..
deleted - unnecessary
deleted - unnecessary
Gravity Works Like This
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
You are ignoring the empirical facts, Grumpy, as mainstreamers are now agreed that in gravity wells it is the energy-space PROCESSING RATE of transitions/propagations etc IN that positional energy-space 'condition' state which results in the 'timing dilation' effects due to SLOWED processing rates, not because some 'time flows' or 'space curves' (bowling ball on rubber sheet, anyone?)
etc as currently MISunderstood via 'comic book version' so-called 'explanations' which are actually MOOT about the underlying real physical conditioning/states/processes involved while abstracting the 'maths of observed interactions/motions' BUT NOT actually treating the underlying entities and configurations/processes which RESULT in clocks/time variations in gravity well energy-space conditioned differently at different altitudes.Again, Grumpy, you offer repeated 'comic book version' abstratct maths as 'explanations'....when all they are so far is 'descriptions/predictions of dynamics' and nothing more. Reality is BENEATH such facile 'comic book' treatments that only explain so much and NO more than you think it does.
Listen closely top Maxila, Grumpy. Back in a few days.
Where have you been? Have you missed the mainstream relativists here and elsewhere (go ask waitedavit157 over at physforum) have been forced to include all that accelerational non-linear information background to the twin paradox to make it not a paradox; which it would be if purely reciprocal SR-only 'dilation of both clocks' was treated as 'LOCAL reality' for each twin, and so make the OLDER twin on Earth unexplained WITHOUT the accelerations profiles included (now also by mainstreamers) for making reality sense of the YOUNGER traveling twin? Try to keep up, Russ!
PS: regarding your post #199 to Farsight, I think you haven't got up to speed there as well. It is the LOCAL REALITY in the gravity well positions which have their own local rates irrespective of 'co-ordinate frame/analyses comparisons etc'. Ask przyk to explain it to you now that that point has been cleared up and the 'co-ordinate' stuff made MOOT by local reality GR effects on clocks (even clocks one just above the other). Keep up with the discourse.
No, the magnitude of change in position is usually called displacement.
Displacement is a distance. In 3-space we speak of the Eulidean distance as the square root of the sum of square squares of the displacements in each of the (x, y, z) directions:
Events may be coincident with each other, but it makes no sense to say they are coincident with time. Speed is not an event, so it can not be called coincident with anything. You could at best try to rescue this by explaining acceleration, but you lack the high school chops to do even that much.
"Magnitude" means square root of the sum of squares as above.
If you mean to say the distance is changing with respect to time, then that at least works as a definition of speed (or acceleration). But all of this is inaccurate and roundabout. Just stick with standard definitions or it all sounds like gibberish.
Here you're just butchering the math that you were accusing others of doing. Remember I said math is more than equations? It's a disipline. You're not exercising that discipline, which makes me wonder why you are so critical of physicists who master it. There are two kinds of speed in kinematics:
Linear speed: s = dx/dt
Angular speed: ω = dθ/dt
In all discussions of the nature of space and time, you need to at least acknowledge this much. It's pretty evident you haven't made it past about 7th grade math. For that reason alone, you shouldn't presume to be competent enough to criticize experts. You haven't said why you harbor these illusions, so I'm left to assume you are here as an operative for the anti-science coalition of the Right Wing. At some point if you ever show your true colors you may have opportunity to prove me wrong. But there is no other philosophy in the world I can think of which would drive a person with a 7th grade level of literacy into posting complaints about how experts do their work.
When you start using jargon like "ethereal time" and "empirically and experimentally factual" you diminish yourself further as a person qualified to judge novices, much less experts.
You shouldn't pretend to know SR. If you don't know what a differential is, then you couldn't possibly have understood Einstein's evidence for propounding SR.
Oh sure it's simple. But only if you read what the theory actually says with the same conclusion that "the math is simple" which can't possibly be true for a person who posted what you just posted.
There is no such thing as contraction of motion. You just made that up. That's fatal. Further, nothing is proportional in the Lorentz transformation. It's a coordinate rotation, with a projection onto the axes of the reference frame. You have to understand linear algebra to even begin to understand that. As you see all of your arguments against the stuff that works is merely a reflection of your infamiliarity with it.
Which is wrong; the evidence was the asymmetries of Maxwell's equations which I'm sure is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Wrong. SR is the theory which arose from investigating the implications of Maxwell's equations to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. But you wouldn't know that would you?
You've not only made massive changes to it, you've given it an abortion.
After mangling the lower division math needed to comprehend SR, you can't possibly hope to conquer the upper division math of GR. You're just making all of this up without and firsthand experience to guide you. Hence you're dead wrong.
All you've done is to latch onto maxims here and there which you picked up from who knows where (Creationist boards?) and set up a very vacuous pretense for tying them together. You haven't introduced any facts about GR much less QM, but it's obvious that even if you tried to do so, it would amount to an abortion as well.
Why are you worried about Mercury's precession? You don't even know what a differential is. How can you possible know what precession is, much less it's origins, and even much less the specific issue with Mercury?
For a 7th grader indeed physics must seem quirky. But that's what high school and college are for. You get to develop yourself just to that point where all the myths you were fed in church begin to untangle. And of course the first time you are given 15 minutes to summarize Einstein's explanation of SR, you get another kind of religion, one that sends you to your knees begging the God of Math to show you mercy.
Your inability to say anything meaningful further reduces your authority to speak on physics at all.
Nothing is as obvious as your lack of preparation. Class dismissed. Good luck with your remedial math class. And send our regards to the knuckleheads over at the Creation Institute. They're freaking genuises . . . of the criminal sort.
The GR prediction is that ANY clock lower than another clock will ABSOLUTELY be affected by its OWN LOCAL gravity well energy-space processing/clocking rate applicable THERE where they are, irrespective of any 'co-ordinate frames of reference later analyses. Did you read back when I explained the scenario where the clocks had cumulative counter registers and the clocks were left for a YEAR and then the 'cumulative counts' of each clock was compared and the difference in rate was self-evident in the comparison irrespective of any further overlays from theory/co-ordinate frame considerations/views?
Your explanation is made MOOT by the clock's local reality rate in their respective GR environment. And their different clock cumulative 'tick counts' tell the story without any more BS from anyone/any theory. OK? Up to speed now?
Some of the sillier parts of Farsight's crap are where he describes a concept and then says it doesn't exist. This is one example. Saying that all processes vary in one frame as compared to another, including light and time is just fine as a description of what is happening. He acknowledges that the clocks are different and that all processes follow the clocks, then denies that time dilation exists -- despite the fact that he just described it!
This is also another of his bizarre positions that should be unnecessary; He agrees with basically everything about the physics when pressed, so there isn't anything to disagree with except the definitions. The reality here is that since he has no math and doesn't argue against Einstein (who describes the issue in detail), his position is basically null - it says nothing. Everything is fine -- but it isn't: Time is, by definition, what clocks measure, and Einstein discusses in detail what happens to clocks, yet time doesn't exist. Hmm...
Most crackpots at least have something of real substance that they disagree with. A lot that I've dealt with say that clocks don't measure time well and so what we think is time dilation really is just clock error. So they think clocks show differences, but people don't age differently, for example. At least that would be something of substance to disagree with.
That's one really long run-on sentence* in which you admit that the Twins Paradox isn't really a paradox:Where have you been? Have you missed the mainstream relativists here and elsewhere (go ask waitedavit157 over at physforum) have been forced to include all that accelerational non-linear information background to the twin paradox to make it not a paradox; which it would be if purely reciprocal SR-only 'dilation of both clocks' was treated as 'LOCAL reality' for each twin, and so make the OLDER twin on Earth unexplained WITHOUT the accelerations profiles included (now also by mainstreamers) for making reality sense of the YOUNGER traveling twin? Try to keep up, Russ!
Yes, acceleration is what makes it non-symmetrical. Yes, that's why it isn't a paradox. Just like with Farsight, when backed-into a corner you agree with all of the facts, then still say no. What, exactly of substance is it that you disagree with?!
*Frankly, I think this is a symptom of your problem. Your writing style seems to reflect an inability to think coherently.
Crackpottery doesn't get any more accurate by making it go faster: Simultaneously citing one frame and two frames is a self-contradiction at any speed.PS: regarding your post #199 to Farsight, I think you haven't got up to speed there as well. It is the LOCAL REALITY in the gravity well positions which have their own local rates irrespective of 'co-ordinate frame/analyses comparisons etc'. Ask przyk to explain it to you now that that point has been cleared up and the 'co-ordinate' stuff made MOOT by local reality GR effects on clocks (even clocks one just above the other). Keep up with the discourse.
Undefined: we agree that the clocks show different elapsed time. We agree that one clock is above the other. Now you must acknowledge that if one clock is above the other, they are, by definition, in different frames.The GR prediction is that ANY clock lower than another clock will ABSOLUTELY be affected by its OWN LOCAL gravity well energy-space processing/clocking rate applicable THERE where they are, irrespective of any 'co-ordinate frames of reference later analyses. Did you read back when I explained the scenario where the clocks had cumulative counter registers and the clocks were left for a YEAR and then the 'cumulative counts' of each clock was compared and the difference in rate was self-evident in the comparison irrespective of any further overlays from theory/co-ordinate frame considerations/views?
Your explanation is made MOOT by the clock's local reality rate in their respective GR environment. And their different clock cumulative 'tick counts' tell the story without any more BS from anyone/any theory. OK? Up to speed now?
Please try to think and then write more coherently.
Yes, that was my point, and you agree. The purely SR 'view' is a 'paradox' UNTIL even mainstreamers are FORCED to use non-linear acceleration profile effects to explain the local realities for both.
Good. Then you'll now stop prattling on about 'co-ordinate frames' etc as if they had anything to do with the local reality in local GR gravitational accelerations contexts?
Get it? The fact that two clocks are in 'different frames' according to some 'co-ordinate frames' construct/analysis is neither here nor there when the local clocks cumulative counts make such theoretical UNRE$AL 'frames overlays' MOOT. You DO know that the experts have admitted that 'co-ordinate frames are UNREAL abstractions from maths analytical constructs, don't you?
Russ_Watters said:
But have you YET realized that 'co-ordinate frames' are UNREAL abstractions for maths construct/analysis?
If you have, then your comments there are neither here nor there when discussing local real effects in GR context which exist irrespective of unreal theoretical overlays or 'interpretations' from same.
Maybe you should consider how 'coherent' and/or 'relevant' you are being instead of insinuating that others are not being so. Cheers.
Nonsense. Any reference on the Twins Paradox will discuss the fact that it is only an apparent paradox, caused by misunderstanding SR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradoxWiki said:
Regardless: what is your beef? Do you have any problem here other than to argue with people about their own beliefs? We both agree that the twins paradox is easily resolved, so other than you believing that I shouldn't like the resolution, where is the problem?
Of course! Did you forget which side you are arguing? It is you (Fasight's side) who is arguing that the coordinate speed of light is the "real' speed of light, not the "mainstreamers". We know it only exist in calculations.
Again: unless you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, you should be able to concisely and coherently explain an actual issue you disagree with. Because so far it doesn't seem like you actually have a beef -- you're just arguing over nothing.
Yes, that was the point made! That purely SR 'reciprocal dilation views' are not sufficient to explain and make sense of the local realities, either in motion through energy-space OR in different real local gravity well altitude positional conditions....both of which affect clocks FOR REAL LOCALLY to the twins/clocks in both cases IRRESPECTIVE of the 'co-ordinate frames' you and przyk originally tried to invoke in your earlier arguments against Farsight's perspective. Remember? I do.
So we agree on that. Good.
I'm just OBSERVING the flow of discussion points/arguments and make comments/observations to check the validity/relevance of arguments and counterarguments offered by both sides. The fact that (until now) your arguments have depended on unreal abstractions rather than recognizing the local real GR effects (and preferably basing your discussion points on that) has been the problem and why the discussion has been so distracted by moot considerations and distractions from 'the main game' of what Farsight's perspective as presented is.
So, how about you start arguing from that (now) common understanding and leave out all the 'co-ordinate frames' unreal stuff which you just agreed is MOOT in GR/NON-linear (acceleration) situations LOCALLY.
Thanks. Bye for now.
Sounds like you are agreeing with me now (in a wordy and basically incoherent way, but still, I'll take it). Awesome.
Arguing what? It doesn't appear to me that you actually disagree with anything I've said - you just argued around in a circle and ended up back to agreeing with me! So we're all good!
You got that backwards. I have always disregarded the 'co-ordinate frame' angle which YOU and przyk tried to overlay on Farsight's locally real GR predictions/effects scenario as he originally interpreted/presented it.
So don't try to switch things around to save face, mate. It won't work. I remember very well, and can point to where YOU and przyk tried the 'co-ordinate overlay' stuff while Farsight (and I during my observations/comments) always made it clear such 'arguments' were made moot by the local GR effects reality not abstractions like you tried on. OK? Just admit that you agree with Farsight insofar as this aspect is concerned, can't you? It's what the manly, sporting and scientifically objective observer would do now that YOU effectively agree with HIS local GR effects/perspective insofar as the clocks/time rate locally may affect light. Then go from there on that common understanding insofar as that aspect is concerned. Good luck, guys! Cheers!
RC
The fact that clocks are relative to each other(there is no absolute time, each clock's rate is directly related to it's speed or acceleration/gravity level)is central to understanding SR, much less GR. It is not moot, it is crucial.
Frames=short for frame of reference. If you share a frame with a clock you are in that clock's frame of reference. It is a way of designating the position of an observer and his clock and the conditions they are under, as well as distinguishing between the relative frames of reference for one or more other observers of clocks and their conditions. What exactly does this have to do with the math? You need little math to understand Relativity at the comic book level we seem to be working at, but a lot of it to show why it accurately describes the Universe.
And, once again, just because our descriptions are inventions does not mean the things those inventions describe are inventions, too. Nor does it mean that they don't accurately model the reality. The theory of relitavity is an extremely accurate model of the Universe we fit within our head, but the Universe it describes is real.
Grumpy
The fact that clocks are relative to each other(there is no absolute time, each clock's rate is directly related to it's speed or acceleration/gravity level)is central to understanding SR, much less GR. It is not moot, it is crucial.
Frames=short for frame of reference. If you share a frame with a clock you are in that clock's frame of reference. It is a way of designating the position of an observer and his clock and the conditions they are under, as well as distinguishing between the relative frames of reference for one or more other observers of clocks and their conditions. What exactly does this have to do with the math? You need little math to understand Relativity at the comic book level we seem to be working at, but a lot of it to show why it accurately describes the Universe.
And, once again, just because our descriptions are inventions does not mean the things those inventions describe are inventions, too. Nor does it mean that they don't accurately model the reality. The theory of relitavity is an extremely accurate model of the Universe we fit within our head, but the Universe it describes is real.
Grumpy
RC
The fact that clocks are relative to each other(there is no absolute time, each clock's rate is directly related to it's speed or acceleration/gravity level)is central to understanding SR, much less GR. It is not moot, it is crucial.
Frames=short for frame of reference. If you share a frame with a clock you are in that clock's frame of reference. It is a way of designating the position of an observer and his clock and the conditions they are under, as well as distinguishing between the relative frames of reference for one or more other observers of clocks and their conditions. What exactly does this have to do with the math? You need little math to understand Reality at the comic book level we seem to be working at, but a lot of it to show why it accurately describes the Universe.
And, once again, just because our descriptions are inventions does not mean the things those inventions describe are inventions, too. Nor does it mean that they don't accurately model the reality. The theory of relitavity is an extremely accurate model of the Universe we fit within our head, but the Universe it describes is real.
Grumpy
No no no. Not again. No more, mate! Please read all the other associated threads/discussions on this. Each clock is in a energy-space condition of its own. Irrespective of UNreal (as has been agreed by all already) frames of reference overlays. I just got Russ to finally agree with that (even though he is trying to pretend he agreed all along). The comparison/relative aoveralys and analysis constructs are INVENTED by us to analyze the apriori dynamics from which WE derive a mathematical relationship between those dynamics as a standard and others. That's all there is. The rest is abstract overlays and maths constructs/dimensions which do not exist in reality energy-space context at local gravity well positions GR effects and respective motional speed states SR effects when local accelerations profile info is applied to interpretations. Also ask Russ about that. He agrees there too.
Please. No more abstractions and putting things that are unreal as if they are real; and thing that are apriori as if they are the opposite. That's it, I have to log out and won't be back for a few days, Grumpy. Cheers and good luck in checking with Russ (or better yet, check our various exchanges today for yourself, in whatever thread/threads they occurred). Bye for now, mate.
Insofar as neither you nor Farsight have anything that impacts either the observations nor math of Relativity, we certainly agree.
Again, if there is anything specifically that you do not agree with, please state it clearly.
What is an "energy-space condition"? Please provide a reference to a definition of this term.
So, how is your 'co-ordinate frames' overlay attempt on Farsight's local real GR effects going? If you now agree that your prior attempt to invoke unreal things like co-ordinate frames is moot, then just say so instead of pretending that it is Farsight that has changed his mind on that and not you and przyk. OK? Thanks.
Einstein referred to space as affected by the mass-energy, and that space is not 'empty' hence energy-space is conditioned according to the gravitating mass-energy involved. How many times do you have to ignore the obvious and instead take petty semantics as your only counter strategy while 'ignoring the elephant in the room' with you insofar as Einstein's own explanations are concerned? Do better. Cheers.
RealityCheck/Undefined is committing errors of physical interpretation analogous to Farsight/Duffield's "coordinate speed of light" mistake.
He forgot that before the experiment begins, Clock A and Clock B were calibrated at the same altitude. Then Clock B was moved to the higher alitude. It's this crossing of the gradient which instantiates the new reference frame for B. He seems to think B just jumped through a wormhole of some kind to get to the higher altitude. I'm mentioning this merely to add to what you said, thinking that some of the readers may better understand why your remark obliterates RealityCheck's entire line of reasoning. The essential ingredient of GR is that a clock has moved across the gradient. It's then that it enters the new reference frame and starts marking time at (in this case) a faster pace.
Both cranks are lost because they never studied the subject they pretend to master. No qualified researcher of SR/GR would blindly ignore all of the experimental work of the last half of the 19th c. which Einstein tells us, in the opening remarks of his 1905 paper, was the impetus for him to enter into this research himself. Moronic claims, like "it's all an abstraction" are a reflection on the posters' ignorance of what those experiments revealed, nothing more. Well ok, ignorance and nonsense. And something sinister I suspect, like hoping to get the ICR equivalent of a Nobel Prize in Pseudoscience. After all, why else would anyone go to such extremes to discredit good work through ignorance, lies and propaganda?
Want to discredit someone's work? Go get the data. Stop pontificating. Show how the world got from Fizeau and Maxwell to Einstein through some other path than the one that actually happened. Come propound the data. It's as simple as that. Obviously no one can do it, since the data tells the truth and the rest is lies. To state anything to the contrary is to misrepresent all of that history. To continue to hide behind the skirts of pseudoscientific rant while deliberately sidestepping the empirical data is tantamount to, if not the outright commission of, deliberate lying. We might excuse them for ignorance of the experiments, except they've been at it far too long to continue to be excused for it.
Lies and propaganda, confronted by the facts of history. All of that came to mind when I saw you having to tell RealityCheck/Undefined that the clocks are, by definition, in different frames.