Gravity Works Like This

Grumpy said:
Spacetime is both a way of thinking and an accurate description of reality. Reality acts as though spacetime is a real thing, to an excruciating level of accuracy. The spacetime model was adapted because that is how reality is seen to behave. Maybe not the last word, but the latest and most accurate word we have for the last 100 years or so. Any alternative will have to do better than that, I just don't see that happening yet, not even close.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...



It's also rather incredible, that such well supported theories such as the BB, SR/GR are all inexorably linked and dependent on each other.
With the further discovery of evidence from double star systems and investigations into a trinary system, further certainty has been added and probably will be further added to.
 
Undefined said:
Moreover Einstein himself said that when we think about 'time' we really mean 'our association of two separate but simultaneous events; like us 'connecting' in our observational construct "The hour hand on your watch pointing to 7 O'clock and the train arriving at the station'. The 'time' is our observational connection/convenience for analysis/comparison, not a 'thing' existing in itself independent of our connecting physical events.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this part. His definition reduces to a changing position, which is equivalent to motion, which equates to distance. Minkowski was correct when he relabeled the time axis as ct.
I promote it as a correspndence between an event of interest and a clock event. The clock provides a beat/rhythm for everyday affairs, the same as a metronome for the musician.
Maybe human mortality motivates people to cling to 'time' as a causal thing because they don't want to run out of it.
 
Maxila said:
When you speak of an object not moving for a duration, how has the observer experienced or referenced that duration without any motion (macro, molecular, atomic)? The common mistake is to forget the experience of time or the reference to a change of time (like a clock) requires motion.
Click to expand...
It's not a mistake. It's pointing out that while we consider some things to be moving, we often consider other things not to be moving.

It's a common mistake of people who do not actually do science or philosophy to think that they have discovered something deep when they discover the connection between motion and time. I wish these people would simply stick to doing drugs for their head rush.

Empirically change requires motion, hence a change in time requires motion.
Click to expand...
But one cannot have motion without identifying time, e.g., the time when that object was over here and the time when that object was over there.

Congratulations, you've discovered something about the a priori requirements of physics. Now don't promptly forget this.

It is common and intuitive to think of time as changing, being separate and void of motion but nothing can be observed to change physically without a change in position (motion/time are the same). That is why time is said to have come into existence at the big bang, in a singularity there is no space (separation) in which to calculate a change in position (motion), therefore no way to calculate time which is the same and coincident. Time can only be observed empirically when there is some increment of space to account for a change in position.
Click to expand...
No, that's not why time is said to come into existence in the Big Bang. It is said because there are no timelike paths that extend through the singularity. That has a completely different meaning.

When you get your head around that, the coupling of space and time is as obvious as any axiom can be, space (separation) requires the ability to change position to have any meaning, and the ability to change position requires space.
Click to expand...

The problem with this idea is that, while it may make you feel giddy, it doesn't actually work in physics. Just look at Farsight: for over ten years, he has failed to be able to describe a single physical system using just motion instead of time. The more specific ideas of time used in Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and others is able to fit physics.

Until you can show that "time is just motion" can actually do the job of physics, it isn't even on the table as a viable option.
 
Maxila

When you speak of an object not moving for a duration, how has the observer experienced or referenced that duration without any motion (macro, molecular, atomic)?
Click to expand...

What has whether an observer can sense it, feel it, taste it, measure it or reference it have to do with whether it exists or not? There is no spacetime with no time-dependent processes going on within it, if it is only the fizzing of the Quantum foam. And Einstein said that any such process, no matter how irregular, serves to allow us to DEFINE time. If you were in relatively empty space, far from any other mass, you would still have a very accurate clock simply by pointing your telescope at the nearest neutron star, so how can it be said that time does not pass anywhere in our Universe? Answer, it cannot. But even if every other object had disappeared over your light horizon, time would still tick on, even though you would have no way to measure it. The act of measurement does not create time, nor does movement, matter, energy or events, they only allow us to define it for our convenience, the Universe could not care less, literally. It's got all the time in the...well, Universe.

