Does gravity have mass?

[Bahman]

Might there be an individual that can simply say what time is?

I cannot understand the article about time.

THANKS!

Time is simply occurrence of changes that we perceive. What is mysterious about time is its directionality meaning that changes can happen only in one direction.

There are several explanations that show that changes should have one unique direction among them I can elaborate on thermodynamic explanation which states that given one state of affair, the state of affair which has higher chance of occurrence is what we observe considering the large number of particles involved in the problem. For example, you never see that pieces of a broken glass gather together and form a glass since the probability for this to happen is very little.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Bahman:

I do not have the background to understand your example.

THANKS!

When Einstein says time slows, is he talking about the the movement of atoms?

THANKS!

 

[Jim_Baur]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge.

Is the red shift something that we can test through experiments?

Is it an argument from analogy via the Doppler Effect?

 

[Bahman]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge.

Is the red shift something that we can test through experiments?

Is it an argument from analogy via the Doppler Effect?

Answer to your first question: the light that we receive from a typical star like sun has a spectrum with some peaks which are related to special excited states decay. Having this spectrum in our disposal we can then look at another typical star and what we observe is that the peaks of the spectrum shift depending on speed of star relative to us. This give rise to a redshift if star move away from us and a blueshift if star move toward us.

Answer to your second question: It is similar to Doppler effect if the relativistic effect is small namely if the speed of moving star is small compared to speed of light.

 

[inocente]

Clever as always but not to be confused with truth. Guess you didn’t look too hard for the book. " Relativity For The Layman: A Simplified Account Of The History, Theory, And Proofs Of Relativity Paperback
by James Andrew Coleman (Author)
1 customer review

Please link whatever page you’re looking at. I still can’t find any in-print edition at Amazon, only used and “light to normal shelf wear - heavy tanning appropriate to age”.

From the back cover: " James A. Coleman is Assiciate Professor of Physics and Chairman o fhe Department of Physics at American International College, Springfield, Massachusetts.

“American International College is a private, co-educational liberal arts college located in the Mason Square neighborhood of Springfield, Massachusetts.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_College

He taught at a liberal arts college!!! No wonder! Did he have a PhD? My teacher did, Doc Harvey we called him.

Sorry you don’t understand what " abstract from reality means, " perhaps if you had read more philosophy you would have known.
If you’ve read any philosophy whatsoever, you should know that throwing insults around is not a logical argument.

And a mathematical equation is a balancing act. Both sides must be equal or you can’t work the problem. ( learned that in and American grade school ).

As I said, a theorem must be correctly formed.

To repeat. Photons have mass, if they didn’t light couldn’t bend. I knew that just from common sense, but it was good to see a scientist confirm what I knew instinctively ( philosophy does wonders for one’s common sense, it puts your feet on the ground and keeps one from being carried away by the Pied Piepers of modern Cosomology ).

If you’ve read any philosophy whatsoever, you should know that throwing insults around is not a logical argument.

And yes, I have Einstein’s little book, have had it for years. The trouble with it is that he was unable to " translate " the mathematics in an understandable way. He was unable to explain what it meant in reality.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be your fault and not Einstein’s that you failed to understand?

“I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view” – Nikola Tesla

First thing Doc Harvey taught us is that authority figures carry no weight whatsoever. In science, if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

“While relativity denial is mostly the province of lone cranks these days, it was much more widespread in Einstein’s day” - rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-relativity

Tesla was proved to be wrong and Einstein correct. By the data.

 

[inocente]

So if ordinary people cannot understand either the math or the theory they are left in a condition of what to think or believe. Why should the common folk place their faith in interpretations by men who have no respect for God? It is better to stand on common sense .

By “ordinary people” do you mean just you? By “common sense” do you mean your interpretation of the bible? Or flat earth? Or…?

By “men who have no respect for God” do you mean Catholic scientists? Like Monseigneur Georges Lemaître? Who developed his big bang hypothesis out of the math of relativity? Amazing how he did all that from what you call fiction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please link whatever page you’re looking at. I still can’t find any in-print edition at Amazon, only used and “light to normal shelf wear - heavy tanning appropriate to age”.

Perhaps it is out of print now. Here is the link I used. amazon.com/Relativity-For-The-Layman-Simplified/dp/1258299895

“American International College is a private, co-educational liberal arts college located in the Mason Square neighborhood of Springfield, Massachusetts.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_College

He taught at a liberal arts college!!! No wonder! Did he have a PhD? My teacher did, Doc Harvey we called him.

