Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #409208 > unrolled thread

Explaining Time Dilation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 08:02 -0800
    Explaining Time Dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 08:25 -0800
      Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 08:50 -0800
        Re: Explaining Time Dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0800
          Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 10:00 -0800
            Re: Explaining Time Dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:16 -0800
              Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-14 12:42 -0800
                Re: Explaining Time Dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:45 -0600
                  Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-15 08:07 -0800
                    Re: Explaining Time Dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:17 -0800
                    Re: Explaining Time Dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:57 -0600
                      Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 06:54 -0800
                        Re: Explaining Time Dilation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 16:18 +0100
                          Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 08:09 -0800
                            Re: Explaining Time Dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 08:14 -0800
                            Re: Explaining Time Dilation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:54 +0100
                              Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 13:53 -0800
                        Re: Explaining Time Dilation paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:32 -0800
          Re: Explaining Time Dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 10:46 -0800
            Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-15 12:46 -0800
    Re: Explaining Time Dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-14 18:27 +0100
      Re: Explaining Time Dilation Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:23 -0800
      Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-15 09:15 -0800
        Re: Explaining Time Dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-15 18:20 +0100
    Re: Explaining Time Dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-16 08:53 -0800
      Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-16 13:48 -0800
        Re: Explaining Time Dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-17 06:24 -0800
          Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-17 07:19 -0800
            Re: Explaining Time Dilation "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:45 -0800
        Re: Explaining Time Dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-17 20:31 -0800
          Re: Explaining Time Dilation Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-18 08:08 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#409224

Op 14-feb-2017 om 17:02 schreef Ed Lake:
> In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
> demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL

of course it is real.

[snip nonsense]

> Believe it or not, this is TOTALLY consistent with Einstein's
> Theories of Relativity.  "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics
> will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
> mechanics hold good."  The equations are the same, the variables are
> different - specifically the length of a second.

Explaining something when you have not the slightest
idea what it means, is a severe waste of your time.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409349

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:27:12 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 14-feb-2017 om 17:02 schreef Ed Lake:
> > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
> > demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL
> 
> of course it is real.
> 
> [snip nonsense]
> 
> > Believe it or not, this is TOTALLY consistent with Einstein's
> > Theories of Relativity.  "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics
> > will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
> > mechanics hold good."  The equations are the same, the variables are
> > different - specifically the length of a second.
> 
> Explaining something when you have not the slightest
> idea what it means, is a severe waste of your time.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

So you are going to tell us what it means, right, Dirk?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409355

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:27:12 AM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 14-feb-2017 om 17:02 schreef Ed Lake:
> > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
> > demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL
> 
> of course it is real.
> 
> [snip nonsense]
> 
> > Believe it or not, this is TOTALLY consistent with Einstein's
> > Theories of Relativity.  "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics
> > will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
> > mechanics hold good."  The equations are the same, the variables are
> > different - specifically the length of a second.
> 
> Explaining something when you have not the slightest
> idea what it means, is a severe waste of your time.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

I'm just trying to be helpful by correcting some people's misunderstandings.  I don't consider it to be a waste of my time when I help someone to understand -- unless, of course, they repeatedly demonstrate that they do not want to understand and that they are content with their ignorant misunderstandings.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409357

Op 15-feb-2017 om 18:15 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:27:12 AM UTC-6, Dirk Van de
> moortel wrote:
>> Op 14-feb-2017 om 17:02 schreef Ed Lake:
>>> In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology
>>> (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL
>>
>> of course it is real.
>>
>> [snip nonsense]
>>
>>> Believe it or not, this is TOTALLY consistent with Einstein's
>>> Theories of Relativity.  "The same laws of electrodynamics and
>>> optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
>>> equations of mechanics hold good."  The equations are the same,
>>> the variables are different - specifically the length of a
>>> second.
>>
>> Explaining something when you have not the slightest idea what it
>> means, is a severe waste of your time.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> I'm just trying to be helpful by correcting some people's
> misunderstandings.

That's what some people get when to come to a place like
this with their misunderstandings. They get help from
someone with even bigger misunderstandings.
Suits them! And suits you.

> I don't consider it to be a waste of my time when
> I help someone to understand -- unless, of course, they repeatedly
> demonstrate that they do not want to understand and that they are
> content with their ignorant misunderstandings.

It still is a waste of your time.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409474

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL and can be measured at altitude differences as small as 1 foot.  Here's their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf  The paper explains:

This is not time dilation. It is that a clock second at a higher altitude has less  duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level. Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time--it is not--and therefore when they observed that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock, they concluded that time itself is dilated.

BTW GRT has a valid explanation for the different rates of accumulation of clock seconds between the two clocks----they were following a different paths in spacetime. 
> 
> "In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years."
> 
> Which also means that the length of a second is slightly different a different altitudes.  Therefore ...
> 
> If the length of a second is different at different altitudes, that seems to mean that the speed of light is also different at different distances from the center of the earth:
> 
> If I have a clock at street level that measures a second, a clock on the 100th floor of the building next to me will be 1000 feet higher and will tick at a faster rate, being farther from the center of gravity.
> 
> In other words, 1 second on the street will equal 0.999999998 something seconds on the 100th floor.  A second will be shorter on the 100th floor.
> 
> So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the ground level, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 0.999999998 seconds on the 100th floor - or slightly FASTER than at ground level.
> 
> Looking at things from the reverse angle, 1 second on the 100th floor will equal 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level.
> 
> So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the 100th floor, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level or slightly SLOWER.  
> 
> Believe it or not, this is TOTALLY consistent with Einstein's Theories of Relativity.  "The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."  The equations are the same, the variables are different - specifically the length of a second. 
> 
> Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409526

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL and can be measured at altitude differences as small as 1 foot.  Here's their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf  The paper explains:
> 
> This is not time dilation. It is that a clock second at a higher altitude has less  duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level. Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time--it is not--and therefore when they observed that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock, they concluded that time itself is dilated.
> 

Sorry, but it IS time dilation and time dilation means that "a clock second at a higher altitude has less duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level."  In other words, time runs slower for the lower clock.

You are right that "Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time."  That is what the Tom Roberts and others argue here.  

When someone observes "that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock," however, they are just viewing things from the lower frame of reference. I.e., they are using that length of a second.  They could do the reverse and use the higher frame of reference, where they would say that the lower clock accumulated FEWER seconds than the higher clock.   

> BTW GRT has a valid explanation for the different rates of accumulation of clock seconds between the two clocks----they were following a different paths in spacetime. 

I would say that is bogus.  I would say that gravity had different effects on the clocks, slowing down the lower clock more than the higher clock.  

The best experiment is to have two clocks side by side that are synchronous.  You can then raise Clock-A and see that it ticks faster.  You can then lower Clock-A back to where it was and see that it now ticks at the same rate as Clock-B once again, but the ACCUMULATED time will be different.  The time shown by Clock-A will be slightly ahead of Clock-B.  

You need to explain how that relates to "following different paths in spacetime."  Spacetime is just a mathematical construct.  It's not real.  Gravity is real.

Ed    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409652

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:48:38 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL and can be measured at altitude differences as small as 1 foot.  Here's their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf  The paper explains:
> > 
> > This is not time dilation. It is that a clock second at a higher altitude has less  duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level. Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time--it is not--and therefore when they observed that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock, they concluded that time itself is dilated.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, but it IS time dilation and time dilation means that "a clock second at a higher altitude has less duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level."  In other words, time runs slower for the lower clock.

Your argument is circular. You agreed that a clock second does not represent a universal interval of time.  Then you said that time for the ground clock runs slower because the ground clock accumulated less clock seconds than the higher clock due to time dilation....that means that you are now arguing that a clock second is a universal interval of time.  

> 
> You are right that "Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time."  That is what the Tom Roberts and others argue here. 

They are mixing clock time and absolute time. Clock time is dilatable and absolute time is not dilatable. The GPS illustrates this clearly. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed so that the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
 
> 
> When someone observes "that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock," however, they are just viewing things from the lower frame of reference. I.e., they are using that length of a second.  They could do the reverse and use the higher frame of reference, where they would say that the lower clock accumulated FEWER seconds than the higher clock.   
> 
> > BTW GRT has a valid explanation for the different rates of accumulation of clock seconds between the two clocks----they were following a different paths in spacetime. 
> 
> I would say that is bogus.  I would say that gravity had different effects on the clocks, slowing down the lower clock more than the higher clock.  
> 
> The best experiment is to have two clocks side by side that are synchronous.  You can then raise Clock-A and see that it ticks faster.  You can then lower Clock-A back to where it was and see that it now ticks at the same rate as Clock-B once again, but the ACCUMULATED time will be different.  The time shown by Clock-A will be slightly ahead of Clock-B.  
> 
> You need to explain how that relates to "following different paths in spacetime."  Spacetime is just a mathematical construct.  It's not real.  Gravity is real.
> 
> Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409664

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 8:24:35 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:48:38 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL and can be measured at altitude differences as small as 1 foot.  Here's their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf  The paper explains:
> > > 
> > > This is not time dilation. It is that a clock second at a higher altitude has less  duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level. Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time--it is not--and therefore when they observed that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock, they concluded that time itself is dilated.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry, but it IS time dilation and time dilation means that "a clock second at a higher altitude has less duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level."  In other words, time runs slower for the lower clock.
> 
> Your argument is circular. You agreed that a clock second does not represent a universal interval of time.  Then you said that time for the ground clock runs slower because the ground clock accumulated less clock seconds than the higher clock due to time dilation....that means that you are now arguing that a clock second is a universal interval of time.  
> 

No, what I'm saying is that THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF TIME.  Time is different for virtually everything.  Time runs slower for your feet than for your waist, and it runs slower for your waist than it does for your head.  Time runs slower in Los Angeles than in San Francisco.  There is not universal interval of time.  That is what Relativity is all about.

There IS a THEORETICAL maximum interval of time and a theoretical maximum speed of light.  It is theoretically measured in a point in EMPTY space where there is no effect of gravity and an atom at that spot is stationary in space.

> > 
> > You are right that "Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time."  That is what the Tom Roberts and others argue here. 
> 
> They are mixing clock time and absolute time. Clock time is dilatable and absolute time is not dilatable. The GPS illustrates this clearly. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed so that the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

That's not "absolute time."  That's just the time needed for their purposes to fix locations on earth.

As stated above, if there is an "absolute time," it can only be in a point in space where there is no effect of gravity and where an atom at that point is stationary in space.  The "absolute time" would be the maximum universal time which cannot be time dilated to go faster.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409670

Ed Lake wrote 
No, what I'm saying is that THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF TIME.  Time is different for virtually everything.  Time runs slower for your feet than for your waist, and it runs slower for your waist than it does for your head.  Time runs slower in Los Angeles than in San Francisco.  There is not universal interval of time.  That is what Relativity is all about. 

The only available Clock tick rate reference I see  available is the frequency of the CMBR which can also be utilized as a "Relative Velocity Reference"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409753

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:48:38 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL and can be measured at altitude differences as small as 1 foot.  Here's their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf  The paper explains:
> > 
> > This is not time dilation. It is that a clock second at a higher altitude has less  duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level. Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time--it is not--and therefore when they observed that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock, they concluded that time itself is dilated.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, but it IS time dilation and time dilation means that "a clock second at a higher altitude has less duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level."  In other words, time runs slower for the lower clock.

No....a clock second at the higher altitude contains less time (absolute time) is not time dilation. It is that each transition of the Cs 133 atom at the ground level takes a longer time (absolute time) to complete than a transition of the Cs 133 atom at  the higher altitude. Why? Because the completion of a transition of Cs 133 atom  is dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy and this, in turn, is dependent on the the state of absolute motion of the Cs 133 atom. At the higher altitude the arrival of the required energy takes less time and that's why the higher altitude clock accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate.

> 
> You are right that "Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time."  That is what the Tom Roberts and others argue here.  
> 
> When someone observes "that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock," however, they are just viewing things from the lower frame of reference. I.e., they are using that length of a second.  They could do the reverse and use the higher frame of reference, where they would say that the lower clock accumulated FEWER seconds than the higher clock.   
> 
> > BTW GRT has a valid explanation for the different rates of accumulation of clock seconds between the two clocks----they were following a different paths in spacetime. 
> 
> I would say that is bogus.  I would say that gravity had different effects on the clocks, slowing down the lower clock more than the higher clock.  
> 
> The best experiment is to have two clocks side by side that are synchronous.  You can then raise Clock-A and see that it ticks faster.  You can then lower Clock-A back to where it was and see that it now ticks at the same rate as Clock-B once again, but the ACCUMULATED time will be different.  The time shown by Clock-A will be slightly ahead of Clock-B.  
> 
> You need to explain how that relates to "following different paths in spacetime."  Spacetime is just a mathematical construct.  It's not real.  Gravity is real.
> 
> Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#409799

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:31:03 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 4:48:38 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) demonstrated that gravitational time dilation is REAL and can be measured at altitude differences as small as 1 foot.  Here's their paper titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity": http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf  The paper explains:
> > > 
> > > This is not time dilation. It is that a clock second at a higher altitude has less  duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level. Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time--it is not--and therefore when they observed that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock, they concluded that time itself is dilated.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry, but it IS time dilation and time dilation means that "a clock second at a higher altitude has less duration (absolute time content) than a clock second at the ground level."  In other words, time runs slower for the lower clock.
> 
> No....a clock second at the higher altitude contains less time (absolute time) is not time dilation. It is that each transition of the Cs 133 atom at the ground level takes a longer time (absolute time) to complete than a transition of the Cs 133 atom at  the higher altitude. Why? Because the completion of a transition of Cs 133 atom  is dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy and this, in turn, is dependent on the the state of absolute motion of the Cs 133 atom. At the higher altitude the arrival of the required energy takes less time and that's why the higher altitude clock accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate.
> 

The workings of the clock slow down due to time dilation.  The decay of an apple would also slow down due to time dilation, but there is no way to measure such a tiny amount of decay.  EVERYTHING slows down due to time dilation, but there are very few things can be SEEN to slow down by a picosecond or two.  So, we use atomic clocks that can measure such tiny increments of time.

I suspect that "the arrival of a specific amount of energy" just means that particles are moving at a slower rate, which is how I view the cause of time dilation. 

Ed


> > 
> > You are right that "Current physics makes the bogus assumption that a clock second is a universal interval of time."  That is what the Tom Roberts and others argue here.  
> > 
> > When someone observes "that the higher clock accumulated more clock seconds than the ground clock," however, they are just viewing things from the lower frame of reference. I.e., they are using that length of a second.  They could do the reverse and use the higher frame of reference, where they would say that the lower clock accumulated FEWER seconds than the higher clock.   
> > 
> > > BTW GRT has a valid explanation for the different rates of accumulation of clock seconds between the two clocks----they were following a different paths in spacetime. 
> > 
> > I would say that is bogus.  I would say that gravity had different effects on the clocks, slowing down the lower clock more than the higher clock.  
> > 
> > The best experiment is to have two clocks side by side that are synchronous.  You can then raise Clock-A and see that it ticks faster.  You can then lower Clock-A back to where it was and see that it now ticks at the same rate as Clock-B once again, but the ACCUMULATED time will be different.  The time shown by Clock-A will be slightly ahead of Clock-B.  
> > 
> > You need to explain how that relates to "following different paths in spacetime."  Spacetime is just a mathematical construct.  It's not real.  Gravity is real.
> > 
> > Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web