Prev: Light wave is immaterial
Next: When Cornered, Relativity not even a Law !!!
From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 23:08
On Jun 8, 7:40 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No. If space shrinks taking the train with it contraction is faulty
physics. Time slows down without distance shrinking.

I wanted to point out the idea that Einstein's space curve could be
round. Gravity is spherical space geometry beginning at the center and
radiating outward to field range.

Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 9 Jun 2010 00:33
BURT a �crit :
> On Jun 8, 7:40 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No. If space shrinks taking the train with it contraction is faulty
> physics. Time slows down without distance shrinking.
>
> I wanted to point out the idea that Einstein's space curve could be
> round. Gravity is spherical space geometry beginning at the center and
> radiating outward to field range.

Complete bullshit from start to finish. You do realize that, don't you?
From: BURT on 9 Jun 2010 00:44
On Jun 8, 9:33 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
> BURT a crit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 7:40 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No. If space shrinks taking the train with it contraction is faulty
> > physics. Time slows down without distance shrinking.
>
> > I wanted to point out the idea that Einstein's space curve could be
> > round. Gravity is spherical space geometry beginning at the center and
> > radiating outward to field range.
>
> Complete bullshit from start to finish. You do realize that, don't you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You shovel it.

There are no flat atoms.

Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 9 Jun 2010 18:30
On Jun 8, 10:40 pm, "I. F." <exformat...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: NO!!! Why did you ask the question if you already have an
answer/belief?
From: Tom Roberts on 17 Jun 2010 08:43
I. F. wrote:
> 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...

Yes, it is indeed much more complicated.


> is it ALWAYS true or can anyone prove that if the VOLUME is contracted
> by K, then the time is dilated by K?

No. This happens to be a feature of both Minkowski and Schwarzschild spacetimes,
but is not general. For instance, the Kerr metric does not have this property
(the metric components for spatial coordinates are quite different from the
inverse of the time component).


Tom Roberts
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Light wave is immaterial
Next: When Cornered, Relativity not even a Law !!!