What is "time"

[Aqueous Id]

you don't participate in alternative ideas,

When something that is clearly wrong is described here as "alternative", a lot of people just don't feel like participating at all. It's like talking to a wall.

and I guess it was a surprised to see you don't believe in the modern interpretation of GR re. the cause of gravitation.

Has the "cause" changed since Newton's time, or has the explanation simply been updated to account for relativistic effects between frames at different potentials?

My view is that the math is nearly perfect,

My view is that math is generally either right or wrong. Since Poincare and Lorentz produced the math which correctly described relativistic observations (see Fitzeau) as the projection of a rotation onto the observation plane, and it's obviously right, then the application of that relationship to the newer tensor notation of GR is kind of anti-climactic. But it takes years of training to understand the math of basic physics, much less the higher math. That means novices won't have a clue whether it's any good or not. I doubt if they will understand the simpler Lorentz rotation.

but there are energy density mechanics at work to explain the "how".

No. Mechanics divides into two to scenarios: statics and dynamics. It's almost entirely devoted to Newtonian physics, usually solving for force, velocity, power and energy in machines and natural systems. The term "energy density mechanics" is meaningless to that branch of science. Besides, the "how" has more to do with the projection of a rotation than anything. So I continue to doubt that novices have a handle on the "how" since they haven't gotten past the more elementary math of linear algebra & calculus, much less trig & geometry.

Since curved spacetime is the GR explanation of how gravity works,

Not really. Mass causes spacetime curvature, so you're back to the Newtonian explanation with the same answer: gravity is "caused by" mass.

and the EFEs quantify the curvature to predict the geodesics that objects follow through spacetime,

That seems awfully contrived. You sound like you're looking for confirmation of something you hope to be true.

gravitational energy and the curvature might be interchangeable.

And there it is. Of course "interchangeability" is meaningless here. You left out the most essential rule: that gravity arises from mass. Nothing is going to be "interchangeable" about that. Mass is (fortunately) amazingly stable.

Of course the simplest idea to take home from this is that this is a very old, heavily trodden area of science. The odds that an expert can conjure up something that isn't already well understood are slim to none. The odds that a novice can do it are nil. That's why no one really cares about claims that "mainstream science" is fundamentally broken, or missing the boat. Worse, it's preposterous to assume so without first mastering the principles in question. In fact, the invention of obscure jargon to pretend that Nature works differently than already known is quickly seen as a cynical attempt to discredit science the novice never bothered to learn, at a very shallow level, one that equates with trying to trump sensible basic explanations with nonsense.

Why bother? Why not just engage the dialogue at the last level mastered in school? At least there there is hope of being reasonably accurate.

 

[river]

gravitational energy and the curvature might be interchangeable.

Click to expand...
And there it is. Of course "interchangeability" is meaningless here. You left out the most essential rule: that gravity arises from mass. Nothing is going to be "interchangeable" about that. Mass is (fortunately) amazingly stable.

some argue that gravity is not based on mass , but is electromagnetic , or on scalar longitudinal wave . is apart of this wave

Of course the simplest idea to take home from this is that this is a very old, heavily trodden area of science. The odds that an expert can conjure up something that isn't already well understood are slim to none. The odds that a novice can do it are nil. That's why no one really cares about claims that "mainstream science" is fundamentally broken, or missing the boat. Worse, it's preposterous to assume so without first mastering the principles in question. In fact, the invention of obscure jargon to pretend that Nature works differently than already known is quickly seen as a cynical attempt to discredit science the novice never bothered to learn, at a very shallow level, one that equates with trying to trump sensible basic explanations with nonsense.

so the " odds " is the essence of your argument, got to be a mathematician based

 

[paddoboy]

Maybe to the BB theory , but nothing else in this Universe

Well answer the question then.....
Show me a world, realm, or Universe where time does not exist.
Even your own baby, Plasma/Electric Universe, as silly as it is, needs time.

