J
Jim_Baur
Guest
inocente
Beautiful!
THANKS!
Beautiful!
THANKS!
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
So now you are an expert in Science and Mathematics all of a sudden. If light bends in the presence of a " mass, " then light must have some mass. Every thing that exists has some mass.
Math is not the reality. Math works only when one side of an equation is equal to the other. But in order to obtain this you have to abstract from reality, you have to leave part of reality behind. But you know everything, so why should I bother pointing that out. And how could space or time be curved? These are unfortunate euphamesims used to explain the mathematics.
There is a classic paper back on Relativity, Relativity for the Layman by James A. Coleman which says, pg 102, that light, composed of photons has mass. And on pg 114, he says, " When it ( light ) travels far away from any gravitational masses, it is not influenced by them; but in their vicinity the light is curved or bent toward the masses. For this reason, space itself is said to be ’ curved '; hence the orgin of such terms as *space-curvature, or the curvature of space. Space should not be imagined to be curved in the ordinary sense of the word, but only in that it contains gravitational masses ( stars and other solar systems that may exist ) which cause light rays to be deflected in their vicinity. ( My copy is a 1962 edition, it is still in print in later editions ).
And the same can be said of time but I’ve said enough, you can get the book, its cheap, and read it yourself. It won’t make you a scientist but it will change a few of your notions.
Linus2nd
But far be it from me to correct the great geniuses which worship at the feet of modern Cosmologists.
Linus2nd*
I
inocente
Guest
Nope, photons are mass-less. Been proven down to itsy bitsy levels. See here.
This is not expert stuff, I learned it in high school. Mind you, it was a European high school.
Light simply follows the shortest path, and so bends when space bends. Called the geodesic (named because a shortest path over the surface of the Earth also bends).
Not sure what you mean by this. A logical argument has to be correctly formed just as a math theorem has to be correctly formed. Same difference.
Not sure what you mean by this. A logical argument must also abstract from reality. “Ball” is an abstraction of “baseball” and “football”. Abstracting is what humans do. Words are abstract symbols of concrete objects (or of other abstractions). English is no more concrete than Spanish or math. Shirley we can agree on this much?
If you look around the internet, you’ll find people who say the Earth can’t be curved either, Here’s some - theflatearthsociety.org/
Neither God nor nature are limited by what bewilders flat earthers and fellow travelers.
Space-time is curved in the presence of matter (note, not in the presence of light). It’s been tested many many times. No other explanation passes the tests. It is also most beautiful (and while not a clincher, truth is beauty and beauty is truth is a pretty good maxim).
Your book seems to be out of print. It sounds populist (today’s equivalent might be called Relativity for Dummies) and I couldn’t find anything about the author. Nothing wrong with any of that, but populist writers often try to avoid difficult concepts, so maybe that’s what he’s doing.
But it sounds from your quote like he’s making it more complicated. Before Einstein no one could explain how gravity tugs on things. How could the Sun possibly reach out across millions of kilometers and tug at the Earth? Einstein realized it curves the space, and the Earth just follows a geodesic through that space. Problem solved.
I have an even older book, first published 1923, called The Principle Of Relativity by a guy named Albert Einstein. And my book is still in print.
Now calm down, you’ll do yourself a mischief.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
From the point of view of Einstein, what is time?
THANKS!
THANKS!
I
inocente
Guest
He discovered that space and time are not fixed, but relative. For instance, suppose you are in a rocket ship with a big clock on its side, and you make the ship go faster and faster. I am here on Earth looking at your ship through a telescope. You don’t notice any change in the rate of your clock. But as you go faster and faster, I see the clock slowing down. This is one of the cases where time passes at a different rate relative to different observers.
It’s called time dilation. The Wikipedia article has a cool graphic showing your clock (red) relative to mine (blue):
The effect is negligible here on Earth, but for instance satellite engineers have to take it into account or GPS wouldn’t work. The Wikipedia article also talks about the slight effects on ISS astronauts.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Clever as always but not to be confused with truth. Guess you didn’t look too hard for the book. " Relativity For The Layman: A Simplified Account Of The History, Theory, And Proofs Of Relativity PaperbackNope, photons are mass-less. Been proven down to itsy bitsy levels. See here.
This is not expert stuff, I learned it in high school. Mind you, it was a European high school.
Light simply follows the shortest path, and so bends when space bends. Called the geodesic (named because a shortest path over the surface of the Earth also bends).
Not sure what you mean by this. A logical argument has to be correctly formed just as a math theorem has to be correctly formed. Same difference.
Not sure what you mean by this. A logical argument must also abstract from reality. “Ball” is an abstraction of “baseball” and “football”. Abstracting is what humans do. Words are abstract symbols of concrete objects (or of other abstractions). English is no more concrete than Spanish or math. Shirley we can agree on this much?
If you look around the internet, you’ll find people who say the Earth can’t be curved either, Here’s some - theflatearthsociety.org/
Neither God nor nature are limited by what bewilders flat earthers and fellow travelers.
Space-time is curved in the presence of matter (note, not in the presence of light). It’s been tested many many times. No other explanation passes the tests. It is also most beautiful (and while not a clincher, truth is beauty and beauty is truth is a pretty good maxim).
Your book seems to be out of print. It sounds populist (today’s equivalent might be called Relativity for Dummies) and I couldn’t find anything about the author. Nothing wrong with any of that, but populist writers often try to avoid difficult concepts, so maybe that’s what he’s doing.
But it sounds from your quote like he’s making it more complicated. Before Einstein no one could explain how gravity tugs on things. How could the Sun possibly reach out across millions of kilometers and tug at the Earth? Einstein realized it curves the space, and the Earth just follows a geodesic through that space. Problem solved.
I have an even older book, first published 1923, called The Principle Of Relativity by a guy named Albert Einstein. And my book is still in print.
Now calm down, you’ll do yourself a mischief.
by James Andrew Coleman (Author)
1 customer review
See all 24 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover “Please retry” $35.15 $33.23 $40.79
Paperback “Please retry” $23.36 $20.95 $6.28
Mass Market Paperback “Please retry” — — $0.01
Unknown Binding “Please retry” — — $9.79
Hardcover
$35.15 2 Used from $40.79
10 New from $33.23 Paperback
$23.36 10 Used from $6.28
13 New from $20.95 Mass
From the back cover: " James A. Coleman is Assiciate Professor of Physics and Chairman o fhe Department of Physics at American International College, Springfield, Massachusetts. He did theoretical reaseach on guided missiles at the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University and was a consultant to the Research and Development Board on guided missiles…" So I guess he is as well qualified as you high school teachers
.Sorry you don’t understand what " abstract from reality means, " perhaps if you had read more philosophy you would have known. And a mathematical equation is a balancing act. Both sides must be equal or you can’t work the problem. ( learned that in and American grade school
). So it cannot represent all of reality. Something is always left out.To repeat. Photons have mass, if they didn’t light couldn’t bend. I knew that just from common sense, but it was good to see a scientist confirm what I knew instinctively ( philosophy does wonders for one’s common sense, it puts your feet on the ground and keeps one from being carried away by the Pied Piepers of modern Cosomology
).And yes, I have Einstein’s little book, have had it for years. The trouble with it is that he was unable to " translate " the mathematics in an understandable way. He was unable to explain what it meant in reality.
Cheers
Linus2nd
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Did not comprehend!
Where is tijme?
What is essence of time?
Where is time for Einstein?
What is the essence of time for Einstein?
THANKS!
Where is tijme?
What is essence of time?
Where is time for Einstein?
What is the essence of time for Einstein?
THANKS!
B
Bahman
Guest
That is the property of geometry. Everything is locally flat but not globally.
B
Bahman
Guest
B
Bahman
Guest
You can read more here.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Everyone is still confused about whether photons have mass and whether space and time bend. The confusion arises because of the inability to understand that mathematics abstracts values from reality for the purposes of predicting future events in a narrow system of motion/change. It is a balancing act, often quite complicated, that essentially ignores the nature of the subject from which the values have been abstracted.
This has been amply discussed by many Philosophers of Science and Nature. James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Phd in Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages. You will have to read it in a good University Library. It is out of print now and very expensive, I paid $135 for my copy, but they run to over a thousand. And don’t let the title fool you, he is up on his science.
So does a photon have mass? Well, unless you want to do away with gravity, which some say is what Einsteine did, then a photon must have mass. But the question is even more basic than that. Everything in the universe is composed of matter and matter has mass, even if it is but a wave or a photon. If it is real, it is matter. If it is matter, it has mass. Are you all ready to do away with gravity? I’m not, I see no need. Astrophysicists, and physicists can do all the theorizing they want, but I refuse to let them do away with the very nature of things.
Here is an interesting question on the " curature " of space and time. " Does space curve?
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties, we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view” – Nikola Tesla
metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp
Anybody want to argue with a man who was in Einstein’s class? Well, read the article for yourselves and there are others similar to it.
So the curvature of space is a fiction. It is one of those things that happen when you have to have a mathematical equation which balances. You have abstracted from nature and allowed a distorted explanation of nature to take its place. Space does not bend, and neither does time. These are matematical metaphores to be applied in a limited way to get a desired result. It is not nature.
Linus2nd
This has been amply discussed by many Philosophers of Science and Nature. James A. Weisheipl, O.P., Phd in Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages. You will have to read it in a good University Library. It is out of print now and very expensive, I paid $135 for my copy, but they run to over a thousand. And don’t let the title fool you, he is up on his science.
So does a photon have mass? Well, unless you want to do away with gravity, which some say is what Einsteine did, then a photon must have mass. But the question is even more basic than that. Everything in the universe is composed of matter and matter has mass, even if it is but a wave or a photon. If it is real, it is matter. If it is matter, it has mass. Are you all ready to do away with gravity? I’m not, I see no need. Astrophysicists, and physicists can do all the theorizing they want, but I refuse to let them do away with the very nature of things.
Here is an interesting question on the " curature " of space and time. " Does space curve?
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties, we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view” – Nikola Tesla
metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp
Anybody want to argue with a man who was in Einstein’s class? Well, read the article for yourselves and there are others similar to it.
So the curvature of space is a fiction. It is one of those things that happen when you have to have a mathematical equation which balances. You have abstracted from nature and allowed a distorted explanation of nature to take its place. Space does not bend, and neither does time. These are matematical metaphores to be applied in a limited way to get a desired result. It is not nature.
Linus2nd
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Might there be an individual that can simply say what time is?
I cannot understand the article about time.
THANKS!
I cannot understand the article about time.
THANKS!
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I don’t think anyone has a definite definition of time. To me it is the measure of duration, measuring how long a thing exists. Or you can look at it as a measure of the passage from the beginning of one moment to its end. Or you can look at it as the flow of continuous moments. But however you look at it, it does not bend, for there is nothing there which can bend. Basically it is a concept, it is not a thing. You can bend a stick, you cannot bend a measure of successive moments.
Linus2nd.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Linus
That it is the way that a philosophers sees it; that it the way I understand it.
That is not the manner in which some scientist think, is it?
If light moves at the speed of light, then the light we see from the other side of the universe is not as old as us, is it? Then the universe is young, is it not?
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
That it is the way that a philosophers sees it; that it the way I understand it.
That is not the manner in which some scientist think, is it?
If light moves at the speed of light, then the light we see from the other side of the universe is not as old as us, is it? Then the universe is young, is it not?
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
H
hecd2
Guest
Given that, by your own admission, you have never successfully taken courses in quantum mechanics and General Relativity at college level, don’t you think you should be a little less dogmatic. The photon is massless.
Maths is not the reality but maths is the description of reality. Let me turn your question round: why shouldn’t space be curved? The description of space-time curvature is not meant to be a “euphamism” (sic) but a description of reality, and one that has passed every test so far.
H
hecd2
Guest
To repeat, they don’t.
Physics has shown definitively, both theoretically and empirically that common sense is a very poor guide to discerning nature on the smallest and the largest scales. Nothing says that the world has to fit our preconceived notions or our common sense - it doesn’t care what you think it should be - it is what is.I knew that just from common sense, but it was good to see a scientist confirm what I knew instinctively ( philosophy does wonders for one’s common sense, it puts your feet on the ground and keeps one from being carried away by the Pied Piepers of modern Cosomology
You’ve got this back to front. It’s the maths that explains what the theory means in reality - that is the only language in which the theory is fully expressed. Any attempt to “translate” it into words is bound to come up short. But this book that you have that you think should “translate” the mathematics consists, in my version, of re-prints of the original seminal papers by Lorentz, Minkowski, Weyl and Einstein himself. Are you sure that’s the book you have, and if so, are you in a position to understand the maths?
