special relitivity

Without debating the many things that are already debated on this site I want to ask one simple question. I see in many of these post by flat earth believers that they seem to think that gravity=magic. I would like to ask the question how then do you account for special relativity and it being proved over and over again in both scientific experiments and practical usage. Before you give the blanket answer of "it's a conspiracy" realize that the computer you are using to view this assumes that the basic principals of relativity work as do many other high tech devices. If Einstein was wrong many things that we use today would not work, computers, Atomic weapons and reactors and GPS are good examples. Gravity is not magic, it is a measurable force that over and over again has been proven. How else can you explain that things weigh less at different altitudes or that if you hang a weight on a string and place it next to a mountain it will tilt slightly towards the mountain. How do you explain gravitational time dilation which is why two clocks at different altitudes will move a different rates? My point is these are things that have been proven many times but in order for a flat earth to exist they need to be disproved and some other plausible scientific explanation be put forward. To date I have been able to find no such other theory or any experiment that disproves any part of relativity (many have tried but the results are always in favor of relativity). 

so in short if the earth is flat please someone offer a counter theory to relativity that is based in science and not in crazy.   

here are some links to special relativity and how the theory explains gravity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
   

Newton's theory of gravity was also proven to be correct "over and over again".  But I understand that if Einstein was right Newton was wrong.  Now, by your logic, Newton's theory must have been right, because it was proven "over and over again".  But you're also stating outright that Einstein's theory must have been right, because it was proven "over and over again"!  I submit that if your argument is truly logical, it's creating a paradox, and that if you happen to be a robot from the Conspiracy trying to infiltrate our forums, your head must asplode.

I guess we'll soon know whether or not you're a robot...

I am also interested in knowing exactly how relativity governs the operation of my computer.  Hopefully you're not a robot so you can explain it.

Newton's theory of gravity was also proven to be correct "over and over again".  But I understand that if Einstein was right Newton was wrong.  Now, by your logic, Newton's theory must have been right, because it was proven "over and over again".  But you're also stating outright that Einstein's theory must have been right, because it was proven "over and over again"!  I submit that if your argument is truly logical, it's creating a paradox, and that if you happen to be a robot from the Conspiracy trying to infiltrate our forums, your head must asplode.

I guess we'll soon know whether or not you're a robot...

Newtonian physics worked but only to a point. There were specific things about it that it could not explain like why they could not with Newtonian physics model correctly work out planetary orbits. Einstein introduced the concept of curved space and spacetime which not only explained the things that Newtonian physics lacked, but allowed us to understand gravity in a way we had no previously been able to. The argument you present is invalid because Special Relativity did not disprove Newton's theory of gravity it merely allows us to understand gravity better. If anything Newton over simplified things a bit and Einstein got a bit more precise. Also your argument is invalid because scientific evidence is truth unto itself, when something has been proven true it cannot be proven untrue. For example Newton's third law "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." has been proven true over and over again. We may be able to understand someday why it is true in ways we cannot imagine today but it will still be true. Thus Newtons laws were not proven false we just came to understand them better.

Einstein set forth in his theory that if it is correct then we would be able to observe it in many ways. This we have done many times. Recently one of the most precise scientific instruments ever created was able to once again prove his theory correctly:
http://space.about.com/b/2011/05/12/nasa-confirms-two-predictions-of-general-relativity.htm

I know you think NASA is a big conspiracy but it is not so. My grandfather worked as a rocket scientist with them and I personally can attest to his work and the work of NASA. I personally know someone who landed on the moon and I do not doubt his account at all (and neither would you if you ever met him).

As far as computers go I work in microchip design and have worked in the past on designing GPS chips. In both these instances we have made calculations that relied on Special Relativity to come out correctly and for the device to work when we were done with it. It has always worked.

If there is a counter theory that can explain the phenomenon I mentioned in the first post I am all ears, but until then I have to stand by the argument I made that without any other evidence Special relativity proves the earth is round without any other evidence. Hell I can calculate the mass, speed of rotation, and curvature of the earth with the right scientific tools. I have personally shot a laser at the moon to verify the moon landing as well in case you want to go down that avenue. 

There are so, so many different arguments that can prove the earth is round but I think science can argue much better than I can.

Newtonian physics worked but only to a point.

The same can be said of Einsteinian physics.

As far as computers go I work in microchip design and have worked in the past on designing GPS chips.

I understand the application to GPS.  Could you elaborate on the application to the microchip design in the computer I'm using right now?

to simple things down a bit in microchip design there are some super super precise calculations going on. So precise that we have to be able to measure things like gravity very precisely. Without relativity and the knowledge that comes from it we would make imprecise measurements which would result in faulty chips. Trust me when you are putting things together that are only a few atoms apart you have to get it right there is no room for error. Without relativity this sort of precision would be impossible. Does that explain it?

now that I have explained myself do you have any counter to what I have said besides "it's a conspiracy", "magic" and "we don't understand it now but someday science will prove me right"...       

Quote from: EinsteinWasRight on June 03, 2011, 08:36:46 PM

Newtonian physics worked but only to a point.

The same can be said of Einsteinian physics.

Quote

As far as computers go I work in microchip design and have worked in the past on designing GPS chips.

I understand the application to GPS.  Could you elaborate on the application to the microchip design in the computer I'm using right now?

I will give you that on the quantum level things get a little weird with relativity I think we are getting closer to understanding this which is actually quite exciting. It does not make as I said before the things that have already been proven true any less true, we just come to understand them better.

Trust me when you are putting things together that are only a few atoms apart you have to get it right there is no room for error. Without relativity this sort of precision would be impossible. Does that explain it?

Not really.

to simple things down a bit in microchip design there are some super super precise calculations going on. So precise that we have to be able to measure things like gravity very precisely. Without relativity and the knowledge that comes from it we would make imprecise measurements which would result in faulty chips. Trust me when you are putting things together that are only a few atoms apart you have to get it right there is no room for error. Without relativity this sort of precision would be impossible. Does that explain it?

No they are not.  Do you understand how computers work, or are they just magic boxes to you that work on every kind of physics you can slap on it?

oh yeah that's right I forgot I was arguing against people who reject science in favor of magic. I have already explained it, and will not attempt to do so further. I hold a PHD in electrical engineering and work designing microchips, if any of you FEs have better credentials feel free to challenge me. Until then have fun with your magic.

I hold a PHD in electrical engineering and work designing microchips

Of course you do. 

oh yeah that's right I forgot I was arguing against people who reject science in favor of magic. I have already explained it, and will not attempt to do so further. I hold a PHD in electrical engineering and work designing microchips, if any of you FEs have better credentials feel free to challenge me. Until then have fun with your magic.

When your kindergarten gave you the PHD, why didn't they teach you how 2spell correctly.

But I understand that if Einstein was right Newton was wrong.

This is the only answer you will get in this forum. Since any scientist will only be right within a certain range of circumstances, within a set of experimental error parameters and beyond scientific doubt, you can say he is wrong. It is just a word game.

You then get a series of "theories" that have almost no power of prediction at all, and with word games they will try to convince you that these "theories" are as good as the scientific ones, just because both are "wrong".

As long as you want to play with the word "wrong" there will be someone here to play with you. But if you want him/her to go beyond the word games you will get nothing at all.

I know you think NASA is a big conspiracy but it is not so. My grandfather worked as a rocket scientist with them and I personally can attest to his work and the work of NASA. I personally know someone who landed on the moon and I do not doubt his account at all (and neither would you if you ever met him).

Throw him in with the others.

How the hell is gravity proven?

Find me a conclusive proof gravity is it's own separate force.

General relativity and quantum mechanics contradict eachother... both cannot be right... gravity is a myth perpetuated by overzealous RE'er teachers government indoctrinators

Gravity, as a phenomenon is well known to exist.  The exact mechanism of the phenomenon is not yet known, however there are several (conflicting) models which describe the phenomenon very well.  While most particle physics researchers will admit that the graviton (if it truly exists) is nearly impossible to detect using current technology, there is evidence to support the theory of gravity as warped space-time.

