Re: When one is fully informed, he knows time is a spatial dimension.

On Jan 17, 6:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 16, 6:27 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 16, 5:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 3:46 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 2:40 pm, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-

left.com> wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?= <Jeff_R...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:Jeff_Relf_2008_Jan_15__9_31_AX@xxxxxxxxx:

Imagine two indentical clocks, one on the surface of the moon,
and the other on the surface of the earth.

Now imagine a lunar astronaut
talking for 9 seconds ( according to his clock ),
transmitting it to the surface of the earth.

According to the clock on earth, it took less than 9 seconds;
i.e. the signal was blue-shifted as it fell into the gravity well,
and everything the lunar astronaut does is sped up, according to us.

Because time is truly a length and
the gravity of the earth-moon system is so predictable,
it's possible to model it as a ( 4-D ) hyper-volume.

This hyper-volume is the gravity field that General Relativity models.
Note... the hyper-volume is motionless, static;
when one is fully informed, he knows time is a spatial dimension..

Sure, if you consider x=ict to be space.  

I don't think even this does it. Applying makeup and dressing up time
to *look* like space, or rather, to make the 4D Minkowski spacetime
look like 4D Euclidean space, does not make time to *be* space, any
more than John Travolta in Hairspray was a woman just because he was
made up to look like one. Sorta.

Mathematically, time can be
manipulated as a spatial dimansion, but there's more to physics than
mathematics.  There's physical intuition also, and you're not a physicist
until you can mesh the two.  In practice, you can walk around the room, but
you can't walk around time.

To be fully informed, you have to know what you just said *and* what I just
said.

I doubt if Jeff is really interested in knowing anything. Mostly, he's
just looking for a way to kill a LOT of free time.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear PD, et. al.:  Most of the "clock" arguments are pointless, unless
there is a genuine problem that needs solving.

And this was relevant to my comments, how?

TIME is constant,

And you have tested this to be so, how?

PD: By invalidating M-M, I remove the whole issue of rulers changing
size--

You seem to think that the M-M experiment was the last piece of
evidence acquired of rulers changing size.
You also seem to think that if you can invalidate (or attempt to
invalidate) one experiment that supports a hypothesis, that somehow
all the other independent experiments that also support the hypothesis
are suddenly invalidated in the same stroke. As though killing one fly
in the room will make all the other flies drop dead.

which has always required this HUGE suspension of disbelief.

That's right. Nothing wrong with that. Experimental results that are
VERY surprising are the best ones. They are the ones that let us know
we don't understand nature as well as we thought. Now *some* people
seize on those results and try to figure out in what way nature really
behaves rather than the way they previously expected. Other people
say, "Gee, I don't know whether I should believe that. It doesn't fit
with my intuition." Which are you?

Those willing to do that were the dregs of mentality who developed
into all of the Einsteiniacs.  "NoEinstein's physics" requires only
common sense.

And common sense is based on our sensory inputs of a small corner of
the universe, the macroscopic, low-speed corner. As such, our common
sense is *very* poorly informed about the nature of the universe and
should be trusted at best marginally. Common sense, though convenient
and easy to use, is a cheap imitation of an investigative tool, kind
of like using a pocketknife blade as a screwdriver or a pry bar.
Sometimes, the tool breaks and fragments fly into your eye, blinding
you, if you use it for purposes for which it is ill-suited.

 And the explanations for all of the observations in
nature can now be understood by any smart middle school student.

I understand that would be a wonderful outcome for you, as you were no
doubt a smart middle school student (though it's not clear how much
further beyond that you progressed). Unfortunately, you can't make it
so by decree, just because that is desirable to you. There is no
shortcut.

 So,
PhDs in physics are now like dunce caps.

The concept of time changing was because: In order for observed events
to be unchanged, if the rulers change, then "time" must change, too.
(sic).  But not so!



though the units of time can be anything convenient.  A year makes
little sense on another star system without 365, 24 hour days.  Define
a useful problem that needs solving; figure it out intuitively;

Figuring it out intuitively is a dangerous exercise. Intuition is a
notorious liar and the results very often have little to do with
reality. How do you check whether your intuition is on track?

To ignore intuition, and to practice science, is to practice science
at one's own peril.

That is where you are *entirely* wrong. To put intuition above
experimental evidence is the height of scientific lunacy.


and
stop worrying about generalities of time problems that only waste...
time.

That's just it. Some folks have used these principles to make careful
calculations that inform critical design details of things that ...
work. Might help if you tried that.

Can you give an example?

What? Are you *completely* oblivious of the practical, day-to-day
applications of relativity?

PD
.

Relevant Pages