Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/11/04 

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:39:13 GMT

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411111440.3614a5c9@posting.google.com...
> stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<cmup2s$27tf$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > : stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<cmtrt5$1eo6$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > :> TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > :> : stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<cmrcss$2af5$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> >
> > :> :> <snip>
> > :> :>
> > :> : So your argument here is that since no force is needed to follow a
> > :> : straight line and curved lines are the same as straight lines if
the
> > :> : Universe wishes them to be so, the force which some learned
physicists
> > :> : insist must be present is in your opinion not needed? Here is
another
> > :> : excerpt from my essay:
> > :>
> > :> According to GR gravity is not a force. So anytime you talk
> > :> about a force and gravity, you are not talking about GR.
> >
> >
> > : Wrong. GR says there is no gravitation, only curved space; but curved
> > : space is only an alternative model for gravitation.
> >
> > GR does not say there is no gravitation. Where did you get
> > that idea?
> >
> >
> I read it in GR. Why? Where did you get your idea that it doesn't
> say that, from Hobba?

Then you should have no trouble giving us a quote to support that assertion.

>
>
> > :> What learned physicists insist that a force must be present?
> >
> >
> > : The ones whose names you moved below my reference quote, Bernstein and
> > : Gamow.
> >
> > What reference quote? You were quoting your own essay. Where
> > did you ever quote Bernstein and Gamow? You said
> > "26Contributed by Lawrence A. Bornstein and George Gamow, Theory of
> > General Relativity, (Microsoft En-carta, 1994 Funk & Wagnalls
> > Corporation)". What did they contribute? Did they help
> > you write your essay? Did they contribute the idea of "force of time",
> > or "accelerating in time"? Show me the actual quote of Bornstein
> > and or Gamow where they say "force of time". If you can,
> > post the exact text on which you are basing your essay.
> >
>
> There is always the possibility that I got my references mixed up, so
> here is an update on that reference I gave and even though it is
> updated in this current edition of Encarta (in not providing the names
> of authors who contributed), it is still essentially what I posted wrt
> to "accelerating in time". You should try to learn from it.
>
> "The force due to acceleration is in no way distinguishable from the
> force due to gravity. According to Einstein's theory, Newton's law of
> gravitation is an unnecessary hypothesis; Einstein attributes all
> forces, both gravitational and those associated with acceleration, to
> the effects of acceleration. Thus, when the rocket is standing still
> on the surface of the earth, it is attracted toward the center of the
> earth. Einstein states that this phenomenon of attraction is
> attributable to an acceleration of the rocket. In three-dimensional
> space, the rocket is stationary and therefore is not accelerated; but
> in four-dimensional space-time, the rocket is in motion along its
> world line. According to Einstein, the world line is curved, because
> of the curvature of the continuum in the neighborhood of the earth.
>
> Thus, Newton's hypothesis that every object attracts every other
> object in direct proportion to its mass is replaced by the
> relativistic hypothesis that the continuum is curved in the
> neighborhood of massive objects...."
> (Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
> Corporation. All rights reserved.)

Am I blind or is 'accelerating in time' and 'force of time' missing from the
above? When you write 'it is still essentially what I posted wrt to
"accelerating in time"'' you are demonstrating an unsound comprehension
ability. You showed similar problems when you argued 'math construct was a
commonly used term with me - you define it as mathematical induction (a
technique for proving theorems) and then as mathematical objects such as
'groups' and 'field's (which are examples of sets with certain properties).
You then take your misconceptions and apply them in unintelligible ways such
as saying 'At the same time, however, in Einstein's parallel 4d curved
space-time continuum, the same rocket is moving along its world line somehow
accelerating in time (?), apparently, through the curved space produced by
the massive object planet Earth, and its acceleration is seemingly provided,
somehow, by a new and mysterious "force" of time' I suspect your problems
lies in comprehension and expressing yourself well. That is nothing to
worry about per se - my abilities in those areas are not crash hot - but in
your case it is compounded by a desire to not admit when you have made a
mistake.

>
> I no longer have my old Encarta so I cannot check whether or not my
> notes are correct. Note that the article takes care to show that
> Newtonian gravitation is REPLACED by "the relativistic hypothesis".
> Do you disagree with that? I do, but if you do, it will be a first
> for you and me.

I implore you to put your misconceptions behind you and start fresh. The
following by John Baez is an excellent essay on the meaning of GR and a
modern take on what is happening - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/.

> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > :> What is 'accelerating in time' supposed to even mean?
> > :>
> > : Or better yet, explain in your own words how
> > : the rocketship is moving through Earth's curved space while it is
> > : sitting on its surface. Didn't you think to ask any questions while
> > : they were feeding you all that bs? Did you swallow it without
> > : question over the Lemmings cliffs? Don't you have just one
> > : non-conformist bone in your body?
> >
> > The fact that the rocketship is sitting on the Earth means
> > it is being prevented from moving through "Earth's curved space".
>
> No, you got that wrong. According to Einstein, it is accelerating in
> time while it lies at constant velocity wrt the surface of the Earth.

No reputable physicist has ever said that - is is an illogical nonsense
statement.

>
>
> > That is why it experiences a force. An object in orbit around
> > the earth on the other hand is free to move through "curved space"
> > and as a result experiences no forces.
> >
>
> I'll give you credit for a valiant try to save your position, but
> sorry - no dice. Note that Einstein does not say it experiences a
> force while stationary on earth, but that it is following its world
> line through time.

That is not what Bornstein said - he said - 'the rocket is in motion along
its world line.'. I do not entirely agree with the way Bornstein explained
it - I would have expressed it differently - what Stephen said IMHO is much
better.

> This is the precise reason why I continue to argue
> that we cannot allow anyone to come to believe that space-time is
> real: We cannot falsify the premise that moving through time in the
> space-time continuum constitutes moving through the curved space of
> Earth. Either we take it with a leap of faith or toss it. But don't
> despair, I provide an alternative solution to that dilemma in my
> model.

Why do you insist Einstein or any reputable physicist says 'moving through
time in the space-time continuum constitutes moving through the curved space
of Earth'?

>
>
> > <snip>
> > :
> > So here you are attempting to explain time dilation to everyone,
> > but when asked to explain a simple example of time dilation your
> > response is "I don't have any idea, nor do I want to know."
> > Where's Dirk when you need him? :)
> >
> >
> I already gave you the simplest explanations of time dilation in my
> model but evidently you have not understood the simple words I've
> used. The best examples of time dilation are the moving train
> experiment and the Twin Paradox experiment. I resolve both of those
> paradoxes in my essay and render them mysteries no longer.
> TomGee 111104

Again mind giving us the gist of it or a quote from its important points? I
suspect it contains errors similar to 'accelerating through time' and other
misconceptions.

Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... as he returns and sees it moving 'like a bat out ... created by his rate of travel relatively to the earth ... and acceleration times are negligible. ... unexplained physics". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... suggesting that he is stationary and the Earth is moving. ... The acceleration is finished .. ... explanation - that it is the traveler's clock, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... suggesting that he is stationary and the Earth is moving. ... Having experienced the force of acceleration as he blasts off from the ... explanation - that it is the traveler's clock, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... space is only an alternative model for gravitation. ... "The force due to acceleration is in no way distinguishable from the ... on the surface of the earth, it is attracted toward the center of the ... > So here you are attempting to explain time dilation to everyone, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How does Light Flow?
    ... > Somethings are moving through space ... > That is a relative acceleration; ... on Earth is motionless *relative to the Earth*. ... If one drops a small ball from a height, ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading