Are you sure there's no elves or spirits involved? As long as we're saying wildly wrong things, may as well say wildly wrong things that are more interesting.
Well, the Dutch scientific world was rocked over the last couple of years by scandals of several "reputable" scientists committing fraud in their research and subsequent publications... So, to some degree Fraud is being funded...
This is not correct.
That's one of the paradoxes of relativity. Time and mass change as a body's velocity increase, but c is absolutely constant.
In a black hole, light cannot escape, but that's not because it's slowed down, but because space time is so warped, it cannot get out.
Bonsai said:
How is the red shift of light passing heavy objects else to be explained, than by the influence of the gravitational field? If C was to be absolutely constant, there would be no red shift. And why should light (EM radiation of a certain wavelength) answer to different rules than other forms of energy?
As I stated before, Einstein messed up with the location of his observatory. That mistake caused a lot of confusion ....
Last edited:
Exactly. The concept of geodesics in GR confuses many. Certainly Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's gravitation "phonebook" was some tough work for me as an undergrad.
A "black hole" is not actually a hole.
It's just a mass so concentrated that not even light of energy can escape it..
It has ofter been said that mass as we know it on eath is manly an illusion and consists of mostly empty space between the atoms..
Precisely. It confuses some people so profoundly that they sincerely believe everyone else is confused!SY said:
Light always travels in a straight line. There: I have just confused many of the readers of this thread by making a true statement which is seriously misleading to those confused by GR.
That's just a definition. A survivor we call something/somebody that survives. I don't see the tautology.
Jan
graviatational light bending through heavy masses is also visible through good telescopes, they call it
Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you prefer, it survives if it survives.
The tautology is not in what I say, it's in the notion of survival of the "fittest" (or whatever one prefers to call it - that which "works"). By that token chaotic systems are frequently the fittest.
Not meant as a criticism - merely a slightly wry observation.
The tautology is not in what I say, it's in the notion of survival of the "fittest" (or whatever one prefers to call it - that which "works"). By that token chaotic systems are frequently the fittest.
Not meant as a criticism - merely a slightly wry observation.
If you look at this thread as an example, there are about three who talk sense. I bet they won't be the ones to switch off the lights. They'll probably be out of here long before me.
;-)
;-)
Chaotic systems = survival of the most chaotic?
Harsh systems = survival of the harshest?
I am thinking about the Venus fly trap and the Polar bear.
Harsh systems = survival of the harshest?
I am thinking about the Venus fly trap and the Polar bear.
The frequency of light is different from c, which equals wavelength x frequency.
Einstein did not have an observatory. He was a theoretical physicist, and worked with paper and pencil.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.