"Einstein and Hawking: Unlocking The Universe" produced by the BBC for the Science Channel.
i watched this last night, these guys should have been science fiction writers. They both produced silly theories that many accept as true. neither understood the true nature of time and space.
the truth about the universe is that time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space.
time is a constant, it does not slow or stop.
space extends forever and it does not expand or bend.
there is so much misconception in the scientific community that as a human - it embarrasses me.
"the truth about the universe is that time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space."
Apart from the fact that I'd replace "universe" with Cosmos (on the grounds that our Universe is a finite part of a larger Cosmos), I agree with this observation.
"time is a constant, it does not slow or stop."
This requires a clarification. Time is change and change is motion and you can't have motion without having something that moves - in other words physical stuff (matter / energy). But the speed at which things move alters the properties of those things and this has been experimentally demonstrated. Thus, if those properties are altered by motion, then things are not constant with differing speeds, then change changes with differing speeds and thus the concept of time associated with change alters too. In other words, time is indeed relative.
"space extends forever and it does not expand or bend."
This I absolutely agree with.
to clarify, there are only 3 things in the universe - time, space, and matter - of course matter can take many forms. time does not slow or stop, it moves at a constant rate, and it always has - there was no beginning of time. space continues forever, because that is the nature of space.
time and space are independent - time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time.
Hawkings books and those about Einstein might help you actually understand what they said and the science that affirms their theories. Just because you are sceptical and can think about it differently does not mean you are correct or that your POV is valid.
Yep, and guess what. The world is flat and only six thousand years old, and he sun goes across the sky in a small boat each day and spends the night in a cave.
It may well be that the ideas of Einstein and Hawkins will need to be corrected in the future, that is the way both science and human progress work, but it is unlikely now that they will be turned over completely and they will never be valueless. And to answer one of your questions with one piece of evidence. (Only one because I do not have the time to waste on all of them , not because they can't be answered. )
The reason we know that space bends is because. When objects like planets pass behind other large objects with big gravity, the apparent speed of them can be observed to slow down and speed up as they go in and out of transit. If you wish to obtain your own instruments and make the measurements again, you are welcome. Until then it is best to remember that. "I can't understand it." Is not the same as. Its not true.
Einstein’s theoeries made prediction that we’re later proven true by experiments. Relativistic effects have to be taken into account for the calculations used to maneuver space probes that have been sent out across our solar system. An atomic clock on the ground compared with the same type of clock that travels around the globe on a jet then is returned to the same earthbound location as the ground click shows a difference in time. What is your explanation?
You're right, but you need to back your assertions with some kind of argument.
The Twins Paradox is the main tool you need to analyse this. Here's a version of it using a speed of 86.6% the speed of light for the trip and a pair of twins aged four. One twin stays at home while her brother goes off at 0.866c (c being the speed of light) for a year as measured by a clock that he takes with him. He then turns round and comes back again at 0.866c. By the time the twins are reunited, the girl is 8 years old and her brother is six. The speed of travel that I chose leads to the moving clock running at half the rate of the stationary clock. The functionality of the travelling twin is also slowed to half the rate of the stay-at-home twin. Speed of movement through space slows functionality, and we can see this in action with particle accelerators where short-lived particles last much longer before decaying as a result of their functionality being slowed by their high speed of movement through space.
The big argument is about how or why this should happen. The simple answer is the one provided in the way I worded the paragraph above; that moving fast through space slows functionality. Time is not slowed by this movement, but clocks merely run slow. You can see the simple mechanism for this by imagining a light clock which functions by sending out a pulse of light to a mirror and back to a detector next to the emitter. Every time a pulse of light returns, a new pulse is sent out and the clock registers a tick. If you align this clock perpendicular to its direction of travel through space, the light pulses aren't going to and fro between two points, but are following a zig-zag path, and the faster the movement, the further the light has to travel through space to complete each tick. If the clock is moving at 0.866c, then the light has to travel at 60 degrees to the alignment of the clock. Sin 60 = 0.866. Cos 60 = 0.5. The clock ticks 0.5 times as often at this speed as it does at rest.
So, we have a simple explanation that works fine. Why do we need an alternative one? Well, we don't. Everything fits fine. There is a complication called length contraction, and you can see this issue if you align the light clock with its direction of travel instead of perpendicular to it. At 0.866c, the length of the clock has to contract to 0.5 times its rest length. Is this a problem? No. It simply contracts in length. Why should it contract in length? Well, relativistic velocity addition provides the answer. I'm going to use unrealistic numbers here, but the principle is valid. Imagine a star moving through space at 0.866c while a planet orbits it at 0.866c. During part of the orbit, the planet will be stationary in space. At the opposite part of the orbit, it would be doing 2 x 0.866c, which is a lot faster than the speed of light. Velocities don't add like that though - its real speed through space at that part of its orbit would be 0.99c. The reason for this is the amount of energy that needs to be added to increase speed by a given amount, and the closer to c you go, the more energy you have to add in for the same speed increase. To reach c, you have to put infinite energy in. Our orbiting planet in the system moving at 0.866 must follow an elliptical path, and it will slow down and speed up as it goes round its star, it's maximum speed and its minimum speed being at opposite points on its orbit where it's furthest away from its star. The orbit is length contracted. When you apply the rules for this at all scales, you find that you must get length contraction on light clocks too. There is no mystery here.