Gravity, as a phenomenon is well known to exist.  The exact mechanism of the phenomenon is not yet known, however there are several (conflicting) models which describe the phenomenon very well.  While most particle physics researchers will admit that the graviton (if it truly exists) is nearly impossible to detect using current technology, there is evidence to support the theory of gravity as warped space-time.

There is also evidence that exists to support UA.

And there is a much larger body of evidence which discredits the UA.

Gravity, as a phenomenon is well known to exist.  The exact mechanism of the phenomenon is not yet known, however there are several (conflicting) models which describe the phenomenon very well.  While most particle physics researchers will admit that the graviton (if it truly exists) is nearly impossible to detect using current technology, there is evidence to support the theory of gravity as warped space-time.

Really? What evidence is there supporting General Relativity?

There may be evidence for Special Relativity (frames of motion), but there is no evidence for General Relativity, the idea that space bends in the presence of mass to pull things towards it.

Really? What evidence is there supporting General Relativity?

There may be evidence for Special Relativity (frames of motion), but there is no evidence for General Relativity, the idea that space bends in the presence of mass to pull things towards it.

Come now Tom, you can do better than that.  GR is probably one of the most tested theories of the last 50 years or more.  There's the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, for starters.  Oh, and there's gravitational lensing.   Also:

There have been a variety of experiments over the years which have supported general relativity in ever more detail. I would say the culmination was the awarding of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics to Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor for the discovery of the binary pulsar 1913+16. This binary star system consists of two neutron stars which are orbiting about their common center of mass about every 7.75 hrs. Over time, they are spiraling in toward each other, due to loss of energy via "gravitational radiation" - a prediction of general relativity. Other general relativistic effects are observed, such as the "precession of the periastron". That is to say, the stars are in elliptical orbits, and the "long direction" of each ellipse is precessing with respect to a distant observer. This effect is about 4 degrees per year. (In comparison, for Mercury going around the Sun, it is about 44 seconds of arc per century.)

Plus a whole lot more that is just a Google search away.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2011, 06:23:26 PM

Really? What evidence is there supporting General Relativity?

There may be evidence for Special Relativity (frames of motion), but there is no evidence for General Relativity, the idea that space bends in the presence of mass to pull things towards it.

Come now Tom, you can do better than that.  GR is probably one of the most tested theories of the last 50 years or more.  There's the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, for starters.  Oh, and there's gravitational lensing.   Also:

Quote from: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html

There have been a variety of experiments over the years which have supported general relativity in ever more detail. I would say the culmination was the awarding of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics to Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor for the discovery of the binary pulsar 1913+16. This binary star system consists of two neutron stars which are orbiting about their common center of mass about every 7.75 hrs. Over time, they are spiraling in toward each other, due to loss of energy via "gravitational radiation" - a prediction of general relativity. Other general relativistic effects are observed, such as the "precession of the periastron". That is to say, the stars are in elliptical orbits, and the "long direction" of each ellipse is precessing with respect to a distant observer. This effect is about 4 degrees per year. (In comparison, for Mercury going around the Sun, it is about 44 seconds of arc per century.)

Plus a whole lot more that is just a Google search away.

Really? Why can't gravitons do that?

It's not evidence that the fabric of space-time is bending if gravitons can achieve the same effect.

Really? Why can't gravitons do that?

It's not evidence that the fabric of space-time is bending if gravitons can achieve the same effect.

Why can't they both be correct, in their own way?  Who is to say that gravitons don't warp space-time?

The whole point of the graviton is that it would explain/give rise to the exact phenomena we observe in the framework of GR.

[...] it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would be indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress-energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does.[4] This result suggests that if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.[5]

Suggestion: start by reading a little bit about the graviton on wikipedia, look up the sources if you're skeptical about anything. Keep going from there. But don't throw things out about the graviton contradicting GR or anything like that, when it is so obviously wrong, and so easy to check. Or, at least, be a little humble to things you don't quite understand.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2011, 09:46:56 PM

Really? Why can't gravitons do that?

