urls from children website space rocket

 


For whatever reason, these links need to be copied and pasted.
Otherwise, they go to one of my blogs.




 

If Einstein proved that gravity is not a force but a distortion of space-time, then why do many scientists ignore Einstein's conclusion and still go with Newtonian description of gravity being a force?


It is not true that Einstein proved that gravity is not a force. This is one of the many misconceptions that the physics community has foisted on to the public. (Or maybe it’s the public fault that it has embraced them.) Anyway, here’s the truth as described in my book “Fields of Color”, which explains Quantum Field Theory to a lay audience (click here

to “Look Inside”):

In most presentations of physics today we are told that gravity is caused by “curvature of space-time”. This was not Einstein’s view, nor is it the view of QFT. Einstein believed that gravity is a force field, not unlike the electro­magnetic field.

[There is] a field of force, namely the gravitational field, which possesses the remarkable property of imparting the same acceleration to all bodies. – A. Einstein (E1923, p. 114)

The idea of space-time curvature, like the four-dimensional concept, had its origin in mathematics. When searching for a mathematical method that could embody his Principle of Equivalence, Einstein was led to the equations of Riemannian geometry. And yes, these equations describe four-dimensional curvature, for those who can visualize it. Mathema­ticians are not limited by physical constraints; equations that have a physical meaning in three dimensions can be generalized algebraically to any number of dimensions. But when you do this, you are dealing with algebra, not geometry.

To those who are geometrically inclined, two dimensions is a breeze, three dimensions routine, and four dimensions impossible. But to those who think algebraically, two, three, or four dimensions are just particular examples of spaces with any number of dimensions. In this sense, Riemann was an algebraist. – J. Schwinger (S1986, p. 175-176)


 

 https://space-forchildren.yolasite.com/seconds.php


 https://space-forchildren.yolasite.com/timeline-of-the-universe.php


 https://space-forchildren.yolasite.com/atomic-particles.php


 https://space-forchildren.yolasite.com/universe-timelins-oz.php


 https://space-forchildren.yolasite.com/big-bang-oz.php

 

 

 https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/sculpted-nature-fossils-minerals-meteorites/lots/1883

 

 

Seconds

Page created 10 5 2023 and under consideration

This page and the others following it are being edited to encourage children 10 to 12 to read them.

At the end of the process these pages will appear on this page. Possible recent readers may be notified.

Why are we looking at seconds?

We will learn that light travels a long way in one second.  How far is the Moon from Earth?

The average distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384 400 km (238 855 miles). source

Light from a stationary source travels at 300,000 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec).  source

-----------------------------------------------------
How many days is 93 million miles?

Here are some fun facts about the distance to the sun: On average, the sun is 93 million miles from the earth. It would take 1,430,769 hours to drive there at 65 miles per hour. It would take 59,615 days to drive there at 65 miles per hour.

check by multiplying 59,615  by 24  look






On average, the Earth and Moon are about 150 million kilometres (or 93 million miles) from the Sun!

That distance is so large that it takes light eight minutes to reach us (remember that light travels at 300,000 kilometres per second). That means that if the Sun were to stop shining right now, we wouldn’t know for another eight minutes.

London to Lisbon is here.  1585 km is a mere spec when compared to the speed of light distances. Look at the map.  It's confusing and probably won't be used.

Because this is such a controversial question, I will quote two more Nobel laureates who expressed similar thoughts:

We can describe general relativity using either of two mathematically equivalent ideas: curved space-time or metric field. Mathematicians, mystics, and specialists in general relativity tend to like the geometric view because of its elegance. Physicists trained in the more empirical tradition of high-energy physics and quantum field theory tend to prefer the field view… More important, as we’ll see in a moment, the field view makes Einstein’s theory of gravity look more like the other successful theories of fundamental physics, and so makes it easier to work toward a fully integrated, unified description of all the laws. As you can probably tell, I’m a field man. — F. Wilczek (W2008, p. 100-101)

It is certainly a historical fact that when Albert Einstein was working out general relativity, there was at hand a preexist­ing mathe­matical formalism, that of Riemannian geometry, that he could and did take over whole. However, this historical fact does not mean that the essence of general relativity necessarily consists in the application of Riemannian geometry to physical space and time. In my view, it is much more useful to regard general relativity above all as a theory of gravita­tion, whose connection with geometry arises from the peculiar empirical properties of gravitation. – S. Weinberg (W1972, p. vii, p.3)

A physicist friend of mine put it more succinctly: “Why would God invent a different mechanism for another force?”


Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity  

https://space-forchildren.yolasite.com/denver-john-relativity.php


 https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html


M87*  

 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=M87*

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)