Now are you one of those intellectual snobs? Not all of us can have Phds for our instructors. And perhaps a normal intelligent guy with hands on experience has a chance of being more objective. He is more likely to have his feet on the ground.

If you’ve read any philosophy whatsoever, you should know that throwing insults around is not a logical argument.

It wasn’t an insult. It was a jab at your well known repugnance for philosophy ( we have been all through that before).

As I said, a theorem must be correctly formed.

Certainly, I don’t object to the theory or the mathematics. I object to the interpretation of some aspects of it, especially those which violate the nature of things as they actually exist.

If you’ve read any philosophy whatsoever, you should know that throwing insults around is not a logical argument.

Just a jab at your will known attitude, not an insult.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be your fault and not Einstein’s that you failed to understand?

No doubt you are correct. Did you understand it?

First thing Doc Harvey taught us is that authority figures carry no weight whatsoever. In science, if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

Perhaps, but you use them often enough. And it certainly isn’t universally true. After all I do not understand Quantum Mechanics or the the Theories of Relativity. So by necessity I must rely on authority figures. But I don’t accept everything they say, not when it violates the nature of things. So how about you? Do you understand these things? Good for you if you do. But what about all of us who don’t? Why should I swallow everything these people say?.

“While relativity denial is mostly the province of lone cranks these days, it was much more widespread in Einstein’s day” - rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-relativity

So when Einstein found that Newton’s laws were not universally applicable, was he regarded as a crank. Hey isn’t " …relativity denial is mostly the province of lone cranks…" an insult ?. I should feel insulted, but I know you just kidding .

Tesla was proved to be wrong and Einstein correct. By the data.

No, Telsa was right. As I explained before, the math works but that does not mean that space is curved. That is utter nonesense.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By “ordinary people” do you mean just you? By “common sense” do you mean your interpretation of the bible? Or flat earth? Or…?

By ordinary people, I mean all those who don’t know or understand higher science as in Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, etc.

I mean my own judgment of what is true or not. That is my own common sense.

By “men who have no respect for God” do you mean Catholic scientists? Like Monseigneur Georges Lemaître? Who developed his big bang hypothesis out of the math of relativity? Amazing how he did all that from what you call fiction.

I have no idea how he did it. He was a brilliant man. Did he think space actually curved? At least he was not one of those running around saying it, nor did he ever say time was curved. These are rediculous notions and so is the notion that the photon has no mass. If it did not have mass a beam of light would not react to a gravitational mass. Or are you going to tell me that gravity doesn’t exist, that it was one of Newton’s great errors.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Again, why should common folk believe those who reject God and redicule anyone who disagrees with them. Science is no monolithic in the explanation of reality. It has its uses of course but it should refrain for making philosophical statments like space and time are curved or that photons are nothing and thus have no mass .

Given that space, time, photons and mass are all physical concepts, it’s very sweet that you imagine the science department must get the philosophy department to rubber stamp its use of those words. But I think by philosophy you mean your preferred school of philosophy, which at a wild guess is Aristotle and his fellow travelers such as Thomas. But Aristotle’s physics, with his enchanted elements and celestial spheres, is a bit flaky to modern folk, even those who went to liberal arts colleges.

If you look around at modern philosophers, they mostly engage with science and use its findings in their arguments. After all, no point trying to argue for things disproved by empirical evidence.

 

[Bahman]

Photon has mass? Yes, but in its own framework, ironically photon does not exist in this framework since time that it experience and space that it sees is zero! Simply t=t0/gamma and l=l0/gamma and gamma being infinity.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Given that space, time, photons and mass are all physical concepts, it’s very sweet that you imagine the science department must get the philosophy department to rubber stamp its use of those words. But I think by philosophy you mean your preferred school of philosophy, which at a wild guess is Aristotle and his fellow travelers such as Thomas. But Aristotle’s physics, with his enchanted elements and celestial spheres, is a bit flaky to modern folk, even those who went to liberal arts colleges.

Hey, who is being insulting again ? Geez, give us a break. You might be surprised that Aristotle was more about correct thinking than he was about Celestial Spheres, so was Thomas. And moden folk, including yourself have not read them. You accept without critical thinking, the opinions of those who haven’t read them either, but who have absorbed the opinions of prejudiced witnesses. Feser, your favorite guy, has often demonstrated this fact. The well has been posioned by slanderous tongues.

All I wish for is that the science departments be balanced in their judgments, that they consider that philosophy does have some contribution to make in the search for truth, which is what Aristotle called Wisdom.

Why not read a bit: . dhspriory.org/thomas/ ? I suggest you start with Thomas’ Commentary on A’s Metaphysics.

If you look around at modern philosophers, they mostly engage with science and use its findings in their arguments. After all, no point trying to argue for things disproved by empirical evidence.

Well, I don’t spend my spare time on modern Cosmologists. Each to his own. But no one will convence me that space and/or time is curved, or that light ( photons/waves ) does not have mass, or that gravity does not exist. Even if they would happen to be Catholic I would disagree with them.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Might there be an individual that can simply say what time is?

I cannot understand the article about time.

THANKS!

Time has different meanings, for instance in physics and psychology.

My dictionary of physics defines time as “A dimension which allows two otherwise identical events that occur at the same point in space to be distinguished”. So for example, it you want to meet someone then you can’t just agree the place, you also need to agree the time.

To Newton, space and time were independent, and as a result his theory of gravity doesn’t work in extreme conditions. For instance it gets the orbit of Mercury very very slightly wrong. Einstein’s theory of gravity entwines space and time (“spacetime”) and gets the prediction spot on.

That may not help you much, but it’s the best I’ve got.

 

[inocente]

Hey, who is being insulting again ?

If Aristotle was alive today, I think he’d agree with me. He got a lot of things right, including of course his systematic approach, which is why we still regard him highly, but some of the details (his four elements is another) are flaky. It’s not an insult to him to point out where he’s wrong. It would be an insult to him to try to cover up his errors, that would deride his whole approach.

I’m off now, will respond to other posts mañana.

 

[Bahman]

If Aristotle was alive today, I think he’d agree with me. He got a lot of things right, including of course his systematic approach, which is why we still regard him highly, but some of the details (his four elements is another) are flaky. It’s not an insult to him to point out where he’s wrong. It would be an insult to him to try to cover up his errors, that would deride his whole approach.

I’m off now, will respond to other posts mañana.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If Aristotle was alive today, I think he’d agree with me. He got a lot of things right, including of course his systematic approach, which is why we still regard him highly, but some of the details (his four elements is another) are flaky. It’s not an insult to him to point out where he’s wrong. It would be an insult to him to try to cover up his errors, that would deride his whole approach.

I’m off now, will respond to other posts mañana.

Oh, I agree. He and Thomas both were honest men. But he was right in that all substances are composed of basic elements, we know them by different names and natures. He was also was right that there are underlying principles of each subsrtance, their nature or form, which make them what they are and which make them exist in the first place. These latter things are what science assumes but does not deal with.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Might there be an individual that can simply say what time is?

I cannot understand the article about time.

THANKS!

St Thomas Aquinas says that time:
“…is nothing but the numbering of movement by “before” and “after.” For since succession occurs in every movement, and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement…
Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved there is a beginning, and there is an end.” (ST I, Q,10, Art. 1).

“The idea of eternity follows immutability, as the idea of time follows movement” (ST I, Q. 10, Art. 2).

 

[hazcompat]

youtube.com/watch?v=yqzgYRBlslw

Peace

 

[Jim_Baur]

Richca:

That is what I have always understood by time.

Physical science’s understanding seems to be different, but since I do not seems to understand it, I just don’t know.

I think St. Thomas’ idea is accurate.

Perhaps science has an accurate idea too.

I am still curious, is light younger than the planets since light moves so fast?

Perhaps, the difference is not that big.

 

[Richca]

Richca:

That is what I have always understood by time.

Physical science’s understanding seems to be different, but since I do not seems to understand it, I just don’t know.

I think St. Thomas’ idea is accurate.

Perhaps science has an accurate idea too.

I am still curious, is light younger than the planets since light moves so fast?

Perhaps, the difference is not that big.

Hi Jim,
I think it depends on when the light was caused by the light source. The sun is always producing light and science says it takes about 8 minutes for the light that the sun produces to reach earth so the light is about 8 minutes old when it reaches the earth. Some light that is caused by very distant stars or galaxies is very old to the tune of about 14 or 15 billion years old so say the scientists.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Richca

THANKS!