Glad my descriptions work for you. I often review my videos before posting and ask myself what was I thinking about and trying to describe. Just as often I have to redo my descriptions
Lorentz metric says if you drive east or north for an hour at the same speed you end up in the same location in spacetime. (At least the distance between the arrival events is zero according to the Lorentz metric.)
The Wiki article on General Relativity states our current understanding of space time. What I have tried to address is that we have built up a 100 years worth of mathematics and modeling to support our "understanding of space time" and those models are based on incomplete and flawed logic and physics. From the perspective of logic, I only needed to find a single exception to justify changing the underlying postulate to wipe out all these descriptions, as elegant as they are, and to reestablish a new starting point for the discussion. Since general relativity subsumed special relativity or the "restricted" theory, if special relativity has flaws, then so does general relativity....plus a few more errors associated with simply using point-mass descriptions in the modeling.
@@EnginAtik Actually, the speed limit is based on other physics. If you had understood the videos, the apparent limit is within our electromagnetic acceleration. The available power to drive a particle in an accelerator drops to zero at the speed of light and the blackbody radiation supplies a retroforce keeping particle below the speed of light...a terminal velocity.
@@luthernayhm If you want to keep the Speed of Light then you have to keep Point Particles. They use Point Particles to protect the Speed of Light because if Electrons have a Volume they would rotate faster than 'c'. ALSO! Sparse Hydrogen Gas has a refractive index of 1. But Plasmas and I think even in Polarised Sparse Hydrogen Gas, that refractive index can become -1. Calculus doesn't require Limit Theory. And never does the Universe.
Einstein thought that it was better to understand Relativity intuitively rather than focusing on the math. He thought that the math did not accurately describe physical reality. He also explained dark matter/galaxy rotation curves in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
If you think about it, how do we reduce a galactic distribution of mass to a point-mass description. Using the generalized Newtonian gravity model, the various distinct distributions of galactic mass....including any putative dark matter....can produce a series of vectorially additive forces on an object located anywhere in space. The net force on the object is distinctly not describe using a simple point-mass law. Hence, we "postulate" dark matter to fix this problem. Einstein was ironically correct that his equation was incomplete and did not describe reality....because he was unaware of the "real" Newtonian gravitational law. In a way, Einstein was weasel wording in case there might be something missing from his model....which is also why after the fact he added an arbitrary cosmological constant to his field equation.
@@luthernayhm The best way to understand dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the aforementioned graph shows, nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself. There is no way to mathematically describe the spaceships mass from the Earthbound observers point of view when it is traveling at relativistic velocities. This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere. It is the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves. The recent discovery that very low mass galaxies have predictable star rotation rates is confirmation of this.
@@shawns0762 You haven't understood a thing I have discussed in the videos. None of the thought experiments that purport to support time dilation are using the correct physics.
Well, the whole point of the videos was to develop a logical chain of discussion to prove my points. It is like jumping into the middle of a conversation without knowing what started the discussion....or why.
Thanks for the discussion. Newton's gravity is indeed designed for point masses, but then there is the so-called Newton's theorem that states that for spherically symmetric systems it doesn't matter, the grav potential at any distance r is the same as if all the mass is concentrated at the center of mass. And this is confirmed on the basis of the Poisson grav field formulation plus some advanced calculus techniques, like Green's equation and Dirac's delta function, brought from variational considerations.. What do you think? I must say I agree with you there's something fishy about Newton's gravity, but I'm not so sure its the case that you - very aptly make. Perhaps we should take a look at your books..
Well, I only used Newton's own words and then investigated if he was walking the talk. He was not nor has anyone else. I may be wrong, but it behooves someone to prove it. The vexing issue is that for uniform spheres, the solid angle and the volume integrals have the same inverse square radius form the allows too many terms to cancel....which is too tempting for physicists to ignore. From a logic perspective, there is no such thing as a perfect sphere with a perfect uniform distribution. Consequently, we have attempted to generalize an idealization. Newton's general law statement brings back a note of reality to the discussion.
Oh, BTW, the books are published on Amazon under my name...Hayhm!!! Go figure. The content is what the videos cover with the exceptions of new things I have decided to discuss in the videos that post-dates the books...which are really working notes written so that at some point when I go back to them I can reconstruct my thought process in developing them in the first place.
@@luthernayhm I think Newton went wrong when he claimed Gravity was solely Mass-based instead of being a Density-based phenomena emergent from the SPIN of Earth and decay of it as well. I for one am sick of being called a flerf when we only have evidence of Specific Gravity, aka Relative Density and NO EVIDENCE of Newton's supposed Universal Gravitation from Mass exists other than a MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION which should not be confused for a scientific explanation!
Thank you, sir. This is very clearly explained. I hope you'll make more videos like this.