Einstein never understood the mechanism behind length contraction. He called it "ad hoc". The result of this gap in the picture for him was that he was keen to find an alternative view of what was going on. His initial attempt was awful - it generated an infinite number of contradictions. Lorentz stuck to the old mechanism in which there's an absolute frame of reference - a way of putting a coordinate grid to space relative to which light is travelling at c in all directions. The trouble was that this frame couldn't be identified - an infinite number of differently moving coordinate grids could be imagined which light could be travelling at c relative to in all directions and there was no way of measuring which of these was the absolute frame. Einstein decided that because the absolute frame couldn't be identified, it didn't exist. In simple terms, he decided that if object A and object B are moving relative to each other, you can sit on object A and declare that light is moving relative to it at c in all directions, and then you can go and sit on object B and declare that light is moving relative to it at c in all directions, and both of these claims would be equally valid. Minkowski thought he was mad, and he was right. However, Minkowski then rescued Einstein by coming up with a mathematical abstraction using 4D Spacetime which hid the problem by getting rid of the speed of light altogether. In this non-Euclidean geometry, light reduces all of its paths to zero length and takes zero time to cover them (although it doesn't really cover them, because it never moves at all). Many people dispute that this is a property of 4D Spacetime, but it's easy to prove them wrong. They agree that a particle with mass which moves at nearly c will reduce what appear to be great distances to near zero length and can cover those distances in next to zero time, and all we need to do is look at particles moving closer and closer to c to see the path lengths and times tend to zero. At c, the paths are always zero length. We can then show by the simple application of mathematics that every point in Spacetime is zero distance away from every other point in Spacetime, and this reveals just how contrived an abstraction we're dealing with.
But let's get back to the twins paradox. Lorentz said that the functionality of the moving clock and twin was slowed down by their movement through space. Einstein, once he'd moved to a 4D model to avoid the contradictions of his original model, asserted that the travelling twin travelled through less time than the stay-at-home twin, but here again we have a mechanism that depends on an absolute frame to decide which twin is taking a shortcut into the future and which isn't. This can be hidden though by moving to a static block universe model (still 4D). Once you get to this, the most extreme model of all, time no longer runs, but you have genuinely got rid of the need for an absolute frame. The trouble is though that with this model there is no longer any causality - all the apparent causality written through the block is necessarily fake because the future was never generated out of the past and nothing in the block caused the shape of anything else in the block. The only way to create a block universe rationally is to generate it in order of causation, and when you do that you find that causality and time are tightly locked together - run one of them and you are necessarily running the other. When you run them in order to generate the block, either you will get event-meshing failures that disprove the model, or you have to put back an absolute frame of reference whose time governs the unfolding of events on different paths, and that time is quite additional to the "time" of the time dimension. Einstein's models simply don't work as claimed on the tin - no one has ever simulated them without cheating by smuggling in an undeclared kind of time to coordinate the unfolding of events on different paths which is explicitly banned in the models.
It's shocking that such a fraud still has the backing of the scientific establishment when it has been torn to pieces by mathematicians.
The only time I have ever seen the word, "silly" used is as a derogatory term. I would not characterize either Einstein or Hawking as "silly". If you disagree with their theories, perhaps you should say, "I disagree with their theories in the matter of..."
Time is a measurement to the fact that things happen. Something occurs and has a duration. Time measures this. If nothing occured, that in and of itself would be an occurence with a duration that could be given measurement, but if NOTHING is occuring that means you nor any one is standing by with a stop watch scaled to measure the duration of "nothing" occuring.
Where is this trend coming from? Did I just miss it before? Is this just a part of agnostic I've (thankfully) missed?
People making basic assertions and disparaging great minds because they think it makes them look profound? I mean, just look at this Youtube video! Complete with more basic assertions pronounced like a Confucian monk passing on the mystic arts in the comments:
You learn about time from clocks, and about ants with a magnifying glass.
You have nothing to prove here. We do not measure IQ points. You don't get Agnostic karma from trying to look like the smartest atheist. If you get to Level 8, you can get a T-shirt. However, you can do that just by commenting "lol" on a lot of posts, probably.
These types of posts aren't making you look like a genius science-man with a big ol' brain. They make you look like someone who thinks they're smarter than they really are.
Read "A brief History of Time" It puts much of what you eschew in layman's terms. Einstein's original brilliant deduction on space/time (E=MC2) changed physics and the world we live in. Hawking expanded our understand of the relationship of building blocks of the universe. Both made errors, Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics and Hawking made early mathematical errors, most he corrected himself.
Let me get this straight, you watched a two hour documentary and discovered, hitherto unknown, flaws by two of the top scientists of the last century. My you are some genius, I wish I had that kind of insight, if I did I would be putting it to good use and not on here making rash statements that makes one look stoopid.