Prev: Light wave is immaterial
Next: When Cornered, Relativity not even a Law !!!
From: dlzc on 8 Jun 2010 18:46
Dear Sue:

On Jun 8, 1:49 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi,
>
> > usually, if the time is dilated by K then
> > one length is contracted by K, but in the
> > general case, in general relativity, this
> > is more complex, with many rotated charged
> > bodies, stars, planets, black holes, and
> > so on...
> > is it ALWAYS true or can anyone prove that
> > if the VOLUME is contracted by K, then the
> > time is dilated by K?
>
> > please reply this question!
>
> The proof is one of pure mathematics, like:
> "prove there are 90 degrees in a right angle".
>
> To satisfy yourself about what the volume
> represents physically, you can navigate
> from the actual statement in the derivation
> and find where the volume is filled with
> charges that have  energy.

Or, you could simply realize that time dilation (which has only radial
variation in a G field) and a fixed *local* speed of light
automatically arrives at proportional volume contraction?

David A. Smith
From: Sue... on 8 Jun 2010 19:43
On Jun 8, 6:46 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Sue:
>
> On Jun 8, 1:49 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > hi,
>
> > > usually, if the time is dilated by K then
> > > one length is contracted by K, but in the
> > > general case, in general relativity, this
> > > is more complex, with many rotated charged
> > > bodies, stars, planets, black holes, and
> > > so on...
> > > is it ALWAYS true or can anyone prove that
> > > if the VOLUME is contracted by K, then the
> > > time is dilated by K?
>
> > > please reply this question!
>
> > The proof is one of pure mathematics, like:
> > "prove there are 90 degrees in a right angle".
>
> > To satisfy yourself about what the volume
> > represents physically, you can navigate
> > from the actual statement in the derivation
> > and find where the volume is filled with
> > charges that have  energy.
>

==============

> Or, you could simply realize that time dilation (which has only radial
> variation in a G field) and a fixed *local* speed of light
> automatically arrives at proportional volume contraction?

Is "realize" a mathematical operator like multiply
and divide? If so, it is probably in that chapter
about belief-fields that I can't seem to locate. :-))

Can you draw a four-vector radial in 10 seconds?

Seriously, If they had built Harvard tower over
a sink hole, it might be easier to consider
Pound's oscillators in a moving frame.

Sue...

'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'
--The Red Queen


>
> David A. Smith

From: xxein on 8 Jun 2010 22:09
On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, but I have not yet found any clear statement or explanation
> about the conservation of the space-time volume in any general
> relativity, i.e if the volume is contracted by k, then the time is
> dilated by k
>
> I would be very grateful if anyone knows the answer and could provide
> it

xxein: You won't. Everything is rather Newtonian (as far as he goes)
with Lorentz (as far as he goes). All Einstein did was to try to make
a shortcut math and add gravity. I understand the reason that
everyone thinks he was successful, but he wasn't.

See if this is clear to you. Length contraction, (lc), (in the simple
v/c sense) is one-dimensional. It is fact that time dilates, (td),
(GPS). It was measured (somewhere, somehow) that a "PHYSICAL" length
contraction occurs (not to be confused with or by other observational
effects).

But there is so little known outside the realm of 'math' for gravity.
This confuses all into thinking v/c is what we measure as a prima
fascia physics.

Physics doesn't know all about v/c. It doesn't yet realize that a
clock dropped from an infinite distance to a singular gravity (mass)
'does not' suffer time dilation. Yet it seems to comply to a
measurement described as v/c. But the timerate of the clock doesn't.
It's just a measurement where theoretical physical reasons conflict.
But nobody seems to realize this or care beyond the accepted physics
handed to them.

If you tore our (what we call) physics apart, examined it and then
tried to put it back together again, you would fail. Everyone would.
We just don't know enough to make it viable. But we could certainly
improve our understanding of it. Just get rid of prior belief.

