1. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    11029
    10 Sep '22 10:13
    @metal-brain said
    If time dilation does not cause gravity why have time in the equation at all?
    What would be the point of that?
    "If the universe isn't eternally unchanging why have a constant in the equation at all?
    What would be the point of that?"

    It's the same argument as yours, so either it is correct and Zeno was right; or yours is also completely dumb. You can't have it both ways.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    19136
    10 Sep '22 13:141 edit
    @shallow-blue said
    "If the universe isn't eternally unchanging why have a constant in the equation at all?
    What would be the point of that?"

    It's the same argument as yours, so either it is correct and Zeno was right; or yours is also completely dumb. You can't have it both ways.
    No, it is not the same. Not even close.
    Stop making up nonsense.

    If time is not important to the equation why is it in there?
  3. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    11029
    10 Sep '22 18:12
    @metal-brain said
    No, it is not the same. Not even close.
    Stop making up nonsense.

    If time is not important to the equation why is it in there?
    I'm not making up nonsense. Not even close.
    Merely parroting yours.

    If constancy is not important to the equation why is it in there?
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    19136
    10 Sep '22 18:33
    @shallow-blue said
    I'm not making up nonsense. Not even close.
    Merely parroting yours.

    If constancy is not important to the equation why is it in there?
    If time is not important to the equation why is it in there?
  5. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    11029
    11 Sep '22 09:52
    @metal-brain said
    If time is not important to the equation why is it in there?
    If constancy is not important to the equation why is it in there?
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    19136
    11 Sep '22 11:14
    @shallow-blue said
    If constancy is not important to the equation why is it in there?
    In what equation? Whose equation?
  7. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    11029
    11 Sep '22 12:251 edit
    @metal-brain said
    In what equation? Whose equation?
    The same one as yours, Whose is it? What is it? Where are you? What are you on? Why should I ever take you seriously?
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    19136
    11 Sep '22 13:20
    @shallow-blue said
    The same one as yours, Whose is it? What is it? Where are you? What are you on? Why should I ever take you seriously?
    What is your source of information?
  9. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    11029
    11 Sep '22 16:13
    @metal-brain said
    What is your source of information?
    For being puzzled why I should take you seriously?

    Frankly... anything you've ever posted.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    19136
    11 Sep '22 21:27
    @shallow-blue said
    The same one as yours, Whose is it? What is it? Where are you? What are you on? Why should I ever take you seriously?
    Post the equation then.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53125
    12 Sep '22 06:03
    @Metal-Brain
    The source of information is all your BS posts.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    19136
    12 Sep '22 06:43
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    The source of information is all your BS posts.
    I didn't post an equation on this thread that I am aware of.
    Shallow doo is just making up BS nonsense.
  13. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2575
    12 Sep '22 20:17
    The equivalence principle explained:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

    There are many "equivalence principles" in general relativity, though they can roughly be arranged in order of increasing generality. The "strong equivalence principle" states:

    1) The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution.

    2) The outcome of any local experiment (gravitational or not) in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime.


    Main thing here is the first sentence of the article: "In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass."

    Foremost to note is that the principle's domain of validity is the mathematical framework of general relativity alone, and does not incorporate special relativity and the time dilation that special relativity models as a function of velocity alone (i.e. no acceleration and no mass).
  14. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2575
    12 Sep '22 20:22
    @metal-brain said
    I didn't post an equation on this thread that I am aware of.
    Shallow doo is just making up BS nonsense.
    Previous page you wrote:

    Hogwash!

    Einstein's General Relativity equation has a "T" for time in it.
    You just claimed General Relativity does not exist. Now you have a problem with Einstein and his GR equation.


    You're referring to an equation, which is as good as typing it. So, produce this equation, or link to it, or something. Then state some semblance of a coherent argument for your thesis. It might help to thresh out your argument a bit better than "time dilation is gravity."
  15. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2575
    12 Sep '22 20:40
    Here's a blog that looks at some excerpts from one of Brian Greene's books:

    https://www.scottdstrader.com/blog/ether_archives/000122.html

    The last excerpt is of particular interest:


    All this led Einstein to conclude that the force one feels from gravity and the force one feels from acceleration are the same. They are equivalent. Einstein called this the principle of equivalence.

    ...

    With special relativity, Einstein proclaimed that absolute spacetime provides the benchmark, but special relativity does not take account of gravity. Then, through the equivalence principle, Einstein supplied a more robust benchmark that does include the effects of gravity. And this entailed a radical change in perspective. Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, if you feel gravity's influence, you must be accelerating.


    Object #1 going a steady velocity of 0.99c with respect to Object #2 will experience time dilation from the point of view of #2. But there is no acceleration and hence, by the equivalence principle immediately above which holds that "gravity and acceleration are equivalent," there is no gravity.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree