That silly guy. His theory of relativity is useless in the real world. Math is useless in engineering. It's all just a big mystery.
Be that as it may...
Best wishes for 2024 to you also cumbb, and to all contributors to this thread.
Best wishes for 2024 to you also cumbb, and to all contributors to this thread.
To find peace, and also luck in "physics", in "science":
In order to develop the theories of relativity, Einstein began by observing movement. Two systems move in relation to each other. An observer is part of one these systems. Unfortunately, he forgot to set a second observer as part of the observed, second system. So he did not realize that these two observers were making identical observations: The observations are mirrored. And therefore not physical and not scientific;-) All theories of Einstein's relativity collapse here, already at its beginning. Whether theses and mathematics, observations (exacter interpretations claimed as observations), whether dark matter, black holes, wormholes, an expanding universe... all fairy-tale figures in a fairy-tale world. Nonsense since the first step;-)-;
All my best wishes for you all and all your beloved for 2024;-)
I wouldn't really go quite so far as to say: "Nonsense" and "Useless".
General Relativity has helped 'understanding & application' in the real world despite recent findings of it being a THEORY with error.
I think it is now realized that a THEORY is not necessarily perfect > In fact, Paradox proves this.
One of the best realizations I have had from 'all this' is > There are two kinds of constant. One is Relative, and the other is Absolute.
What error? I'm curious.
Fact is the theory can cope with a number of frames of reference each with their own observer and their reference can be the same as others or all different. Any mix is possible.
As Hilbert said. physics is getting too difficult for physicists.
excerpt from Inertial frame of Reference Wiki page,
“It is important to note some assumptions made above about the various inertial frames of reference. Newton, for instance, employed universal time, as explained by the following example. Suppose that you own two clocks, which both tick at exactly the same rate. You synchronize them so that they both display exactly the same time. The two clocks are now separated and one clock is on a fast moving train, traveling at constant velocity towards the other. According to Newton, these two clocks will still tick at the same rate and will both show the same time. Newton says that the rate of time as measured in one frame of reference should be the same as the rate of time in another. That is, there exists a "universal" time and all other times in all other frames of reference will run at the same rate as this universal time irrespective of their position and velocity. This concept of time and simultaneity was later generalized by Einstein in his special theory of relativity (1905) where he developed transformations between inertial frames of reference based upon the universal nature of physical laws and their economy of expression (Lorentz transformations).
Frames of reference are especially important in special relativity, because when a frame of reference is moving at some significant fraction of the speed of light, then the flow of time in that frame will differ from another frame moving at a lower speed. In special relativity velocity effects nearly everything even physical dimensions; but only as measured by an external observer. The speed of light is considered to be the only true constant between moving frames of reference.”
also, from that same Wiki page, the intro paragraph,
“In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference (also called inertial space, or Galilean reference frame) is a frame of reference not undergoing any acceleration. It is a frame in which an isolated physical object—an object with zero net force acting on it—is perceived to move with a constant velocity or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.[1] All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion(straight line motion) with respect to one another; in other words, an accelerometermoving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. It has been observed that celestial objects which are far away from other objects and which are in uniform motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation maintain such uniform motion.[2]”
“It is important to note some assumptions made above about the various inertial frames of reference. Newton, for instance, employed universal time, as explained by the following example. Suppose that you own two clocks, which both tick at exactly the same rate. You synchronize them so that they both display exactly the same time. The two clocks are now separated and one clock is on a fast moving train, traveling at constant velocity towards the other. According to Newton, these two clocks will still tick at the same rate and will both show the same time. Newton says that the rate of time as measured in one frame of reference should be the same as the rate of time in another. That is, there exists a "universal" time and all other times in all other frames of reference will run at the same rate as this universal time irrespective of their position and velocity. This concept of time and simultaneity was later generalized by Einstein in his special theory of relativity (1905) where he developed transformations between inertial frames of reference based upon the universal nature of physical laws and their economy of expression (Lorentz transformations).
Frames of reference are especially important in special relativity, because when a frame of reference is moving at some significant fraction of the speed of light, then the flow of time in that frame will differ from another frame moving at a lower speed. In special relativity velocity effects nearly everything even physical dimensions; but only as measured by an external observer. The speed of light is considered to be the only true constant between moving frames of reference.”
also, from that same Wiki page, the intro paragraph,
“In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference (also called inertial space, or Galilean reference frame) is a frame of reference not undergoing any acceleration. It is a frame in which an isolated physical object—an object with zero net force acting on it—is perceived to move with a constant velocity or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.[1] All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion(straight line motion) with respect to one another; in other words, an accelerometermoving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. It has been observed that celestial objects which are far away from other objects and which are in uniform motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation maintain such uniform motion.[2]”
Albert added another complication
Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes, speeding up as the gravitational potential increases (the clock getting away from the source of gravitation). Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.[1]
This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such Earth-bound experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds. Relative to Earth's age in billions of years, Earth's core is effectively 2.5 years younger than its surface.[2] Demonstrating larger effects would require greater distances from the Earth or a larger gravitational source.
Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference. In general relativity, it is considered to be a difference in the passage of proper time at different positions as described by a metric tensor of spacetime. The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959, and later refined by Gravity Probe A and other experiments.
Gravitational time dilation is closely related to gravitational redshift:[4] the closer a body (emitting light of constant frequency) is to a gravitating body, the more its time is slowed by gravitational time dilation, and the lower (more "redshifted") would seem the frequency of the light it emits, as measured by a fixed observer.
LOL We are fixed observers in terms of the universe.
Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes, speeding up as the gravitational potential increases (the clock getting away from the source of gravitation). Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.[1]
This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such Earth-bound experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds. Relative to Earth's age in billions of years, Earth's core is effectively 2.5 years younger than its surface.[2] Demonstrating larger effects would require greater distances from the Earth or a larger gravitational source.
Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907[3] as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference. In general relativity, it is considered to be a difference in the passage of proper time at different positions as described by a metric tensor of spacetime. The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959, and later refined by Gravity Probe A and other experiments.
Gravitational time dilation is closely related to gravitational redshift:[4] the closer a body (emitting light of constant frequency) is to a gravitating body, the more its time is slowed by gravitational time dilation, and the lower (more "redshifted") would seem the frequency of the light it emits, as measured by a fixed observer.
LOL We are fixed observers in terms of the universe.
Anyone remember all the hullabaloo about fuzzy logic in the late 1980’s? I remember reading EDN articles about it and how it was going to be the next computing wave.
I remember fuzzy logic being introduced in relation to the autofocusing of cameras.
This may have proved useful in the filming of 'Fifty Shades of Grey'! 😀
This may have proved useful in the filming of 'Fifty Shades of Grey'! 😀
It was initially seen as a replacement for PID control type situations and ish logic was also mentioned. Similar idea but nothing new really.
🙂 What about AI solutions that train themselves and decide if the got it right, wrong or close enough?
🙂 What about AI solutions that train themselves and decide if the got it right, wrong or close enough?
Mathematiques made progress thanks to paradoxes. Unfortunetly, since Kurt Godel, this is likely the end to it.
Do you know that black holes could actually be fuzzballs? String theory fuzzballs that is!
In string theory, black holes are likened to neutron stars where matter is compressed into its highest density state possible.
In this high density state, the fundamental strings of string theory (which correspond to particles) stop working independently, crowd together and become a large ball of strings known as a fuzzball.
Well, at least that idea does away with the pesky singularity problem! 🤓
Kurt Gödel is famous for his 'incompleteness theorem'.
Would you be so kind as to explain the theorem to me in terms that a non-mathematician might understand?
Fuzzy logic was gonna be The Next Thing, but I couldn't figure out what it was, because all the descriptions I read were nebulous. Or maybe they weren't descriptions, but just hype. I finally read a book on it with schematics and waveforms. It was essentially PWM going through logic gates, sort of like a Class D amplifier. I was rather disappointed in this "breakthrough."
Google found:
Godel's first incompleteness theorem (as improved by Rosser (1936)) says that for any consistent formalized system F, which contains elementary arithmetic, there exists a sentence G F of the language of the system which is true but unprovable in that system.
Let me try to explain this.
It says, whatever set of axioms you chose, you will derive theorems on and on, but will get stuck by some, you will never be able to prove.
Godel's first incompleteness theorem (as improved by Rosser (1936)) says that for any consistent formalized system F, which contains elementary arithmetic, there exists a sentence G F of the language of the system which is true but unprovable in that system.
Let me try to explain this.
It says, whatever set of axioms you chose, you will derive theorems on and on, but will get stuck by some, you will never be able to prove.
Thanks, after translating "axiom" as "postulate" or "assumption"!
I read that one of the lessons learned in modern mathematics is to examine purported proofs carefully for hidden assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
That's enough mathematics for me today! 🤓
I read that one of the lessons learned in modern mathematics is to examine purported proofs carefully for hidden assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
That's enough mathematics for me today! 🤓
... That the speed of light is an ABSOLUTE constant, when in fact, it to is RELATIVE.
Quite the irony given the name of the Theory.
QUOTE:
"Light doesn't always travel at the speed of light > Who knew"