It's not evidence that the fabric of space-time is bending if gravitons can achieve the same effect.

Why can't they both be correct, in their own way?  Who is to say that gravitons don't warp space-time?

Well, that would be an entirely different hypothesis altogether.

My point was that you cannot look at celestial bodies moving around each other and say that they were moved by the fabric of space-time bending when the same thing could happen with gravitons. You need a test which specifically shows that space is bending for it to be a test of GR.

The whole point of the graviton is that it would explain/give rise to the exact phenomena we observe in the framework of GR.

Quote

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

    [...] it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would be indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress-energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does.[4] This result suggests that if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.[5]

Suggestion: start by reading a little bit about the graviton on wikipedia, look up the sources if you're skeptical about anything. Keep going from there. But don't throw things out about the graviton contradicting GR or anything like that, when it is so obviously wrong, and so easy to check. Or, at least, be a little humble to things you don't quite understand.

"Gravitons" and "bendy space" are two different mechanisms which attempt to explain gravity. One invokes these sub-atomic puller particles and the other says that the fabric of space-time bends in the presence of mass. They are not the same, or compatible with each other. QM and GR have not been united. There is no Theory of Everything. The mechanisms which QM and GR imagine to exist are entirely contradictory.

Suggestion: Go to college.

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2011, 10:28:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2011, 09:46:56 PM

Really? Why can't gravitons do that?

It's not evidence that the fabric of space-time is bending if gravitons can achieve the same effect.

Why can't they both be correct, in their own way?  Who is to say that gravitons don't warp space-time?

Well, that would be an entirely different hypothesis altogether.

Something like this, perhaps?

Quantum gravity (QG) is the field of theoretical physics which attempts to develop scientific models that unify quantum mechanics (describing 3 of the 4 known fundamental interactions) with general relativity (describing the fourth, gravity). It is hoped that development of such a theory would unify in a single consistent model all fundamental interactions and to describe all known observable interactions in the universe, at both microscopic and cosmic scale.

QFT and GR are incompatible at high energies, that is true, and describe the exact same phenomena for lower energies. As pointed out above, Quantum Gravity addresses this issue at high energies. If the gravitons are never found despite big efforts, or will somehow be discovered not to exist, general relativity will still be the best theory, until a better one comes along. If, however, gravitons are discovered, they would explain gravity better than GR. This does in no way mean that gravity does not exist, and that space-time is not bent by massive objects (since we do know that light bends around the sun etc.).

It was not my intention to be impolite, I'm sorry if I was. My impoliteness wasn't directed to you personally, but to all those who do not follow my suggestion. I do go to college, and study physics, although I admit I have not been taking any course in General Relativity, but well in QFT. However, I don't recon such deep knowledge in physics is needed to realize gravity exists (or not) or that the earth is round (or flat, if it is).

In the infinite plane model, it may interest you, gravitational pull exists.  It falls the same laws of RE gravitation and the pull of the infinite plane can be found to be finite using Gauss's Law.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 13, 2011, 12:24:15 PM

Every surveyor in the world has to correct for the curve of the earth, or roads dont end up meeting, same with pipes.

Do you have a source that they have to correct for the curvature of the earth?

One of the proofs we've used for the flatness of the earth is that surveyors DONT correct for the curvature of the earth.

Suggestion: Go to college.

You took the words right out of my mouth Tom

In the infinite plane model, it may interest you, gravitational pull exists.  It falls the same laws of RE gravitation and the pull of the infinite plane can be found to be finite using Gauss's Law.

I assume you are using the term RE gravitation in jest.

The presence of a flat infinite plane is contrary to the concept of masses being attracted to each other.

Quote from: John Davis on July 14, 2011, 03:00:56 AM

In the infinite plane model, it may interest you, gravitational pull exists.  It falls the same laws of RE gravitation and the pull of the infinite plane can be found to be finite using Gauss's Law.

I assume you are using the term RE gravitation in jest.

The presence of a flat infinite plane is contrary to the concept of masses being attracted to each other.

Why do you feel this way?  Are you aware of the inverse square law?