H
hecd2
Guest
Speak for yourself. Physicists, including me, are very clear that photons are massless and space-time is non-Euclidean in the presence of mass-energy. That’s what the theory says and that’s what the experiments confirm.
No
In other words, “ignore the physics, all of it, theoretical and empirical, because I have a feeling in my bones and I just know that I’m right and they are all wrong.” That’s not how science works. Photons are not matter - perhaps they are in your private definition, but they are not matter as far as physicists are concerned.
Ah yes, that electrical engineer, who wasn’t a physicist. Great inventor but not a scientist and a bit of a crackpot in later life.
Yep, I’ll argue with him. He was demonstrably wrong about many things. For example he claimed that it would be impossible to split the atom and impossible to get energy from doing so. He was opposed to relativity, but in a crackpottery way - his criticisms simply don’t stand up in the light of experiment. He was also a bit of a self-publicist - he claimed to have a theory of gravity that explained observations better than GR - he never published such a thing and no sign of such a theory has ever been found in his papers or elsewhere. We can only assume that the theory he said he had was a figment of his imagination.
But there’s a deeper problem with the way you are arguing which would be the case even if Tesla had good grounds for criticising GR instead of no grounds at all - you are treating science like theology and you are arguing like a theologian. In science we have no holy men and no sacred books. It really doesn’t matter who said what when. All that matters is what the theory claims (and the theory is expressed in mathematics) and whether the theory matches observations. If doesn’t it, it gets modified or thrown out; if it does it gets tentatively accepted. You can’t prove anything about the nature of reality by quoting Nikola Tesla, or Albert Einstein or anyone else. The only valid arguments about scientific matters are rooted in whether observations match theory. No-one, except creationists, geocentrists, electric universe proponents and others such rely on “quotations” from famous physicists to make their points.
Nope.
I don’t think that you have a good feel for maths.
Not so. GR claims to be a full description of how matter and energy interact gravitationally with space and time, and includes non-Euclidean space-time as a fundamental feature. And it passes every test, even rather esoteric and non-intuituive ones such as gravitational lensing and frame-dragging to a high degree of accuracy. So why should anyone believe your description for physical reality, which is based entirely on your feeling, prejudice and incredulity. We learned a long time ago that propositions about nature, in the absence of careful observation, which used to be made by philosophers, are worthless. You are entitled to think what you like, as you are entitled to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but what you think instinctively carries no weight in science, which is the project that actually tells us about how the world works.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
No, I don’t understand the math. And you do? Good for you. Then you should know that it abstracts from the nature of reality, it does not reveal its nature
.So if ordinary people cannot understand either the math or the theory they are left in a condition of what to think or believe. Why should the common folk place their faith in interpretations by men who have no respect for God? It is better to stand on common sense
.And what do you know, first hand, of Philosophy, especially that of Thomas Aquinas?
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Again, why should common folk believe those who reject God and redicule anyone who disagrees with them. Science is no monolithic in the explanation of reality. It has its uses of course but it should refrain for making philosophical statments like space and time are curved or that photons are nothing and thus have no mass
.I think I will stick with Coleman, he was at least moderate in his discourse.
Linus2nd.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It appears to me that you are the dogmatic one. Why not look up Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by Fr. John A. Weisheipl? He will explain better than I what Nature is and how physical theories and mathematics abstracts from nature and thus does not reveal the nature of things. I also recommend From a Realist Point of View ( both editions ) by William A. Wallace. They will give you much to think about and perhaps you will see that philosophy does have a valid point of view just as much as science.
Indeed, it is a euphamism, it certainly isn’t reality. It has important uses, I don’t deny that, but it is not reality.
If it doesn’t have mass then it isn’t real. But since science has demonstrated that it exists, it must, necessarily, have mass. It may be difficult to measure, but it must be so.
Space is not curved, neither is time. Time, as such, is not a real nature, it is a measure. How can a measure curve. What you are talking about are points on a graph. That is not reality. That is a technical convenience, use because of its utility, a euphamism - but a useful one. And how can space be curved. Actually it is not a nature either, it is that in which real natures exist. Take away real natures and space vanishes.
You are beginning to sound like Innocente
.Linus2nd
- Status