Re: Explaining Time Dilation
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/13/04
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Previous message: xxein: "Re: The Source of Gravitational Energy"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:45:10 GMT
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411121135.5ced005@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<BKSkd.32881$K7.29856@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "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>
> > > > :> :>
> > > > : Wrong. GR says there is no gravitation, only curved space; but
curved
> > > > : space is only an alternative model for gravitation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > >
> None whatsoever, and you have it already.
You have not.
>
> > >
> > > > :> What learned physicists insist that a force must be present?
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> No, I'm not. That's a silly thing for you to say.
Anyone who after reading the article by Bornstein believes it says or
implies 'accelerating in time' has definite problems with comprehension.
>
>
> > 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).
>
>
> Yes, those are all mathematical constructs. You got really hung up on
> that, aren't you?
You are the one that is hung up on it and keeps using it despite the fact it
is not a term commonly used. Indeed you use it in inconsistent ways -
claming on the one hand it is a technique (mathematical induction) and on
the other it is a mathematical object eg a group or a field.
> I thought you were just attempting more
> obfuscation, but I see now that you cannot get beyond that no matter
> what. But that is your problem, not mine. Sorry I could not help you
> in that, though.
Sorry I can not help your get beyond you own private language no one else
understands.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> No, not at all. I paraphrase above precisely what I have since then
> quoted, in response to your demand for reference. I provided
> reference, but you still refuse to acknowledge that you stand against
> well-known physicists more learned than you, and you still presume to
> argue illogically against logical rules and reasonable thought.
You have provided no reference that used the terms 'accellerating in time'
and 'force of time' except an essay you wrote yourself.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> > >
> In fact, I have admitted to more than one mistake in my posts, one in
> this thread where I admit my notes could be in error, and another in
> another thread. So again you are wrong in your gross assumptions as
> you have been in many other of your gross exaggerations.
Yet you consider 'math construct' is standard terminology and can not cite a
reference that uses it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <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.
> >
> > >
> You believe Einstein is not an reputable physicist? How droll.
But he never said that. It is obvious you are a deluded fool who actually
believes the delusions he writes about is true - they are not.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.'.
>
>
> You really have a problem with comprehension of the English language,
> except where it suits your motives. Do you not see the fantasy
> involved with a real stationary ship "moving" through a fictional
> space-time continuum?
Saying 'the rocket is in motion along its world line.' is not saying it is
moving through 'a fictional space-time continuum' - that is simply a
delusional misintereptaion on your part. A world line is a plot of position
vs time - http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/w/world-line.htm. The position
of a particle at successive instants of time creates a line in such a plot -
that is defined as its world line. Obviously such a plot 'traces' out a
line - which is what Bornstein means by the rocket is in 'motion' along its
world line - but I do not agree with such terminology because having engaged
cranks like yourself know how easy it is for them to misinterpret what in
obvious to anyone else. Also Bornstein is being a bit loose in what he said
here - it would only trace out a free particle world line if the earth was
not in the way.
> Do you really not see where Einstein veers off
> the straight and narrow path of empirical research into the realm of
> the math construct which is the so-called space-time continuum?
Do you not see that 'math construct' is part of your own delusional language
and is meaningless drivel?
> He
> mixes Theoretical Physics with empirical science as if the two were
> interdependent - which of course they are often not.
Since you have not defined 'math construct' in a meaningful way - sometimes
having the meaning of a technique used to prove something and at other times
a mathematical object your statements are obviously without content.
>
>
> > I do not entirely agree with the way Bornstein explained
> > it - I would have expressed it differently - what Stephen said IMHO is
much
> > better.
> >
>
> But you admit Stephen is wrong, right, since you do not argue my
> charge against his silly claim above?
Stephen is correct.
> And yet you like his obviously wrong explanation better?
I like his correct explanation better.
> No matter how wrong it is? Bornstein said
> it right; you and Stephen are wrong, period. Why? Because, if the
> rocketship is lying stationary on the surface of the Earth, it is not
> moving in space, curved or otherwise, wrt to the Earth, unless we
> qualify Einstein's claim by including the fictional space-time
> continuum.
It is still tracing out a world line regardless of it changes spatial
position or not - which is why I do not like Borneteins terminology - it is
correct in the sense anyone with a brain knows what it means - but for
people like you it is far too easy to misinterpret - you see a words like
'motion along its world line' and assume it implies actual physical change
in position - it may or may not depending on the world line.
> Mixing the reality we see of a stationary ship and the
> fantasy of space-time, the ship can then move while stationary (!!)
> ONLY through the time factor of the s-t continuum.
The spaceship is stationary in a frame attached to the earth. It is not
stationary in a frame in fee fall next to the spaceship. What is so hard
about that? You seem really stuck up on words and context. Consider the
world line of a stationary particle - it is a flat line parallel to the t
axis. The tip of the line changes from instant to instant in such a plot -
that is what is meant by moving along its world line. It does not imply
'motion' in the sense of changing position - in may imply motion in the
sense of the tip of the world line moves in the plot - but I suspect that is
not what you man by motion. If it is and you doubt the tip of the line will
not change then you are obviously incapable of understanding something very
obvious.
>
>
> > > 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'?
> >
> > >
> Well, if you or anyone else sees it differently, you're all welcome to
> post your arguments here against my interpretation of the wool-pulling
> Einstein did over your eyes. My arguments are here and you have only
> to use logic to overthrow them.
Stephen and I have - you have been ignoring them - or rather still
continuing to claim it says 'moving in time' or has a 'force of time' when
no reputable scientist ever said such. As I have said many times you can
ague black and blue with these bozos but if they will not see it all you can
say is (1).
> > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > :
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> No. I already did that. You need to read things through before
> arbitrarily condemning their content. It's clear you do not do that.
> I have shown you that "accelerating through time" is a correct
> interpretation of GR premises, but if you insist they are
> "misconceptions", no one can help you.
You did not - but what can I say except (1)
Bill
> TomGee 111204
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Previous message: xxein: "Re: The Source of Gravitational Energy"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
