31 Aug 14
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainAs KazetNagorra just implied, it doesn’t. Mass causes gravity ( at least indirectly ) , not time dilution, and saying mass causes gravity good enough correctly explains what causes gravity at least to a layperson.
You do realize that time dilation causes gravity, right?
It doesn't make much sense to say time dilution causes gravity because you can create time dilution just by making something go a constant faster speed relative to you and that doesn’t cause gravity. If gravity is caused by time dilution, why cannot you generate constant gravity just merely by making something go a constant speed (not to be confused with constant acceleration ) faster than you?
I am getting the impression that you somehow think you understand more about physics than we do and that we are somehow pretty ignorant of physics when, in fact, not surprisingly given we (including myself ) have actually studied physics with formal qualifications, we understand a lot more about it than you do.
31 Aug 14
Originally posted by humyAs you said, "indirectly".
As KazetNagorra just implied, it doesn’t. Mass causes gravity ( at least indirectly ) , not time dilution, and saying mass causes gravity good enough correctly explains what causes gravity at least to a layperson.
It doesn't make much sense to say time dilution causes gravity because you can create time dilution just by making something go a constant f ...[text shortened]... ually studied physics with formal qualifications, we understand a lot more about it than you do.
An apple falls to the ground because it is following the shortest path in time.
The link I posted for kazet corrected his false assertion that curved space-time does not cause gravity. Curved space-time is the real misnomer. Nothing is really curved about space, but for lack of a better term we all use it. It is actually time dilation that causes this so called curving of space-time.
You need to rethink cause and effect. Time goes faster here on earth than above it. Accelerating speed slows time. You have it backwards and so does kazet.
31 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, exactly. An apple or satellite falling to earth is following the shortest path in time. It goes away from slower time toward faster time. This is the direct cause of gravity, mass is the indirect cause of gravity.
Interesting idea. This could explain how a gravitational force is able to pull rather than push, and it would mean gravitational wells are created by differences in time... time being the variable factor in the fabric of space-time. Time dilation (caused by mass) naturally causes mass to be drawn toward mass. Is this what you mean by time di ...[text shortened]... empty space can't be displaced... space can be occupied, but (by definition) it's not displaced.
The million dollar question is why does matter cause time dilation? That I have no answer for, but I don't feel bad since nobody else can either. Even big bang proponents can't answer why space expands so there are holes in all these theories.
31 Aug 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainMass is obviously doing something to cause gravity, this much has been understood for a long time. But what exactly mass is doing to cause gravity is the million dollar question. The experiment I mentioned seems to verify something I've suspected for a long time. Before science knew of activity at the atomic level all we could see is that mass was somehow responsible for gravity... it was natural to assume mass occupying space was the explanation because there didn't appear to be any other explanation.
Yes, exactly. An apple or satellite falling to earth is following the shortest path in time. It goes away from slower time toward faster time. This is the direct cause of gravity, mass is the indirect cause of gravity.
The million dollar question is why does matter cause time dilation? That I have no answer for, but I don't feel bad since nobody else ...[text shortened]... ven big bang proponents can't answer why space expands so there are holes in all these theories.
Time defined simply is motion... without motion there is no passage of time, everything would be in or remain in a fixed position. But gravity can cause an object to start moving and accelerate for no apparent reason other than that objects position near a body of mass, so there's something at work other than the kind of cause and effect we would see on a pool table with billiard balls smacking into other billiard balls. I believe there is a cause and effect at work with gravity that more closely resembles what scientists call an action from a distance than it does with forces simply acting on objects... such as what we would see happening in a game of billiards.
31 Aug 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainGeneral relativity is a phenomenological theory of gravity, which unites special relativity with Newton's theory of gravity, providing relativistic corrections to it. It does not provide a "cause" of gravity, since this presumably happens on the microscopic scale, where the macroscopic description of general relativity breaks down. The general theory of relativity does not explain why mass/energy would bend space-time, it just describes how it does so.
As you said, "indirectly".
An apple falls to the ground because it is following the shortest path in time.
The link I posted for kazet corrected his false assertion that curved space-time does not cause gravity. Curved space-time is the real misnomer. Nothing is really curved about space, but for lack of a better term we all use it. It is actuall ...[text shortened]... on earth than above it. Accelerating speed slows time. You have it backwards and so does kazet.
31 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
As you said, "indirectly".
An apple falls to the ground because it is following the shortest path in time.
The link I posted for kazet corrected his false assertion that curved space-time does not cause gravity. Curved space-time is the real misnomer. Nothing is really curved about space, but for lack of a better term we all use it. It is actuall ...[text shortened]... on earth than above it. Accelerating speed slows time. You have it backwards and so does kazet.
An apple falls to the ground because it is following the shortest path in time.
No, not “because” in the way you mean by that word which implies cause and effect! It just DOES! You fail to understand the distinction. There is no causal relation implied by the two things but rather the latter merely describes the general behaviour that the former is consistent with, NOT causes it! A mere description doesn't equate with implying cause and effect. So your above assertion is incorrect and KazetNagorra was correct.
It is a bit like saying “lions often hunt in packs because most large predictors often hunt in pacts” and then think that means most large predictors often hunting in pacts is what actually causes lions to do so! But “most large predictors often hunt in pacts” is actually no more than a description of what generally happens, not an explanation of what “causes” it!
