The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[Vorpal]

What this link is about is that an object between two masses has twice the time dilation of one mass. Force cancels out. Potential adds. The sphere is exactly the same thing. The forces cancel out, the potential adds. Time dilation is higher.

That's a restatement of exactly what people have been telling you for several pages... e.g., Zig's post #99.

 

[DeathDart]

Yeah, it does.
Inside an empty spherical shell, spacetime is completely flat. It looks just like Minkowski spacetime, and there is no gravitational time dilation between test clocks anywhere in the shell, despite space being empty, and in contradiction to your claims.
Relative to a stationary observer at infinity, the clocks of an inhabitant of that hollow shell run slower. This is the effect of the curvature of spacetime outside the shell caused by its mass. The amount of time dilation is not infinite: it's a factor of (1-2M/R)^1/2 for a thin shell of radius R and mass M.


You realize that only proves Ziggurat's point that you're conflating field and potential?

It runs slower because the gravitational field did not cancel out. If the field cancelled out their would be no difference between the outside observer and the inside observer. I don't get a rats ass what you call it, a gravitational field or a potential, IT DOES NOT CANCEL OUT!

Get it through that neutronium skull, gravity does not cancel! Show me a gravitational field that repels matter. If gravitational fields or potentials could cancel, then they could also repel.....matter?

Except that it may be true. I had forgotten about that.

Imagine if gravity were a rubber sheet stretched across a bowl that was completely full of water. The sheet could represent space without mass.

A small marble is placed in the center of the bowl. the volume that the marble sinks into the bowl is offset exactly by a small rise of the rubber sheet above the lip of the bowl at the edges of the bowl.

What if why galaxies repel each other is because gravity is conserved. That matter creates as much energy that repels matter as it does which attracts matter. The repelling part may be very far away, and very weak. But a galaxy might push on another galaxy.

It still doesn't allow a field or potential to cancel locally.

 

[DeathDart]

That's true, but that's not what you've been saying. Instead, it's precisely what we've been telling you.

At least have the grace to admit what's obvious to everyone reading the thread: you screwed up, we corrected you, you denied it repeatedly, and now finally you've learned something.

You're talking to people that know far more than you do. Try a little humility.

Do you know who I am?

I have learned that knowing isn't the same as using, or understanding.

You are the tribe that separates knowledge into little piles, and then guards it from everyone else. In very narrow areas, your kind could chew people like me up.

Do you have the confidence and persistence to make something useful? Can you go outside your strength? Could you motivate yourself to sneak up on those guarded piles and get abuse heaped upon you?

Can you see?

 

[Ziggurat]

What this link is about is that an object between two masses has twice the time dilation of one mass. Force cancels out. Potential adds. The sphere is exactly the same thing. The forces cancel out, the potential adds. Time dilation is higher.

It runs slower because the gravitational field did not cancel out. If the field cancelled out their would be no difference between the outside observer and the inside observer. I don't get a rats ass what you call it, a gravitational field or a potential, IT DOES NOT CANCEL OUT!

The gravitational field and the gravitational potential are two different things. They have established meaning that everyone but you agrees with. I have repeatedly told you that you confused the two. Rather than acknowledge your error, you are now claiming that the distinction doesn't matter. But it most certainly does matter. The equation you produced is in terms of a field, not a potential. The two quantities have different units. Confusing them is like confusing length with temperature. And the fact that you're getting angry over being called on your own error shows both how little knowledge and how little maturity you have.

What if why galaxies repel each other is because gravity is conserved.

Galaxies don't repel each other.

It still doesn't allow a field or potential to cancel locally.

How would you know? You remain completely ignorant about what a field is. You can't even tell the difference between a field and a potential.

 

[sol invictus]

Do you know who I am?

No idea. And it's irrelevant, because your posts and ours are all right there to be read.

You are the tribe that separates knowledge into little piles, and then guards it from everyone else.

What a bunch of deluded, arrogant nonsense. We're helping you, DD. We're pointing out the (glaring) flaws in your ideas and the (gaping) holes in your knowledge.

You ought to thank us - but more importantly than that, you ought to learn. Get off your high horse and try to understand what people here are telling you.

 

[DeathDart]

I thought I had ditched the Sophists over two thousand years ago.

I believe that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Do you, Oh wise monkey, know of any other fields, besides gravitational ones, that are NOT conserved?

Can you tell the difference between an elevator, and an elevator shaft?

 

[DeathDart]

No idea. And it's irrelevant, because your posts and ours are all right there to be read.



What a bunch of deluded, arrogant nonsense. We're helping you, DD. We're pointing out the (glaring) flaws in your ideas and the (gaping) holes in your knowledge.

You ought to thank us - but more importantly than that, you ought to learn. Get off your high horse and try to understand what people here are telling you.

You spent a page arguing that gravitational fields do not cancel. If you actually knew the difference at that point, why persist with word games?

From a practical stand point, if I needed to modify a signal an infinitesimal amount, I had enough information to do it. Usually all I need to know is, what does it do in the real world?

 

[DeathDart]

You ought to thank us - but more importantly than that, you ought to learn. Get off your high horse and try to understand what people here are telling you.

We don't ride horses where I come from, we ride buggalo.

 

[Vorpal]

Do you, Oh wise monkey, know of any other fields, besides gravitational ones, that are NOT conserved?

Sure. For example, Gauss's law shows that charges are sources or sinks of the electric field (depending on sign). This remains true in situations where all charges are of the same sign.
The electric potential itself is not conserved

Unless by 'is not conserved', you meant 'is not conservative', in which case being conservative is by its very definition the same as having a potential. (The electric field does in the case of static magnetic fields.)

 

[sol invictus]

You spent a page arguing that gravitational fields do not cancel.

More nonsense. I said exactly the opposite.

You're a Dunning-Kruger posterchild, DD.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The gravitational field and the gravitational potential are two different things. They have established meaning that everyone but you agrees with. I have repeatedly told you that you confused the two. Rather than acknowledge your error, you are now claiming that the distinction doesn't matter. But it most certainly does matter.

All true, of course.

The equation you produced is in terms of a field, not a potential. The two quantities have different units.

...snip...

How would you know? You remain completely ignorant about what a field is. You can't even tell the difference between a field and a potential.

The terminology is confusing, after all---which is all the more reason why a person who doesn't understand it shouldn't be rejecting constructive criticism from people who do.

For example: The gravitational field and the gravitational potential are both fields. One is a vector field, however, whereas the other is a scalar field.

Furthermore, "field" has yet another technical meaning. For example, the scalar field of a vector space is not a scalar field in the sense of the paragraph immediately preceding this one.

What a bunch of deluded, arrogant nonsense. We're helping you, DD. We're pointing out the (glaring) flaws in your ideas and the (gaping) holes in your knowledge.

You ought to thank us - but more importantly than that, you ought to learn. Get off your high horse and try to understand what people here are telling you.

Good advice.

 

[Complexity]

Do you know who I am?

I have learned that knowing isn't the same as using, or understanding.

You are the tribe that separates knowledge into little piles, and then guards it from everyone else. In very narrow areas, your kind could chew people like me up.

Do you have the confidence and persistence to make something useful? Can you go outside your strength? Could you motivate yourself to sneak up on those guarded piles and get abuse heaped upon you?

Can you see?

I know that you can't or won't do the work necessary to try to understand something, so you pose and posture and play word games.

I don't care to know who you are.

 

[DeathDart]

I don't care to know who you are.

As long as that is true, I will try to learn.

I found a galactic density model by Miyamoto that seems to be something that I can do.

Poisson is more detailed than my first look showed. Some of the concepts haven't solidified yet, and they won't, till I put some numbers to them.

I will have to control my intolerance for pure mathematical abstraction and be patient. Without computers, I would not stand a chance.

Finding that mistake, that time affected mass and not velocity directly, made more sense. That uneasy feeling I was getting, was justified.

Later

 

[Dancing David]

You have given yourself away. Did your adviser step out of the room and you though you could answer the question?

The field doubles, it is the answer.

I am sorry but your response to someone who does understand the physics, and is trying to explain it to you, is hyperbole and dumb rhetoric, the fact that you insult those who are trying to help you is telling.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't get a rats ass what you call it, a gravitational field or a potential, IT DOES NOT CANCEL OUT!

Ah now we go from bombast to rudeness, maybe you should stop while you don't look more ignorant.

 

[Dancing David]

As long as that is true, I will try to learn.

Nope you display more pompous denial and and unwillingness to learn, you have put lie to your statement. You are not here to learn.

 

[dafydd]

You spent a page arguing that gravitational fields do not cancel.

Are reading the posts here? It does not look like it.

 

[Mashuna]

As long as that is true, I will try to learn.

I found a galactic density model by Miyamoto that seems to be something that I can do.

Poisson is more detailed than my first look showed. Some of the concepts haven't solidified yet, and they won't, till I put some numbers to them.

I will have to control my intolerance for pure mathematical abstraction and be patient. Without computers, I would not stand a chance.

Finding that mistake, that time affected mass and not velocity directly, made more sense. That uneasy feeling I was getting, was justified.

Later

You don't stand a chance with computers. They just allow you to make your mistakes faster. What you should actually try is learning some fundamentals.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

You spent a page arguing that gravitational fields do not cancel.

Umm. DD. So what part of post #169, where Ziggurat says

And when you add a positive and a negative of equal magnitudes, they equal zero. They cancel.

did you miss?

You've been arguing for days now that gravitational fields don't cancel, and for days now you've been told that potential doesn't cancel, but fields do.

Are you truly not paying attention? Do you think the rest of us will take your assertions over the evidence of our own eyes?

 

[Dancing David]

You don't stand a chance with computers. They just allow you to make your mistakes faster. What you should actually try is learning some fundamentals.

To error is human, it really takes a computer to ef things up.