Scalar or not scalar

Originally posted by @metal-brain
We are talking about gravitational time dilation. You are confused.

Are you still confused for thinking time dilation isn't scalar or have we managed to teach you that it is scalar?

Originally posted by @humy
Are you still confused for thinking time dilation isn't scalar or have we managed to teach you that it is scalar?

Do you admit that gravitational time dilation is different at higher altitudes here on earth? Stop avoiding my questions. You do that a lot.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Do you admit that gravitational time dilation is different at higher altitudes here on earth?

yes, and it is also Irrelevant; the definition of time dilation doesn't include how much of it exists at a number of different places thus it isn't true that time dilation is a field by definition.
What you are doing is just like confusing electric charge with electric fields; both exist and are related but electric charge still isn't a field. Only the electric field is a field, not electric charge. The fact you can have an electric field doesn't make an electric charge an electric field; electric charge is still just electric charge and time dilation is still just time dilation, not a field.
And before you say your usual "what is your source of information" crap to pretend I have none; here it is yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

Stop avoiding my questions

Why do you avoid my question?
Is time dilation a scalar quantity?

Originally posted by @humy
yes, and it is also Irrelevant; the definition of time dilation doesn't include how much of it exists at a number of different places thus it isn't true that time dilation is a field by definition.
What you are doing is just like confusing electric charge with electric fields; both exist and are related but electric charge still isn't a field. Only the electr ...[text shortened]... avoiding my questions[/quote]Why do you avoid my question?
Is time dilation a scalar quantity?

Your wikipedia link says this:

"In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time"

You said this:

"yes, and it is also Irrelevant; the definition of time dilation doesn't include how much of it exists at a number of different places thus it isn't true that time dilation is a field by definition."

Your statement contradicts the link you posted.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Your wikipedia link says this:

"In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time"

You said this:

"yes, and it is also Irrelevant; the definition of time dilation doesn't include how much of it exists at a number of different places thus it isn't true that time dilation is a field by definition."

Your statement contradicts the link you posted.

no, it clearly doesn't contradict the wikipedia link assertion but rather it confirms what I just said. How do you believe it contradicts? It directly contradicts your assertion that time dilation is a field.
Exactly which part of "represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time" do you not understand? It is the word "represented"? Explain...

Is time dilation a scalar quantity?

Originally posted by @humy
no, it clearly doesn't contradict the wikipedia link assertion but rather it confirms what I just said. How do you believe it contradicts? It directly contradicts your assertion that time dilation is a field.
Exactly which part of "represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time" do you not understand? It is the word "represented"? Explain...

Is time dilation a scalar quantity?

Time dilation can be represented by a number at different points. You admitted that already. Those numbers differ with altitude.

The name of this thread is scalar or not scalar. That question is the whole purpose of this discussion. You must leave the starting gate before you claim victory. Common sense.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Time dilation can be represented by a number at different points. You admitted that already. Those numbers differ with altitude.

The name of this thread is scalar or not scalar. That question is the whole purpose of this discussion. You must leave the starting gate before you claim victory. Common sense.

A feature of scalar fields is that they are Lorentz Invariant, meaning the value of the field does not appear different to observers in different states of motion. Scalar, in the context of field theory, is short for Lorentz Scalar. Time dilation is frame dependent and so is not a Lorentz Scalar.

Originally posted by @deepthought
A feature of scalar fields is that they are Lorentz Invariant, meaning the value of the field does not appear different to observers in different states of motion. Scalar, in the context of field theory, is short for Lorentz Scalar. Time dilation is frame dependant and so is not a Lorentz Scalar.

You are talking about relative velocity time dilation, not Gravitational time dilation. You are confused.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are talking about relative velocity time dilation, not Gravitational time dilation. You are confused.

Wow, Metal telling a Phd he is confused. Hilarious.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Time dilation can be represented by a number at different points.

A different time dilation can be defined for each different point. So what? At each point time time dilation isn't a field and any valid definition of time dilation wouldn't state it must be a field. Which part of that are you too stupid to understand?
Exactly as I said before;
"yes, and it is also Irrelevant; the definition of time dilation doesn't include how much of it exists at a number of different places thus it isn't true that time dilation is a field by definition. "

Using your own stupid logic, you should insist an electric charge is an electric field.
Why don't you also insist on that? See the problem with that?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are talking about relative velocity time dilation, not Gravitational time dilation. You are confused.

I'll try again. To be a Lorentz Scalar a field has to be frame independent. Time dilation is a frame dependent quantity and so is not a Lorentz Scalar. It is a scalar quantity, but does not have the invariance property that the Higgs field does.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The name of this thread is scalar or not scalar. That question is the whole purpose of this discussion.

OK;

"Time dilation is scalar" (contrary to what you claim)

Doesn't the above statement succeed in fulfilling part of the "whole purpose of this discussion"?
Do you learn anything new now?
Or was the "whole purpose of this discussion" just for you to troll?

Originally posted by @deepthought
I'll try again. To be a Lorentz Scalar a field has to be frame independent. Time dilation is a frame dependent quantity and so is not a Lorentz Scalar. It is a scalar quantity, but does not have the invariance property that the Higgs field does.

When you say frame dependent is that the same as background dependent?

Originally posted by @humy
OK;

"Time dilation is scalar" (contrary to what you claim)

Doesn't the above statement succeed in fulfilling part of the "whole purpose of this discussion"?
Do you learn anything new now?
Or was the "whole purpose of this discussion" just for you to troll?

I created this thread. You are doing the trolling. You are insulting and a rude jerk. If you have no intention of being helpful stop trolling. I didn't create this thread so you could piss all over it like an animal.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
When you say frame dependent is that the same as background dependent?

A frame is a reference frame. A frame of reference is a coordinate system natural to a particular observer. A frame dependent quantity is one that is different in different reference frames. Background dependence tends to be a property of theories more than objects within them, but roughly, yes.