The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

a reply to: Astyanax

You're absolutely correct, at first glance it looked like a possible advance. Upon further inspection, I don't necessarily think it so. I don't think I ever mentioned the fact that I've never heard of the EU theory until this thread.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Do you have any reason for believing it is not?

it is not about a believe,
believing means not knowing but assuming in favour for own agenda.

So, no, I don't believe. I told you why I think so...
all measurements just here on Earth and every time slightly different results.

constant is something that doesn't change, how ignorant someone has to be to call something a constant if the measurements say something different.
Measurements of C varies even over 24 hour, on the same machine it's different at daytime and night time.

Rejecters of relativity (special or general) are merely expressing their anger over their inability to understand the theory

hehe... you have no idea what I know about it or I don't.
Search for my posts 1-2 years back as I was explaining it to others, specially the time dilatation illusion.

I see anger in you against me?, why ? because I question something you believe in ??
no.. it's not anger... it's refusal of something I think is true

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Astyanax

You're absolutely correct, at first glance it looked like a possible advance. Upon further inspection, I don't necessarily think it so. I don't think I ever mentioned the fact that I've never heard of the EU theory until this thread.

before Einstein's "revolution" nobody knew anything about relativity...

a reply to: KrzYma

all measurements just here on Earth and every time slightly different results.

Have you ever done an experiment yourself? Like in a physics practicals class at school or college?

Because if you had, you wouldn't even think of bringing this up.

No more to say than this.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Astyanax

You're absolutely correct, at first glance it looked like a possible advance. Upon further inspection, I don't necessarily think it so. I don't think I ever mentioned the fact that I've never heard of the EU theory until this thread.

before Einstein's "revolution" nobody knew anything about relativity...

this is not exactly true. while Einstein did break new ground much of his relativity theories was a synthesis and clarification of preexisting theoretical work. Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: KrzYma

all measurements just here on Earth and every time slightly different results.

Have you ever done an experiment yourself? Like in a physics practicals class at school or college?

Because if you had, you wouldn't even think of bringing this up.

No more to say than this.

what do you mean ?
experimental error ? or what ??

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Astyanax

You're absolutely correct, at first glance it looked like a possible advance. Upon further inspection, I don't necessarily think it so. I don't think I ever mentioned the fact that I've never heard of the EU theory until this thread.

before Einstein's "revolution" nobody knew anything about relativity...

this is not exactly true. while Einstein did break new ground much of his relativity theories was a synthesis and clarification of preexisting theoretical work. Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants.

what do you think Eu theory is based on if not on Maxwell ??

so in your opinion relativity theory was before Einstein ??

I know e=mc2 is not from Einstein like everybody is saying unfortunately...

I think you are arguing just to argue ??

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Astyanax

The Lorentz transformation relates to Special Relativity. It shows (this is the six-year-olds' version) how a moving object looks to observers moving at different speeds and angles.

works only if the assumption about constant C is true over the whole universe,
unfortunately it has been measured only on Earth and even this every time with slightly different results.

Source for your assumption? Don't link stories that say the speed of light MAY NOT be constant. What are some actual scientific measurements show variations in the speed of light?

Ah yes, what is gravity....

The deeper thought is why is it gravity...

I think our wonder of what we exist in is interesting..

I also think we were designed allot like how we design ai..

If I can make it as down to earth as possible, and in our dna code, we are not designed to ever understand it properly or understand why it is there..

We may scratch the surface, but I do not think we will see the understanding of the universe or the things in Quantum physics that puzzle even the smartest so called scientists...

Our laws of physics are man made and flawed, as a tool to understand something that is not of man...

That is my opinion, I have had enough debates with other smart people, that draw me to that conclusion..

Way more questions than factual answers...

Gravity... What is it? For now it still remains a miracle...

originally posted by: Vector99

Source for your assumption? Don't link stories that say the speed of light MAY NOT be constant. What are some actual scientific measurements show variations in the speed of light?

I assume nothing
Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say

a reply to: Bicent76

Gravity... is a definition for something we observe.
Things fall down, and Newton described it mathematically so we can calculate it.

till now, no one was able to explain it properly.
There are theories with math background and the math works, but it's not explained at all.

a reply to: KrzYma

Percisely. If more people were humble.to that I think we would grow allot faster

a reply to: KrzYma

From your own source

But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space.

and

Urban and his colleagues propose that the energies of these particles — specifically the amount of charge they carry — affect the speed of light.

and

Some scientists are a bit skeptical, though. Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said he wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would. "The proper way to do this is with the Feynman diagrams," Wacker said. "It's a very interesting question [the speed of light]," he added, but the methods used in these papers are probably not sufficient to investigate it.

Your source, not mine.

Completely disregarding the video and most of the content of this thread, I do have a burning question that needs to be answered and it is about the speed of light and black holes.

The speed of light is supposed to be constant across the whole universe. Ok thats cool, i can dig that for now.

When a black hole is introduced, it apparently keeps the light from escaping. Some folks used the term 'escape velocity' to try and draw a disconnect between the two constant phenomena of the universe when talking about speed and velocity.

Well when I look up velocity, it is just speed with a direction, and speed is just how fast something goes with no regard for direction.

So when I think of a black hole you have two forces at play, one is the speed of light, and the other is the strength of the gravity pulling the light (and matter) into it so that it cant leave (escape). One force has to be greater than the other, and apparently light loses, and in order for it NOT to move forward, it has to be arrested, direction changed, and going back the other way faster than it was going out.

Can someone clarify this for me?

a reply to: phishfriar47

Can someone clarify this for me?

It might help to think of it as light going into orbit around the singularity.

However, once past the event horizon, no one really has any idea of what might be actually occurring. The math breaks down.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Astyanax

You're absolutely correct, at first glance it looked like a possible advance. Upon further inspection, I don't necessarily think it so. I don't think I ever mentioned the fact that I've never heard of the EU theory until this thread.

before Einstein's "revolution" nobody knew anything about relativity...

this is not exactly true. while Einstein did break new ground much of his relativity theories was a synthesis and clarification of preexisting theoretical work. Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants.

most of the parts of relativity existed either contemporaneously or preceding Einstein's work. many of the things we attribute directly to Einstein were proposed by other theoreticians, physicists, astronomers and mathematicians.

what do you think Eu theory is based on if not on Maxwell ??

so in your opinion relativity theory was before Einstein ??

I know e=mc2 is not from Einstein like everybody is saying unfortunately...

I think you are arguing just to argue ??

most of the parts of relativity existed either contemporaneously or preceding Einstein's work. many of the things we attribute directly to Einstein and exclusively to his relativity theories were proposed by other theoreticians, physicists, astronomers and mathematicians. some of these were obscure and others were not so obscure. i read this in books on the history of physics and relativity. the most recent was by a science historian named James Woodward at U.C Fullerton.

a reply to: phishfriar47

Can somebody clarify this for me?

Already done in this post.

quite simple really. Time runs incredibly quickly ( opp to GR btw ) in a black hole so em wave cannot propagate
a reply to: phishfriar47

a reply to: Nochzwei

I disagree on that.
time is the CHANGE and higher field density takes longer, if observed from "outside"

a reply to: Astyanax

Black holes (...), do not reduce the speed of light by so much as a whisker. The escape velocity of a black hole is greater than c, so the photon goes into orbit round the singularity, inside the event horizon.

and who tells the concept (photon) to change direction and orbit if it was going straight out or straight in ??
even the concept of bend-space doesn't support that, it supports only change in angular momentum... if something comes lateral and not straight into or straight away.