## Wednesday, July 8, 2015

### Bill Gaede's Misinterpretation of Time Dilation

When I checked the Rational Scientific Method ("RSM") Facebook group page this morning, I found that RSMer Bill Gaede has just created a brand new YouTube video in which he attempted to debunk Einstein's theory of velocity-based Time Dilation.

It's interesting how professional the video looks.  Mr. Gaede is either very skilled in creating videos, or he has a very skilled professional working for him.  I strongly suspect it is the latter, since Mr. Gaede clearly has at least one other person handling the camera work when he gives his sermons before audiences.

Interestingly, the new video quickly shows where Mr. Gaede misunderstands Time Dilation.  Not surprisingly, it has to do with a definition of a word.  The word is "year."  At about the 2:15 mark in the 4¼  minute video, Mr. Gaede explains that "a year has always been defined as one revolution of the Earth around the Sun."  And he asks if the Earth went around the Sun one time or 50 times during the traveler's trip into space.  "It certainly couldn't be both," Mr. Gaede observes.  And then he preposterously argues that the traveling twin said that the Earth went around the Sun only once.   Of course, the traveling twin never said any such thing.  He said he aged one year.

The Earth went around the Sun 50 times for BOTH twins.  Using the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as a clock is very much like the way I describe using a pulsar to keep time on my Time Dilation web page.  But, Mr. Gaede somehow seems to think that the Earth could only have gone around the Sun once if the traveling twin only aged "one year."  He concludes his new YouTube video with this:

Someone might ask, "Where's the catch?  GPS would not work if the twin paradox were to be found to be wrong."
That "catch" lies in the fact that Relativity is offering an irrational physical interpretation to an observation.  Irrational explanations are the sole province of religionIt does not follow that the Earth goes around the Sun fifty times for one sibling and one time for his twin simply because a clock runs slower or faster in outer space.
It's more mumbo jumbo having to do with what is "rational" and what is "irrational" according to RSMers.  And it is suspiciously similar to the recent discussion I had with "Clapton" on my blog page about Time Dilation. "Clapton" also argued that Einstein and I were saying that Time Dilation is caused by a clock running slow.  "Clapton" wrote:

"The analogy is perfectly valid: if "Time Dilation" is caused by slowed down clocks, then "Space Expansion" is caused by a shrunken yardstick.
It's the same thing."
Of course, no one claimed that Time Dilation is caused by "slowed down clocks." Previously, I thought that "Clapton" was "DXer" using a different name.  Now this new evidence seems to very strongly indicate that "Clapton" was actually Bill Gaede.  It seems highly unlikely two people could have that same bizarre misunderstanding about what causes Time Dilation while at the same time having a fixed and inviolate definition of the word "year."

No one said that the Earth went around the Sun a different number of times for one twin than the other.  Just the opposite.  Time Dilation says that the Earth went around the Sun the same number of times for both twins, BUT the traveling twin physically aged only one year while the stationary twin aged 50 years.

For Mr. Gaede, however, his apparent word-based religion says the word "year" is sacred and a twin cannot "age" 1 "year" while the Earth orbits 50 times.  It is evidently blasphemous to claim the traveling twin "aged" 1 "year" when the word "year" decrees that he MUST have aged 50 years, just like his twin.

Yes, both twins aged 50 "years," based upon the number of times that the Earth went around the Sun, but the traveling twin could OBSERVE the Earth traveling faster based upon how time was measured aboard his space ship.  This is where "Clapton" argued that two different "standards" for one year were being used.  To Mr. "Clapton," fifty years passed for both twins, based upon the "standard" he uses for one year, and that is all that is important.

I countered by arguing,

NO, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THE CLOCK THAT MOVED SHOWS LESS TIME HAS PASSED THAN THE CLOCK THAT DID NOT MOVE.

It EXPLAINS why clocks run slower on satellites than on earth. It EXPLAINS why muons traveling at high speed exist longer than muons traveling at slower speeds. It EXPLAINS why an atomic clock flown across the Atlantic on an airplane will show less time has passed than a clock that did NOT move.

You appear to be arguing that you do not want any explanations. The only thing you seem to care about is that the clock that did not move is the "CORRECT" time.

No one is arguing against your belief. I'm just trying to EXPLAIN the scientific concept of Time Dilation and why it happens. Time Dilation EXPLAINS things that happen in the universe. If you do not care about such things, then why argue with people who want to understand science?
It appears that this is an "irrational physical interpretation" for Mr. Gaede.  To be "rational" one can have only one definition for "year" and one definition for "aged."  Definitions are sacred and to use them incorrectly is blasphemous and "irrational."  A NEW WORD is needed to describe the physical change and the different view of Time the traveling twin experienced.  Thou shalt no use "year," and thou shalt not use "age," since RSMers hold those words to be sacred and their definitions cannot be violated.

Among truly "rational" people, of course, some common ground could be found.  But the RSMers have blocked me from posting to their Facebook page, and the ability to post comments has been disabled for the new video.  That way they do not need to discuss anything or answer any questions.  On the RSMer Facebook page, Mr. Gaede wrote this:

Einstein's Twin Paradox should be used to measure the level of idiocy of people. If you accept that a traveler will be 50 years younger than his twin brother simply because he travels fast, we violate not only the definition of the word 'twin', but more importantly of the word 'year'. Anyone believing this nonsense is really hopelessly hypnotized by authority.
He makes it very clear: To RSMers, words are sacred and inviolate.  Period.

"Idiots" like me and Albert Einstein should have used different words.  Of course, RSMers have the final authority on how every word is defined.  So, in effect, all explanations of real science are forbidden by the RSM word priests.

How can you communicate or discuss anything with a Truther who believes his definition of a word is the only valid definition (i.e. "the truth"), and he creates his own definitions for key words used in science?

Ed

1. Ed:
Firstly, I'm Not Gaede, I don't use insults.

Secondly, it's ironic that you understand my analogy to be absurd (which was the intent) yet you fail to connect the dots.

I'm going to conclude our exchange with a link:
Time is an ABSTRACTION, we actually never measure TIME, we only measure what objects are doing.
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

"(time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence."

Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension
*Notice it's from a "legitimate" source, not from a "crank" site: phys.org

2. Clapton wrote: "Firstly, I'm Not Gaede, I don't use insults."

Okay. My mistake. You argue the same arguments using the same terms as Mr. Gaede. I thought you might be Bill Gaede trying to disguise himself by not using insults. But, now I realize Mr. Gaede probably is incapable of doing that.

Clapton also wrote: "Secondly, it's ironic that you understand my analogy to be absurd (which was the intent) yet you fail to connect the dots."

We agreed then that you analogy was absurd. We have connected those "dots." If the suggestion is that Time Dilation is also absurd, then you fail to explain why. Your absurd analogy accomplished nothing, since it was an absurd analogy.

Your quotes about Time don't change anything. All they indicate is that Time Dilation is certainly possible, since "we never really measure t."

Spacetime is not the same as time.

Ed

3. Hmm. Jake Archer just used the word very rare word "progeria."

Another clue.

4. Again, I'm my own person; I was in that group a long time ago, until I got kicked out by Mr. Archer for disagreeing with him.

I see that you are having a heated debate.

►"we never really measure t."◄
This is the key point that is eluding you, Ed.
Since we never measure 't', then 't' can not dilate.

So here is my simple question:
Q) What OBJECT dilates in "Time Dilation"?
A) ____________________.

*Allow me to give you a hint; from the paper quoted above:
" 't' has only a mathematical value", so the object in question is a mathematical object.

I have changed the narrative of my analogy, but until you understand what OBJECT is being dilated, any other attempt at explaining the analogy to you will be futile.

BTW, Abstractions do NOT have causal powers; they can NOT perform actions nor have actions performed on them.

1. Clapton,

I cannot find the context or source for this: "we never really measure t." So, I cannot comment on it.

Question: "What OBJECT dilates in "Time Dilation"?"

Obviously, the phenomenon we call "Time" dilates during Time Dilation. Everything that is traveling at near-light speeds experiences a slowdown of Time.

You wrote: "until you understand what OBJECT is being dilated, any other attempt at explaining the analogy to you will be futile."

Don't you have things backwards? YOU need to figure out what "object" is being dilated before you can understand anything. I don't.

Your wet yardstick analogy is an absurd analogy. What it says is that you do not understand Time Dilation, so you are creating an absurd analogy to explain what you do not understand. It has nothing to do with me.

If you want a more meaningful analogy, try my bus analogy:

Bus A goes from 5th and Main to 6th and Main at 20 miles per hour.

Bus B leaves at the same time and goes around the block at 60 miles per hour to get from 5th and Main to 6th and Main, arriving at the same time as Bus A.

Both buses went from point A to point B in the same amount of time, but they traveled different distances to get there. Neither was ever ahead of or behind the other in time.

That is comparable to two objects going from point A in Time to point B in Time, leaving and arriving at the same time, but Bus A traveled a smaller number of yardsticks or along a shorter yardstick.

2. Maybe both buses should have a yardstick made of rubber tied from their back bumpers to a fire hydrant on the corner of 5th and Main. When they arrive at 6th and Main, the "yardstick" tied to Bus B's bumper will have stretched further than the "yardstick" tied to the bumper of Bus A.

5. Ed,
Abstractions, such as Time or Love, DO NOT have causal powers, they CAN NOT perform actions nor have actions performed on them.

Love can not move mountains, literally, only the Lover can with a bulldozer.

►"I cannot find the context or source for this: "we never really measure t." So, I cannot comment on it."
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

I quoted: "we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence."

►"Obviously, the phenomenon we call "Time" dilates during Time Dilation. Everything that is traveling at near-light speeds experiences a slowdown of Time"

The phenomenon we call "Time" is an abstraction that does not have causal powers, it can not perform actions, such as dilation, contraction, or slowing. Don't forget: "we never really measure t."

Temperature is also an abstraction, 500ºC can not burn my skin for the simple reason that 500ºC is an abstraction that does not have causal powers. Only OBJECTS at 500ºC can burn my skin.

Phenomena can not LITERALLY dilate or perform other actions, because THEY ARE ACTIONS themselves.

What sense does it make to say that the jumping went running?
Only an OBJECT, such as a dog, can jump or run.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

So I only have one question:
Q) What OBJECT dilates in "Time Dilation"?
A) ____________________.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

*hint: since 't' only has a mathematical value" the object in question is a mathematical object.

6. The subject of that article is "Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension."

The fact that someone wrote an article that SUGGESTS that spacetime has no time dimension does not mean that it is true or valid or accepted. PLUS, the comment is about SPACETIME, not about TIME itself. Stripping off that part of the statement is an attempt to be DECEPTIVE and to create an argument over a FALSE PREMISE.

Clayton asks, "What OBJECT dilates in "Time Dilation"?"

You tell me! As I see it, it is NOT an "object" that dilates, it is a PROCESS or phenomenon that slows down ('dilates") when moved.

7. Ed,

This quote applies to ALL physics:
"►WE REALLY NEVER MEASURE t◄. What we do measure is an ►OBJECT'S◄ frequency, speed, etc. [...] we compare the ►OBJECT'S◄ motion to the tick of a clock to measure the ►OBJECT'S◄ frequency, speed, etc. By itself, ►t has only a mathematical value◄, and no primary physical existence."

┌───────────────────────────────────┐
▌ABSTRACTIONS DO NOT HAVE CAUSAL POWERS ▐
└───────────────────────────────────┘
Abstractions CAN NOT perform actions nor can they have actions performed on them (such as being measured).
Therefore We DON'T MEASURE t, as explained in the quote.
We don't count numbers, they are used for counting.
We don't measure meters, they are used for measuring objects, etc.

►"it is a PROCESS or phenomenon that slows down"◄
A process or phenomenon is an abstraction, it can not slow down ►literally◄, only the motion of the OBJECTS performing that process can slow down.
This might seem trivial to you, but it's really what refutes your argument.

I'll leave you hanging , for now, on what mathematical object is being dilated. Get those brain juices flowing.

I'm reworking my analogy to give it a 100% equivalency Space↔Time.

8. Clayton,

You claim, "A process or phenomenon is an abstraction, it can not slow down."

That's another error caused by your dogma. Age is a process, and it slows down during Time Dilation. Decay is a process, and it slows down when the temperature is lowered (AND during Time Dilation). Cell generation is a process, and it slows down during Time Dilation.

I think I can summarize the basic problem with your dogma, but I'll think about it overnight to make sure I can do it clearly and precisely, with as few words as possible, since more words just means more arguments.

1. Ed,

I'm guessing you are having a very hard time understanding this.
"You claim, "A process or phenomenon is an abstraction, it can not slow down."
That's another error caused by your dogma."

It's not a dogma, it's basic physics.

A process does not slow down LITERALLY, only the objects performing that process can perform that action.

This is also BASIC GRAMMAR: A VERB CAN NOT PERFORM ANOTHER VERB, ONLY SUBJECTS CAN.

Aging can not perform the action of slowing down LITERALLY, only the cells can perform that action.

Rusting can not perform the action of slowing down LITERALLY, only the car can perform that action.

Decaying can not perform the action of slowing down LITERALLY, only teeth can perform that action.

A Process does not exist, ►IT OCCURS◄, meaning it's being performed by OBJECTS.

Any process (action) that you mention has an underlying object (actor) performing it; even if it's an unknown entity.

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
▌You can not have an action without an actor/object as the mediator▐
└───────────────────────────────────────────┘

YOU ARE THE ONE WITH ►THE DOGMA◄ WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT ABSTRACTIONS HAVE CAUSAL POWERS, IOW: perform actions.

2. I think you are demonstrating that we cannot communicate, since you are not trying to understand what I am saying, you are only trying to find fault with the way I say it. No matter how I try to explain things to you, will just find fault with the semantics. So, this is a waste of time.

9. Clayton,

I started reading over over the article at the link you gave me: http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

The article defines time as "a measure of the numerical order of change" and "the numerical order of material change." That seems like a "process" to me, but I'll have to study the article more carefully to see what definition makes the most sense to me. I'll look over the comments, too.

I'm pretty sure, however, that they will NOT consider Time to be merely a "concept." It is certainly more than just an idea or thought. And it is certainly NOT an "object."

1. My only point for linking that article was to make you see that Time is an abstraction.
"►WE REALLY NEVER MEASURE t◄"
They never really measure t, because t is an abstraction and you can't perform actions on abstractions.

►"The article defines time as "a measure of the numerical order of change" and "the numerical order of material change."◄
The word "numerical" should give you a clue that Time only has "mathematical existence", a not physical existence, or like they say on the article: "t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence".

Entities are either abstract or concrete, AKA concepts or objects.
Is Time abstract or concrete?

*I have seen that you have been asked about a third category, good luck with that.

By the way, if you are a Platonist, most mathematicians are, you will probably claim that abstractions exist, not exactly in reality, but exist none the less.

2. I'm not a Platonist, and I'm CERTAINLY not a mathematician.

I think you are demonstrating that we cannot communicate, since you are not trying to understand what I am saying, you are only trying to find fault with the way I say it. No matter how I try to explain things to you, will just find fault with the semantics. So, this is a waste of time.

But, I do thank you for bringing that article to my attention.

3. Ed,

I understand what you are trying to say, but having a verb *literally* perform another verb is not a semantic issue, it's a total misunderstanding of the issue on your behalf.

I don't have the time today to write the analogy, so bare with with me.

BTW, the mathematical object that dilates is a timeline.
One clock's timeline has less ticks that the other.

0 1 2 3
└──┴──┴──┘
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
└──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┘

It should really be called Timeline Dilation.
A timeline is "a measure of the numerical order of change".
Tomorrow I will explain why it makes more sense and why it's absurd.

My argument differs somewhat from the others, and I will give you a practical example that you can do at home in about 20 seconds.

It's Clapton, not Clayton.

4. Clapton wrote: "It's Clapton, not Clayton."

Oops. Sorry about that. For some reason I had "Michael Clayton" on my mind. It's the title of a 2007 movie. I've got too many things going on at once. I need to slow down and focus on a single subject for awhile.

I'm reading and trying understand the article you gave me. I agree with your comment "the mathematical object that dilates is a timeLINE" and I agree with the clock illustration. And I can see how it really should be called Timeline Dilation.

But, I still don't understand it to the point where I can explain it to my grandmother and get her to understand it. And, according to Einstein, if you can't explain it to your grandmother, then you probably do not understand it well enough yourself.

Thanks.

10. Clapton,

There's a link within the article: http://phys.org/tags/time/

----------------------
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.
---------------------

11. Ed,
I've been saying all along that Time is a measurement tool.

╠════════════════════════════════════════╣

I was writing the analogy that I had in mind but halfway through I thought of a simpler one.

Imagine that I have an elastic band that is 10cm wide x 10cm long, that would make it 100²cm
Now I stretch that elastic band and it becomes 1cm wide and 100cm long, but it still is 100²cm

Y-10cm
┌─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┐
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
├─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┼─┤
└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘X-10cm

Y-1cm
┌─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─═ ═─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┐
└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─═ ═─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┘X-100cm

That is what happens with "Time dilation" tale; unfortunately, they omit the "Y axis" in the story.

10 x 10 is Traveler.
1 x 100 is Homeboy.

► For every square that Traveler experiences on the X-axis, Homeboy will experience it 10 times.
eg., 1 hour for Traveler is 10 for Homeboy.

► For every square that Homeboy experiences on the Y- axis, Traveler will experience it 10 times.
eg., 8 hours sleep for Homeboy is 80 hours for Traveler.

So Traveler is going to experience 1/10 of the events (X-Axis), but every event is going to be 10x longer (Y-Axis) so in the end they cancel out.

Traveler experienced 1/10 of the events but since they lasted longer they both aged the same biologically (both are 100²cm)

1. Okay, except that it seems to say that Time Dilation applies to Homebody, not Traveler.

To be more comparable to Time Dilation, the squares would have to be lined up in a single row (representing Homebody's view) and then somehow squeezed so the squares pile up on atop the other. And, if the squares were numbered, the piled up numbers would start at the bottom left, go upward to square 10, then downward in the next column, upward in the next column, etc.

A better analogy might be where the single row of 100 squares is compressed to to be a single row of 100 tiny, thin rectangles of the same total length. IMO

2. Ed,

"Okay, except that it seems to say that Time Dilation applies to Homebody, not Traveler. "

One of the axis is dilated with respect to the other. It depends on the narrative.
If the narrative makes more sense by starting out with the elastic stretched, go ahead, change it.
Hopefully, you get the essence of what I'm trying to say.

(You can skip the math parts)

I quote conclusions:
"In this article is shown that without using concept of time as a forth dimension of space-time one can describe physical world more accurately; in the universe nothing can happen in “past-present-future” that is merely a psychological frame into which we experience material change running in space. In physics symbol t has only mathematical value; it describes numerical order of material change running in space."

3. I tried to download that article, but you have to be a member to do it.

While working out at the gym this afternoon, I decided that the best way to respond to questions about Time Dilation is to quote Bill Gaede's favorite scientist, Richard Feynman, and his favorite Feynman video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Feynman said (at about the 7:15 mark), "I really can't do a good job -- any job -- of explaining [Time Dilation] in terms of something else you are more familiar with, because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you are more familiar with."

Time Dilation is a mathematical construct, after all, 't' only has mathematical value. It's a measurement.

►Time is an idealization, it does not exits in reality.◄
The word 'Time' is a placeholder word for an activity objects are performing.

Here is a challenge for you: Try to explain "Time Dilation" without using the word 'Time'.
Define Time anyway YOU like, substitute that definition for the word Time in your explanation, and then try to convince yourself that whatever you are saying makes any sense.

For example; Time: a measure of the numerical order of change.
Your job is to explain "a measure of the numerical order of change dilation".
───────────────────────────
A clock is like an elastic measuring tape.
The same clock in different places and subjected to different conditions would give very different readings.
The same clock on Earth, at 'room' temperature on Mercury, somewhere on Jupiter, moving near c, being vibrated, etc., would give different readings.
Mathematically speaking you can say that "Time Dilated".

If you use an elastic measuring tape to measure space, you are going to get different readings depending on how much tension you apply to the tape.
Mathematically speaking you can say that "Space Contracted".

───────── Another analogy ─────────
Plane A is Traveler
Plane B Is Homeboy
Aging is fuel consumption:

Plane A consumes 100 Litres of fuel per hour of flight.
Plane B consumes 10 Litres of fuel per hour of flight.

Plane A max speed is 500km/h
Plane B max speed is 50km/h

On a 500km trip, Plane A would fly for 1 hour and Plane B for 10 hours.
Insert your favorite "Time Dilation" narrative here.

The bottom line is that BOTH CONSUMED THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUEL, i.e. they *biologically* aged the same.

5. Clapton wrote: "Here is a challenge for you: Try to explain "Time Dilation" without using the word 'Time'. "

Twins will age at a different rates if one twin is stationary while the other twin is traveling at near-light speeds. This is because at near light speeds all the atoms and biological processes that control age will slow down. Electrons orbiting the nucleus in an atom move at a fixed speed. When an object moves at high speeds, all the electrons need to travel greater distances to complete one orbit around the proton or nucleus. Instead of circular orbits, the electrons will draw corkscrew patterns through space as they move at near-light speeds.

The stationary twin will age normally because his atoms perform normally. The traveling twin will age more slowly because the electrons in his atoms complete their orbits more slowly.

6. "Twins will age at a different rates"
Ageing, the effect of time on a person

You are basically saying that *Time* will affect the twins differently.

Again: what do you mean by age?
►Define age without using the word Time.◄
That way we will find out if the same clock on Earth, at 'room' temperature on Mercury, somewhere on Jupiter, moving near c, being vibrated, etc., has "Time Dilated".

We will also find out if the 'car in a vacuum' vs the 'every day car' example falls under "Time Dilation".

Is frozen food "time dilated" compared to unfrozen food?

"biological processes that control age will slow down."
What if they speed up? Would progeria fall under "Time Contraction"?

How do you "control age"?
Age is a concept, it has no causal powers (we can't *literally* perform an action or have an action performed on "age").
In order to "measure" it you are going to have to set up a standard, just like meter, and measure everything to that standard.

So, what's your standard for "Age"?
Is it the number of times the Earth has gone around the sun?
Or the amount of biological processes?

7. Clapton,

You asked me to explain Time Dilation without using the word "Time," and I did so.

Now you ask, "Define age without using the word Time."

Okay, "age" is the amount of cellular change and cellular decay along with atomic change and atomic decay measured between two sequential observations.

"AGE" does not DEPEND upon, nor is it CAUSED by how many times the Earth goes around the Sun. It is a NATURAL process.

"Is frozen food "time dilated" compared to unfrozen food?"

Yes, I think so. It just isn't CAUSED by speed. It is caused by TEMPERATURE slowing down the biological and atomic processes. Another type of "Time Dilation" is CAUSED by gravity.

Hmm. So you can. Interesting.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

13. Si el espacio y el tiempo son meras ilusiones entonces el espacio -tiempo no deja de ser lo mismo

14. I don't speak Spanish, but the above sentence is translated by Google to mean:

"If space and time are mere illusions then the space-time leaves not be the same"

Space and time aren't illusions. Space is the empty area between objects. Time is a property of matter. Space-time is a debatable concept.

Google translates that to Spanish as follows:

"El espacio y el tiempo no son ilusiones. El espacio es el espacio vacío entre los objetos. El tiempo es una propiedad de la materia. El espacio-tiempo es un concepto discutible."

15. El pasado no existe, el futuro no existe.. por lo tanto el tiempo no existe. Mas allá de lo que nuestra mente puede percibir como u vació oscuro y si nos sumergimos a la realidad de lo que compone dicho espacio no daremos cuenta de que no existe un espacio absoluto (nada). Conclusión:todo es ilusión. Hasta el movimiento es ilusion.

1. Spanish to English Translation:

The past does not exist, the future does not exist .. therefore time does not exist. Beyond what our mind can perceive as dark or empty and if we plunge into the reality of what makes up that space will not realize that there is no absolute space (nothing). Conclusion: everything is illusion. Until the movement is illusion.

English reply: The past did exist. (We have pictures of it.) The future will exist. (Just wait.) We live and exist in the present.

If you want to believe in illusions instead of in reality, I wish you luck. We live in reality, not in illusions.

English to Spanish translation:

existía el pasado. (Tenemos fotos de él.) El futuro existirá. (Sólo tiene que esperar.) Vivimos y existimos en el presente.

Si usted quiere creer en las ilusiones en lugar de en la realidad, me deseo suerte. Vivimos en la realidad, no en ilusiones.

16. Ed Lake... quería preguntarle ¿porqué usted afirma que si viajamos a la velocidad de la luz nuestros electrones se alejan más de sus órbitas sobre su núcleo (proton) por lo tanto el tiempo de recorrido se hace mas lento ? es decir ¿ que efecto sucede para que esto se provocase?. por otra parte tengo entendido que si un objeto es sometido a altas temperaturas. sus electrones tambien aumenta sus órbitas pero al contrario su siclo de duración se deteriora mas rápido, todo lo contrario a si un objeto es sometido a bajas temperaturas donde los electrones se acercan mas al núcleo pero se conservan por mas tiempo. Y por otro lado he escuchado a fiscos referirse que en el universo cuántico no podemos hablar de tamaños, dimensiones, tiempo, distancias..etc.. porque todo ello pierde significado en ese lugar.

1. English translation:

I wanted to ask why you say that if we travel at the speed of light our electrons away more of their orbits about the nucleus (proton) so travel time is slower? ie what effect this is going to provoke ?. on the other hand I have understood that if an object is subjected to high temperatures. its electrons also increases their orbits but unlike its duration shekel deteriorates faster, opposite to whether an object is subjected to low temperatures where electrons are closer to the nucleus but are retained longer. On the other hand refer treasuries have heard that in the quantum universe can not speak of sizes, dimensions, time, distancias..etc .. because all lose meaning there.

My response in English: What I'm saying is that our atoms consist of particles that are moving very fast in orbits - near the speed of light. Whenever we move faster, our lateral speed will cause the spinning particles to slow down, since they cannot spin faster than the speed of light. The spinning particles are Time. Movement or getting close to a gravitational mass slows down the particle spin, and that slows down time.

As I understand it, heat does NOT speed up the orbits of electrons, it speeds up the movement of molecules in a substance. Heat may change the orbit of an electron, but the orbit will change back again when the heat is radiated away.

I have nothing to say about quantum mechanics. It is for mathematicians, not for scientists.

Translated to Spanish:

Lo que estoy diciendo es que nuestros átomos se componen de partículas que se mueven muy rápido en órbitas - cerca de la velocidad de la luz. Cada vez que nos movemos más rápido, nuestra velocidad lateral hará que las partículas de hilado para reducir la velocidad, ya que no pueden girar más rápido que la velocidad de la luz. Las partículas son giratorias tiempo. Movimiento o acercarse a una masa gravitacional ralentiza el giro de las partículas, y que ralentiza el tiempo.

Como yo lo entiendo, el calor no acelera las órbitas de los electrones, que acelera el movimiento de las moléculas en una sustancia. El calor puede cambiar la órbita de un electrón, pero la órbita va a cambiar de nuevo cuando el calor es radiado de distancia.

No tengo nada que decir acerca de la mecánica cuántica. Es para los matemáticos, no para los científicos.

17. ¿porque si un objeto viaja a velocidad luz, sus electrones que lo componen se alejan de su núcleo?.

1. English translation: Why if an object traveling at light speed, the electrons that compose it away from its core ?.

I'm not sure I understand the question. If an object travels at light speed, it is no longer an object. It becomes waves of energy. An atom traveling at the speed of light cannot exist as an atom, since the orbits of the electrons would have to move faster than the speed of light to go around the nucleus. Instead, everything just travels in a straight line as waves of energy.

Spanish translation:

No estoy seguro de entender la pregunta. Si un objeto se desplaza a velocidad de la luz, ya no es un objeto. Se convierte en ondas de energía. Un átomo viajando a la velocidad de la luz no puede existir como un átomo, ya que las órbitas de los electrones tendrían que moverse más rápido que la velocidad de la luz para ir alrededor del núcleo. En su lugar, todo lo que acaba viaja en línea recta como ondas de energía.