 

[paddoboy]

some argue that gravity is not based on mass , but is electromagnetic , or on scalar longitudinal wave . is apart of this wave

Well actually it is based on spacetime geometry, that is warped or curved in the presence of mass.
MATTER TELLS SPACETIME HOW TO CURVE: SPACETIME TELLS MATTER HOW TO MOVE:
J. A Wheeler:

 

[river]

Well answer the question then.....
Show me a world, realm, or Universe where time does not exist.
Even your own baby, Plasma/Electric Universe, as silly as it is, needs time.

micro world

 

[river]

river said: ↑
some argue that gravity is not based on mass , but is electromagnetic , or on scalar longitudinal wave . therefore gravity is apart of this wave

Well actually it is based on spacetime geometry, that is warped or curved in the presence of mass.
MATTER TELLS SPACETIME HOW TO CURVE: SPACETIME TELLS MATTER HOW TO MOVE:
J. A Wheeler:

I disagree

 

[paddoboy]

I disagree

:SHRUG: That's OK....
What do you have to invalidate the accepted observed model?
Or do you have another model that better fits all the evidence?
Why not write a paper if you are sure you can invalidate the present model, the via acepted scientific methodology, get it peer reviewed.

 

[river]

:SHRUG: That's OK....
What do you have to invalidate the accepted observed model?
Or do you have another model that better fits all the evidence?
Why not write a paper if you are sure you can invalidate the present model, the via acepted scientific methodology, get it peer reviewed.

Of course its " OK... "

refer to my post # 894

 

[paddoboy]

Of course its " OK... "

refer to my post # 894

You are being grossly obtuse.
Now you need to answer my question.
Show me a world, realm, or Universe where time does not exist.
And of course you are avoiding the most Important.......
What do you have to invalidate the accepted observed model?
Or do you have another model that better fits all the evidence?
Why not write a paper if you are sure you can invalidate the present model, the via acepted scientific methodology, get it peer reviewed.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
so the " odds " is the essence of your argument, got to be a mathematician based

Responding to a brick wall, aren't you, River? I've long since learned to ignore rants of those who want us to think that every layman who wants to see science advance is a science hater, especially when they have no credibility to their rhetoric because they are also known to see a creationist behind every burning bush?

 

[Farsight]

Seconded. Honestly river, paddoboy is just a naysayer who believes in all the popscience woo there is, and will not discuss physics sincerely. You're flogging a dead horse talking to him. By the way, see this thread for how gravity works. Gravity isn't spacetime curvature, it's "spacetime tilt", and the underlying reality is inhomogeneous space.

 

[OnlyMe]

I understand from your posts over time that you don't participate in alternative ideas, and I guess it was a surprised to see you don't believe in the modern interpretation of GR re. the cause of gravitation.

I resisted responding this long, because this response is not really on topic for the thread.

I believe that over time I have been pretty consistent in my assertion that space-time as the cause of gravitation, is a modern interpretation, of GR (which is an assessment I did not come up with myself)... And that GR is a theory that describes gravity or more specifically the gravitational field(s) associated with massive objects... Not so much a description of exactly how the presence of mass results in a gravitational field. IOW GR does not provide an answer to the fundamental origin of a gravitational field... In a way you could, and some here would, call that an alternative theory, when viewed from the context of that modern interpretation.

This has not always been my position. Before I began to try, and I emphasize try, to understand some of the work being done on quantum gravity, I was far closer to that modern interpretation than I am currently.

I do respond to Farsight perhaps a bit too often, and mostly as an antagonist, so how you can say I don't contribute to alternative theories is baffling.

Seconded. Honestly river, paddoboy is just a naysayer who believes in all the popscience woo there is, and will not discuss physics sincerely. You're flogging a dead horse talking to him. By the way, see this thread for how gravity works. Gravity isn't spacetime curvature, it's "spacetime tilt", and the underlying reality is inhomogeneous space.

Because the above is certainly an alternative theory... That is if it actually rises to the level of theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

Seconded. Honestly river, paddoboy is just a naysayer who believes in all the popscience woo there is, and will not discuss physics sincerely. You're flogging a dead horse talking to him. By the way, see this thread for how gravity works. Gravity isn't spacetime curvature, it's "spacetime tilt", and the underlying reality is inhomogeneous space.

Lol, some confusion. River was responding to post 901, and not to Paddoboy.

 

[paddoboy]

Responding to a brick wall, aren't you, River? I've long since learned to ignore rants of those who want us to think that every layman who wants to see science advance is a science hater, especially when they have no credibility to their rhetoric because they are also known to see a creationist behind every burning bush?

There is more then one type of burning bush...We certainly do have Creationists and God Botherers doing there level best to deride science...Just check out the latest threads that have been moved to alternative section and even to cesspool.
But perhaps you may like to show me any alternative hypothesis in either the alternative section, or in the science sections, that has been treated unfairly.
Are you referring to Farsight's claim of a ToE?
Or constant-theorists, claim that light is an illusion and dark and shadows are real?
Or do you prefer chinglu's 100% denial of SR/GR?
Or are you more inclined to river's Plasma/Electric universe hypothesis, and his UFO of Alien origin claims, and his giants?
Which one has not been treated fairly, pray tell?
Or if you like, have a look through the Alternative section and pick out any from there that you believe to be factual and which this forum has denied.

To correct your idiotic view of things in general, let me say personally...[1] I'm not anti Creationist or anti religion, I'm just pro science. If I was anti religion, or anti Creationist as you claim, I would be venturing into the religion section and doing all I could to refute their nonsensical claims.
[2] Alternative theories/hypothesis??
Not against them either, not in the least. All I ask for is that anyone claiming to rwrite 20th/21st century cosmology and physics, should have some observational and/or experimental evidence supporting their claims, or invalidating the incumbent model.
Then through the accepted, respected scientific method, proceed to get the proper peer review.
But lo and behold! nearly all these alternative hypothesis pushers, then stand there with a straight face and caste aspersions on this scientific method and peer review.
Now you have your job cut out...best of luck and I anxiously await your evidence supporting your claims.

 

[paddoboy]

Seconded. Honestly river, paddoboy is just a naysayer who believes in all the popscience woo there is, and will not discuss physics sincerely. You're flogging a dead horse talking to him. By the way, see this thread for how gravity works. Gravity isn't spacetime curvature, it's "spacetime tilt", and the underlying reality is inhomogeneous space.

Your attempt to garnish support to your cause of late is quite revealing Farsight.
Let's see, we have river who claims Plasma/Electric Universe is correct, despite being discarded 30 years ago....and his UFO of Alien origin claims, oh, and of course all those human giants that once roamed the earth....
And you agreed with MD yesterday and most here certainly know where he fits in the greater scheme of things.
Yes Farsight, quite revealing.

 

[quantum_wave]

There is more then one type of burning bush...We certainly do have Creationists and God Botherers doing there level best to deride science...Just check out the latest threads that have been moved to alternative section and even to cesspool.
But perhaps you may like to show me any alternative hypothesis in either the alternative section, or in the science sections, that has been treated unfairly.
Are you referring to Farsight's claim of a ToE?
Or constant-theorists, claim that light is an illusion and dark and shadows are real?
Or do you prefer chinglu's 100% denial of SR/GR?
Or are you more inclined to river's Plasma/Electric universe hypothesis, and his UFO of Alien origin claims, and his giants?
Which one has not been treated fairly, pray tell?
Or if you like, have a look through the Alternative section and pick out any from there that you believe to be factual and which this forum has denied.

To correct your idiotic view of things in general, let me say personally...[1] I'm not anti Creationist or anti religion, I'm just pro science. If I was anti religion, or anti Creationist as you claim, I would be venturing into the religion section and doing all I could to refute their nonsensical claims.
[2] Alternative theories/hypothesis??
Not against them either, not in the least. All I ask for is that anyone claiming to rwrite 20th/21st century cosmology and physics, should have some observational and/or experimental evidence supporting their claims, or invalidating the incumbent model.
Then through the accepted, respected scientific method, proceed to get the proper peer review.
But lo and behold! nearly all these alternative hypothesis pushers, then stand there with a straight face and caste aspersions on this scientific method and peer review.
Now you have your job cut out...best of luck and I anxiously await your evidence supporting your claims.

I addressed the confusion in post 913. Read back.