I do not say this lightly. After 25 yrs. of deep investigation, the
wallpaper certainly needs replacement. It has eroded into a dust.
From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 22:24
On Jun 8, 7:09 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, but I have not yet found any clear statement or explanation
> > about the conservation of the space-time volume in any general
> > relativity, i.e if the volume is contracted by k, then the time is
> > dilated by k
>
> > I would be very grateful if anyone knows the answer and could provide
> > it
>
> xxein:  You won't.  Everything is rather Newtonian (as far as he goes)
> with Lorentz (as far as he goes).  All Einstein did was to try to make
> a shortcut math and add gravity.  I understand the reason that
> everyone thinks he was successful, but he wasn't.
>
> See if this is clear to you.  Length contraction, (lc), (in the simple
> v/c sense) is one-dimensional.  It is fact that time dilates, (td),
> (GPS).  It was measured (somewhere, somehow) that a "PHYSICAL" length
> contraction occurs (not to be confused with or by other observational
> effects).
>
> But there is so little known outside the realm of 'math' for gravity.

Gravity is round in time and space geometry.

Mitch Raemsch

> This confuses all into thinking v/c is what we measure as a prima
> fascia physics.
>
> Physics doesn't know all about v/c.  It doesn't yet realize that a
> clock dropped from an infinite distance to a singular gravity (mass)
> 'does not' suffer time dilation.  Yet it seems to comply to a
> measurement described as v/c.  But the timerate of the clock doesn't.
> It's just a measurement where theoretical physical reasons conflict.
> But nobody seems to realize this or care beyond the accepted physics
> handed to them.
>
> If you tore our (what we call) physics apart, examined it and then
> tried to put it back together again, you would fail.  Everyone would.
> We just don't know enough to make it viable.  But we could certainly
> improve our understanding of it.  Just get rid of prior belief.
>
> I do not say this lightly.  After 25 yrs. of deep investigation, the
> wallpaper certainly needs replacement.  It has eroded into a dust.
From: I. F. on 8 Jun 2010 22:40
On Jun 9, 4:24 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:09 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thank you, but I have not yet found any clear statement or explanation
> > > about the conservation of the space-time volume in any general
> > > relativity, i.e if the volume is contracted by k, then the time is
> > > dilated by k
>
> > > I would be very grateful if anyone knows the answer and could provide
> > > it
>
> > xxein:  You won't.  Everything is rather Newtonian (as far as he goes)
> > with Lorentz (as far as he goes).  All Einstein did was to try to make
> > a shortcut math and add gravity.  I understand the reason that
> > everyone thinks he was successful, but he wasn't.
>
> > See if this is clear to you.  Length contraction, (lc), (in the simple
> > v/c sense) is one-dimensional.  It is fact that time dilates, (td),
> > (GPS).  It was measured (somewhere, somehow) that a "PHYSICAL" length
> > contraction occurs (not to be confused with or by other observational
> > effects).
>
> > But there is so little known outside the realm of 'math' for gravity.
>
> Gravity is round in time and space geometry.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
>
>
> > This confuses all into thinking v/c is what we measure as a prima
> > fascia physics.
>
> > Physics doesn't know all about v/c.  It doesn't yet realize that a
> > clock dropped from an infinite distance to a singular gravity (mass)
> > 'does not' suffer time dilation.  Yet it seems to comply to a
> > measurement described as v/c.  But the timerate of the clock doesn't.
> > It's just a measurement where theoretical physical reasons conflict.
> > But nobody seems to realize this or care beyond the accepted physics
> > handed to them.
>
> > If you tore our (what we call) physics apart, examined it and then
> > tried to put it back together again, you would fail.  Everyone would.
> > We just don't know enough to make it viable.  But we could certainly
> > improve our understanding of it.  Just get rid of prior belief.
>
> > I do not say this lightly.  After 25 yrs. of deep investigation, the
> > wallpaper certainly needs replacement.  It has eroded into a dust.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For me the length dilation can be explained by a real rotation in
space time, like Minkowski pointed out: if the length of an object is
shortened, this is because a part of that object has gone in the time
dimension with some kind of space time rotation. then since there is
less "volume" for time, the time dilates.
Don't you agree with this?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Light wave is immaterial
Next: When Cornered, Relativity not even a Law !!!