observed if one performs the experiments to which he referred. Nothing at all theoretical; just the result of what he observed.
Now, I have read that many authors have written that Galileo never actually constructed these artificial pendulum instruments and performed the experiments which he also described. Why did these authors write that Galileo did not actually do the possible experiments whose results could be simply observed and timed with his pulse? Only these authors can answer this question: Why?
Today, we have controversy about temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere in which we move and breathe. Historically, we know some scientists began to ask (question): Why is the air temperature, in which we live (breathe) and move, the temperature which we can and do measure? Have they considered (seen) the simple fact that this air temperature can significantly change during a day and from day to day? Do these people see, as I have written, that there two different cases be being questioned? The temperature change during a single day. And, the temperatures of one day compared to the temperatures of the previous day. My answer is: Evidently, not! For these scientists who study the Earth’s air temperatures most commonly refer to the ‘average’ air temperature of a day, of a month, of a year for the entire Earth as if one cannot see that temperatures naturally vary from one localized location to another etc.
And if one cannot see there is a problem with this common ‘practice’, one should not claim to be a scientist. For such is to dishonor the real scientists of the past.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Almost forgot…one more thing…Einstein explained with General Relativity the “glitch” in the orbit of Mercury….Newton’s Laws did not explain it. Add more points for Einstein….along with the 2 atomic clock experiments…etc etc. etc.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TC,
Einstein said that a thousands experiments could not prove him right but one experiment could prove him wrong. You don’t consider the data on time dilation from satellites true? Science is not about keeping score to determine what is true.
Just because Newton did not explain Mercury”s orbit doesn’t mean Einstein’s theory is correct, especially since he painstaking crafted it to give the same answers as Newton. Neither of them explain how Venus can be hotter than Mercury so I guess that makes them both wrong.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Uh, Herb, you have the one experiment to prove Einstein wrong? We are waiting. “he painstaking crafted it to give the same answers as Newton”???????????? Einstein’s equations do not give the same answer as Newton’s in regard to Mercury. How do you know what he painstaking(ly) crafted? “Neither of them explain how Venus can be hotter than Mercury”…..Who says they ever tried to explain? What’s that got to do with Mercury’s orbit? Hmmmm….I am beginning to believe you and Jer…Jerri…are one and the same.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi TC,
You provided the experiment that proves Einstein wrong yet you only see it as proving Einstein right. The satellites traveling slower in higher orbits produce a greater time dilation than the faster satellites in lower orbits. Einstein said the faster an object moves the greater the time dilation. I assume you are a recent college grad who has all the answers but knows nothing and is incapable of thought or reason.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Uh, Herb, what color is the sky in your world? I have said nothing about satellites except the GPS ones are adjusted for time dilation. You just admitted that you don’t know that Einstein showed why the orbit of Mercury does not follow Newton’s equations. You seem to have a cognitive problem….like your alter ego, Jerri ….you apparently believe that you have have invented Herbphysics….but no one except you seems to understand Herbphysics. Your assumption is incorrrect…but then you are often incorrect.
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi there Jerry, Herb, TC and others,
You guys are all missing the point!
The energy coming from the sun is made up of many parts!
There is the Energy we call light. which can only be seen when it interacts with some matter. Then there is the energy called the solar wind, that part of the energy that takes a bit longer to get here. Then there are the cosmic particles which don’t do much but travel right through most stuff, but not all do that some do interact.
The light travels in straight lines, The solar wind is like , well wind it swirls around some what reacting to the earths magnetic field. It is constantly variable over time.
The cosmic particles just go where they are going to!
Thus to argue about what the sun’s energy is doing to the earth as if it was a single entity is so:-
WRONG!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
“The energy we call light which can only be seen when it interacts with some matter.” Will you please describe all the ways this light might interact with the matter of the Earth. This is a fundamental issue which is somewhat controversial relative to the air temperature we observe near the Earth’s surface.
But I am most interested in the solar wind is a more variable ‘flux’ and best seen as aurora phenomena. Which I have read can involve a huge amount of energy during ‘solar storms’. I somewhat question this because the small quantity atmosphere matter involved at the altitudes that the aurora phenomena is seen to occur is so slight that I question how this quantity of energy compares with the solar radiation which reaches the Earth’s surface. Cosmic particles, according to my understanding do not originate in our solar system. Is this understanding correct? Or do they come from the sun? As you wrote: ” The energy coming from the sun is made up of many parts.”
You say we are missing the point to consider the sun’s energy as if it (the energy) was a single entity is so WRONG! I consider light to be all the electro-magnetic energy being emitted from the sad which interacts with the Earth’s matter. I consider the solar wind to be gaseous matter ’emitted’ from the sun and ionized the certain ‘high energy’ light into nuclei and electrons. How this ‘charged’ matter interacts with the molecules of our atmosphere I claim no knowledge (understanding.0. So would you quantize this energy of the solar wind compared with that of the solar light intercepted and absorbed by Earth’s matter system?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael and Herb,
At first I questioned Michael’s comment as I usually question Herb’s comments.. But because we haven’t heard for Michael for sometime, I considered he had been pondering as he is prone to do. And I know he asks questions to which he considers he know the answers. So I was cautious how I commented.
And I had recently remembered an experience that I have had that I considered maybe no one reading this has had. I was a young child sleeping in our home when lightning traveled down the eaves pout into our basement cistern with at least 8 inch thick concrete walls. And chunks of concrete was blown about 16ft across the basement to break glass canning jars of food. I didn’t wake up and my parents did. But they looked at the barn to see if it had been hit. It hadn’t so they went back to sleep. It wasn’t until morning when my father went down to separate the milk that he learned what had happened.
And I have seen big tree trunks split down their centers without any sign of charred wood. And my father told a story about a granary filled with oas (or wheat) which walls were blown out with no sign of charring. Yet, in the forested areas of western USA, wild fires are started by lighting.
So I have been pondering: Is there ‘cold’ lightning and ‘hot lightning? And, even though I claim to very little about the physics of lightning, I am a chemist and have learned to imagine and reason qualitatively. And I just wrote to Michael that I consider high energy solar radiation to ionize the atoms of the solar wind into electrons (negative) and nuclei (positive) to form what is termed a plasma. And I do know that positively charged particles and negatively charge particle attract each other and like charged particles repel each other.
And I had been considering that the measurement of temperature is the measurement of the average kinetic energy of the matter whose temperature is being measured. Now an obvious fact is KE = 1/2 m V^2. So, the electron with very very small mass relative to that any nucleus. So the electrons of a plasma (solar wind) have to have a much greater speed than any nucleus Hence, the electrons might race away and ahead of the solar wind.
Now, I am very uncomfortable with what I am pondering and imagining because I am not a physicist and it seems I could be becoming a Herb. Which might be a compliment for Herb it there is some validity to my pondering.
What I know is what I have written on my ‘studie’s door: The more I study; The more I learn, The more I know, THAT WHICH I DO NOT KNOW!!!
Have a good day. Jerry.
.
,
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Good to hear from you again.
You should add gravity as energy coming from the sun since that is what causes the planet to orbit.
There are a broad spectrum of energies coming from the sun and the different energies affect different aspects of the Earth.
With electromagnetic radiation we see different objects absorbing, reflecting, transmitting or a combination of these actions. These radiations travel in all directions, not just in a straight line, with what we call a straight line being the path of the electromagnetic wave coming towards us.
In a universe composed of spheres there are no straight lines (a sphere cannot be made to lay flat) just less curved ones.The interference pattern produced by the dual thin slit experiment shows light bends (as does refraction) and does not travel in a straight line..
The solar winds are particle being emitted by the sun and contain energy combined with matter in the form of kinetic energy. These particles can transfer energy both by radiating energy in all directions to the surrounding energy field or by colliding with another object equalizing energy with that object.
All the energies coming from the sun behave the same in that they decrease with distance but the point of contention is how the different forms of energy coming from the sun affect the different phenomena observed on Earth that are produced by these energies.
Herb
Reply
WhoKoo
| #
Hi Michael.
What you do not seem to realize is some of us can ride a pushbike with no hands. (look mum, no hands!)
And the spontaneous combustion of telegraph poles in 1859 which was alleged to have been caused by plasma in a solar wind from a super duper sunspot (solar coronal mass ejection) was actually caused by my distant relation, Big WhoKoo Carrington who had just found a Bic cigarette lighter in a dark ally and was trying it out.
The reported unusual lights in the atmosphere at the same time was my other relative Evan Bigger WhoKoo Carrington who had just invented gunpowder and was trying it out. Unfortunately the Chineese stole this invention and took it back in time through an inverted event horizon.
The rumours about me being prone to untruths and exaggerations have never been proven in a court of law.
Reply
MattH
| #
Time Dilation From Wikipedia
Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks due to a relative velocity between them or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations. After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer’s own reference frame. A clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential).
These predictions of the theory of relativity have been repeatedly confirmed by experiment, and they are of practical concern, for instance in the operation of satellite navigation systems such as GPS and Galileo.[1] Time dilation has also been the subject of science fiction works.
So much to learn, So little time.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Still no numbers and units. And who wrote this? Please don’t believe this any more than you expect Michael to believe what you wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hav
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry
Back in 2004 2005 there was a tagging program of Hectors dolphins off Banks Peninsula situated on the South Island of New Zealand.
The tags were to send signals to a Doppler Effect tracking apparatus to verify the range and disbursement of these dolphins.
These dolphins were incredible. They were tracked traversing high land hundreds of meters inland and those running the Satellite Tagging, Health and Genetic Assessment Project never once was able to track a dolphin and visually identify a tagged dolphin.
Curiously, There was no fishing ban placed up in the hills where the dolphins were assessed to be frolicking although tracking technology has advanced significantly since then.
WhoKoo’s comments to Michael are purely a pathetic attempt to give Michael a light chuckle.
Cheers Matt
Reply
Ron Sechler
| #
If “a giant dying star collapses,” and “the mass of the star falls in and keeps falling in crushing down into an infinitely small point,” it will only collapse to the upper limit of pressure where fission will begin. Obviously, the birth of a new star, since stars have a fission core. It is energy acting on mass that creates heat, pressure, movement, speed, gravity, time, information and evolution. The black hole is an area in space where there is less energy than there is in the universe. Energy flows from where there is more energy to where there is less energy. Where there is mass there is no energy. The universe is energy and it it exists as energy and mass. Energy and mass can not occupy the same space at the same time. Energy flows toward mass all through the universe.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi ron,
If greater velocity and a greater force of gravity causes time to slow, as Einstein says, why do the clocks further from the Earth and traveling slower have clocks that run slower than the clocks of satellites at a lower altitude (greater gravity) and greater velocity?
Herb
Reply