Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 11/16/04 

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:48:52 GMT

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:06:30 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:

>
>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>news:qqvep0ha6sd0c6adu9bfsbp21jeg2455vp@4ax.com...

 [Snip...]

>>>>> Who says anything creates it?
>>>>
>>>> Are we to presume it is magic?
>>>
>>> No - just a simple logical analysis of G=T - all that says is the
>>> stress energy tensor has space-time curvature associated with it
>>> - nothing about what caused what. Same for a point charge - it has
>>> an electric field - that does not imply the point change causes the
>>> electric field - simply that it has an electric field.
>>
>> Then, like Newton's correlation, it is but an empty shell, and should
>> be treated accordingly...
>
> Why? Nothing is the scientific method says it must conform to your
> view where you decide what is an empty shell or not.

 GR, like Newton's equation are like wrenches, tools. Useful to work
 with on the 'right' parts but useless at describing the parts.

 Maxwell's equations, without Maxwell's model, is likewise.

> Any theory requires some assumptions that are not questioned in the
> theory.

 And those would be what for your 'complaint'? I claim, and havs claimed,
 'just because' is NOT an acceptable answer! Push to do better! When
 one can both narratively descibe the reason and cause AND then quantify
 this with equations, THAT'S physical science!

> So according to your idea everything must have a cause so no theory is
> valid because it always has something without a cause.

 Depend upon your definition of 'theory'. I formally defined my concept
 long ago. See:

http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=8hbdec%247c7%241%40slb0.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=12&filter=0

> Like a lot of people who bring this idea of 'cause' up Paul wants to pick
> and choose what requires a cause and what does not.

 NOT AT ALL! Propose a cause for GR, ANY cause! Let's see something!

> See for example Stephen's discussion with Tom Gee.

 Useless diversion.

> In a previous post I mention to Tom about the principle of maximal time to
> which he responded what power forces objects to obey it (or something
> similar).
>
> Now he says to Stephen regarding Newton's firs taw of motion.
>
> 'Nonsense. This is philosophical bs. One does not have to explain anything
> other than what the law refers to or implies.'
>
> See what I mean about the inconsistency of crackpots - they decide what
> needs explanation and what does not ...

 Bull***! EVERYTHING NEED a causal explanation! What part of 'just because'
 is NOT an acceptable answer do you NOT understand?????

>... - and if you do not agree with them on what that is then your ideas
> are 'just and empty shell' or you are unable to 'think' or you 'buy the
> establishment line without being critical of it' or similar rubbish.
> It is the same sad old story.

 And its the same old whining from Bill. See above, propose a causal
 mechanism for GR of for why an electric field appears associated with
 chasrge. "JUST BECAUSE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER"!

 Paul Stowe

Quantcast