Maybe because I mostly look at Cosmology and Astronomy, I have a very different view. Time is a visible dimension. It is a distance. The farther away an object you are observing is, the further back in time the light you observe started traveling toward you. Everything outside of a few billion lys does not exist in the form you see them in, you are seeing those places as they were billions of years ago. What they look like today is likely what we see close around us today. Most Quasars, for example are over 10 billion lys away, we don't see many at all close to us. Everything we see in the Universe is in the past to one extent or another. How can time then not be a dimension every bit as real as the three dimensions of space? The past is written, we can only see the past, those nearby events only appear to be in the present(the sunlight on your head left the sun 8 minutes ago)because it is not far in your past. The future does not yet exist, it never will until it becomes the present, but then it is already the past. That, sir, is motion through the dimension of time, just like zooming past a tree on the side of the road is motion in space.

Grumpy:cool:
 
HI Grumpy. :)

Grumpy said:
RC and Farsight

There is no difference between invariant lightspeed and constant lightspeed. Light is invariant and constant and it's actual speed through spacetime c never changes(that's what constant and invariant means).

The coordinate speed of light varies as the curvature of spacetime increases. The coordinate speed is a DERIVED value, not the reality. As light always follows the zero energy geodesic, the more spacetime is bent the longer it takes to travel that increased distance, the slower the coordinate speed is, but the photons all continue to travel exactly the same speed through that increased distance. Your total inability to understand the difference between coordinate speed and c is the cause of your getting everything about Relativity wrong.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...

How can you keep defaulting to that obvious fallacy, Grumpy?

First, 'spacetime' is an abstraction, as Einstein said, not a real thing...

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.-----Einstein
Click to expand...

So the current INTERPRETATION of 'spacetime length contraction' so-called 'explanation' is an ABSTRACT one, not a REAL mechanistic energy-space related one at all. See?

And since we KNOW from LOCAL REALITY that CLOCKS ARE affected by GR location differences, then in-frame measurements of ACTUAL LOCAL LIGHT PROPAGATION RATE involves and depends for its 'invariant c' outcome because all GR frames ARE affected as to the TIME VALUE that the affected CLOCKS FOR that frame give for making the measurement. See? It's the 'time' value that varies and the variation in in-frame light propagation rate is MASKED by the clock time variable....hence it is always the same RESULTANT 'invariant c' from the measurement involving variable clock/time and variable light propagation rates. Can't be any clearer than that, mate. :)

Did you find and read/understand the full implications of Einstein's GR rider' on his 2nd Postulate? That should also tell you that LOCAL GR REALITY trumps all coordinate remote abstract overlays/interpretations invoking purely abstract/unreal/unproven assumptions like 'spacetime LENGTH contraction'. The clock times and the light propagation rates differ complementary fashion to give the 'invariant c', not any abstract/math 'length contraction' of 'spacetime' construct.

And again, I trust you now understand the crucial usages/meanings/derivations of the 'constant c' as a TERM in equations ONLY; where that term is most always 'set to '1' AS a CONSTANT FACTOR in equations, not actual lightspeed value per se. Ok? :)


Cheers, Grumpy. :)
 
PhysBang said:
This can't be the case, since we can speak of some objects moving and others not moving.
Click to expand...

Only if you invoke a universal time standard by which to judge both. Else it's always a comparison between a chosen motional standard observed (whether periodic or not) and the motional case under study in a particular analytical exercise using the standard. Universal time in the absence OF a universe is MERELY a purely philosophical notion of 'duration per se' irrespective of events/dynamics absence.

Just as purely philosophical only as the 'dimensionless point' (wiki it) which the current unreal axioms/maths construct is based on.

Good luck with that, in both cases. :)
 
PhysBang said:
Hey, I'm not the nut claiming to be able to replace all of mathematics and physics.
Click to expand...

So did you understand where your own assumptions and beliefs on which you based your criticism of Maxila was a 'fallacious' purely NON-physical philosophical base ONLY?

