
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Einsteins thoery of relativity
#2198574  12/23/03 10:14 PM (14 years, 28 days ago) 


I have read this book twice. it is mainly about conceptualization of the theory. The mathmatics are secondary.
The implications of Einsteins special theory are amazing. It sheds new and deviant light on newtonion physics! The special theory allows for a more accurate portrayal of reality.
But, his general theory is mind blowing.It creates paradoxes galore. Such that it seems contrary to commen sense. Not logic, but commen sense!
His unified field theory failed. I am not that knowledgable, yet, about this subject to offer an opinion.
However the constant disagreements in this bizzare cosmological interpretation among top notch scientists has me lost in terms of where to begin. I really feel that it is accessible to my mind, I just am lost in terms of where to begin.
This is going to be an on going debate, so please contribute
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
Edited by sirreal (12/23/03 10:25 PM)

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198600  12/23/03 10:32 PM (14 years, 28 days ago) 


Just wait till you get into Quantum Mechanics...
For almost a century now, a very real and very disturbing problem has loomed over Physics. Most people have no idea it exists...nor what the implications of the problem are.
You see...we have two theories of the Universe right now. Both seem "correct" (yeah...right) and yet they are fundamentally incompatible with eachother.
These two theories are, of course, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
Relativity explains the gravitational force to an astounding degree...on large scales.
Quantum mechanics explains the other three fundamental forces (EM, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear)...on extremely small scales.
For the most part, we get by using one theory or the other. We use Relativity to describe the motion of planets, stars, starclusters, galaxies, and up. We use Quantum mechanics to explain the interaction of subatomic particles at atomic scales and below. Either theory, when used in it's proper scale, gives us results that are consistently confirmed by experimentation.
However, if we try and combine the two theories  say to explain what happens inside a black hole  we get nonsensical answers (usually involving infinities  a dead giveaway that there is something wrong with the theory).
The problem comes from two entirely different views of what Spacetime is and what it looks like. Relativity describes spacetime as a smooth curved space (where the curvature is gravity)...but quantum mechanics states that at very small scales the fabric of spacetime is not smooth at all  it constantly ripples and even tears itself to peices. Thus the two theories are incomatible.
Einstein never bought into Quantum mechanics. He didn't like it's probabilistic nature  "God does not play dice" is his famous quote. He worked right until his death in an attempt to combine his field equations of Relativity (which actually combined the field equations for Gravity with Maxwell's field equations for the EM force) with what he suspected would be the field equations for the other two forces (strong/weak nuclear). He was unsuccessful in his attempt.
More to follow...

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

THATS iT!
mellow
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 225
Loc: In the misty mountains o...
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198602  12/23/03 10:33 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Begin at Planks length, constant and time then go from there. It is easier to comprehend once you understand the basics. After you have established these ideas then open your mind to unlimited possibility. If you want some mind blowing info read The Elegant Universe by: Brian Greene.

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198605  12/23/03 10:35 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


I want to add that there is still some debete on the enertial effects of newtonion physics that make Einsteins theory questionable.
Antimatter!
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198615  12/23/03 10:42 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Enter String Theory!
String theory is my personal favorite of the GUT's (Grand Unified Theories). I find it's elegance to be...well...elegant.
String theory is able to combine Relativity and Quantum mechanics by smoothing out the smallscale spacetime disturbances predicted by quantum mechanics. It does so by setting a lowerlimit on measurability, which is caused by the extended nature of the string (the most fundamental "particle" in String Theory). By replacing the pointparticles of Quantum mechanics with an extended "string", the violent disturbances in spacetime become invisible (the disturbances only become apparent on sub Planklength scales, and the diameter of a string is no smaller than the Planklength).
String theory has made vast leaps and bounds in the past quarter century, and is now a working predictionmaking theory. Unfortunately the mathematics behind string theory are not very well understood, and in some cases nonexistent. We actually have a theory that we don't know the math for. This is the case because, to be honest, string theory was discovered by accident. We discovered some of the equations for the theory first, and have been working backwards from there ever since. This is completely opposite to "regular" science where experiment preceeds theory.
There's so much to talk about here...but I have to stop myself here before I go off on a rant

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198618  12/23/03 10:43 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Quantum phsyics is vague. Most of it is nonobservational, based on pure speculation. Chemistry is as close as we can get to it. Using nonobservational methods to draw conclusions based on indirect observations.
Who knows what the future holds. I pray to whatever power that exists that I can be a part of that.
The tower of babel, maybe?
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198625  12/23/03 10:47 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Quote:
trendal said:
Enter String Theory!
String theory is my personal favorite of the GUT's (Grand Unified Theories). I find it's elegance to be...well...elegant.
Not to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but many of Einsteins cosmological models were very elegant. Yet they prove erroneous.
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
Edited by sirreal (12/23/03 10:48 PM)

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198637  12/23/03 10:52 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Einstein was never absolute in wether or not electromagnitism played a role. He never conceded that point. That leaves it wide open!
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198642  12/23/03 10:54 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Yes, very true! I didn't say that elegance is my sole reason for liking a theory
However...I think that elegance in a theory is a strong indication of it's "correctness" (I use that term loosly here...)

