The Red Shift without Expansion

Quote:

I don't get why you don't grasp things and I believe it to be an act

I don't think you're following the convo at all, Gent. The picture you posted talks about gravity as a "force" and is describing Newtonian notions of gravity. But nobody was talking about that.

We were discussing how GR, with it's "spacetime curavture," and where gravity is NOT a force, could explain the phenomena.

Krumple wrote:

layman wrote:

As I said, the total amount of "curvature" over the course of the earth's 25,000 circumference is less than an inch. You say that an object "follows this curve." What curve?

The curve caused by the Earth extends out past the moon. The sun's space curve extends out past the Kuiper belt. The galactic curve extends over 50k light-years.

There ya go again, Krumps, making statements with no argument being offered to support them. The question wasn't even "how far" to begin with. It was a question about how "much" space curvature, not how "far."

But it really wasn't even that to begin with. GR itself says it aint the "space" element, but rather the "time" element of spacetime which causes gravity on earth. Your "explanation" of that ignored the question and started talking about space curvature.

How does "time" cause gravity?

Man I have answered this question probably three times over the course of this thread.

If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

I'm not using time in place of gravity, I'm saying space us curved out past the moon for earth which is why the moon orbits Earth.

I honestly think you need to hang up your armchair physics hobby.

If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

We have gone to the moon without ever, once, having to resort to a GR explanation or GR calculations.

In case you didn't know, Newtonian gravity does NOT rely on, or require, time or space distortions.

Was this your point? To some how bring up Newtonian mechanics?

Q: Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.
Posted on December 11, 2010 by The Physicist
Physicist: The original post is here.

The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of objects until they are moving really fast. With the exception of only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close to flat. For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth amounts to less than 1cm.

layman wrote:

How does "time" cause gravity?

Seriously? Like 5 posts ago. https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6363874

McGentrix wrote:

Was this your point? To some how bring up Newtonian mechanics?

You don't see the point? That's strange.

Newtonian theorists (who may be wrong) explain gravity in terms of a mutual attraction between material objects. This attraction, according to the chart you posted, is called the "force" of gravity.

It explains all there is to explain in terms of local gravitation (within the solar system, let's say).

There is NO "curvature of spacetime" involved. Now you two (I guess you're included, I'm not sure) want to say it's all caused by something that is in no way needed to explain it. You just don't say how.

According to GR itself, as I understand it, curvature of space is NOT what causes the effects of gravity on earth.

Quote:

Q: Why does “curved space-time” cause gravity?: A better answer.
Posted on December 11, 2010 by The Physicist
Physicist: The original post is here.

The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of objects until they are moving really fast. With the exception of only the most extreme cases (black holes), space is very, very close to flat. For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth amounts to less than 1cm.

One centimeter is less than 1/2 an inch, right? How does that make things "fall?"

According to this guy, it doesn't because it has "almost no effect on the movement of objects."

In almost all cases the vast majority of an object’s movement is tied up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy objects, the “future direction” points slightly down

I can plot any motion on a piece of graph paper, I suppose, but what does that tell me about motion, as motion?

I can plot ANY two variables that way, so what?

Let's say, for example, that I put water in a pan, and then put the pan on a hot stove burner. The temperature will rise. I can plot the rise on paper. Say, for example, that the temperature of the water after 1 minute has gone from room temperature to 130 degrees. I can put that on a graph.

As time goes by (the longer I leave the pan on the burner) the temperature will just keep rising. I can plot it all out.

But what sense would it make to say the the graph explains the physical cause?

What sense would it make to say, for example, that the water is getting hotter because it is "moving forward in time?"

That is no explanation from any kind of physical (as opposed to mathematical) viewpoint.

The water is getting hotter BECAUSE it's on a hot burner. Not because time exists. Not because of "temperature line" is "warped," or any mystical conception like that.

This is just another example of a case where the geometry/math does nothing to explain the PHYSICS of the phenomenon. It's just a graph on an ordinary piece of paper, for god's sake. It doesn't "cause" the phenomenon. The phenomenon causes the graph to be what it is, not vice versa.

McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

How does "time" cause gravity?

Seriously? Like 5 posts ago. https://able2know.org/topic/363445-33#post-6363874

Yes, SERIOUSLY.

As soon as you posted that video, Gent, I immediately asked you if you considered it to be an "explanation."

As is frequently the case with respect to your participation in this thread, you didn't really answer the question.

You did, however, point back to it again as if it answered all questions when it really answers none.

Now, I suppose, you will just point back to it again, as though it's all somehow self-explanatory. You can fool yourself into thinking that, if you insist, but include me out of the self-deception, OK?

See the post I just made before this one for the reason I'm saying that. It's what I asked from the beginning, to wit: HOW does time cause gravity?

Pointing to a contrived piece of graph paper does NOTHING, in itself, to answer that question from a PHYSICAL standpoint, but I now doubt that you could possibly understand that.

Quote:

If space is curved a straight line is no longer straight so the distance of travel becomes longer, you know the word longer here is an element of time.

1. Distance, in itself, does not involve any notion of time.
2. The circumference of a circle is necessarily longer than its diameter. So what?

SO THAT EXPLAINS GRAVITY, THAT'S WHAT!!!!!

There, I just explained it all. Don't say I didn't. If you forget I will say it again, though, how's that?

In almost all cases the vast majority of an object’s movement is tied up in its forward movement through time. The curvature of spacetime (not just space) is responsible for gravity. Literally, near heavy objects, the “future direction” points slightly down.

This has nothing to do with anything what so ever. It's stupid.

Gravity is caused by a bend in SPACETIME That is a different word, words mean things and you should know that now. SPACETIME DOES NOT EQUAL TIME.

That video perfectly explains and answers your question. Go watch it another dozen times, then get a friend to help you understand it.

Now, one last time, repeat after me, "TIME DOESN'T CAUSE GRAVITY!"

I spent two pages going over light speed consequences with him.

What's going on here is that he doesn't like or accept SR and thinks SR states gravity isn't a force, and time takes the place of gravity. But the problem is he us neglecting the affect mass has on space. This impact affects time.

You, as you prove yet again, don't know the difference between SR and GR. You, as you prove once again, can't understand a word I say. SR doesn't have a ******* thing to do with gravity. Do you actually think otherwise?

The greater the mass the slower time for its reference frame.

There is a direct correlation, yes, but mass has no direct connection to time dilation.

The closer you are to the center of mass the slower time "ticks" for that reference frame.

OK, this is per GR--which has nothing to do with SR

The greater velocity an object has the slower time "ticks" for that objects reference frame.

OK, this is SR--which has nothing to do with GR

All these above have been explained to him in depth but he jumps around or attacks it from a nonexistent argument point. He will reference time when it's irrelevant and when distance is important he will leave it out.

He asked how an object can increase velocity as it gets closer to the center if mass if another object with more mass. I explained it at length several times with no acknowledgement.

Hes simply not cut out for understanding physics even at the high-school level.

"Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding."

So explain to me what DOES cause gravity?

Good to know. We know it's not the "space" aspect of spacetime that causes gravity, and now we know it's not the "time" aspect of spacetime either.

...space is very, very close to flat. For example, the total stretching of space due to the Earth amounts to less than 1cm.