Einstein or Newton

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Saludeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll quote his words instead so you can interpret it how you want:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

Okay I'll bite.


In the nineteenth century, there was only one known geometry of space, which Euclid had described two millennia before. Synthetic geometers were picking at the Euclid's parallel postulate, looking for ways to deduce it from his other postulates, when they realized that perfectly reasonable non-Euclidean geometries do actually exist. These are the elliptic and hyperbolic geometries of Gauss, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and so forth. Each is characterized by a single length scale, the curvature radius. Analytic geometers, including Gauss again and especially Riemann, then realized that actually there were infinitely many different geometries whose curvatures vary from one point to another. Curvature, and spatial geometry in general, is like a physical field: it can vary from place to place.

Riemann was the first to point out the immediate implication of his realization of the infinite variety of geometries space might have. Namely, the geometry of the physical space we live in is a question _for_experiment_. We may no longer blithely assume it to be Euclidean for simplicity, as Newton did. Einstein forty years later or so identified the physical effect of spatial curvature with the gravitational field.

I would argue that Tesla's assertion that space has no properties is itself hopelessly metaphysical. If one fixes spatial geometry out of aesthetics and denies from the beginning that it can be dynamical, how can one possibly probe the question scientifically? Plus, general relativity works so very well to describe things we actually observe. Curved spacetime, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, is simply a fact.

I mean I can start listing various experiment showcasing general relativity; such as when scientists measured starlight coming from behind the sun during a full eclipse...if space did not curve the light would not have curved around the sun and we would not have seen it).

What Tesla was mainly opposed to Einstein about was "Special relativity", and theirs plenty of articles and documentation explaining why.


The list goes on. Did you just want to try to troll with Tesla's infamous quotes? Let's be real here , Tesla was a great inventor , but Einstein has the best sound system to use to understand what we do in that field. Soon as someone can prove Tesla's Rays , maybe I'll open up a little bit more.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Saludeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll quote his words instead so you can interpret it how you want:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

I was disputing the premise that space is nothing. Between dark energy and dark matter, less than 1/20th of the observable universe is comprised of ordinary matter, so what we perceive as empty space isn't ^^ While not readily observable the effects of dark matter/energy are.

I like my follow up thought on time though, which resolves the issue entirely ^^ And thinking about it, would suggest space is curved along the function 1/t at any given Point.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Also...


Tesla was generating over 4,000,000 volts, whereas only about 1,000,000 volts is required for separating electrons from the nucleus of an atom. Thus, Tesla was able to disintegrate atoms, but in an entirely different way than that postulated by Einstein or the quantum physicists (for Tesla did not destroy the nucleus). No atomic explosion could ever occur with his type of apparatus.

Overall, Tesla completely misunderstood the ramifications of Einstein’s equation E = mc2, and the corresponding suppositions of the equivalence of mass and energy.

Unfortunately, he would never live to see the proof that tremendous amounts of power were locked inside the tiny space occupied by the nuclei of atoms.

Tesla was an amazing man. No doubt, but when it comes to the thing you are quoting, it shows ignorance, because you yet laid out your convictions and reasoning behind linking the quote , unless of course you just want to troll like I suggested above.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not just space though, it is space-time. Einstein described the relationship. However, space were nothing it wouldn't be space ^^

Two-thirds of the universe is composed of dark energy, which we really do not understand and string theory suggests the universe has 11 or more dimensions. We have thorough understanding of three of those and a shakier understanding of the fourth. Given that there could well be (and likely are) many other dimensions, which we are thus far unable to perceive, it would be irresponsible to assume space is empty ^^

Absent a connection of this kind, one is doomed to become just another cog in an endless fruitless ideological argument about whose quantum theory of gravity is better (or at least, whose sucks less)

Most string theorists are interested in string theory not as a theory of quantum gravity, but because of applications of ideas that have emerged from string theory to other fields (e.g. AdS/CFT).

While connecting string theory to experiment is hopeless, it deserves investigation purely as an idea about quantum gravity. NOTHING MORE

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Ps....

Stay away from String Theory and read up on significant things in science. You'll do better.

~Love Chaboo

[entruil]

i wonder if toehammer notices all the ants that scurry about his feet...

[Saludeen]

Space should be understood as the word it is, and thus, has no structure and can't be curved, except for the matter that fills it. The only way space could be curved is if you're not actually referring to space or applying additional properties and ambiguous concepts that don't relate to the base definition. So if you think space is structured or curved then what substance are you actually talking about? And if "space" is a "substance" then why not call it matter?

So I think Telsa used that word with the simplest most practical definition, and also why I agree with it, among other reasons like who he was and what he accomplished.

[entruil]

isn't that the whole mystery?... "What is Dark Matter?"


Bang... Light chases dark away...

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Saludeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Space should be understood as the word it is, and thus, has no structure and can't be curved, except for the matter that fills it. The only way space could be curved is if you're not actually referring to space or applying additional properties and ambiguous concepts that don't relate to the base definition. So if you think space is structured or curved then what substance are you actually talking about? And if "space" is a "substance" then why not call it matter?

So I think Telsa used that word with the simplest most practical definition, and also why I agree with it, among other reasons like who he was and what he accomplished.

There's a Simpsons Tree House of Horror episode that will explain everything. Episode 134 and Homer (cubed) is the section of it.

[Saludeen]

I watched some of that episode but couldn't find what you're referring to. Explain?

And I just read more about the "fabric of space-time" and I see how utterly retarded it actually is. He actually believed, among others, that earth is moving on a 2D plane through space?? There's some many logical problems with that its more sad than funny.

What's holding this 2D plane in place? Geometry below it?

Whats it actually made of besides imaginary lines that artists draw?

What's causing the earth to be pulled downward to begin with if the fabric has no inherent force?

Why would the earth move instead of resting in the dimple?

Why wouldn't the bodies collide if the "fabric" is malleable and the dimples would merge into one like a real 2D fabric?

What's making the objects move at all?

If the fabric is twisting then it would go the opposite direction once it quickly reached a threshold of resistance, like twisting a rubber band.

If there is "slippage" and the fabric remains twisted while the bodies continue to rotate then what makes them continue despite resistance?

Why are there no planes "on top" pulling them upward or in any other direction?

etc. Now i'm not claiming to be smarter than Einstein but I see why Telsa rejected such a stupid theory. And I hope you guys will think about these things before being brainwashed by literal propaganda. There's a reason why real knowledge is kept secret and theories like this are promoted as fact. And why Einstein was just a theorist while Tesla was a practical inventor.

So what is gravity then? I don't know for sure yet, but electromagnetic fields of pressure and vortices seem more rational.