 

[paddoboy]

I addressed the confusion in post 913. Read back.

Noted: I do believe I have made some valid and true points though.
I will just add, that what theories are now accepted by mainstream cosmology, also had to "run the gauntlet" so to speak.....DM for example. I vividly remember the furore when that was first proposed...The BB had to "run the gauntlet"against two other competing theories, until it gained enough observational evidence to confirm its acceptance.

 

[Billy T]

... Show me a world, realm, or Universe where time does not exist. ...

The mystery is why you continue to childishly request this?
Many times you have been told that outside of tautologies like mathematics, proof of non-existence is IMPOSSIBLE.

I.e. no one will show you, with proof, a realm where time does not exist. Without an irrefutable proof, you will just say: "You are wrong."

The best we can do is prove mathematically (see post 28 for one such proof)* that the concept of time is NOT REQUIRED to fully describe the entire universe. Some of us then apply Newton's first rule of philosophical reasoning **(now call Ockham's rule) to say time does not exist.

* If you don't like my short proof, read Mach's made more than 100 years ago.

** In case you have not read what Newton said to do about time not being required, here it is:
The first of his "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" that starts "Book Three of the Principles of Mathematics." Is (in Andrew Motte's translation of the third edition, completed by Newton on 12 January 1726):
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances"

I. e. Newton suggest don't add in reference to: magic, God, or time, as they are NOT necessary to explain the "appearances" of "natural things." Newton does have /use a parameter "t" in his Principles of Mathematics but clearly and explicitely states it is not "sensible." ("observable" is the more modern way to say that.)

Newton's "t" is just and index, marking various stages of the observable changes. "n" (an integer) at regular distances along trajectories would serve just as well. Both need some arbitrary choice for the zero value. That "n" would be in 1 to 1 correspondence with his "t" when "in line of motion" accelerations are absent, as is the case for circular orbit planets, but not for space rockets. (Although most of the acceleration of planets is towards the sun, there is some along the trajectory of one in an elliptical orbit.) Newton ASSUMED that "t" changes by equal steps in his equations. If it were "n" that changed by equal steps, the equations would be different. For example, instead of "equal areas in equal "t" steps it would be "equal travel" in equal "n" steps, etc.

 

[Farsight]

I believe that over time I have been pretty consistent in my assertion that space-time as the cause of gravitation, is a modern interpretation, of GR

It's wrong. A concentration of energy, usually in the guise of a star or planet, is the cause of gravity. It alters the surrounding space, whereupon motion through it is modelled as curved spacetime.

And that GR is a theory that describes gravity or more specifically the gravitational field(s) associated with massive objects... Not so much a description of exactly how the presence of mass results in a gravitational field. IOW GR does not provide an answer to the fundamental origin of a gravitational field... In a way you could, and some here would, call that an alternative theory, when viewed from the context of that modern interpretation.

Einstein's General Relativity is not some alternative theory. But anything that contradicts Einstein when it comes to General Relativity is.

I do respond to Farsight perhaps a bit too often, and mostly as an antagonist, so how you can say I don't contribute to alternative theories is baffling.

Seconded. Honestly river, paddoboy is just a naysayer who believes in all the popscience woo there is, and will not discuss physics sincerely. You're flogging a dead horse talking to him. By the way, see this thread for how gravity works. Gravity isn't spacetime curvature, it's "spacetime tilt", and the underlying reality is inhomogeneous space.

Because the above is certainly an alternative theory... That is if it actually rises to the level of theory.

No it isn't some alternative theory. See the tilted lightcones here. Go and read Einsten's Leyden Address where he referred to inhomogeneous space. What we see repeatedly on this forum is people with some popscience kiddies' misunderstanding of relativity thinking the real thing is some alternative theory. And believing in time travel and the multiverse and similar woo. It's absurd.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Then stop trolling, billy.


Added by Billy T: I cleared my "ignore list" and see many of your personal one-line attacks. So I have reported you. I am involved so don't want to ban you.
Perhaps some other mod will - you have contributed nothing of value here, so that would be no loss. PS one clue is that no one bothers to reply to your posts.




I didn't write that (forum software) but do think it is of value.