Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: OT: will Gimbal Lock resurrect Einstein?

ockham opened this issue on Nov 03, 2007 · 100 posts


kuroyume0161 posted Mon, 05 November 2007 at 3:34 AM

And I don't dispute Newton (who could!).  Brilliant minds think alike. :)

Einstein formulated his black hole theory, obviously, on the idea of gravitational fields.  In the end, his idea ended up with a singularity at the center of the black hole - which is a fancy way of saying that the mathematics broke down beyond the event horizon.  Newton probably would have speculated the same thing if he were trying to completely describe the phenomenon.

My point is that Einstein's theories, although not as practical as Newton's, are not whimsical and unproven.  I admit that my studies of Physics sort of trailed off at String theory (et al due to their more or less proven before evidenced nature).  You are obviously aware of Bell's Incompleteness Theorem.  This, for a time, was considered radical bull.  But the logical process and mathematics were very rigorous.  And the validation has been at least tentatively confirmed by experiment.  What practicality is there in this theory?

This is the key to 'science'.  Science is so complex these days that most people must take theories on 'faith' (not blind faith, but faith in the system itself). In the ye olden days, various people would be compelled to retry experiments to validate them (late Renaissance into the mid-Classical periods) and could personally validate theories.  Nowadays, replication is left to 'scientiists' who have the education and support to do such things.  The rest of us have to rely upon the scientific communities self-governing regulation and 'practical applications'.  Cold-fusion showed that the system mostly works.

Both Quantum and Relativity theory are very much proven.  E=MC^2 is derivative of Relativity theory - is there any doubt of the efficacy of this equation?  The problem here is that Quantum physics play a more practical role in our lives due to one unifying factor - electronics- whereas Relativity deals with realms normally beyond our practical experience.  Quantum effects are realized because the technological processes that bring us computers are so fine that the effects are relevant to the operational parameters of the micro-circuitry.  There isn't much chance of Relativistic considerations here - considering that electron propagation through these materials cannot be at the speed of light (and this consideration really concerns matter with respect to such speeds - EM energy always travesl at or less than 'c' without such impediments as increased mass and so on).

Here's a revelation about Relativity: Einstein used and discussed the 'speed of light' a lot in the theory but much of what was affected by this was matter.  Time-dilation, distance-dilation, mass-increase are all aspects of matter (not energy).  In a sense, General Relativity is an explanation of how matter reacts with and is affected by energy and vice versa (not far from the photo-electric effect in principle).  The entire theory is a discourse on the relationship between matter, energy, and the so-called space-time continuum (the 'medium' containing the two).  Basically it says that energy is transmitted through the continuum at a constant speed or less through matter without any mass considerations, matter travels at far less speeds and exhibits odd properites as it is accelerated towards speeds nearing energy transmission.  Matter, having mass, exhibits a known effect on space-time: gravity.  M-M never proved the Ether and tens of thousands of physicists agree since then - some have actually replicated the experiment (keystone of science).

This is very difficult stuff for a bunch of primates to understand.  We are trying to divulge secrets of a place in which we reside like a fish ponders what contains it in a fishbowl.  We have progressed far, but as has been proven before there is never an end to new knowledge.  Just when we thing we know it all, something shows that we know very little.  Galileo, Newton, Einstein were just better at describing the water and the glass.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone