You mean gravity is a dimension? Wonder who had that idea one smokey night in a back yard off Dixon.
Is space-time, a type of time? Can time be curved?
Is the curvature of space-time, an attraction based on mass?
I argued once with Stephen Hawkins that mass was the human interpretation of the dimension of gravity, he did not respond. He just got a deeply contemplative look in his eyes and after about 10 minutes of silence changed the subject.
Oh those British scientists are sooo superior.
I'm not an expert. In fact, I'm not even a second-rate scientist. So I would encourage you to do your own investigation... but here's my understanding..
That's the incredible part. The passage of time is relative to one's viewpoint.
In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.
GPS satellites need to account for the curvature of space-time to come up with accurate coordinates on Earth.
Mass does curves space-time. As I understand it, while we see the Earth as traveling around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, it is actually traveling through space-time in the straightest line possible (geodesic). That is, the Sun's mass causes(?) space-time to be curved around it.
If you're interested, I remember watching this video and it helping me better understand special relativity.
I have no idea on this subject matter, but I enjoy the theory that
The moon is circling the earth
The earth is circling the sun
The sun is is circling a giant black hole in the center of the milky way galaxy.
The giant milky way black hole is circling around something EVEN BIGGER!!!!
I have no idea if it's true, but it seems interesting. But everything is basically in a whirl pool going in a circle... and that circle is within an even bigger circle.
Says Einstein, he was better suited to answer that than I...
Phil! You got ticked when I said you were smart... Well?
Well to be honest, I have no idea if what I posted here is true. I was just throwing it out there to see if someone else might know.. Okay, and to impress the ladies.
Ha ha... You are a secret BS'er...
And the ladies love it.:)
Um. Oops. Nice catch.
Time is relative to space and movement
So I guess it is related in some way to gravity too.
I wonder how black holes and white holes affect time. I wonder if the nature of time changes in different parts of the universe
Its possible,...only in that gravity is a very weak force on its own. Scientists cannot explain why
I agree. If gravity didn't have a cumulative effect, well.. it would probably not be good.
I believe if you keep asking "why", regardless of the subject, eventually you get to a point where even the experts have to say "we don't really know".
I find it curious that some believe we humans may one day explain all the mysteries of the universe when for every one question answered, many more questions are raised.
This youtube clip explains it quite well.
Very cool! I have not seen a better illustration of a geodesic in curved space-time.
So what holds the moon against that fishnet? The eye assumes that gravity pulls it down, but gravity is what you were trying to explain.
Allow me to mansplain..
We're all familiar with three dimensional space, so it's easy for us to imagine how any point in say a room can be described by x, y, and z coordinates.
The fishnet is an attempt to graphically represent the affect mass has on space-time. This is difficult to imagine because it's not what we experience in our everyday lives. The affect, however, is observed and needs to be accounted for in order for our GPS systems to work.
What you are talking about is called "circular definition", which is where you have to assume your point is true in order to explain it.
Another common example of circular reasoning is dark matter. Scientists use it all the time, even though it is recorded that Ian Oort invented it specifically to fudge his data to agree with his theory.
Einstein wrote, “Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.”
IOW, believing is seeing. No matter how you try to explain mass-time and gravity, you invoke unknown forces. Absolutely nobody is trying to investigate those forces.
"Mass tells space-time how to curve, an space-time tells mass how to move."
-John Archibald Wheeler
Is that what you mean by "circular definition"? General relativity's own chicken and the egg paradox?
I tend to believe only what I see too. The problem is that we only see visible light. We never see gravity, only its effects. People have gone through great efforts to test GR, and as far as I know nothing has proved it wrong so far.
For the first sixty years or so, there was nobody who claimed to understand relativity. Then suddenly everybody said it's obvious, and stopped talking about it.
When I taught basic electronics in the Air Force we taught that a magnetic field expands and crosses a conductor and that is how current is induced. Well, a field does not expand, and if it is a toroidal core, you can not detect a field at all outside the core. And yet it behaves AS IF the field expands and crosses a conductor. That is an example of a very common practice in technical subjects, teaching bs because it sounds good and is easily understood.
If you go to https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ you will find hundreds of papers on gross blunders in widely accepted science pronouncements. For instance they explain why NASA keeps announcing the discovery of water, but there still is no water.
I believe many people understood Einstein's theories of relativity shortly after if was published. Several, in fact, attempted to refute his theories. Some did it for the wrong reasons (antisemitism), but challenging theories is part of the scientific method. This process of peer reviews and challenges is why I trust science.
From "A Brief History of History of Time" by Stephen Hawking:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No
matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."
Perhaps many laypeople do not appreciate Hawking's remarks, but I'm pretty sure all serious scientists to.
"Serious" scientists don't even consider such remarks. They work by consensus and nothing else.
You have to remember that academia is a pagan religion, not directly related to science, and modern scientists are first members of academia. Being members of science comes second.
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.
They (scientists) work by consensus and nothing else.
That is a false statement. Consensus is gained as a theory withstands rigorous testing. It takes only one test to disprove a theory and once disproved, scientists are forced to abandon the theory.
For example, the geocentric model of the universe promoted by Ptolemy was accepted for hundreds of years. Then Copernicus (and others) came along with a heliocentric model that had the Earth revolving around the Sun. After much resistance, people finally accepted this model. That lasted for centuries as well before we learned that the Sun is just a star revolving around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And so on.. Progress.
Religion is based on "revealed knowledge". An example would be Moses and the 10 commandments. According to the story, an authoritative figure (God) revealed the 10 commandments to him. Another example is the Bible. No amount of empirical evidence can convince the believers that it is something other than the "gospel truth".
Science obviously doesn't work that way and hence, isn't a religion.
I believe your study of the matter is deficient. "Academia" is the descendant of Akademos, which was a grove near Athens. It was sacred to the goddess of wisdom and membership was by invitation only. Socrates was the most famous member, and you can see what it was about by studying his pronouncements.
The bible plainly says that religion is made up by men telling each other what to do, so almost any human activity qualifies as a religion.
To top it off, a lot of professional scientists don't even know what the "scientific method" is. They do their work, check with peers to be sure it's acceptable, then publish. And they will go to their graves before changing their minds about anything.
Well, I vote for agreeing to disagree. I can't see either of us changing the other's mind here.