The God particle is a fraud

[Infinitesimal]

Infinitesmal, why are you claiming GPS proves empty space bends?

I didn't make that claim, Xris. What I did say is that GPS works because both of Einstein's theories, Special Relativity and General Relativity, have real-world effects. Here is a reasonably good explainer:

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=55

[We] shouldn't use magical tricks to try and bring the abstract into the real world. There are limits to mathematics.

I couldn't agree with you more on both points. Part of the long-term maturation of science, which is based on the maturation of intellectually-rooted consciousness, is that we have to learn, understand, and restrain ourselves to limits. It's not a good idea to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver. Likewise, it's not always appropriate to use mathematics. Let's try to measure for example, how much beauty a Rembrandt painting has. We'd all agree that notion is just silly. Then take a look at actuarial tables: it is known that the average age of death is something like 89.5 years (in the US). But I'm not going to die exactly then. Unless you're a Mafia Hit Man with a contract on me, it would be silly to claim that that exact date is my number. Then deeper we go into social science (now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard of one!) ... ah, numbers "tell all" ... Bullpucky on a spreadsheet...

3D is the limit to our world and we have no access to any other dimension.

Well, honestly, we don't even have access to that dimension either. As Gulnara hints at, nothing is perfect, nothing is flat, nothing is cubical, nothing is space-time-able. These are all models of reality: including our own representations of it. I have no idea what a strawberry tastes like to you. If I am color blind, then you would have a tough time explaining to me what Red is, would you not? But - and here we enter into one of the oldest, on-going arguments of philosophy - does this world, this "reality" standalone objectively, or is it merely subjective, or is reality some combination?

Those that pretend to know the 4th dimension are just trying to create an imaginary non-existent world.

That's very unfair to your fellow thinkers who have spent lifetimes struggling with these problems. Einstein was a pretty smart dude - and very humble and sincere. I'm sure he would disagree with you. Me, not nearly so smart, also have to disagree... I've spent decades of painful study and a lot of self-introspection to do the best I can not to fool myself. Yes, I do know for certain 4D spaces (and higher exist) - but that is not the only possible explanation! It's just one of the modern, and currently most workable ones.

This is just a power game which academia plays to try and intimidate those persons who are gullible enough to swallow this nonsense.

I am sorry, that you see the world this way in such a cynical way makes me truly sad. Have you ever taken a real physics class? Did your teacher strike you as a demigod of intimidation? The vast majority of "academicians" are good people. Sure, some may stab each other in the back to get tenure, but for their students, they usually care a great deal.

God doesn’t play a particles game with the universe.

Nice twist on one of Einstein's famous quotes! I tried to find your article on Time, but only came to a bunch of links that said "Published to ..." but were not actually published in any of the newspapers, magazines, or journals listed. I did read the article that starts off "Nothing exists except time; everything else is opinion." I find that interesting because Wolfgang von Goethe, in his human-centric approach, also said something very similar about dimensionality. Re your "dangerous idea" of compressing higher dimensions into lower, or, as you say: "all dimensions are time," doesn't strike me as dangerous at all - perhaps an unorthodox rendition, but, sorry, the idea isn't revolutionary or even new. You can recast any physics equation to be based on time - or based on whatever you like. The "accepted ones" are merely the easiest to work with. My car goes 50 kilometers per hour. Or, in one hour my car goes 50 km. Consider - if light speed is the speed limit of the universe, then you can also measure space in terms of time. Oh, er, what a minute: that's called a Light Year --- ah, I guess someone already thought of that one.

Seriously though, there are several non-Euclidean geometries which can put all dimensions on a time-only basis. And several of these can remove dimensionality altogether. The one I am the most intrigued by is one which can turn space "inside out" - points become infinitely inward (instead of space being infinitely outward) - and time becomes a form of angular turn inside these fractal-like interior dimensions. In 4D space, it's possible to put a right handed glove on your left hand without turning it inside out. In non-Euclidean, infinitely inward spaces, it is possible for physical objects to occupy the same "alternative" space. Aside to DarwinX: you see, both of these are impossible in 3D space, yet can be modeled and workable just as well as 3D space without contradiction of what we see in a ordinary way.

[Xris]

GPS works because gravity influences the passage of time. It proves nothing else.

[Dolphin42]

GPS works because gravity influences the passage of time. It proves nothing else.

Absolutely. It's not about what is proved. It's about what is descriptively useful. Einstein's General Relativity is illustrated by the case of GPS systems to be more descriptively useful than Newton's theory of gravity. But it comes at the cost of greater complexity - it's more difficult to understand. You pays your money, you takes you choice.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


Absolutely. It's not about what is proved. It's about what is descriptively useful. Einstein's General Relativity is illustrated by the case of GPS systems to be more descriptively useful than Newton's theory of gravity. But it comes at the cost of greater complexity - it's more difficult to understand. You pays your money, you takes you choice.

But how does it illustrate general relativity?

[Dolphin42]

[But how does it illustrate general relativity?

General Relativity (Einstein's gravity) predicts it. Newton's gravity doesn't. The equations of General Relativity also had to be used to calculate the trajectories of the Voyager space probes around Saturn and Jupiter. Or so I've read. Newton's equations simply wouldn't have worked.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


General Relativity (Einstein's gravity) predicts it. Newton's gravity doesn't. The equations of General Relativity also had to be used to calculate the trajectories of the Voyager space probes around Saturn and Jupiter. Or so I've read. Newton's equations simply wouldn't have worked.

Sorry but I know that is what is claimed about relativity but I have never been told how. How did the theory prove that time is influenced by gravity? I understand that time and space are related but what has that got to do with gravity?

[Dolphin42]

I can't pretend to be any great expert on the General Theory of Relativity. But my understanding is that it starts from the reasoning which led to the Special Theory of Relativity, and that started from the observation that light appears to travel at the same speed for all observers. This led to the idea of the Lorentz contractions. And this led to the idea of a curved space-time. It also led to the inevitable conclusion that acceleration and gravity are two different ways of looking at the same thing.

Now, I know you probably have numerous objections to all these ideas and I'm not qualified to properly deal with them. But, the upshot (as I understand it) of this whole "curved space-time" thing is essentially a set of predictions about how objects will be seen to move in the presence of massive bodies. And those predictions appear to have been correct. Maybe the whole theory is crazy and wacky. But it does at least appear to be successful in making predictions.

It didn't "prove" that time is influenced by gravity. It just said "IF time were influenced by gravity in this way, for these reasons, THEN we would expect to make these observations". And those observations were made. It doesn't prove anything. It just adds a little bit of weight to the idea that it's a useful way of looking at the world.

That's my take on it. Don't know if it makes any sense.

[Xris]

Thanks for trying but I am aware of the claims but to say his theory predicted such a thing is not true. It might have predicted the curvature of space but not time dilation. I have read and reread the claim and can find no direct correlation to the theory and how it predicted that gravity would influence the passage of time.Maybe someone can explain it to both of us.

Gravitational lensing is easily dismissed with Gaedes ropes. If you read the history of this phenomena it was first suggested that photons were influenced by gravity.But to do that they had to have mass but relativity indicates that their mass would increase at the speed of C . So it was then decided that light was following a path of curved space. Ignoring the fact that a completely empty space has nothing to bend.

[Dolphin42]

Gravitational lensing is easily dismissed with Gaedes ropes.

You mean explained by Gaede's ropes. It's difficult to dismiss because it's been observed to happen. If I remember rightly, his paper claims that lensing is caused by the ropes getting caught up in the Sun's corona but doesn't go into much more detail than that. So doesn't say anything testable.

[Geordie Ross]

Thanks for trying but I am aware of the claims but to say his theory predicted such a thing is not true. It might have predicted the curvature of space but not time dilation. I have read and reread the claim and can find no direct correlation to the theory and how it predicted that gravity would influence the passage of time.Maybe someone can explain it to both of us.

Gravitational lensing is easily dismissed with Gaedes ropes. If you read the history of this phenomena it was first suggested that photons were influenced by gravity.But to do that they had to have mass but relativity indicates that their mass would increase at the speed of C . So it was then decided that light was following a path of curved space. Ignoring the fact that a completely empty space has nothing to bend.

Are you seriously suggesting that space has no dimensions? And that any change to those dimensions would not affect the geometry and fundamentally, the trajectory of anything that moves through the warped geometry?

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


Are you seriously suggesting that space has no dimensions? And that any change to those dimensions would not affect the geometry and fundamentally, the trajectory of anything that moves through the warped geometry?

Yes I am seriously stating that to claim that nothing can bend is systematic of a concept that is desperate.Just because space exists does not give it substance. It sounds almost faith driven when expressed with such words as geometry, dimension.I thought you might explain to me how relativity theorised on gravity influencing the passing of time.

-- Updated Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:57 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


You mean explained by Gaede's ropes. It's difficult to dismiss because it's been observed to happen. If I remember rightly, his paper claims that lensing is caused by the ropes getting caught up in the Sun's corona but doesn't go into much more detail than that. So doesn't say anything testable.

And you think gravitational lensing is testable?

[Geordie Ross]

(Nested quote removed.)

Yes I am seriously stating that to claim that nothing can bend is systematic of a concept that is desperate.Just because space exists does not give it substance. It sounds almost faith driven when expressed with such words as geometry, dimension.I thought you might explain to me how relativity theorised on gravity influencing the passing of time.

-- Updated Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:57 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

And you think gravitational lensing is testable?

Define "nothing", dimensions are not "nothing". The volume of space is not "nothing".

PS, gravitational lensing was predicted by general relativity.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)

Define "nothing", dimensions are not "nothing". The volume of space is not "nothing".

PS, gravitational lensing was predicted by general relativity.

So an empty box has a value? How do you define the value of dimension? It is an excuse for the inability to create something from nothing.You deny an aether because it has not been found but you can magically create an empty space that has enough value to actually bend.

What are you saying about relativity, are they booth dependent on each other? The Allais effect was not predicted by relativity. So will relativity be questioned?

[Geordie Ross]

So you're claiming the dimensions and volume of empty space is "nothing"? By your own admission you claim "nothing" cannot exist. By that reasoning; the dimensions and volume of space does not exist.

It has been mentioned and discussed on multiple occasions that general and special relativity is incomplete, there's pieces of the puzzle missing, just because it fails to describe everything, doesn't mean i can't explain anything.

[Xris]

So you're claiming the dimensions and volume of empty space is "nothing"? By your own admission you claim "nothing" cannot exist. By that reasoning; the dimensions and volume of space does not exist.

It has been mentioned and discussed on multiple occasions that general and special relativity is incomplete, there's pieces of the puzzle missing, just because it fails to describe everything, doesn't mean i can't explain anything.

So if I change it from nothing to an absence of anything would that suffice? If that space does not contain anything of value how can it bend? It appears science can discount the aether for the sake of relativity but it can create something almost identical to prove it.