02 Jun 19
6 edits
@deepthought saidCan you make clear to him that a time dilation effect in special relativity (I say specifically "special relativity" here and not "general relativity" here because "special relativity" was what I was just talking about) is NOT gravity and that one thing you are NOT saying is THAT (special relativity) time dilation IS gravity?
Right, I see what you are saying now. The weak field limit. In that limit gravity is time dilation. If the field is stronger then there's more to it. You used the word cause - the actual cause is the matter content generating the field.
And that, just like I just said, a moving clock, even well away from any significant gravity well, will tick more slowly than a stationary one (in the given arbitrary frame of reference and at least on condition of no accelerations being involved) thus showing an example of time dilation without gravity being in anyway involved?
Else I bet he will misunderstand what you are saying here.
02 Jun 19
@metal-brain saidBrian Greene is an expert alright but he is no Einstein, he interprets big Al's work and when he states time shift is what makes attraction he is just rerouting the effect to something he wants to have a successful paper about. That doesn't make it true.
Brian Greene is the real expert. Very prominent as well.
Look in the mirror.
I'll give you a fair chance to impress us all though. Explain how you would improve Brian Greene's explanation. Why do things fall?
02 Jun 19
@deepthought saidPeople have a tendency to imply causality. I once suggested time dilation caused gravity and someone pointed out there was no cause and they were the same thing. That made sense to me. After all, time dilation is why things fall and that is what gravity is by definition.
Right, I see what you are saying now. The weak field limit. In that limit gravity is time dilation. If the field is stronger then there's more to it. You used the word cause - the actual cause is the matter content generating the field.
Would you say the bending of space/time caused time dilation? That would not make any sense. You could make the case they are the same. After all, it is not called space and time. It is called space/time for a reason. They are inexorably linked.
I'll admit to some knee jerk tendency to apply causality when I probably should not have, but time dilation is why things fall. That is the best way to put it. Do you disagree with that?
Why do things fall?
02 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidDude, it is in Einstein's equation. If you cannot accept what I told you it is because you don't understand the equation. Watch the last episode of Nova. Time and space are in the equation. Don't leap before you look.
Brian Greene is an expert alright but he is no Einstein, he interprets big Al's work and when he states time shift is what makes attraction he is just rerouting the effect to something he wants to have a successful paper about. That doesn't make it true.
03 Jun 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThe bottom line is time dilation is an effect not a cause, the cause is the interaction between mass and the stuff of spacetime. Without mass there is no time dilation. Period. Tell me how you could even GET time dilation without mass present?
What else?
03 Jun 19
9 edits
@sonhouse saidI assume you are talking about time dilation in general relativity only.
Without mass there is no time dilation.
Don't forget that time dilation in special relativity has a different 'cause' and can happen regardless of the masses involved and isn't 'caused' by the amount of mass but rather by the relative speeds in the arbitrary frame of reference.
The reason why I put quotation marks around the word 'cause' is because I see potential misunderstanding from the word in this context because in this context the word 'cause' doesn't imply a 'before and after' involved but rather more like implies merely an 'explanation' involved. Its often difficult or even impossible to word things in the ordinary English language without much potential of misunderstanding due to most English words having multiple and ambiguous meanings. Incidentally, going off-topic here, I think there should one day be a new international language constructed to replace English and all other languages and that is so designed as to have all words spelt exactly the way they are pronounced and none of its words have multiple and/or ambiguous meanings and its grammar rules be so designed so that all statements have clear meaning and cannot possibly be misinterpreted.
For example, unlike in English, don't have the 5 possible meanings of the word “or” or the 4 possible meanings of the word “should” and the 3 possible meanings of the word "no" (and I will list and define all those meanings on request) but rather have different words for each of those 12 meanings.
04 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidMatter causes time dilation. That is correct. That is the mystery. We don't know why. I gave a theory about it on this forum once. It is based on the existence of the graviton though.
The bottom line is time dilation is an effect not a cause, the cause is the interaction between mass and the stuff of spacetime. Without mass there is no time dilation. Period. Tell me how you could even GET time dilation without mass present?
Time dilation from matter (I don't like using the term gravitational time dilation because it implies gravity causes time dilation) and the bending of space/time are the same thing. There is no causation.
Many physicists imply cause when they should not. Watch the latest episode of Nova and notice how they use the word cause when they should not. I don't fault people for doing it because it is so easy to do. It would sound funny to say time dilation "is" the bending of space/time but that is essentially accurate. Gravity, time dilation and the bending of space/time are different ways of describing the same thing. Space/time is just a description of both dimensions because they are linked.
