Misconceptions in Relativity

Then I stand as demonstrably "misconceived" and now educated. My congrats to Nosy for his superior knowledge.I now go off to hide my public shame.But I have learnt something which must after all be the point of this thread.More annoyingly misconceived questions to follow....

I knew what a citation was, but i didn't know of the concept CD described (comparing papers threw their numbers of citations)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I have been thinking about this and have come to appreciate just how dum my previous response in fact was. Embarressingly so in fact.However it does raise the folowing question: Where do "we" need to be in order to be affacted by the (hypothetical again) transition of our Sun into a black hole? Would it only affect bodies on the surface of the Sun or (somehow) within it's radius? Or would a body in close enough orbit be affected in any way by this restructuring of spacetime that makes up the focus of that orbit?

If the Sun were to simply collapse inwards, maintaining spherical symmetry, there is absolutely no change to space-time outside of the Sun's original volume. The only space-time that would change would be in the new "space" left behind as the Sun collapses. SO if you were in orbit, just above the Sun's surface, you woudld remain in that orbit. To experience any of the "weirdness" of the new space-time, you would have to venture inwards into the newly accessible depths of the Sun's original core. It starts to get fun a few km from the centre.

Not be tedious, but I wanted to get an idea of how g would change as we got closer to the center of the Sun compared to the center of an equal mass black hole. In another thread it was mentioned that there would be no net g inside a shell. I, therefore, assumed I would only have to contend with the mass inside of a radius to determine the net g that would be experienced. I was unable to find a table for ρ as a function of r to get the amount of mass inside r so I sort of guessed my own: 0<ρ<6; logρ=-0.7r+5.210⁵ kg/m³ and a bit of fudge. That very well might have made the exercise silly, but I'd think it could be close enough to have some value. It does behave as I suspected it would. Since I went to the trouble of doing the work I might as well share it. Of course, because relativistic effects. it doesn't really go to infinity, but I've haven't a clue as to how that would be calculated.I trust someone will let me know if I've done something obviously stupid.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Try this page on polytropes.

Thank you, cavediver. I'm surprised, I thought I was being daring but I didn't make the gradient nearly steep enough. This makes the peak higher and nearer the center. The over all shape is the same, however.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

quote:

---

I'm sure you're aware from SR that we have time dilation and length contraction. These are purely observational effects, resulting from observing 4d space-time from a 3d perspective.

---

Actually they are not obervational facts. They are interpretations of observational facts. The time dilation effect that has been observed can be explained as clock's mechanism slowing down.

quote:

---

Assuming a model of aether non-entrained by the motion of celestial bodies, one can provide a rational explanation of the experimental processes affecting the measurement of time when clocks are in motion. Contrary to special relativity, aether theory does not assume that the time itself is affected by motion; the reading displayed by the moving clocks results from two facts: 1/ Due to their movement through the aether, they tick at a slower rate than in the aether frame. 2/ The usual synchronization procedures generate a synchronism discrepancy effect. These facts give rise to an alteration of the measurement of time which, as we shall show, exactly explains the experimental results.

---

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611077And the lenght contraction has actually never been observed.

Well, let's take a look and see if this is worth reading... Interesting - this has to be worth a read: And there we have it - abject stupidity, parading as science. Since when is science advanced by claims of "defies logic and cannot be rationally explained"As the kids say, epic fail

quote:

---

And there we have it - abject stupidity, parading as science. Since when is science advanced by claims of "defies logic and cannot be rationally explained"

---

So you basicly don't have an argument, fine... It would been easier if you said it like that.Let me explain something to you. The first thing in science is that something has to be logicals to be correct. If it is not logical, than it is not correct. So if you have a theory that says, for an example let's say, that an object can go in two different directions in same time, you have an illogical theory, which is wrong.So SR fail the first test to be a real scientific theory.

I don't have an argument because there is nothing to argue. The symmetry of time dilation in S.R. is not paradoxical, it is bloody obvious if you have the first clue about the theory. The reason the Twins' Paradox is so-called, is because the ASYMMETRY is (incorrectly) regarded as paradoxical. Not appreciating this, yet thinking that one can write a critique of S.R. just makes one an idiot and a laughing-stock...

quote:

---

I don't have an argument because there is nothing to argue. The symmetry of time dilation in S.R. is not paradoxical, it is bloody obvious if you have the first clue about the theory. The reason the Twins' Paradox is so-called, is because the ASYMMETRY is (incorrectly) regarded as paradoxical. Not appreciating this, yet thinking that one can write a critique of S.R. just makes one an idiot and a laughing-stock...

---

The point was not even the Twin Paradox. You obviously don't know what I'm talking about.I was trying to explain to you, that time dilation was not actually observed and that it can be explained by clock's mechanism slowing down, and not the time itself slowing down.

the cluelessness is strong with this one I know - but that doesn't change the obvious facts that, 1) you are completely wrong, and 2) you are so out of your depth, that you have no clue as to the fact you are wrong.Tell me, when the physicist-engineers designed the LHC, did they use the mathematics of Special Relativty, or your bullshit?

[/quote]the cluelessness is strong with this one[/quote]Why don't you ask your mom how strong it is?

quote:

---

I know

---

No, you don't know. If you did you wouldn't go off topic.

quote:

---

- but that doesn't change the obvious facts that,

---

Yes it does, since it explains why you are switching topics.

quote:

---

1) you are completely wrong,

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

2) you are so out of your depth, that you have no clue as to the fact you are wrong.

---

Explain why?

quote:

---

Tell me, when the physicist-engineers designed the LHC, did they use the mathematics of Special Relativty, or your bullshit?

---

When your mom screems, does she think of you or, me at night?

Without the time dilation phenomena as described in SR, the GPS navigation and locating services would be an impossibility. It is only by taking time dialation into effect that we can achieve accurate localization using the global positionitioning satellite system in all types of navigational applications from the military to the Tom Tom in your SUV.The aether hypothesis has been dead for over 100 years. Only crackpots and nutcases continue to breath life into this idea.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan