Einstiens Theory of Relativity?

well all classical dyanmics (and indeed quantum) can be trivially re-written to take into account the effects of special relativity.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

The trouble with using light to look at distant object is that the path length is huge. Its almost impossible to say what has bent the light along the way. Especially as its looking increasingly likely negative refraction could occur in space. Looking into deep space is like looking into a hall of mirros but not being able to tell exactly where the mirrors are. It is at the point now where id be tempted to discard many discoveries based on the assumption that light travelling millions of light years has come in a near perfect straight line. The truth is we have no idea where we are looking.

 

.

 

woo hoo... 1 out of, 1:162, 1:143 and 1:25

Roxxors

more than 12 people understand it, seriously, I get it and I still don't fully get how radians work (that fragment should have been less half assed but that's what you get... sorry)

 

you understand tensors and not radians? Radians are just a more logical (natural) system of measuring angles. The only reason there are 360 degrees in a circle is that 360 divides nicely into a lot of other numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,15,18 and 360/(all of the above))

 

.

 

I stil dont see how that makes the speed of gravity infinite. I dont want to take the rubber sheet analogy to far as thses things tend to break down when examined too closely, but thats not about to stop me. If i were to take a ball on a sheet so as to create a dent in the sheet then we all agree that an object some distance away form the centre of the dent would attempt to roll towards it. If it were to add to the mass of the central ball at a time t, then the distance object would not feel an increased attraction until after time, t. Im really not convinced that gravity does travel through space faster than c.

If I were to consder a ball on a sheet of paper as a positive charge and the orbiting particle as a negative charge, we all know the macroscopic answer. Also the microscopic answer although it becomes significantly more difficult. No matter how long the charge has been there with the electric field in place, the negative charge will not respond until the photon has interacted. While I accept that EM and gravity are treated differently your argument seem to be very field based. You seem to be saying that because the field is already in place then no communication needs to come from the source of the field. From QED/QCD we know this not to be true for any other force. While gravity may be the exception im still not sure why I should see it as one.

 

.

 

I suppose I can see the argument with a dent in spacetime. Ii may have some mileage. As I understand it causality is safe, as the necessary information for the particle is already present in any given unit volume of space. Im still not convinced but I guess I can see the argument.

 

.

 

yeah I read Schrodingers Kitten the other week. Realised how id be studying for ages but hadnt really looked at all the philosophical angles.

 

.

 

.

 

I certainly see QM as the larger barrrier to causality. Although now the Copenhagen Interpretation seems to be on the way out maybe we'll find something better. Having just read about some of the alternatives im suprised its survived so long.