“Curved spacetime” is the allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity. I intrinsically distrust classical relativity theory simply because it was presented by a confirmed plagiarist, but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
Relativity being a conceptual mess of nonsense can't be denied. However many of the alleged confirmations can be denied.
As I mentioned, the fact SR only gets clock slowing half right (an asymmetrical effect between frames) shows SR is wrong. It uses the Lorentz transformation, but Lorentz expected an asymmetric effect, while relativity expects there is no preferred frame, therefore one frame would not be effected more than the other. There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down. GPS thus only uses Lorentz's equations regarding velocity.
Many of the GR confirmations are dubious. Gravitational waves are silly. They measure vibrations through the Earth and assume those must be gravitational waves and then assume what caused them. Pseudo-science at best.
The alleged bending of space (light) around the sun can be accounted for with diffraction.
Black holes are based on fanciful mathematics that divide by zero. The alleged image of a black hole took so much processing the picture itself is doubtful, but even if true all it shows is they found a ring of light.
An explanation of ill posed eigenvalue problems. This issue exists in many mathematical "models" where the computed value approaches extremely large numbers. For example, many Mechanics (note the M not m) practitioners actually believe that the stress at a crack tip is INFINITE, rather than just saying the model in use becomes unusable in that region (which now they do assume and use boundary layer methods). So, you get a bunch of crap like "the black hole has immesurable gravitational fields" and what not.
It's even worse though. The concept of "black" is used to denote the fact that nobody is actually observing ANYTHING (you have to trust me goys, you can't see it but it's there). Dig into it and you see the idea is really just a flawed use of a "center of mass" computation where the black hole is the statistical "expected value" of the fields measured (or not even measure, but assumed).
In short, use an inadequate model, or a model that works in a simplified space (like all models, or your computations literally take forever) to a "global" (largest compartment containing "everything") system. You'll always get singularites (which is technically a paradox). People then take these results that don't make sense, then assume it's right anyway, and make up "story time" explanations.
There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down.
Well, it’s motion with respect to the light cone. You can’t move faster than your own light cone, but you can move closer to it than otherwise. It’s the same as the Doppler effect and sonic booms, except for mass-energy itself. I can understand that, at least.
The motion of a satellite in space (GPS for instance) is relative to the Earth, not the satellite's own "light cone". I have never seen that language among physicists talking about special relativity.
The GPS calculations are relative to the Earth, treating the Earth as the "rest" frame.
The GPS calculations are relative to the Earth, treating the Earth as the "rest" frame.
This is indeed accurate. See the subtle difference between "relativism" and a "relative data point" (datum). This seems to be the main reason for pushing such theories.
Huh. Really? The light cone is the 3D projection across distance and time wherein an object can be seen. Because nothing moves faster than light, anything outside the light cone can’t see the thing that made it. If something is not moving with relation to the observer, it will appear to be operating within the same reference frame as the observer because light from the object will arrive synchronously with light around the observer. That’s why the “clock” analogy is so often used. A second is an agreed-upon time that doesn’t change, but a clock’s motion with respect to the viewer changes the perceived length of a second (at a distance) due to the foreshortened or lengthened distance the light cone has to travel to reach the observer.
allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
The italicised word "appear" is important. It can't be denied, but can it be really "confirmed"? The act of forcing a conclusion is a mental deconstruction, and is really a pre-cursor to getting someone to believe in even more stupid shit.
I’m totally open to “relativity” being a farce and a new framework being put in place to describe observations over distance at speeds above 0.14c. I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally, not to subscribe to a specific interpretation like ‘relativity.’
Hell, we still don’t have a grand unified theory. If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally,
I did notice that, and appreciated. Being careful to say "no more than we should" is the only way to untangle the damage done by sorcerers. I can see you walk the line ... it's hard to stay on it for sure.
If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
This nails the reason why "good" scientist refer to it as a "theory" and "bad" scientists refer to it as "true". It's a tough walk, because nowhere in the journy really feels satisfying.
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
i see no problem with making up shit since that's the best we can do - we approximate and re-iterate. as of now GR and SR are the "best" approximations we have in the mainstream (I don't trust GR and SR personally).
The problem is big academia and institution-level idiots not willing to let go and embrace new ideas once we've gone beyond and re-iterated past GR and SR. So now we've been stuck and running circles trying to plug all the holes in these theories for the better part of 100 years almost.
I see no problem with making up shit since that's the best we can do
The idea of modeling requires us to make an assumption, and then test it to determine fitment. Or, more commonly, Assume the antithesis of the model, and reject it (think null hypothesis). In a sense you can say it's like making up shit. It becomes an issue when shit is made up and there's no threshold of acceptance, i.e "stupid" shit.
The problem is big academia and institution-level idiots not willing to let go and embrace new ideas
The people in academia will accept and prostletize ANYTHING they are paid to. If it pays well, they'll embrace new ideas and contribute to them. The problem then is "who prints the money?"
So now we've been stuck and running circles trying to plug all the holes in these theories for the better part of 100 years almost.
Or even longer. While it is presented as the birth of modern science, I suspecting it goes back to "scientific revolution" itself. For me, it become maddening and I had to really consider "how do we know what we know?" ... not just a pondering on a Sunday walk, but for every single subject.
Now, I see that ALMOST everything is proven "fake" and most probaly "gay".
