Prof Cox's Gravity Problem Solved

[austintorn@aol.com]

I trust you, as people are now stressed for both time and space.

[Max™]

I meant Farsight, he said the same thing I did with a slightly different phrasing, as if I had misunderstood some concept of it.

I get that a lot for some reason, but I will say this much, if there is any aspect of the universe which I can truly say I understand on an intuitive natural level, it is the principles of Relativity. I've been dealing with them for over 3/4ths of my life now.

I've considered the meaning and nature of the statements in Relativity from all manner of possible angles and approaches, I've sought to seek new ways to consider them, and I can safely say that I am well educated on them.

[Farsight]

Max: I think you have misunderstood an important concept. I think you have an intuitive natural understanding of time that's wrong. I urge you to sit down and think about it rationally, and attempt to furnish evidence for "interacting with time" or "pointing towards yesterday". That's what I did, and now I've got it worked out I realise just how brainwashed people are by concepts that have no supporting evidence whatsoever. Read this chapter again and try to work out where I'm wrong, and then provide something to back it up. I'll tell you this: you can't. Understand time like I do and then you really understand relativity, like never before.


TIME EXPLAINED

Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is so very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. It's been that way since you were a child, when you formed a mental map of the world using your senses and your brain and the things you were taught. You use this mental map to think, and you are so immersed in it that you can’t see things the way they really are. You can’t see that the map is not the territory. You can’t see that you are locked into an irrational conviction that clocks run, that days pass, that time flows, and that a journey takes a length of time. You have an ironclad mental picture of time as a dimension of length, offering freedom of motion like the dimensions of space. And that picture is wrong.

etc etc

[Max™]

My concept of time isn't a deeply ingrained thing, my concept of time is something that became an intuitive understanding after years of considering a huge range of models and concepts and theories, and finally realizing what relativity was actually about.

Again... there must be something to my view of time.

I arrived at almost the exact same conclusions about reality as you did, except I got there ONLY thinking about the nature of time.

I found quantum mechanics within the framework of relativity, by thinking rationally about the nature of time, and beyond that, found an intuitive natural explanation of said quantum mechanics.

It is fundamental to me.

Time doesn't flow, clocks don't run, we move through time, clocks tally motion through time.

I had someone on another forum mention the speed of time to me.

I had to inform him that he may as well have said "the speed of left" to me, his view was that time dilation results from adjusting the speed of time, mine is that it comes from the very nature of matter as folded space, and the ensuing relation between motion through space, and decreased motion through time.

I could argue just as easily that you have a strange view of time.

[Farsight]

Time doesn't flow, clocks don't run, we move through time, clocks tally motion through time.

No, clocks clock up motion through space. The motion isn't through time. There's no evidence whatsoever to support that view. You can't show me motion through time. But I can show you motion through space.

I had someone on another forum mention the speed of time to me. I had to inform him that he may as well have said "the speed of left" to me, his view was that time dilation results from adjusting the speed of time, mine is that it comes from the very nature of matter as folded space, and the ensuing relation between motion through space, and decreased motion through time.

It's decreased motion through space. That's all it is. We use the motion of light to calibrate our clocks, pair production tells us we are made of light, and when the light goes slower we call it time dilation. There is no argument you can put up against this. It's just crushingly irrefutably simple.

I could argue just as easily that you have a strange view of time.

Try it. I can show you the evidence that supports my position. You can't show me the evidence that supports yours.

[Max™]

Alice and Bob both took a trip from point O.

Alice went 10 feet in the x direction, then 10 feet in the y direction.

Bob went 10 feet in the x direction, then 10 feet in the y direction.

Neither moved in the z direction.

Is that enough information to say whether they encounter each other on the trip?


You need a duration, don't you?

Ok, Alice took 10 minutes, Bob took 1 minute.

Now is that enough information to determine if they meet each other at some point along the trip?


No, you need a time coordinate marking when they left.


Alice left at 1:45 PM Sept. 26 1908
Bob left at 1:45 PM Sept. 26 2008

Without the location in time, you cannot distinguish events completely.