Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 08:52:52 GMT

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411132235.3d176d6a@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<2Ueld.34264$K7.33783@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.0411121707.25c1068e@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<0cYkd.33216$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.
> >
> > Sure see http://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/5310/5310pdf/dg3-2.pdf.
> >
> > 'Einstein proposed that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of
> > space-time! He hypothesized that free particles (and photons) follow
> > geodesics in a curved space-time.'
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > > >
> Nope, nothing in there about any 2-sided coin.

So here we have this posters real concern. He says 'accelerating in time'
is the same as 'in motion along its world line' - which of course it is not.
He is challenged to find anyone that describes it as 'accelerating in time'
and is of course unable to do so. I say 'gravity and space time curvature
are two sides of the same coin' means the same as 'gravity is not a force,
but a curvature of space-time!' and because I can not find those exact words
he say I ma wrong. All I can say is (1).

>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 -
>
> There is no such physical thing as space-time so that cannot be
> curving around real objects nor moving along with it.

There is no such physical thing as an electric field (Wheeler and Feymans
direct interpartical interaction theory shows it not required) so I guess
Maxwell's equations are wrong then? Yea right. As is often the case with
cranks they simply do no understand the basics of science. The fact is of
course not every aspect of a theory requires direct falsifiabilty.

> Only space
> could be doing such a physical act (but only because we know space
> exists); however, for space to be able to do that something must cause
> it.

G=T is fully in accord with experiment and it does not say that space-time
curvature is caused by anything thus the above assertion is demnstratibly
false.

> GR explains that massive objects are the cause of space curvature
> (i.e., something about their mass causes space to "curve"), but that
> does not explain it as well as classical gravitation.

G=T does not say that mass/energy is the cause of space-time curvature - it
says when we have mass energy we have space-time curvature - it is not
possible to determine what causes what ie does mass-energy cause space-time
curvature or space-time curvature cause mass energy or even if they are
inexorably intertwined with one not being possible without the other.

>
> GR claims that smaller bodies or satellites near massive objects
> follow the curved space caused by the larger massive objects but GR
> fails to identify the basis of the force which would be required to
> affect the inertia of bodies such that they would be required to
> follow the space curvature.

GR does not say that. It says the test particles follows geodesics not that
mass-energy cause space-time curvature. G=T simply does not imply that.

>
>
> But space-time is a mental math construct that is a good math tool
> but cannot be added into a theory as a physical factor, place, or
> thing.

Still using your own private language of 'math construct' I see.

> Any attempts at that automatically invalidates the theory it
> is added onto. And GR does not imply "the curving of space-time
> around the object....", as that is a nonsensical statement.

Since curvature is a rigorously defined concept the above is obvious
rubbish.

> You claim
> it implies that, but it doesn't because it only claims that space
> curves and not time. For time to "curve" would define a time
> dilation, but GR notes no such occurrence.

You are obviously delusional. As the link I gave said - 'Einstein proposed
that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space-time!'

>
>
> > > > not that space is performing some kind of 'physical act' (whatever
that
> > is
> > > > supposed to mean)
>
> If you really and truly did not know what that means your ignorance
> would have to extend to your inability to express yourself even as
> poorly as you do. You know exactly what that means as I have
> explained it to you over and over and you have claimed that no force
> is needed to perform such a physical act.

You have explained nothing. All attempts to explain your private language
leads to absurdities such as 'math construct' being both a technique to
solve problems and a mathematical object.

>
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
>
> No, I don't believe you have read it. You recall some of what you
> were told about it, but the fact that the only support you can offer
> for your wild claims is referrals to websites which do not even verify
> your claims shows that you cannot be bothered to read. Your low
> comprehension levels also indicate that you probably are not even a
> good reader.

Anyone one who has studied GR knows that GR is a theory of space-time
curvature. Your assertion GR is not but rather 'it implies that, but it
doesn't because it only claims that space curves and not time.' is the
obvious rantings of a mentally deficient self deluded crackpot. It is well
known, for example, in weak fields and for small velocities the curvature of
time is the main factor - the curvature of space being negligible.

Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space-Time Is Not Curved?
    ... It isn't - space-time is. ... curvature of space are not indistinguishably one and the same thing. ... But try to actually travel those lines of information to any destination, ... Earth, or in any solar systemic space outside the Earth, the Earth is no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... > But when I provide a reference you allow that it's invalid due to it ... > So you do believe that space-time is a real physical place! ... 'GR explains that massive objects are the cause of space curvature (i.e., ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Newbie question about gravity
    ... object which orbit is of zero eccentricity and intersects perigee of ... curvature is not zero if gravity is present. ... general gravity implies space-time curvature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Newbie question about gravity
    ... I take it that "space curvature" is what we commonly consider as tidal ... It is space-time that is curved. ... The relative acceleration of the comoving coordinate systems ... This what I meant by acceleration by virtue of inertia. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: curved space?
    ... >> If space is curved by massive objects, ... In Newtonian theory, it's *only* time ... So the curvature of space is, itself, the difference ... > between Newtonian gravity and general relativity and, ...
    (sci.physics)