Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

Everyone is jumping the gun. This has not been confirmed, logic dictates this will be proven false in time, until then, speculation is pointless as we are speculating over something that is, most likely, false.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by DragonFire1024

 

I've been saying that idiot has been wrong forever.

Indeed, you became a bore with your daily mantra "Einstein is an idiot" and frankly it's note cute. At all.

What is "not cute" is you wasting my tax dollars pursuing an obviously flawed and broken theory.

Would you care to explain why dark matter and dark energy were dreamed up for us?

Is it not because Einstein's theories completely fail in their ability to explain galaxy rotation rates and formation without them? So to rectify this problem, physicists simply dreamed up these new forms of matter and energy without any experimental proof of their existence.

Einstein's theories are wrong, and promoting them is tantamount to perpetrating a fraud on the public.

FRAUD

Stop defrauding me.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Einstein's theories are wrong, and promoting them is tantamount to perpetrating a fraud on the public.

FRAUD

Stop defrauding me.

Even if he was wrong about certain things it doesn't give you the right to label him a fraud, after all, his theories are just that, theories, not facts, if he claimed them as facts then you would have a point. So when you call Albert Einstein an idiot it really makes you look like the idiot.

reply to post by CLPrime


thanks for the heads up on photons

reply to post by CLPrime


So how come there's still matter? Due to gravity? In between galaxies space is super stretched and in galaxies gravity counterbalances the stretching. Is this idea? In that case intergalactic travel could not happen if only for the spaceship being stretched into nowhere.

Old news to me
There would seem to be a connection with maybe gravitational influences, after all, gravity is much faster than light-as i've been saying for years.
Since this is news for so many people, ask an astronomer how long it takes gravity to influence distant objects.
The 'vortex' or 'spiral' nature of energy would cause matter to behave in a particle/wave fashion.
Relativity states you cannot move a mass faster than light.
But if that mass was spending some of it's time as pure energy, then there is no limit on it's speed.
Time has no real meaning in this dual state of the universe, time is just something we invented to keep track of things, that's all.
Possible ties to String theory, or not?

PS you can now write E=M and forget the C^2 (for this dimension anyway) I think the true story is more like E=MC^3

Originally posted by playswithmachines
The 'vortex' or 'spiral' nature of energy would cause matter to behave in a particle/wave fashion.

What kind of nonsense is that?

reply to post by QueenofWeird


Everything but that last part is right.
Within gravitational systems (like galaxies), the inward force of gravity counteracts the outward force of expansion.

Now, that last part... think about it for a minute. The expansion of space is evenly distributed (aside from relatively minuscule variations within galaxies and such), and it only becomes significant at distances of thousands, even millions, or light-years. But, a spaceship is tiny compared to those distances. Expansion acts over such a large area that it's undetectable locally. So, the spaceship would barely notice, unless it wanted to travel to some place millions of light-years away. And, anyway, if a spaceship had a way of travelling million of light-years in any reasonable amount of time, then it wouldn't have to worry about the expansion of space, because it would easily overtake it.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by QueenofWeird

 

Everything but that last part is right.
Within gravitational systems (like galaxies), the inward force of gravity counteracts the outward force of expansion.

What is "force of expansion"?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Aw, come on.
Einstein is so 1900's
Sorry, i will explain, mass & energy are mutually interchangeable, and are doing so all the time billions of times a second. This appears to be mediated by a vortex or spiral movement, i say appears, i haven't read everything.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Dark energy? The collapse of the zero-point energy of the vacuum? Take your pick.
The inflation field is theorized to have been the spontaneous collapse of the initial vacuum, so the current expansion may be a continuation of the same.

reply to post by CLPrime


You have a point, even though there would have to be an origin for this unproven field,
but there is also evidence that the universe is actually accellerating outward, this would of course need a source of energy...........
Apart from the usual suspects, charge, rotation & gravity all have to be taken into account.

reply to post by playswithmachines


An origin? The origin would have been the vacuum that filled the early universe. This vacuum collapsed, releasing a vast amount of energy (often colloquially called zero-point energy) - and, presto, we have an inflation field.

It doesn't take much to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. What happens when the force of gravity becomes relatively diffuse compared with whatever's causing the expansion (which would happen as the universe expands with no additional matter created)? The expansion overtakes gravity, and the expansion accelerates. Problem solved.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by CLPrime

 

You have a point, even though there would have to be an origin for this unproven field,
but there is also evidence that the universe is actually accellerating outward, this would of course need a source of energy...........
Apart from the usual suspects, charge, rotation & gravity all have to be taken into account.

what if it's not accelerating but is being pulled... by gravity... a dual nature of gravity we cannot yet see because we haven't encountered it... but it's different than planetary gravity. planetary gravity just being a small scale of the larger gravity we can't detect that is pulling us into a black hole so large and obscuring that we are actually already partially inside of it... and that's why we can't see it... just like you can't see the front of your house from inside... which in my case is a plus, but I digress.

My point being that what's more likely... a central point of outward moving energy... a positive force... strong enough to be pushing on he ENTIRE UNIVERSE? and we can't even see this great positive outward force...

OR...an unseen much more widespread force of gravity that permeates the entire universe rather than being expected to reside in one particular spot.

which to you sounds more likely because i have no idea.

or maybe both at the same time.

for some reason that sounds more fun and exciting.

reply to post by CLPrime


How the hell do you collapse a vacuum?
There's nothing to collapse.
ZPE exists, but it really has nothing to do vith vacuum per se

reply to post by playswithmachines


In Quantum Mechanics, a vacuum is merely the lowest possible energy state of a system. What we view as a vacuum may very well be full of "hidden" energy.
Here's the illustration I usually use:

Imagine you're walking along the ground. At this time, the ground is as low as you can go. Now, imagine you happen upon an abandoned mine shaft and fall into it. Suddenly, your "as low as you can go" has gotten a lot lower. This is the QM version of a vacuum. What we call a vacuum has the possibility of spontaneously collapsing to a lower energy level, just as you spontaneously fell into the mine shaft.

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer


That's my point, your first assumtion that gravity may have a reverse side or that the mass in the middle is being attracted to the mass outside because there is nothing in the middle to cling to, sounds ok
Plausible, but most theories tend towards there being a huge black hole in the center.
This is most definitely a humungous source of energy....
Anything's possible.

reply to post by CLPrime


I understand that.
But you don't need a vacuum or anything to generate electricity

While we're on this subject;

"Thus two like charged particles with precisely antiparallel spin ought to run right through each other when they meet, with no interaction at all, electrical or otherwise, in complete contradiction to conventional collision theory and conventional electrical theory which states that like charges repel one another. Such an experiment has been done, at Argonne National Laboratory, with colliding protons. When the colliding protons have antiparallel spins, they do indeed pass right through one another. And there dies forever the old idea of concrete, solid, material reality. The experiment is not predictable or permitted by present electromagnetic theory or conceptual models of the proton and proton interaction."
Like i said, EM theory is full of holes.