Lord Antares

Yes. As I said, I thought about it too before this thread. To simplify, it is something like this: If you have an empty box and then you put an object into the box (like a ball). When you do that, the resulting air in the box will become more dense. There will be a lesser volume of air but a greater density. Any given distance in the box will contain more air after putting the ball in than before putting the ball in. There are some observations which make sense to me with this model. However, that is not nearly enough to be able to conclude anything. As Strange has been telling you, you will need mathematical predictions or evidence which would point to this model being more correct or more useful. As far as I'm concerned, it does not clash with any established physics because any resulting observations would still sound like GR, but there is no indication that it offers anything either. It is an alternative interpretation of GR which needs evidence. I hope you realize that further discussion on this will only make sense given that you come up with some quantifiable prediction or mathematical equation which is not made available by GR. Does this make sense to you?

Are you sure they are not just that - physical scars? If they are, you should know better how they came to be than us. A picture should help.

No, that is wrong. Photons have no mass and are not attracted towards the sun because the mass of the sun is attracting them. They bend in the presence of the sun because the sun bends the space around. They are actually travelling in a straight line in this curved space. No one is claiming ''magical'' attraction as you put it. GR has changed all of that and there is clearer explanation of gravity. Are you not aware of GR? What you are offering is an alternative explanation for something that is already established. You need to prove that this explanation is more useful or more correct. I keep coming back to this thread because, as I had already noted, I had the same idea as you, albeit veering in a different direction than what you are discussing here. It is pointless to keep stating your idea if you cannot prove to others that it has some relation to reality. It makes sense to me as well, but that does not guarantee its validity. You need to come up with a mathematical model to prove that gravity happens because of space displacement. I was searching for that as well, but I couldn't come up with anything.

It cannot be disputed because it makes no sense. If I asked you to dispute the statement: ''time travel at the nearest so far planck speed of zero'', you couldn't, because the sentence doesn't represent a coherent thought. You have been told NUMEROUS times that all this talk about ''going into the past'', ''displacing zero'', ''leaving the past'', etc. doesn't mean anything. In order for something to be eligible for disputation, it needs to follow a logical structure. Then, someone can point out the flaw in the logic. You cannot dispute that which contains no logic in the first place.

But you cannot dilate any unit of time from your reference. So planck time would never have to be dilated with GR anyway.

You misinterpreted my sentence. How would you go on to dilate a planck time unit anyway? In its own frame of reference, planck time wouldn't have to be dilated, neither would any other unit. This doesn't make sense to me.

Not only do we need evidence, but: 1) evidence points to the contrary (i.e. time dilation has been established) 2) Since time is relative, it is senseless to talk about the dilation of a unit of time. And how would a planck time unit get ''smaller'' anyway?

Today I learned that time dilation is a lie

I believe this is what he is trying to say: Planck time is the smallest unit of time which is available to us. If it is the smallest unit, then it cannot get any smaller, i.e. cannot get dilated into a smaller unit. This is what I believe he is referring to when he mentions increments. Increments of planck time I guess. But this makes no sense on so many different levels. Also, time dilation is an observed fact, so I cannot fathom how we would go on to prove this one.

Can you explain this? I'm interested to hear the explanation. Also, your graph, if it were accurate in scales and angles, only shows what we know from general relativity. What are we supposed to obtain from it?

There are two possibilities: 1) All the experts and geniuses who studied physics for years throghout the last century don't understand relativity and you are the only one who does. 2) All the experts and geniuses do understand relativity and you don't. It pains me that you won't give any consideration to the latter possibility. You know, being wrong is a good thing since it means you always have the chance to learn something new if you choose to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

You are hopeless. The level of your obtuseness is legendary. Totally agreed. I'm out.

I'll just pop in before I leave this and say that you are wasting your time, studiot. There have been pages and pages of posts trying to explain to him that there is no universal time and there is no such thing as ''moving into the past''. He either completely disregarded them or didn't understand them. For the last time before I'm out, there is no moving into the ''present'' or ''past'' and your last question makes no sense. Time is relative. Everyone feels like their time is ticking at a normal time whereas the others' time is dilated. That is all there is to it. No one is going back in time. Maybe you should go back and read through all of the posts instead of perpetuating ignorance.

And you chose to ignore Janus' comment as well, who puts a lot of effort into writing very good posts. Studiot is one of those people as well. All in all, the arguments are completely circular with every new comment boiling down to a response like: ''but he's going down into the past''. You show a very fixed and heavy point of view and either choose to ignore other arguments or you continually fail to understand them. I think the patience of the posters in this thread has been legendary. They don't give up in trying to convey their point.

I wish you understood. Who said anything about simultaneity? It certainly has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

This is what I'm trying to tell you. There is only a present for one individual. There is no universal present. This post only says that there is time dilation. No one is disputing that. We are disputing that this means that someone is going into the past. It doesn't. It only means that one's time is dilated compared to another person's frame of reference. You could use imaginary terminology and say that means travelling into the past, but it would be senseless to say that as it doesn't really mean anything.

They would both say that the other twin's time is dilated, but they are both in their present time where time ticks ''normally''. Again, there is no universal time to say that one is in the present and the other is not.

No. You don't understand. Everything is ''occupying'' the present in its state of reference. Nothing is going into the past or the future because time is relative and is ''normal'' for every person's frame of reference. You don't seem to understand that time is relative. You seem to be trying to reconcile time dilation with absolute time. There is no such thing as absolute time.

He thinks the friction force of the vehicles braking will push the earth away from the sun. Besides being a ridiculous idea, it wouldn't work. I guess if you were to attempt it in a hypothetical scenario, you would need to get all the vehicles lined up along or behind one another all parallel to one another and they would have to be facing away from a sunset. Of course, it would be physically impossible that they would all end up facing the same way as the earth is curved, but even in a hypothetical scenario where this could be done and where there would be enough force, the earth would just rotate a bit. If you split the vehicles in two groups on opposite sides of the earth, both rougly facing away from the sun, I don't know what exactly would happen, but in a realistic scenario, you couldn't get past the fact that there is not enough energy and earth's curvature would stop all vehicles facing in the desired direction.

I somehow very much doubt that you solved all of these issues, or any one of them. Really? Even the events before the big bang and how life came to be are substantiated by well established facts? I am betting you have no evidence for anything.

Exactly. He is being paradoxical by speaking of time as if it were universal while trying to make a point about relativity.

And you see stationary objects in the past as well, so what is your point? When you see anything whatsoever, you see its past state. When the object receds, it gets further away, and that's why it makes more time for information to reach you, rather than it going back in time. Your main problem is that you use your unconventional and useless definitions for time to make your case. These observations of yours bear no relevance.

It is clear to me that you don't read posts, you just skim through that. I made a mention of that. It is correct that you are observing past states of any object, such as a star. When you see starlight of a star which is 10 ly away, you are seeing the light which shined 10 years ago at the location of the star. This is much different to saying that objects travel back in time when they move away from you. This is what you don't understand.

What does that even mean? You are not supporting mainstream physics by claiming travel back in time. It is a matter of definition, and per mainstream physics definition, a receding object in no way travels back in time. And you completely misunderstood DrmDoc's post.

You don't understand. Relativity is related to physics, but the statement ''an object receding away from you is travelling into the past'' has no relation to physics. Have you even read the rest of the post and my ship analogy?