“Curved spacetime” is the allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity. I intrinsically distrust classical relativity theory simply because it was presented by a confirmed plagiarist, but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
Relativity being a conceptual mess of nonsense can't be denied. However many of the alleged confirmations can be denied.
As I mentioned, the fact SR only gets clock slowing half right (an asymmetrical effect between frames) shows SR is wrong. It uses the Lorentz transformation, but Lorentz expected an asymmetric effect, while relativity expects there is no preferred frame, therefore one frame would not be effected more than the other. There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down. GPS thus only uses Lorentz's equations regarding velocity.
Many of the GR confirmations are dubious. Gravitational waves are silly. They measure vibrations through the Earth and assume those must be gravitational waves and then assume what caused them. Pseudo-science at best.
The alleged bending of space (light) around the sun can be accounted for with diffraction.
Black holes are based on fanciful mathematics that divide by zero. The alleged image of a black hole took so much processing the picture itself is doubtful, but even if true all it shows is they found a ring of light.
An explanation of ill posed eigenvalue problems. This issue exists in many mathematical "models" where the computed value approaches extremely large numbers. For example, many Mechanics (note the M not m) practitioners actually believe that the stress at a crack tip is INFINITE, rather than just saying the model in use becomes unusable in that region (which now they do assume and use boundary layer methods). So, you get a bunch of crap like "the black hole has immesurable gravitational fields" and what not.
It's even worse though. The concept of "black" is used to denote the fact that nobody is actually observing ANYTHING (you have to trust me goys, you can't see it but it's there). Dig into it and you see the idea is really just a flawed use of a "center of mass" computation where the black hole is the statistical "expected value" of the fields measured (or not even measure, but assumed).
In short, use an inadequate model, or a model that works in a simplified space (like all models, or your computations literally take forever) to a "global" (largest compartment containing "everything") system. You'll always get singularites (which is technically a paradox). People then take these results that don't make sense, then assume it's right anyway, and make up "story time" explanations.
Well, it’s motion with respect to the light cone. You can’t move faster than your own light cone, but you can move closer to it than otherwise. It’s the same as the Doppler effect and sonic booms, except for mass-energy itself. I can understand that, at least.
The motion of a satellite in space (GPS for instance) is relative to the Earth, not the satellite's own "light cone". I have never seen that language among physicists talking about special relativity.
The GPS calculations are relative to the Earth, treating the Earth as the "rest" frame.
You mean balloons in high orbit?
This is indeed accurate. See the subtle difference between "relativism" and a "relative data point" (datum). This seems to be the main reason for pushing such theories.
Huh. Really? The light cone is the 3D projection across distance and time wherein an object can be seen. Because nothing moves faster than light, anything outside the light cone can’t see the thing that made it. If something is not moving with relation to the observer, it will appear to be operating within the same reference frame as the observer because light from the object will arrive synchronously with light around the observer. That’s why the “clock” analogy is so often used. A second is an agreed-upon time that doesn’t change, but a clock’s motion with respect to the viewer changes the perceived length of a second (at a distance) due to the foreshortened or lengthened distance the light cone has to travel to reach the observer.
Nicely put. Since we are compartmentalized (not infinitely seeing) we make up shit beyond our veil to affirm our "understanding" of reality. One of the tell tale signs is mixing notions of "curve" and "straight", or even worse fusing concepts that are exclusive such as "space" and "time".
The italicised word "appear" is important. It can't be denied, but can it be really "confirmed"? The act of forcing a conclusion is a mental deconstruction, and is really a pre-cursor to getting someone to believe in even more stupid shit.
I’m totally open to “relativity” being a farce and a new framework being put in place to describe observations over distance at speeds above 0.14c. I was careful in my wording to describe only what we’ve seen experimentally, not to subscribe to a specific interpretation like ‘relativity.’
Hell, we still don’t have a grand unified theory. If we can’t account for gravity in our calculations, why should we assume the calculations are universally correct?
I did notice that, and appreciated. Being careful to say "no more than we should" is the only way to untangle the damage done by sorcerers. I can see you walk the line ... it's hard to stay on it for sure.
This nails the reason why "good" scientist refer to it as a "theory" and "bad" scientists refer to it as "true". It's a tough walk, because nowhere in the journy really feels satisfying.
i see no problem with making up shit since that's the best we can do - we approximate and re-iterate. as of now GR and SR are the "best" approximations we have in the mainstream (I don't trust GR and SR personally).
The problem is big academia and institution-level idiots not willing to let go and embrace new ideas once we've gone beyond and re-iterated past GR and SR. So now we've been stuck and running circles trying to plug all the holes in these theories for the better part of 100 years almost.
The idea of modeling requires us to make an assumption, and then test it to determine fitment. Or, more commonly, Assume the antithesis of the model, and reject it (think null hypothesis). In a sense you can say it's like making up shit. It becomes an issue when shit is made up and there's no threshold of acceptance, i.e "stupid" shit.
The people in academia will accept and prostletize ANYTHING they are paid to. If it pays well, they'll embrace new ideas and contribute to them. The problem then is "who prints the money?"
Or even longer. While it is presented as the birth of modern science, I suspecting it goes back to "scientific revolution" itself. For me, it become maddening and I had to really consider "how do we know what we know?" ... not just a pondering on a Sunday walk, but for every single subject.
Now, I see that ALMOST everything is proven "fake" and most probaly "gay".