Look at Einstein's field equation. Notice the = sign. Never forget it is there when trying to understand his genius. When you get tempted to apply causation ask yourself if it is justified. False causality is too common when teaching GR. It should be avoided because students are taking it literally when they should be taught not to before they even start teaching.
04 Jun 19
7 edits
@metal-brain saidYOU don't know why. That doesn't mean people much smarter than me and you don't know why.
Matter causes time dilation. That is correct. That is the mystery. We don't know why.
I gave a theory about it on this forum once. It is based on the existence of the graviton though.Errr sorry! Some people much smarter than you called "scientists" beat you to it! The theory of gravitons and the theory of gravity being the collectively effect of gravitons where NOT thought up by you first but by OTHER people and is nothing new.
OK, back to your previous claim;
How can it be that "time dilution IS gravity" (like you claimed) when, according to special relativity, you can have time dilution WITHOUT gravity involved?
Well away from any significant gravity well, a clock will STILL click more slowly if its moving thus that is an example of dilution WITHOUT gravity involved thus that example contradicts your claim and clearly proves you are wrong. Explain to us science experts here how that is NOT true...
Your non-answer will say it all.
04 Jun 19
@metal-brain saidIn Special Relativity time dilation is an effect due to observers being in different states of motion. So given two events and two observers moving relative to one another the observers will disagree as to the time between the events. This is a matter of perception.
What else?
In General Relativity where the observers are matters as well. Suppose there is a large mass and an observer a large distance away from it - we call this the asymptotic observer in the mathematical idealization that they are infinitely distant from the mass. Their clock runs faster than an observer stationary with respect to the mass but closer in - a finite distance from the central mass. To remain stationary with respect to the central mass the asymptotic observer just has to float, the close in observer has to accelerate away. The acceleration required is given by the rate of change of the dilation in the radial direction. So the effect is due to the field rather than just the point of view of the observers.
I was struggling with that point - it's a lot easier to just work in the formal language, i.e. write down some algebra, but that's not really helpful on an internet forum.
04 Jun 19
@metal-brain saidCausation is a tricky concept.
Matter causes time dilation. That is correct. That is the mystery. We don't know why. I gave a theory about it on this forum once. It is based on the existence of the graviton though.
Time dilation from matter (I don't like using the term gravitational time dilation because it implies gravity causes time dilation) and the bending of space/time are the same thing. There ...[text shortened]... students are taking it literally when they should be taught not to before they even start teaching.
04 Jun 19
3 edits
@deepthought saidYes, and many people don't realize JUST how tricky that concept really is!
Causation is a tricky concept.
What many people seem to not notice or realize is that correlation doesn't equate with causation nor merely imply a direct causation involved. For example, the day-night correlation (the event of day is always followed by the event of night therefore day is correlated with night) doesn't imply day causes night.
But, what many people seem to also not notice or realize is that vice versa is also true i.e. causation doesn't equate with correlation nor merely imply a correlation directly involved.
For example (and using what I call the "hypothetically-strict principle" which I will explain on request) , if there are many instances of x and y uncorrelated and x never caused y in the past but then there is a one-off unique instance of causation where x did cause y (generally unlikely but it can happen!), x and y will still stay uncorrelated and yet, and perhaps a bit counterintuitively, there was still an instance of causation!
In my AI research the thing I am currently working on are a set of equations that would allow an AI to tell the difference between a mere correlation and a causal relationship and ALREADY I have ended up making some of those equations so massive that, even when it is shown in relatively small print, one can easily fill one whole A4 sheet of paper! That hints on how tricky it really is! I have already tested most of those equations using algorithms and computer simulations and they seem to work well and I will eventually get all these results published by putting all these results in my book I am still writing to be eventually published.
04 Jun 19
@humy saidNope. Nobody knows why.
YOU don't know why. That doesn't mean people much smarter than me and you don't know why.I gave a theory about it on this forum once. It is based on the existence of the graviton though.Errr sorry! Some people much smarter than you called "scientists" beat you to it! The theory of gravitons and the theory of gravity being the collectively effect of gravito ...[text shortened]... wrong. Explain to us science experts here how that is NOT true...
Your non-answer will say it all.
That is why there are only theories and the graviton has not been proven to exist yet. Furthermore you don't even remember what my personal theory is.