22 Dec '15 18:30>
I still don't get it.
How can space be bent when there is seemingly nothing to bend?
How can space be bent when there is seemingly nothing to bend?
Originally posted by whodeyThere is one thing you can use to tell how much space is bent: Light. (or any frequency RF). Light and RF follows the curves of space. That is what proved relativity in 1917 I think. The experiment waited till a full eclipse of the sun when stars that would have been totally drowned out in light from the sun, can during a total eclipse, be seen. So they knew the position of the target star if the sun had not been there and then showed it was not in the right place, because of the mass of the sun.
I still don't get it.
How can space be bent when there is seemingly nothing to bend?
Originally posted by whodeyThe "bending" of space is an analogy used to visualize what the formulae tell us. This picture make some sense because we can, for instance, see the "bending" of light through gravitational lensing.
I still don't get it.
How can space be bent when there is seemingly nothing to bend?
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I think KazetNagorra is implying space isn't quite technically 'bent'. Light always travels in a straight line in free space. (OK, I am simplifying a little bit, but lets leave all the wave stuff out of this for now). So where ever light goes is 'straight' not 'bent'. We say space is bent because two parallel lines may meet up.
There is one thing you can use to tell how much space is bent: Light.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think there is much hope of him (and most theists) understanding general relatively, which is harder than special relativity because general relativity deals with accelerating frames of reference. Even I barely half understand only a very few of its concepts and none of the equations and at least I have reasonable understanding of basic Newtonian physics + some respectable partial understanding of special relativity and of some of its equations. I doubt he even has that.
...
If you want to understand gravity, study general relativity.
Originally posted by humyYou do realize that Einstien himself held partially theistic views?
I don't think there is much hope of him (and most theists) understanding general relatively, which is harder than special relativity because general relativity deals with accelerating frames of reference. Even I barely half understand only a very few of its concepts and none of the equations and at least I have reasonable understanding of basic Newtonian ...[text shortened]... tial understanding of special relativity and of some of its equations. I doubt he even has that.
Originally posted by humyIf we are going to be insulting people here with honest inquiries...
I don't think there is much hope of him (and most theists) understanding general relatively, which is harder than special relativity because general relativity deals with accelerating frames of reference. Even I barely half understand only a very few of its concepts and none of the equations and at least I have reasonable understanding of basic Newtonian ...[text shortened]... tial understanding of special relativity and of some of its equations. I doubt he even has that.
Originally posted by joe shmoAs far as I am aware, he was an agnostic. When he spoke of "God", he didn't mean some kind of supernatural human-like being but merely "everything" or "the universe and its natural laws" and he protested bitterly when people kept saying he meant a supernatural and/or human-like God.
You do realize that Einstien himself held partially theistic views?
Originally posted by joe shmoI had no intent to offend. But most modern scientists are atheist/agnostic and tend to be the most intelligently people in society. Not intending to offend, I will leave it to you to figure out why that is rather than tell you explicitly. I don't think that is mere statistical coincidence, do you?
If we are going to be insulting people here with honest inquiries...
1) I doubt many here are shocked that you only barely half understand general relativity concepts and none of the equations...so I don't know why you brought it up.
2) You can't have a respectable partial understanding of special relativity with only a reasonable understanding of basic Newtonian physics.
Originally posted by humyThat's a pretty biggoted and ignorant thing to say (about theists). The religious world is admittedly populated with high degree of craziness but there is absolutely no reason (at least not in Christian theism) why cosmic science is incompatable with faith.
I don't think there is much hope of him (and most theists) understanding general relatively, which is harder than special relativity because general relativity deals with accelerating frames of reference. Even I barely half understand only a very few of its concepts and none of the equations and at least I have reasonable understanding of basic Newtonian ...[text shortened]... tial understanding of special relativity and of some of its equations. I doubt he even has that.
Originally posted by divegeesterI just like to point out that any religious faith, Christian or not, is logically inconsistent with scientific method, which is a fundamental principle behind all the sciences including cosmic science. The only sense in which the two are 'comparable' is in the very narrow psychological sense that some people can sometimes mentally apply one 'logic' (scientific method) to one thing but then, logically inconsistently, apply a different 'logic' (religious faith) to another thing, even though that second 'logic' is logically inconsistent with the first logic (and, as a result, they have a logically inconsistent belief-forming process) so that the two are only 'compatible' in the very narrow sense that they can maintain the two logically incompatible things in their heads without the two seeming mentally incompatible to them.
That's a pretty biggoted and ignorant thing to say (about theists). The religious world is admittedly populated with high degree of craziness but there is absolutely no reason (at least not in Christian theism) why cosmic science is incompatable with faith.
Originally posted by humyWell, I have a PhD in physics and at best a fleeting understanding of general relativity. My point is mainly that one should not expect the compact - but beyond the grasp of laymen - mathematical formulation to be fully explained with a few lines of text suited for the layman. If the analogy of the "bending of space-time" is not good enough for whodey, tough luck.
I don't think there is much hope of him (and most theists) understanding general relatively, which is harder than special relativity because general relativity deals with accelerating frames of reference. Even I barely half understand only a very few of its concepts and none of the equations and at least I have reasonable understanding of basic Newtonian ...[text shortened]... tial understanding of special relativity and of some of its equations. I doubt he even has that.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAgreed. I didn't mean to imply you were implying that he could really understand general relativity if only he tried (just in case you thought I was implying this )
Well, I have a PhD in physics and at best a fleeting understanding of general relativity. My point is mainly that one should not expect the compact - but beyond the grasp of laymen - mathematical formulation to be fully explained with a few lines of text suited for the layman. If the analogy of the "bending of space-time" is not good enough for whodey, tough luck.