Is Information in this article accurate?

[Mylo.X.]

Just wondering if info provided in this article is accurate or not?

New Understanding of Time Changes the Way We See the World | Spirit Science

 

[Einstein]

Just wondering if info provided in this article is accurate or not?

New Understanding of Time Changes the Way We See the World | Spirit Science

Just off the bat I would say no. He didn't reference any of his statements to known sources of reputable knowledge. It appears just to be the opinions of the author writing the article.

 

[Mylo.X.]

Cheers Einstein.

I do find this portion of the article fascinating though:

"Were an observer to fly up to one of these satellites and watch the on-board atomic clock, he would see no difference in the length of a second. It would still be that familiar tick, tick, tick of Earth seconds. At that level of gravity, he, too, would be moving faster through time and would therefore see one second to be one plain old second. But, from here on the Earth’s surface and from within our denser gravitational field, we can see that the seconds pass a little more quickly on the satellites.
Time is slowed by heavy gravity."

 

[vodkafan]

Time is slowed by gravity yes.

 

[Darby]

Just wondering if info provided in this article is accurate or not?

New Understanding of Time Changes the Way We See the World | Spirit Science

Mylo,

It's somewhat factual but the author seems to have used uninformed Internet materials and personal opinions for the article. There are several misstatements. For example

In his 1905 special theory of relativity, Einstein asserted that space and time were not two separate phenomenons or entities. Instead, space (height, width, length) and time (forward? now? backward?) were mixed together in one continuum—woven together in one fabric.

That is not a statement from the 1905 paper on Special Relativity or even Einstein himself. It was made by Minkowski about 2 1/2 years later. It's implied by the paper but not directly stated as such.

Most of his statements about General Relativity and gravity are wrong. Einstein objected to gravity being a "pull" as that implied direct action at a distance with nothing to explain how it occurred (a physical mechanism). General Relativity as it was originally published is a Classical theory. It involves waves, not particles. Quantum Mechanics is a theory of particles. The author's assertion that all accelerations are a form of gravity is flat wrong. The acceleration of a vehicle by a rocket engine is unrelated to gravitation. That acceleration involves the electromagnetic force (we generally call it chemistry and thermodynamics ).

We have to keep the original theories in context. Electrons weren't discovered until 1896 (Thompson). Protons came next in 1911 (Rutherford). Neutrons weren't discovered until 1920 (Rutherford). The Standard Model of particle physics is a post WWII theory that involves adding the force exchange particles and all of the other particles that we have discovered. Among the theoretical particles of the Standard Model is the graviton - the force carrier for gravity. It's never actually been observed. Einstein was correct to object to action at a distance absent a clearly defined mechanism.

So, eh...the article is OK I suppose. But there are dozens of well stated explanations of Special and General Relativity that are professionally written and sourced for the lay reader. This article is a mess by comparison.

 

[Mylo.X.]

Thanks Darby for clarification and information.