Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 11th 2014, 05:18 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8
ok, so now were on the same page :)

thats what i meant in the first post with the image i ve uploaded, that now that we discovered that antimatter exists, the image and the concepts in that image could be to some degree a reason of why and how gravity work like it works, whit a lot of erroes and holes. but are another way of understanding gravity.

I found very interesting the paragraf you uploaded, that einstein explained the way space and time works , how they are affected by gravity, but that could also lead indirectly to what gravity is and how it works at a conceptual level, well like you said nobody knows that yet so

thats why i found it interesting of thinking of that concept of matter and anttimater fighting for space , and compresing each other, in an intent to reach equilibrium, and call that gravity, and visualayz it like the famous video of a planet bending the fabric of space (represented by a 2d or 3d mesh), in the einstein relativyt theory, but from a slightly diferent perspective.... just an idea
vrgdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11th 2014, 05:24 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8
also about the big bang , i agree totaly whit the idea of it, which i found has no sence that time and space the universe it self were generated at that moment, that before there was nothing, something must have made the big bang happen, that something means automaticly that time did existed before, and the universe must have materialyzed in to something, so that something must have been there before, if the first law of termodinamycs is truh, that energy only transforms, why at the moment of the big bang we assume that everthyng even time was formed out of nothing, it makes muhc more sence to see it as a cicly that repates its self....so this is one of the concpets behind the ideas in the image ive uploaded
vrgdaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15th 2014, 05:12 PM   #13
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
Returning to the original post

I like the idea of the misconceptions page.
The interest generated by your original post indicates that it could fly.

It could however cause friction, one persons misconception is another's unassailable truth!
It might cause a bit of a headache for the forum mediators...
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15th 2014, 07:15 PM   #14
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
I like the idea of the misconceptions page.
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
The interest generated by your original post indicates that it could fly.

It could however cause friction, one persons misconception is another's unassailable truth!
It might cause a bit of a headache for the forum mediators...


The moderators and myself talk about these. We put them up when it's a true misconception and not simply a matter of opinion, which is what you're referring to. A misconception is not subject to opinion but is a fact of physics.

For example; one common misconception is quantum mechanics implies that a particle can be in more than one place at the same time. That's a misinterpretation of orthodox quantum mechanics. No legitimate quantum mechanics teacher would ever teach something like that and it one can't arrive at such a conclusion or give any meaning to it with quantum mechanics.

Another misconception is that Einstein proved that gravitation is a curvature in spacetime. That's a misconception. Einstein not only never said that but when Max Von Laue sent him his new book on relativity for Einstein to review and it said that the existence of a gravitational field is determined by the presence of spacetime curvature Einstein disagreed with him explaining why and what the "correct" way was.

Another misconception is that Einstein never used relativistic mass. I know several examples where he used it, most notably in The Principle of Conservation of the Center of Gravity and the Inertia of Energy, Albert Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 20 (1906): 626-633. Also in his text The Meaning of Relativity.

I could go on and on. One of my areas of interest in physics is historical accuracy in special and general relativity.
Pmb is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
page



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Common Misconceptions in Physics arbolis General Physics 2 Nov 14th 2016 03:56 AM
Terminology and "looking like physics" NicoleJS Physics Software 3 Aug 24th 2016 10:49 PM
Urgent! Project for Physics Class! "Air Train" of sorts. Crystal0513 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Sep 13th 2013 05:36 AM
Friction physics problems.. understanding "mi"? abcmj Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Nov 12th 2009 01:34 AM
Does "attitude" mean "orientation"? s3a Light and Optics 1 May 31st 2009 12:27 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed