Re: Co-ordinate Time Vs. Real Time

From: Mitchell (macromitch_at_internetCDS.com)
Date: 06/08/04 

Date: 8 Jun 2004 11:38:42 -0700

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40c5b21d@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
> "Mitchell" <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message news:9c3da975.0406071914.6cef3b7a@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Ie4xc.147839$nD.7577687@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > "Mitchell" <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message news:9c3da975.0406071146.2f2a7844@posting.google.com...
> > > > >Snip
> > > > > > > The 4 coordinates *make* the coordinate system.
> > > > > > > They *are* the coordinate system. By sheer definition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For you there are no different co-ordinate systems like
> > > > > > the Kruskal and Schwarzschild.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course there are different coordinate systems.
> > > > > 1) Every observer carrying a clock and having the means to
> > > > > measure distances has his own private coordinate system.
> > > > > There is no way that this can be contradicted, right?
> > > > > 2) For any of the above systems you can create new systems
> > > > > by making calculations with its coordinates.
> > > > > Can't be denied either.
> > >
> > >
> > > [my example, a rather essential part, disappeared here]
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't understand time.
> > >
> > > I did not write this. You did.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What one reads on one's clock is defined as time.
> > > > > We can recreate the above situation with times that
> > > > > are measured with your clock and call it local time
> > > > > or shell time or whatever, and then we can introduce
> > > > > another kind of time and give it another name, like
> > > > > far-away time, or bookkeeper time, or Schwarzschild
> > > > > time.
> > > > > Exactly the same story.
> > > >
> > > > You are wrong if you think there is more than one time.
> > > > There is only one time. It is both proper and gravitational.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tine ends at the event horizon of a black hole where the co-ordinate
> > > > > > system is said to fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the coordinates cannot be used there.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The co-ordinate systems that define time
> > > > > > predict its very end. Schwarzchild coordinates predict the failure
> > > > > > of General Relativity at the event horizon.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the coordinates cannot be used at the event horizon.
> > > > > Just like the longitude coordinate on Earth fail at the poles.
> > > >
> > > > No it doesn't. Zero is a far cry from a singularity.
> > > >
> > > > >snip
> > >
> > > [again you snipped a rather essential part of my message]
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > >
> > > > I am not intersested in your readings. I have my own ideas.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, so much is clear.
> > > Well, I did my best to honestly help you find out about the ideas
> > > that are shared by the rest of the world.
> >
> > I can find that without you. Slimeball.
> >
> > >
> > > > How do you know the co-ordinate systems you have chose to represent
> > > > time in gravity are right Dirk?
> > >
> > > I'll give an answer to that question if you convince me first that you
> > > are really interested in other people's ideas, and in how things really
> > > work. For that you go back to my message and ask intelligent
> > > questions about it, or maybe even try to say where and why you
> > > think the explanation (and the example) is wrong and which logical
> > > or practical errors I have made.
> > > If you *cannot* do that, then I cannot help you.
> > > If you *refuse* to do that, I have to conclude that you have bad
> > > intentions.
> > > That's fair enough I would say.
> > > Your choice entirely.
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > I already know you are wrong Dirk. So you produce a condition in
> > order for you to answer me.
>
> I did not produce a condition.
> I gave an example. As soon as you understand what happens
> in the example, we can go on.
>
> > You are wrong.
>
> Tell me exactly how and we can talk.
>
> > Show me where I am wrong.
>
> I already did but you don't listen.
> I did my part. The ball is in your camp.
>
> > You are afraid to look wrong Dirk.
> >
> > Somebody has to be right. That is what the world is waiting for.
> > And guess what? It ain't you. Not in what I am dealing with.
> >
> > I am working with problems in General Relativity.
>
> You are working with problems in your view of it.
> There are many problems with that.
>
> > I'll show you where you are wrong. That is my "bad" intention.
>
> Well, so far you have shown where *you* are wrong.
> That's not nearly as "bad" as you might want it to be :-)
>
> >
> > I want to know how acurate co-ordinate systems are to be found.
>
> That is easy to explain.
>
> > How can we know they represent time in gravity correctly?
>
> I could explain.
>
> > If they are all arbitrary then the theory is a failure.
> > Time has to be correctly represented. But how will we know when
> > we have achieved this?
>
> Very simple to answer.
>
> > That is what I want to know.
> >
> > Your answer is we have already found it. Show me how to demonstrate
> > it is without flaw. Can it be disprooved?
>
> You ask good questions.
> They have easy but interesting answers.
>
> > If it can't then it is disqualified from science.
>
> That's correct.
>
> >
> > You think I need to worship you;
>
> That would be *very* silly of me :-)
>
> > to look up to you as a condition for you
> > to answer?
>
> ... utterly silly :-)
>
> > You don't understand time Dirk. I have more understanding of it than you do.
> > Mitch Raemsch
> > -- Light falls --
> > -- Go To Hell --
>
> I don't really believe in hell, but I see many good questions
> in your post.
> I can answer them, but I will not unless you convince me
> that you are really interested and that you are prepared
> to listen.
> You start with pointing out the typo that I made in that
> example
> You know where to find me.
>
> Dirk Vdm
How do we find a correct way to represent time in gravity?
How do we know if we have acomplished this?
Mitch Raemsch
                               -- Light falls --

Relevant Pages

  • Re: dirk works on google?
    ... general relativity is wrong Paul Cardinale Mon, ... >> he is not man enough to take up a debate, shame on you dirk ... > Hi Hamster ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Double-think,
    ... > A relativist is a person who practices double-think as expressed in special ... > and general relativity. ... > preaches that seconds can be stretched as seen by a distant observer but NOT ... Dirk Vdm ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)