Glad my descriptions work for you. I often review my videos before posting and ask myself what was I thinking about and trying to describe. Just as often I have to redo my descriptions
Lorentz metric says if you drive east or north for an hour at the same speed you end up in the same location in spacetime. (At least the distance between the arrival events is zero according to the Lorentz metric.)
The Wiki article on General Relativity states our current understanding of space time. What I have tried to address is that we have built up a 100 years worth of mathematics and modeling to support our "understanding of space time" and those models are based on incomplete and flawed logic and physics. From the perspective of logic, I only needed to find a single exception to justify changing the underlying postulate to wipe out all these descriptions, as elegant as they are, and to reestablish a new starting point for the discussion. Since general relativity subsumed special relativity or the "restricted" theory, if special relativity has flaws, then so does general relativity....plus a few more errors associated with simply using point-mass descriptions in the modeling.
My bad, it does not say that. It basically says you can’t go faster than light.
@@EnginAtik Actually, the speed limit is based on other physics. If you had understood the videos, the apparent limit is within our electromagnetic acceleration. The available power to drive a particle in an accelerator drops to zero at the speed of light and the blackbody radiation supplies a retroforce keeping particle below the speed of light...a terminal velocity.
@@luthernayhm
If you want to keep the Speed of Light then you have to keep Point Particles.
They use Point Particles to protect the Speed of Light because if Electrons have a Volume they would rotate faster than 'c'.
ALSO!
Sparse Hydrogen Gas has a refractive index of 1.
But Plasmas and I think even in Polarised Sparse Hydrogen Gas, that refractive index can become -1.
Calculus doesn't require Limit Theory. And never does the Universe.
Einstein thought that it was better to understand Relativity intuitively rather than focusing on the math. He thought that the math did not accurately describe physical reality.
He also explained dark matter/galaxy rotation curves in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
If you think about it, how do we reduce a galactic distribution of mass to a point-mass description. Using the generalized Newtonian gravity model, the various distinct distributions of galactic mass....including any putative dark matter....can produce a series of vectorially additive forces on an object located anywhere in space. The net force on the object is distinctly not describe using a simple point-mass law. Hence, we "postulate" dark matter to fix this problem. Einstein was ironically correct that his equation was incomplete and did not describe reality....because he was unaware of the "real" Newtonian gravitational law. In a way, Einstein was weasel wording in case there might be something missing from his model....which is also why after the fact he added an arbitrary cosmological constant to his field equation.
@@luthernayhm The best way to understand dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the aforementioned graph shows, nothing has changed at that point.
When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point.
When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself.
There is no way to mathematically describe the spaceships mass from the Earthbound observers point of view when it is traveling at relativistic velocities.
This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere. It is the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves. The recent discovery that very low mass galaxies have predictable star rotation rates is confirmation of this.
@@shawns0762 You haven't understood a thing I have discussed in the videos. None of the thought experiments that purport to support time dilation are using the correct physics.
@@luthernayhm I only watched one of your videos. My comment is not about your video
Well, the whole point of the videos was to develop a logical chain of discussion to prove my points. It is like jumping into the middle of a conversation without knowing what started the discussion....or why.
Thanks for the discussion.
Newton's gravity is indeed designed for point masses, but then there is the so-called Newton's theorem that states that for spherically symmetric systems it doesn't matter, the grav potential at any distance r is the same as if all the mass is concentrated at the center of mass. And this is confirmed on the basis of the Poisson grav field formulation plus some advanced calculus techniques, like Green's equation and Dirac's delta function, brought from variational considerations..
What do you think?
I must say I agree with you there's something fishy about Newton's gravity, but I'm not so sure its the case that you - very aptly make.
Perhaps we should take a look at your books..
Well, I only used Newton's own words and then investigated if he was walking the talk. He was not nor has anyone else. I may be wrong, but it behooves someone to prove it. The vexing issue is that for uniform spheres, the solid angle and the volume integrals have the same inverse square radius form the allows too many terms to cancel....which is too tempting for physicists to ignore. From a logic perspective, there is no such thing as a perfect sphere with a perfect uniform distribution. Consequently, we have attempted to generalize an idealization. Newton's general law statement brings back a note of reality to the discussion.
Oh, BTW, the books are published on Amazon under my name...Hayhm!!! Go figure. The content is what the videos cover with the exceptions of new things I have decided to discuss in the videos that post-dates the books...which are really working notes written so that at some point when I go back to them I can reconstruct my thought process in developing them in the first place.
@@luthernayhm
I think Newton went wrong when he claimed Gravity was solely Mass-based instead of being a Density-based phenomena emergent from the SPIN of Earth and decay of it as well.
I for one am sick of being called a flerf when we only have evidence of Specific Gravity, aka Relative Density and NO EVIDENCE of Newton's supposed Universal Gravitation from Mass exists other than a MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION which should not be confused for a scientific explanation!