That is why it won't be YOU et al who will be the ones coming up with ANYTHING REAL at all anytime at all, let alone soon, and let alone a maths-physics integrated reality-referential ToE. Yes? :)

Too bad. Maybe in your troll dreams, hey? :)
 
Undefined said:
That is why it won't be YOU et al who will be the ones coming up with ANYTHING REAL at all anytime at all, let alone soon, and let alone a maths-physics integrated reality-referential ToE. Yes? :)

Too bad. Maybe in your troll dreams, hey? :)
Click to expand...


I agree. It will come from mainstream established science protocol.
 
paddoboy said:
I agree. It will come from mainstream established science protocol.
Click to expand...

Bwahhahahhaaa! I spilt my lemonade all over reading that. Good one. Now pull the other one, mate, it has bells on. :)


And how many MORE CENTURIES will they need to come up with that, paddo?

Are you seriously contemplating WAITING for the current professional abstractions mess to 'magically morph' into a real ToE? Good luck waiting for that. :)

You know, you have a sense of humor after all! Hahaha. Thanks for that bellylaugh, mate! Cheers. :)
 
Undefined said:
Bwahhahahhaaa! I spilt my lemonade all over reading that. Good one. Now pull the other one, mate, it has bells on. :)


And how many MORE CENTURIES will they need to come up with that, paddo?

Are you seriously contemplating WAITING for the current professional abstractions mess to 'magically morph' into a real ToE? Good luck waiting for that. :)

You know, you have a sense of humor after all! Hahaha. Thanks for that bellylaugh, mate! Cheers. :)
Click to expand...


So we wait for your eminence to burst onto the scene with a ToE?
I'm pretty sure I know what's being pulled here, and it ain't my leg!
 
paddoboy said:
So we wait for your eminence to burst onto the scene with a ToE?
I'm pretty sure I know what's being pulled here, and it ain't my leg!
Click to expand...

RealityCheck failed out of math so he's decided it's to blame, not him. Classical psychopathy. He's minimized all of math into this tiny grain he calls "abstraction" and sits on the fence in the schoolyard trying to lob it like a brick at the nerdy kids, simply because they sit in front of the class and actually pay attention.
 
paddoboy said:
So we wait for your eminence to burst onto the scene with a ToE?
I'm pretty sure I know what's being pulled here, and it ain't my leg!
Click to expand...

Mate, before any more silliness from you, go read what an ass you just made of yourself by your own uncomprehending and sycophantic hand in my "How can real energy 'permeate space-time'..." thread. Go on. And then stop your trolling silliness. :)
 
Undefined said:
Mate, before any more silliness from you, go read what an ass you just made of yourself by your own uncomprehending and sycophantic hand in my "How can real energy 'permeate space-time'..." thread. Go on. And then stop your trolling silliness. :)
Click to expand...


Hi Ass! :lmao:
 
Aqueous Id said:
RealityCheck failed out of math so he's decided it's to blame, not him. Classical psychopathy. He's minimized all of math into this tiny grain he calls "abstraction" and sits on the fence in the schoolyard trying to lob it like a brick at the nerdy kids, simply because they sit in front of the class and actually pay attention.
Click to expand...

You are just a silly ass yourself, mate. If you had read the exchange between me and Beer w/Straw you would have learned that I invented a whole new mathematical REALITY-based axioms set to complement the current PHILOSOPHY-based maths axioms set.

And you missed where Einstein himself stated that 'spacetime' was ABSTRACTION by design. Duh!

But you haven't a clue, and go on the personal attack with even less clues than ever, so what's new. Good luck with that clueless troll gang you and paddo are apparently 'exemplars' of! Silly trolling internet asses 'gang'. :)
 
Undefined said:
Too far gone then, mate. Too bad, Maybe your internet troll 'ego-tripping' is consolation for not having either brains or character. Poor wifey, I wonder if she knew the pig-in-a-poke she was getting. :(
Click to expand...

I don't let morons get to me undefined.
Enjoy your day... ;)
 
paddoboy said:
I don't let morons get to me undefined.
Enjoy your day... ;)
Click to expand...

You are in that 'state' already mate, no need for looking around you. You still don't realize what an ass you made of yourself in that other thread, do you? Oh dear, your poor wifey would be mortified if she only knew how silly ass you get on the internet. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top