Curved space-time is the real misnomer. Nothing is really curved about space
NO! “space-time” is NOT “space”. And your above assertion shows us you have no idea what you are talking about! HOW would you know that "Nothing is really curved about" it when you don't understand the relevant physics equations that describes curvature? Are you a physicist?
Time goes faster here on earth than above it.
Wrong! Whether it goes faster or slower at some place away from the earth just depends on how in relates to your time in the frame of reference you use and not merely on whether the place is 'above' the Earth. It would run slower above the Earth in some places and orbits but faster in others. For example;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
“...Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster. ...”
So your above assertion is proven false by the above link.
Again, you seem to think you understand physics much better than us scientists when, actually, you don't. Why do you assume you know better than us when you obviously haven't studied it nearly as much as us?
31 Aug 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have said before that quantum gravity cannot be explained and that there are only theories. Rather than saying mass bends space-time I would say mass causes time dilation. To me the term "bending space-time" is more of a way of visualizing the effects of time dilation.
General relativity is a phenomenological theory of gravity, which unites special relativity with Newton's theory of gravity, providing relativistic corrections to it. It does not provide a "cause" of gravity, since this presumably happens on the microscopic scale, where the macroscopic description of general relativity breaks down. The general theory of ...[text shortened]... tivity does not explain why mass/energy would bend space-time, it just describes how it does so.
When an apple falls from the tree to the ground it is following the shortest path in time. It goes from slower time to faster and it accelerates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
Is it really so hard for you to accept that the universe's expansion is accelerating because of time dilation?
31 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyAn apple falls to the ground [b]becauseit is following the shortest path in time.
No, not “because” in the way you mean by that word which implies cause and effect! It just DOES! You fail to understand the distinction. There is no causal relation implied by the two things but rather the latter merely describes the gen ...[text shortened]... o you assume you know better than us when you obviously haven't studied it nearly as much as us?[/b]From the link below for dummies:
The effects of matter and space-time on each other are what we perceive as gravity.
The theory of the space-time continuum already existed, but under general relativity Einstein was able to describe gravity as the bending of space-time geometry.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html
As I told kazet, I look at the term "Bending space-time" as a visualization of the effects of matter and time dilation. The term "space-time" is a good one for doing the math and it works. I'm not doing away with the term, just being more specific.
Okay, so I accidentally wrote space instead of space-time once. Are you the typo police? Do you really feel justified being condescending over a mere typo? Get a grip dude.
The Hafele–Keating experiment only confirms what I have been consistently saying all along. Sure, I was a little non-specific in my wording when I said "above the earth". You know what I meant. You are just nitpicking because that is all you have.
From wikipedia:
"In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly"
Just I stated. Are you going to correct my spelling too? Will that make you feel better?
01 Sep 14
In the end i think it is going to be some weird spiral of logic that cant be explained when it comes to gravity and the expanding universe.
something like mass ---> gravity ----> universe expanding ----> mass
Not that I am actually putting the above chain forward as a theory... is just an example of how I think the chain of cause and effect will end up bending back on itself like a circle.
01 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have said before that quantum gravity cannot be explained and that there are only theories. Rather than saying mass bends space-time I would say mass causes time dilation. To me the term "bending space-time" is more of a way of visualizing the effects of time dilation.
When an apple falls from the tree to the ground it is following the shortest path ...[text shortened]... o hard for you to accept that the universe's expansion is accelerating because of time dilation?
I would say mass causes time dilation.
Directly or indirectly? Based on what exactly? I ask you again: Are you a physicist?
Do you understand all Einstein equations of general relativity?
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
I have already shown physics links that logically contradict some of your assertions.
And please don't keep assaulting our intelligence by keep showing us physics websites as if you are pretending to be making some intelligent point or pretending you know all about it or pretending to understand physics better than us scientists. We understand a lot more about physics than you do.
01 Sep 14
Originally posted by Metal Brain
From the link below for dummies:
The effects of matter and space-time on each other are what we perceive as gravity.
The theory of the space-time continuum already existed, but under general relativity Einstein was able to describe gravity as the bending of space-time geometry.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-t ...[text shortened]... wly"
Just I stated. Are you going to correct my spelling too? Will that make you feel better?
The theory of the space-time continuum already existed...Who told you this? Before Einstein we had Newton's picture of an absolute space with time as a parameter. Post-Einstein time becomes a dimension which can be mixed with the others in a Lorentz transform. The world views are utterly different.
The space-time around a massive body is curved. The reason for this is that energy is curvature. Time dilation is not enough to explain gravitational effects, except in the weak field limit. If the massive body were spinning then there would be an additional effect called frame dragging which you simply could not explain using time dilation alone (see Kerr metric in Wikipedia).
01 Sep 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainYeah, because that's not the case. Time dilation is a relativistic effect. It's valid regardless of the expansion of the universe.
Is it really so hard for you to accept that the universe's expansion is accelerating because of time dilation?
Have you considered that you might need to study a topic before making statements about it? It takes a bit more than reading a few websites.
02 Sep 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThen present your own theory. One that makes sense of course.
Yeah, because that's not the case. Time dilation is a relativistic effect. It's valid regardless of the expansion of the universe.
Have you considered that you might need to study a topic before making statements about it? It takes a bit more than reading a few websites.