Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/15/04 

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:44:02 GMT

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411141447.45c3a4b@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<E1Fld.35879$K7.3933@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.0411132235.3d176d6a@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<2Ueld.34264$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...
> SNIP
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> SNIP
> > > > > > >
> > > 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.
>
>
> Wrong, of course it is.

(1).

>
>
> > He is challenged to find anyone that describes it as 'accelerating in
time'
> > and is of course unable to do so.
>
>
> But when I provide a reference you allow that it's invalid due to it
> not being from anyone you deem important.

Yea - the reference was from yourself. Anyone can see that is not valid.

> So it does not depend on
> who agrees with you or me, it simply depends on whether you have any
> logical arguments against my posted claims. So far you have none, so
> you argue against yourself, like above. If you disagree with GR about
> accelerating in time, post your argument in a logical way and don't
> argue about whether one means the same as the other without stating
> why you think it's relevant.
>
>
> > 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 you are wrong only by your own argument that I am wrong.
> Obviously I think you are correct but you don't as per your own silly
> argument.

Then why raise the point?

>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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?
>
>
> So you do believe that space-time is a real physical place!

That is your teminology not mine.

> At first,
> I did not think you would go so far as to admit that, but I did not
> know then how much farther than GR your illogical mind could go.
> Evidently, there is no stopping it. Your great desire to be THE
> Lemming leader of this ng is without limitation.

You are so transparent it is unbelievable.

>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Every aspect which is used as a premise in a theory must be one which
> can be falsified if the conclusion is to be deemed true and correct.

Not true - eg the concept of electric field can not be falsified yet is does
not render Maxwell's equations invalid.

>
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> You can say it all you want but saying it don't make it so. Got any
> logical arguments to support your erroneous claim that GR does not say
> that, in spite of contradictions by your own words?

I have given my reasoning many times - you are obviously too stupid to
understand it.

>
>
> > > 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 -
>
>
> No one has said that. I said massive objects are said to curve space
> in GR.

It is obvious you do not even know what you are saying. You said:

'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.'

>
>
> > it
> > says when we have mass energy we have space-time curvature -
>
>
> No, it doesn't. It says when we have massive objects we have space
> curvature. No mention of curved time atall.

Any book on GR shows it is based on space-time curvature; not just the
curvature of space eg ds2 = guv dxu dxv where dx0 is time. Only a deluded
crackpot would claim otherwise.

>
>
> > 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.
> >
> > >
> You don't understand what "interdependent" means, do you? It means
> that it is not relevant to say that one causes the other.

That is not want interdependent means. It means it may depend on other
terms eg ds2 = ct2 - x2 - y2 -z2 is an invariant . Thus ct2 = ds2 -
dx2 -dy2 -dz2 ie time time dependant on the spatial coordinates chosen eg in
a frame where a particle is at rest dxi = 0 thus cts2 = ds2 in other frames
where it is not at rest it is different.

> It can only
> be relevant under a premise which questions the interdependent
> relationship. No such premise has been posited by you or me.

See above.

>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> Yes, it does.

I was objecting to what you wrote previously -

'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.'

I was objecting to the claim GR says massive object CAUSES space curvature.
It claims space-time is curved around massive objects not that it CAUSES it.
Indeed for velocities small compared to light it is well known that the
curvature of time is the cause of gravitational effects - the curvature of
space is negligible eg

ds2 = guv dxu dxv but dx0 = t (in units c=1) hence if dx/dt is samll
compared to light only goo contributes thus ds2 = goo dt2 ie only the time
term in the metric contributes.

>
>
> > It says the test particles follows geodesics not that
> > mass-energy cause space-time curvature.
>
>
> You must be getting desperate. Recall that you brought up
> "mass-energy", not me; I said "massive objects." What are you trying
> to pull?

Remember in units c=1 E=M - thus we can not speak of mass by itself.

>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> No, you cannot continue to use that silly argument.

I can because it is true.

>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Ill logic: Rigorously defined concepts cannot serve to show anything
> is "obvious rubbish".

You claimed 'the curving of space-time around the object....", is a
nonsensical statement. Because curvature can be given precise meaning it is
obviously a perfectly valid statement - see
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html.

>
>
> > > 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!'
> >
> > >
> Well, obviously your link is wrong and so are you.
>To show I'm wrong,
> you have simply to explain how and where GR claims both time and space
> curve in a physical way.

See for exmaple http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pberman/20gr3.html.

'However, whenever mass is present, it is impossible to find a coordinate
system in which g11= g22=g33 =1, g44=-1, and all the other gij's equal to
zero - the presence of mass creates curved space-time. In fact, it is the
mass distribution that determines the g's, which, in turn, determine the
geometrical properties of space-time!'

Indeed as shown previously for velocities small compared to light and for
weak fields ds2 = g00 dt2 and it well known that g00 = -(1 + 2phi) (equation
1) (units c=1) where phi is the classical gravitational potential - see
chapter 4 of the following -
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/frames.html.

'Therefore, we have shown that the curvature of space-time is indeed
sufficient to describe gravity in the Newtonian limit, as long as the metric
takes the form (4.21) (equation 1 above).

If after reading that you still maintain it is not a theory of space-time
curvature then all I can say is (1) which I will repeat this time for
emphasis. I can claim something, give excruciatingly detailed arguments for
its validity, give references to it by experts but if at the end of the day
the person I am corresponding with refuses to accept it I can do nothing.
However anyone with a brain that has read or understood anything about GR
knows it is a theory of space-time curvature so all I can say is people have
read what I have had to say they have read what Tom has had to say and can
make up their own minds. It is obvious to anyone Tom Gee is nothing but a
deluded fool of a crackpot who thinks his misconceptions count for science.

> > >
> > >
> SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > Anyone one who has studied GR knows that GR is a theory of space-time
> > curvature.
>
>
> By definition, it cannot be a theory if any aspect of it is
> unfalsifiable.

That is simply not true (1).

> Your additions to the actual theory makes parts of it
> impossible to prove false.
> The real GR does not include your
> additions to it, they are simply extensions of your imagination which
> apparently cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy.
>
>
> > 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
>
> Now you are proposing that time curves? In which direction, forward
> or backward? Time dilation does not include the curving of time.
> That happens only in the demented constructs of mentally deficient
> self-deluded crackpots like you.

Read a book on GR you idiot -
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/frames.html.

I have been engaging this mentally deranged and deluded imbecile for some
time now. It is obvious he is impervious to reason. At this point all I
can say is people have read what I have written, what Tom has written and
can make up their own minds.

Bye for now crank.
Bill

> TomGee 111404

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: 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: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... I say 'gravity and space time curvature ... G=T is fully in accord with experiment and it does not say that space-time ... > follow the curved space caused by the larger massive objects but GR ... Still using your own private language of 'math construct' I see. ...
    (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: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... >> But when you disagree it is still I who must point you to a reference. ... There is no such physical thing as space-time so that cannot be ... GR explains that massive objects are the cause of space curvature ... is needed to perform such a physical act. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)