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

THATS iT!
mellow
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 225
Loc: In the misty mountains o...
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198652  12/23/03 10:57 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


To quantify something would be to label mathmatics to the unseen. It is a mathmatical graph. Allthough there are 5 different graphs that work differently but not completely and in some instances sharing parts. The point I am making is the numbers work with the given variables. And to prove the numbers the additon of supersymmetry.

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198655  12/23/03 10:59 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Quote:
trendal said: Just wait till you get into Quantum Mechanics...
For almost a century now, a very real and very disturbing problem has loomed over Physics. Most people have no idea it exists...nor what the implications of the problem are.
You see...we have two theories of the Universe right now. Both seem "correct" (yeah...right) and yet they are fundamentally incompatible with eachother.
These two theories are, of course, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
Relativity explains the gravitational force to an astounding degree...on large scales.
Quantum mechanics explains the other three fundamental forces (EM, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear)...on extremely small scales.
For the most part, we get by using one theory or the other. We use Relativity to describe the motion of planets, stars, starclusters, galaxies, and up. We use Quantum mechanics to explain the interaction of subatomic particles at atomic scales and below. Either theory, when used in it's proper scale, gives us results that are consistently confirmed by experimentation.
However, if we try and combine the two theories  say to explain what happens inside a black hole  we get nonsensical answers (usually involving infinities  a dead giveaway that there is something wrong with the theory).
The problem comes from two entirely different views of what Spacetime is and what it looks like. Relativity describes spacetime as a smooth curved space (where the curvature is gravity)...but quantum mechanics states that at very small scales the fabric of spacetime is not smooth at all  it constantly ripples and even tears itself to peices. Thus the two theories are incomatible.
Einstein never bought into Quantum mechanics. He didn't like it's probabilistic nature  "God does not play dice" is his famous quote. He worked right until his death in an attempt to combine his field equations of Relativity (which actually combined the field equations for Gravity with Maxwell's field equations for the EM force) with what he suspected would be the field equations for the other two forces (strong/weak nuclear). He was unsuccessful in his attempt.
More to follow...
Einsteins general theory of relativity is pretty all inclusive. It allows for many interpretations! The cosmological model is variant, allowing for all kinds of possibillities.
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: THATS iT!]
#2198656  12/23/03 10:59 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


No offense...but that post made absolutely zero sense

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198663  12/23/03 11:03 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Please tell me you were not talking about me.
My selfesteem would be crushed!
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198666  12/23/03 11:05 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


No no! But even if I was...don't let anyone crush your selfesteem like that
I was talking about this: To quantify something would be to label mathmatics to the unseen. It is a mathmatical graph. Allthough there are 5 different graphs that work differently but not completely and in some instances sharing parts. The point I am making is the numbers work with the given variables. And to prove the numbers the additon of supersymmetry.

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198670  12/23/03 11:06 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Just out of curiousity, is the big bang or the steady state your model of choice?
Neither for me. But please , don't feel pressured.
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198672  12/23/03 11:08 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


If I had to choose from the two, I would go for the Big Bang. The steadystate model has been fairly well disproven in my mind.

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198679  12/23/03 11:09 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Thank you. I feel better.
Einstein was unsure about alot of things. He had much more limited knowledge than we have today.
Yes, even the peeons on tha internet!
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198687  12/23/03 11:13 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Quote:
trendal said: If I had to choose from the two, I would go for the Big Bang. The steadystate model has been fairly well disproven in my mind.
If you understand Euclidian and nonEuclidian geometry(which I am sure you do) each argument has its strong points!
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

trendal
tangential derivation
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,540
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: sirreal]
#2198692  12/23/03 11:19 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


The question then is: is our universe Euclidian or not?
I don't think it is...especially not if Relativity is close to the mark (curved spacetime is NOT Euclidian).

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months

Re: Einsteins thoery of relativity [Re: trendal]
#2198701  12/23/03 11:25 PM (14 years, 27 days ago) 


Quote:
trendal said: The question then is: is our universe Euclidian or not?
I don't think it is...especially not if Relativity is close to the mark (curved spacetime is NOT Euclidian).
Why?
No boundries. Infinite demensions beyond that of spacetime...
It is all inclusive. Nothing is impossible regardless of what model you choose.
BTW, I am fucked up!
 I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

