Gravity - Do We Need to Rewrite General Relativity? By Matthew Francis on Thu, 18 Jun 2015 Q General relativity, the theory of gravity Albert Einstein published 100 years ago, is one of the most successful theories we have. It has passed every experimental test; every observation from astronomy is consistent with its predictions. Physicists and astronomers have used the theory to understand the behavior of binary pulsars, predict the black holes we now know pepper every galaxy, and obtain deep insights into the structure of the entire universe. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/06/do-we-need-to-rewrite-general-relativity/ “That’s not good enough,” says Moffat. “A theory should predict something that the other theories or other paradigm cannot reproduce. Then you know you’re on the right track.” That thought turned him toward another major GR prediction: black holes, objects so massive and compact that their curvature prevents light from escaping. Few astrophysicists doubt that black holes exist: We know of a large number of very massive, very dense objects in the cosmos, for which the black hole hypothesis is the only one that fits. However, we have yet to “see” the event horizon, the boundary separating the exterior of a black hole from its interior—where nothing can escape back into the outside Universe. That’s the goal of the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which is actually made of six observatories scattered around the world, observing the same objects in concert. Working together, they can create real images of whatever is right outside the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, a new frontier where GR’s most exotic effects could be measured. UQ
Q http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/...-the-universe-be-lopsided/#comment-2280972587 ENERGY CANNOT BE OUT ON ITS OWN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Everyone has the wrong idea of what energy, forces and fields are. Energy is a particle vibration or movement. You cannot have energy without a mass, energy is mass vibrating. Energy cannot be out on its own. (a supposed mass-less particle is a particle nonetheless, but there are no mass-less particles, so that’s irrelevant) Same thing goes for forces. A force is a group of particles arranged in a field pulling each other… and all of the particles absolutely have to be physically connected. A force (a group of connected particles) can only push very short distances and in rare circumstances like same pole magnets. But the point is… a force has to have particles involved. A force cannot be out on its own. Most of mainstream physics is a misconception. There is no such thing as pure energy. Again… Energy is a vibration on a particle (or particle movement). Can energy be converted into mass? Ummm… no, energy already has mass involved, it is a particle vibration or movement. There is no pure energy and you are not going to convert energy into mass. Think of a guitar string. If you pluck it… that is the energy. If you remove the guitar string from the scenario… can you still have the energy? No, of course not. Can you convert the guitar string vibration into mass? No… that is ridiculous. Look at what everything really is… Dimensions and units… mass = [M] = kilograms length = [L] = meters time = [T] = seconds frequency = [T^-1] = seconds ^-1 speed = [L] / [T] …… = m/s acceleration = [L] / [T^2] …. = m / s^2 momentum = [M] [L] / [T] … = kg_m / s force = [M] [L] / [T^2] . = kg_m / s^2 energy = [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = kg_m^2 / s^2 power = [M] [L^2] / [T^3] = kg_m^2 / s^3 Notice mass [M] is not equal to energy [M] [L^2] / [T^2] …the vibration is missing Here is what Einsteins famous equation really looks like… [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = [M] [L^2] / [T^2] Energy already is a mass times speed^2. If you could just lop-off parts of an equation and claim whatever is left is equal… i.e. “energy equals mass” then you could also say that “power equals mass” and so does momentum and force. It is really stupid to think like that. Speed is NOT equal to length. Speed is equal to length divided by time. Energy is NOT equal to mass. Energy is equal to mass times speed squared. thoithe First of all is Time is not a Dimension as this article has pointed out! Second Space is 10 dimensions without Time, again I did not say Time is as Dimension similar to X, Y, Z Dimension used to called. Therefore, Space Time has wrong concept due Time is as Dimension. You did not need Unified Field Theory, UFT, but Theory of Everything, TOE, THOE, THO-E, will clear the way for UFT . . . Three Dimensional Space is neither Hypersphere nor Hyperboloid Nor Flat, again THO-E and Particles Field will explain better about all of the Spaces above . . . . . . . Astrophysicists are about making same mistakes Riemann and Lobachevski , RaL, have made 200 years ago, but it is no surprise they started from them, RaL ,what they left off or over 200 years ago . . . . . I did not say RaL are wrong, but mistake in some perspective and concept and the way Mind worked as mind set . . . . . . . . . . Deterministic chaos is poor idea about Universe in chaos, Universe is more, far more chaos than deterministic chaos. UQ