Re: Explaining Time Dilation
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/13/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: The Paradox of Zeno"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: The Paradox of Zeno"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Nov 2004 16:02:52 -0800
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<0cYkd.33216$K7.27437@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.0411111611.29fd8b1c@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<pAykd.31741$K7.8465@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cc2dde17.0411101323.349d655b@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > > GR says that
> > > gravity and space time curvature are two sides of the same coin
> >
> >
> > No, it does not say that at all.
>
> If you disagree point me to a reference that says otherwise.
>
> >
But when you disagree it is still I who must point you to a reference.
When do you have to back up what you claim? Tit for tat is the only
fair for us to go.
> >
> >
> > But the curving of space near massive objects moves along with them in
> > their travels so that requires the physical act of curving space.
>
> It implies the curving of space-time around the object moves along with it -
> not that space is performing some kind of 'physical act' (whatever that is
> supposed to mean) any more than the electric field around a point charge
> requires a 'physical act' for the centric field to move along with it. You
> really must stop trying to understand physics through your own private
> language.
>
> >
But you see below that was not my private language atall, now was it?
> > > >
> > > > Here is a quote from Kitty Ferguson's book, Stephen Hawking Quest For
> > > > A Theory Of Everything, (Bantam Books, 1991)pp56:
> > > > "According to Einstein the curvature is caused by the prescence of
> > > > mass or energy. Every massive body contributes to the curvature of
> > > > spacetime. Things going 'straight ahead' in the universe are forced
> > > > to follow curved paths. Imagine a trampoline (Figure 4-1)"
> > >
> > > That is from a popular book where scientists have been known to be less
> than
> > > rigorous in what they say.
> >
> >
> > Oh, so we must qualify our reads with you prior to citing them?
>
> No - we must take things in context. Strictly speaking the author was
> wrong. It is the type of thing that happens all the time. It is only
> confused people such as yourself that have problems.
>
Here you missed another great opportunity to reference your claim that
the author was wrong. You did not even bother to argue your point,
thus it is worthless.
> > In
> > fact, the author worked for S. Hawking and notes that he was helpful
> > to her in the writing of her work. Pompous oafs who feel qualified to
> > disregard so-called "popular books" are referred to the Lucasian
> > professor at Cambridge.
>
> Pompous oafs who cite popular writings rather than peer reviewed papers or
> standard texts are referred to the later for the correct detail.
> >
> >
> > > GR does not claim mass or energy 'causes' space
> > > time curvature - it claims it is associated with it.
> >
> > No. Have you ever read GR?
>
> Of course - but it is obvious you have not.
>
> > You are making up stuff faster than I can
> > review it. GR specifically claims that space is curved by massive
> > objects as they move through space.
>
> It does not - but what can I say except - (1)
>
Yes, it does, you are mistaken.
> > > > SNIP
>
> > > > I did not say it was....
> > >
> > > So are you claiming all concepts in physics are ficiticious like you
> claim
> > > the concept of the "space-time continuum" is a 'fictitious place'?
> >
> >
> > No, you are jumping to exaggerations again.
>
> Then please elucidate what you mean by 'We have been stuck in the blind
> alley of time-space interdependence with no way to go with it other than in
> the fictitious place called the "space-time continuum".' Exactly why is it
> fictitious, in what context do physicists refer to it as a 'place', and why
> do you object to it? Specifically in what way is it any more fictitious
> than other concepts in physics such as say an electric field?
Are you saying that an electric "field" is fictitious? It is not and
it is obvious that such a thing or something very similar to it
exists. More jumpings to wild assumptions.
> >
> >
> > > Or do
> > > you deny writing 'We have been stuck in the blind alley of time-space
> > > interdependence with no way to go with it other than in the fictitious
> place
> > > called the "space-time continuum".
> > >
> > > >
> > No, I do not deny it. I wrote it for sure.
>
> Well then it what way is it fictitious and say an electric field is not?
>
> > > >
Space-time is a math construct. As such, it has no logical basis to
claim it represents or is reality. It is a chart, a diagram having s
and t axes where we can plot the movement of objects through space and
time. The s-t continuum does not exist as a real location, only as a
theory which claims that space and time are interdependent and one
cannot exist sans the other. In other posts I have posited the
breakup of time and space and no one has yet challenged it. To
believe that the s-t continuum exists is fallacious logic as it is
only a component of an unfalsifiable theory.
> > > >
> > > >
SNIP
> > > Let me get this straight are you denying the context you use 'math
> > > construct' in means it not a kind of concept? For that is the only way
> it
> > > is possible to escape the conclusion concepts can be divided into math
> > > constructs and not math constructs. See my comment on it later.
> > >
> > > >
No, I do not use it as a "concept", per se, it is simply a
construction of mathematical steps arranged so that we can imagine the
results of their construction. E.G., 2+2=4. This a math construction
used to determine a measurement of a quantity but it does not state of
what. As such, it is not a constituent of reality unless and until
the what is included. When that happens, empirical measurements can
result. 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples is a constituent of reality
because apples exist in our real world. Even so, that does not
guarantee the same answer in every instance as the construct can be
applied to measurements of other things, like oranges, and oranges and
apples.
2 apples + 2 oranges = 4 apples (or 4 oranges) = false. While this
math construct includes real objects, its conclusion is not
necessarily correct always. So it is possible to use math constructs
such that they are at times correct and consistent with our reality,
but it is also possible that they will be inconclusive or even
incorrect and thus inconsistent with our reality.
> > > >
> > > >
> > Surely someone in school math class defined the meaning to you of a
> > math construct?
>
> They did not and I have a degree in it. To the best of my knowledge it is
> not a word used in either mathematics or physics. If it was then you should
> be able to cite a reference that contains it.
It's too bad you did not get a degree in Logic. Just because I cannot
or will not cite a reference does not mean it is not a valid claim.
>
> > Maybe you were asleep? Or not paying attention? Or
> > are you just wasting our time with your tactics of obfuscation of the
> > issues in question?
>
> Or maybe it is one of these private phrases like 'accelerating in time'
> that you make up.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Yes, that is correct, you need to say why you think I 'm wrong or
> > > > forever hold your peace. What planet are you on? Here on Earth
> > > > anyone can say what they wish and everyone else has the right to
> > > > challenge it by overthrowing its precepts. If no one can, what was
> > > > said stands. Didn't you learn anything in science school?
> > >
> > > Yes - enough to recognize crap when I see - and you just keep piling it
> > > higher and deeper.
> > >
> > > >
> > That's what you think but your inability to comprehend new ideas
> > forces your mind to remain closed to anything new.
>
> (1).
>
> >
> > > >
> > >> > No, you first about reality. That should be good for a long
> laugh.
> > >
> > > I have already said - science does not concern itself with what reality
> is -
> > > you are the one that wishes to introduce it as an issue when you say
> 'Math
> > > constructs are no more reality than is time dilation.'
> > >
> > > >
> > But you already agree to that, why go on about it?
>
> Because you asked me to talk about reality or do you deny writing 'No, you
> first about reality. That should be good for a long laugh.' What you do
> not like is the answer I gave was not the one you wanted.
>
> >
I just thought that your claim about science and reality reveals your
complete misunderstanding of what reality is.
> > > >
> > > > I am glad to see that you have finally come around to agreeing that
> > > > math constructs cannot be proofs of anything as they are no more than
> > > > inductions. It took you awhile to get here, but I encourage you to
> > > > keep plugging as you have a lot more yet to learn which is different
> > > > than what is in your head.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > Let me get this straight - are you claiming relativity is in full accord
> > > with experiment? Because if you admit that then the only beef you can
> have
> > > against relativity is either on the grounds of logical inconsistency or,
> to
> > > put it bluntly, you do not like it. However not liking a theory has no
> > > scientific relevance.
> > >
> > > >
> > Good, we are in agreement on that. I love Relativity in spite of the
> > personal inadequacies of its inventor. He was fallible like all of us
> > are but many have come to think his invention is completely real and
> > true. What I claim both supports relativity on most points and argues
> > against it on a few points. You seem to believe that one must believe
> > completely in all of what a fallible inventor came up with or one has
> > not the ability to reason.
>
> Then detail your objections - all the stuff you have written in your own
> private language of 'math constructs' and 'accelerating in time' indicates
> is you have no understanding of it.
> > > >
> > > >
Evidently that is the extent of your understanding of itl.
> >
> > Correct, but not all of Relativity can be verified through experiment,
> > and that is what I cannot accept.
>
> So you can not accept that a theory contains things that are not
> experimentally verifiable?
No, that is not what I said. I can accept them up to the point where
they conflict with the prior invention, as GR does with its stance
against gravitation as a force and curved space as reality.
> Now I do not know exactly what you are referring
> to in GR - it would be interesting to know exactly what that is - space-time
> curvature for example has experimental consequences that have been measured.
No, not anything that cannot be explained by classical physics.
> SNIP. In a classic paper Feynman and Wheeler demonstrated EM can
Do you mean electro magnetism or what by your use of EM?
> be formulated in terms of direct interparticle action - no field required.
> The reason fields are introduced is it makes certain things simpler - and
> that is its only use. The fact is science does not demand everything in a
> theory is experimentally verifiable - simply that what can be verified is in
> accord with experiment.
>
> > >
So what could be your point? Do fields exist and if so, are they
verifiable? Do fields not exist since they are no longer required,
and did they exist before they were no longer needed? Is it simpler
to formulate direct interparticle interactions or to locate em fields?
My point was that the curved space concept is unfalsifiable as it
requires the mixture of experience with fantasy.
> > > >
> > > > > SNIP
> > > > What is it about my ideas which you think is illogical?
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Accelerating in time is illogical nonsense.
> > >
> >
> > See my posts to your buddy where I reference all that.
>
> I did - it clarified nothing except you want to maintain your own private
> language. If you mean 'motion along its world line' say that instead of
> 'accelerating in time.'
>
> >
But being in motion along a world line while stationary wrt Earth is
the same as accelerating in time the way Einstein puts it. In order
for the ship to be attracted to the Earth's center, as Einstein
describes it, it must be in a state of acceleration, and the only way
for it to be in such a state while it is fixed on Earth's surface,
since it cannot move physically, is for it to be accelerating in time,
as I put it.
> >
> >
> > The BBT claims that space was emptied out into a "Great Void". Do you
> > agree with that or not?
>
> Please give me the full quote so I can asertain context.
>
>
Evasion tactic noted.
TomGee 111204
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: The Paradox of Zeno"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: The Paradox of Zeno"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
