Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/16/04 

Date: 15 Nov 2004 22:54:45 -0800

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<HGdld.34178$K7.26248@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.0411121259.297811f2@posting.google.com...
> > stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
> news:<cn0srk$11ph$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > > TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > : stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
> news:<cmurue$2de5$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > >
> > >
> > > : So isn't that saying that gravitation is REPLACED by curved space, as
> > > : I said?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > :>
Yes, it is.

> > > :> No mention of a "force of time" there.
> > > :>
>
> > > : Correct, but if the force of gravitation is replaced by curved space,
> > > : what replaces the force of gravitation?
> > >
> > >
What? No answer? Cat got your tongue?
> > > :>
> > > :>
> > > : Now, don't you agree that "unnecessary hypotheses" also denotes
> > > : "replacement", which means disposing of one for the other?
> > >
> > > Yes. Einstein's theory replaces Newton's theory. Who
> > > every said otherwise.
> > >
> > Your pal Hobba. Or don't you read his posts?
> >
> >
> > > Only according to you. Nobody else calls it that.
> >
> > Maybe no one else thought about it. Are arguing that because I am the
> > first to notice it I am in the wrong? That is bad logic.
>
> He is arguing it is meaningless gibberish that no one with a brain would
> connect with 'the rocket is in motion along its world line' - providing they
> understand the concept of world line in the first pace - which you obviously
> do not.
>
> >
You are the one who is mouthing gibberish, exaggerations, and bad
logic.

> >
> > > Why not just
> > > say 'the rocket is in motion along its world line'. Then other
> > > people have a chance of understanding what you are saying. If
> > > you insist on speaking your own private code everyone is going
> > > to dismiss you as a crank.
> > >
> >
> > Because, what I claim was deliberately left off so that dummies have a
> > chance of understanding the fantasy. When I complete the statement so
> > that non-dummies can understand my meaning, everyone except you
> > understands it.
>
> Mind telling us those other people that understand it? For instance would
> you mind posting it to Steve Carlip and see if he understands it?
>
> >
Yes, I would mind. Not relevant.
> >
> > >>
> Since you use words from you own private language no one can tell what you
> are trying to say.
>

Point out one word I used which is not commonly used in the English
language.

> > Can you not see how Einstein
> > combined reality and fantasy to explain his claim of curved space?
>
> No.
>
> > Can you not see that puts GR right back into the realm of Theoretical
> > Physics and not empirical science?
>
> No
>
> > Can you not see that believing
> > curved space is no more than an alternative model for gravitation,
> > while carrying farther the tradition of classical prediction, is
> > believing in fantasy simply because the s-t continuum is not a real
> > place?
>
> No.
>
> > I am blue in the face and I have yet to help you break those
> > chains around your head.
>
> You are simply some deluded fool who believes his own private language has
> some validity other than the imaginings that goes on in what he has that
> passes for a brain.
>
> >
No, it is clear that you harbor delusions of understanding science and
that your duty is to defend your understanding of it against all
comers regardless of how wrong your understandings of science are.
Your continual attempts to run us off-subject are not well-hidden but
are quite obvious. Your inability to respond directly to my specific
claims explains your attempts at obfuscation. Your "NO" answers above
reveal that you are unable to comprehend simple logic and basic
reasonable thought. Thus, it is you who is the deluded fool and not
me.

> >
> > > So far you have taught me that you do not understand GR and
> > > have instead invented some bizarre version of it in your attempt
> > > to prove it wrong,
> >
> > No, I have no intention of proving it wrong and I have made no
> > attempts to do that. You misunderstand much of what I have claimed
> > because you tend toward exaggeration and you continually jump to
> > conclusions about what I say. I agree with GR.
>
> Then what is you beef?
>

Above is another misunderstanding of what I have said and your
question is the proof of your misunderstanding.

> What I don't agree
> > with is the idea that curved space exists as anything other than an
> > alternative model for gravitation.
>
> But GR says gravity is space-time curvature.

So is that agreement or not?

> It is obvious you understand
> nothing of GR.
>

Another wild exaggeration noted. If I knew nothing of GR I could not
write what I have written about it, could I?

> > The conflict in my mind about
> > Einstein's mixing of the real and the unreal into an explanation for
> > how objects can move in curved space while physically remaining fixed
> > wrt Earth must be resolved logically before I can agree completely
> > with GR. Anything wrong with that?
>
> Yes. It indicates you do not understand GR but you claim you do.
>
> >
Yet one more wild exaggeration. Saying it don't make it so, no matter
how much you cross your fingers nor how tight you close your eyes and
wish. Your continued stupid mutterings and ravings simply show us
all the limitations of your imagination and your education.
TomGee 111614