Reply to thread

Please stop saving face because your errors are clear for everyone to see.


You are looking at the same phenomenon from two TOTALLY DIFFERENT poinst of view.


Newtonian mechanics view gravity as FLUX, or an inverse square relation - no different from elastic, or electrical or magnetic potential. Do you remember maxwell's equations? From such a viewpoint, gravitational force and acceleration - vectors existing in EUCLIDEAN SPACE - are essential to a basic understanding.


Relativity, on the other hand, views gravity as a tendency to curve space. A curved space, by the way, is a EUCLIDEAN SPACE with a TIME-DEPENDENT SCALE FACTOR (lest you imagine it as a warped plane or something) - hence, NON-EUCLIDEAN. From this viewpoint, a mass is at inertia, and the phenomenon we percieve as acceleration, is actually the curvature of space or the time-dependent scale factor.


Take uniform circular motion, for instance. In newtonian mechanics, a mass in ucm has an acceleration that does not diminish the tangential speed, only its direction. Therefore, it is accelerating when viewed from euclidean space.


In relativity, the same mass in ucm is at INERTIA (constant speed travelling in a straight line). However, the straight line isn't actually straight since it is within a curved space - or more accurately, a constant velocity with a scale factor that is changing by time.


They are two very distinct theories. They are almost the same in weak gravity because the relativistic component is negligible. The difference becomes obvious when gravity is so strong that the newtonian mechanical model simply fails.

 



And there is this hilarious website for dummies. It was like 10 points on the dumb scale for every all capped word that the poor fool still couldn't understand.




Apparently, your grasp of physics leaves much to be desired. So much so that pounding it into submission and ridicule could not expel its fundamental  absurdity.


There is an obvious reason why the gravitational constant isn't included in the lorentz factor - it was not considered in its derivation. And so einstein felt necessitated to add general relativity.


And you had the temerity to correct me when I said 'length contraction' and not 'lorentz contraction'! Your gambit to sound intelligent simply blew up in your face. And now, you are trying to save what little remains of it.




LOL.


The lorentz invariant quantities in physics, (and they include about almost all quantities), rests on einstein's postulate that the speed of light is ABSOLUTE - a universal speed limit (if you are inclined to thing in that term). Notice that in the lorentz factor, c is considered a constant, correct?


But suppose c is not constant. Suppose c(x) varies according to some unknown parameter. What do you suppose happens to the lorentz factor, hmmm? It would then vary according to 2 parameters - v and c, correct? The lorentz invariant quantities of mass and energy also varies - hence NOT CONSERVED.


And why do you suppose anyone would be inclined to propose a varying speed of light?


Because there are ENDURING RIDDLES in our present understanding of cosmology - riddles that are FATAL to it. To enumerate - flatness problem, horizon problem, homogeniety problem, lambda problem.


And so a very ingenius american particle physicists, alan guth, invented 'super cooling', (not related to paris hilton's common use of the words). In it, it was possible to expand the space of the baby universe a couple of thousand times the speed of light - hence defeating 3 of the 4 riddles mentioned above. But of course, like a multi-headed monster hydra, more problems sprung - so much so that cosmologists today are seriously considering a radical reconstitution of our basic understanding of all physics.


And so, we go back to einstein, and question the basic postulate he asserted - the invariance of c. Ironically enough, the first and most important to go is the conservation of mass and energy - which has led our inquiry from the physical sciences to metaphysics.


Back
Top