captcass Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 The moderator shut down my thread on a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time when I stated that Einstein's field equations did not rely on mass or energy. I misstated. Einstein's TENSOR does not rely on energy or mass, except in that the time dilation is related to mass in gravitational or velocity-induced dilation gradients. And yes, acceleration mimics a gravitational field. I had asked the folk to find a single energy or mass element in the field equations in his 1915 paper I provided a link to. I should have asked them to find them in Einstein's tensor, though he does not describe it as such in his paper. I am starting to think you folk don't know enough to relate to what I am talking about, which blows my mind because you obviously know so much!. "Energy elements", OK. In the paper, he calls the time dilation his "energy elements". (I gave you the link, you can find the reference even if I have it only paraphrased.) The argument was about the necessity of the stress energy-momentum-tensor in his formulations being necessary for a curved evolution. I am saying that in Einstein's tensor, mass or energy do not apply, only differences in the rates of time that are translated into angular deflection. I am trying to argue chicken or egg. As you who love to correct me know, my scientific terminology is not always perfect. I might confuse an hypotheses with a postulate or a simple proposition. You folk like to jump on me for this because you think I am so off the wall, which I agree I am. Some asked why I don't mind the negative points. I am old and learned long ago to be humble because pride precedes a fall. I am here to learn from you, and I don't care if I am wrong. You get used to it at my age......humility comes with age. We know no more than we do at age 18. If I am wrong, as you have shown me before, then I am wrong. At least I keep at it. "Make a fool of myself"? I am not affected by this concept......I still know more than any of you folk in how it REALLY works..... Sorry, I know you hate that...... I can readily understand this as I am taking a very non-mainstram approach. I think you know that I know what relativity is about, (Lorentz contractions, visual phenomena based upon the results of there being a constant speed of light in all inertial frames) which is something that keeps you engaged and so enraged by me. I repeat, I understand SR and GR. All I am is saying that relativity relates to more than the relativistic visual effects due to the constancy of the speed of light. It also is proof positive that events evolve "forward in time" down time dilation gradients in the continuum. I am saying this is an orthogonal evolution to the evolution we each experience in out inertial frames of reference which I compare to Einstein's fundamental metric in GR and a 1 s/s rate of time. GR describes the resultant of these two orthogonal forces of evolution, one dependent on the apparent momentum and one dependent on the apparent differences in rates of time down the time dilation gradient. The reason I asked the folk to look for the energy elements is to show that it is not just effects in light, it is also effects in time. The fact that c is a constant in all frames tells me the rate of time is also the same for all observers in all frames. Hence the universal rate of time I propose. If the rate of time were different for different observers, they could not agree about c. Can anyone here see GR as the resultant of these two evolutionary directions in events due to the two evolutionary directions of time, one "real", as in the fundamental metric in GR, and one relative down the dilation gradients, whether induced by velocity or (apparently) due to mass? . PS: I am NOT talking about how we perceive each other's rate of coordinate time. I am saying that the rate is the same for all observers, regardless of their inertial frame.....as per SR.... a universal invariant rate of time that allows c to be constant for all observers regardless of their frame or velocity..
studiot Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 7 hours ago, captcass said: Can anyone here see GR as the resultant of these two evolutionary directions in events due to the two evolutionary directions of time, one "real", as in the fundamental metric in GR, and one relative down the dilation gradients, whether induced by velocity or (apparently) due to mass? Do you mean these diagrams and explanation? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1023-if-gravity-is-a-curvature-of-space-rather-than-a-force-why-do-a-ball-and-bullet-follow-different-paths-intermediate
captcass Posted February 25, 2018 Author Posted February 25, 2018 3 hours ago, studiot said: Do you mean these diagrams and explanation? No. I get that. I mean does anyone here see GR as also describing two complimentary/competing directions of evolution in the continuum? Lorentz contractions and the constancy of c are responsible for what we see, but are not the dynamics in the evolution of time also there? For instance. When I see light curving around a star, I see the light being evolved down the time dilation gradient as it also evolves forward on its trajectory, not the curvature of a spacetime we cannot visualize.
beecee Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, captcass said: For instance. When I see light curving around a star, I see the light being evolved down the time dilation gradient as it also evolves forward on its trajectory, not the curvature of a spacetime we cannot visualize. When I see light being gravitationally lensed around a star or other massive conglomeration such as a galaxy, I actually see light/photons following geodesics in curved/warped spacetime...... The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, and does not vary with the motion of the origin of the light/photons or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. The invariant nature of the speed of light leads to the observations that Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. It's that simple really. Continued experiments and observations over more then a 100 years has lead scientists to that conclusion.
Strange Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, captcass said: I mean does anyone here see GR as also describing two complimentary/competing directions of evolution in the continuum? I don't even know what that means. What "two directions"? What "evolution"? If you mean, "does GR describe how the movement of things through space-time is altered by the presence of mass-energy", then the answer would be yes. But you seem to be denying this is the case. I wrote a long response to your previous thread which was lost when it was shut down. I will summarise it here as: 1. The stress-energy tensor is an essential part of the equations of GR. 2. One component of the stress-energy tensor is mass. 3. The equations describe how the components of the stress-energy tensor (including mass) change the curvature of space time. It is, basically, as simple as that. To add a bit more detail: Quote We promised to state Einstein's equation in plain English, but have not done so yet. Here it is: Given a small ball of freely falling test particles initially at rest with respect to each other, the rate at which it begins to shrink is proportional to its volume times: the energy density at the center of the ball, plus the pressure in the direction at that point, plus the pressure in the direction, plus the pressure in the direction. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/
captcass Posted February 25, 2018 Author Posted February 25, 2018 OK. Thanks, guys. You don't see what I am seeing. No point going there again.
Strange Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 3 hours ago, captcass said: I mean does anyone here see GR as also describing two complimentary/competing directions of evolution in the continuum? What are the "two directions" you are referring to? What do you mean by "evolution"?
captcass Posted February 25, 2018 Author Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Strange said: What are the "two directions" you are referring to? What do you mean by "evolution"? I have explained some of this before and you folks cna't seem to see it so I really don't see the point of wasting everyone's time again. But briefly.... I am seeing the continuum of quantum physics as the spacetime continuum. This is an evolving energy field with densities in it. The densities don't move through empty space, they are evolving along with the rest of the continuum. They are part and parcel with it. The evolution, or passing, of time evolves the continuum forward including what we perceive to be "empty space". All densities, all cosmic bodies, are evolving waveforms in the continuum. Einstein's fundamental metric describes the primary evolutionary state of all observers. As time evolves forward, the observer's space appears to evolve forward in a straight line at a steady rate. Adding a dilation gradient introduces another evolutionary force in time, which is down gradient. Events evolve from faster frames to slower frames. This direction is relativistic. In a stellar system, the evolution down gradient is orthogonal to what would be the straight line evolution of the planets. This is why gravity only has 1 direction and overcomes all the other forces. It is the evolution of the continuum by the passage of time, including all its densities and thin areas.
swansont Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 15 hours ago, captcass said: The moderator shut down my thread on a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time when I stated that Einstein's field equations did not rely on mass or energy. ! Moderator Note post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You might revisit why your thread was shut down lest you repeat the error
Strange Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, captcass said: I am seeing the continuum of quantum physics What is the “continuum of quantum physics”? 7 minutes ago, captcass said: Adding a dilation gradient introduces another evolutionary force in time, which is down gradient. Events evolve from faster frames to slower frames. This direction is relativistic. In a stellar system, the evolution down gradient is orthogonal to what would be the straight line evolution of the planets. Can you provide any mathematics or (quantitative) evidence to back this up? (I guess the answer is no, in which case I expect the thread will soon be closed.)
studiot Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 16 hours ago, captcass said: my scientific terminology is not always perfect. Granted. I think I can picture what you have in mind, but I am puzzled by one aspect. So if we set aside the Mystec Meg terminology can you explain why waveforms? 48 minutes ago, captcass said: All densities, all cosmic bodies, are evolving waveforms in the continuum.
captcass Posted February 25, 2018 Author Posted February 25, 2018 18 minutes ago, Strange said: What is the “continuum of quantum physics”? the spacetime continuum. 18 minutes ago, Strange said: Can you provide any mathematics or (quantitative) evidence to back this up? The math is in GR in the time elements that Einstein calls his "energy" components (sic). They also scale the stress-energy tensor. That's what I said. You can't see it. I don't know how else to tell you. You either see the energy (dilation/gravitational) field, or you don't. You either see the evolutionary direction of the waveforms or you don't. You either see the fall of an object in a gravitational field as its waveforms evolving forward or you don't. But you folk can't see what I am seeing, so there is no point continuing here. We are just wasting our time. Thanks for the input. BiBi 3 minutes ago, studiot said: can you explain why waveforms? It is all superposition waveforms that collapse into our reality when we observe it. People debate whether it is there when we do not look at it....quarks are virtual particles that pop into and ot of being. At any given moment there are parts of us that are not there.......the earth would behave the same as an electron in a double slit experiment...
Strange Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, captcass said: the spacetime continuum. So we can rewrite this sentence: I am seeing the continuum of quantum physics as the spacetime continuum. As: I am seeing the space time continuum as the spacetime continuum. Not a very useful insight. The rest of your sentences seem to be equally vapid. 13 minutes ago, captcass said: The math is in GR in the time elements that Einstein calls his "energy" components The energy component of the stress-energy tensor is not time, it is energy. 15 minutes ago, captcass said: You either see the fall of an object in a gravitational field as its waveforms evolving forward or you don't. GR is a classical theory and therefore the math of GR has nothing to do with evolution of waveforms. 17 minutes ago, captcass said: But you folk can't see what I am seeing You seem to be hallucinating.
swansont Posted February 25, 2018 Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, captcass said: But you folk can't see what I am seeing, so there is no point continuing here. We are just wasting our time. Thanks for the input. ! Moderator Note Very well.
Recommended Posts