18. El pasado nunca ha existido, solo existió un momento (presente), el futuro nunca existirá, solo existirá un momento (presente)

1. English translation:

The past has never existed, there was only a moment (present), the future will never exist, only exist for a moment (present)

English reply: The fact that you believe such things does not make it true.

Translated to Spanish:

El hecho de que usted cree que este tipo de cosas no significa que sea cierto.

19. Todas nuestras experiencias lo experimentamos en un momento presente y esa considero es lo único real, más allá de esto todo es ilusion.

1. English translation:

All our experiences we experience in the present moment and consider that the only real thing is beyond this all is illusion.

Again, the fact that you believe such things does not make it true.

Translated to Spanish:

Una vez más: El hecho de que usted cree que este tipo de cosas no significa que sea cierto.

20. Con respecto a que un objeto se hace más lento si viaja a velocidad luz es debido a que si aumentamos la velocidad aumentamos la inercia tambien .

1. Translated to English:

With respect to an object slows if traveling to light speed because if we increase the speed increase inertia too.

That's a different subject. If we try to make an object travel at the speed of light, we will need more energy than there is in the universe. That is because the faster we make the object move, the heavier it becomes and the harder it becomes to move it faster.

So, we can never make an object travel at the speed of light. We can only theorize about what happens when we make an object move at speeds less than the speed of light.

Spanish translation:

Eso es un tema diferente. Si tratamos de hacer un viaje de objeto a la velocidad de la luz, vamos a necesitar más energía que la que hay en el universo. Eso es porque el más rápido hacemos que el objeto se mueva, más pesado se hace y más difícil se vuelve a moverse más rápido.

Por lo tanto, no podemos hacer un viaje objeto a la velocidad de la luz. Sólo podemos teorizar sobre lo que ocurre cuando hacemos un objeto se mueva a velocidades inferiores a la velocidad de la luz.

21. Pero si un objeto que viaje a la velocidad cercan a la de la luz, ¿no es ahí donde la materia se contrae en vez de expandirse? si los electrones se abren de su núcleo¿ esto no significa lo contrario en que la materia se expande en ves de contraerse?.

1. Translation: But if an object traveling at the speed encircle the light, is not where the material shrinks rather than expands? if electrons open your núcleo¿ otherwise this does not mean that the material expands contracting see ?.

English response: The translation is difficult to understand. I'm no expert on how material compresses when traveling at near-light-speed. I don't see how it has anything to do with anything. Electrons should still spin at the same rate even when there is less space available. An atom consists almost entirely of empty space.

Spanish translation:

La traducción es difícil de entender. No soy un experto en cómo el material se comprime cuando se viaja a casi la velocidad de la luz. No veo cómo tiene nada que ver con nada. Los electrones todavía deben girar a la misma velocidad, incluso cuando hay menos espacio disponible. Un átomo consiste casi enteramente en el espacio vacío.

22. Y con respecto al pasado este no existe ma´s de lo que nuestra memoria le da existencia. Es por que tenemos memoria que ideamos y damos vida al pasado, de igual forma que podemos proyectarlo hacia el futuro. Todo esto lo crea nuestra mente mientras vive en un único presente. ¿Cuándo hemos vivido en el pasado? nunca siempre estuvimos en viviendo en el presente. ¿Cuando estaremos en el futuro? nunca siempre vamos a estar en el presente ya que el futuro siempre será inalcanzable. Ahora y si no hubiéramos memoria ¿ como percibiríamos al movimiento de los objetos? ¿como algo continuo? ¿o como fotos estáticas una tras de otra?

1. English translation:

And with respect to past this there is no MA's what our memory gives existence. It is because we remember that we devise and give life to the past, just as we can project it into the future. All this creates our mind while living in a unique present. When we lived in the past? we never ever were in living in the present. When we will be in the future? never always going to be in the present and the future will always be unattainable. Now if we had not memory how we do perceive the movement of objects? Like something continuous? Or as static pictures one after another?

You can believe what you want to believe, but if I can touch my car, I know the car exists now. And if I see another car coming toward me, I know that in the near future that car will be closer to me than it was in the past. Fantasizing about whether any of it is real or not serves no purpose. It's daydreaming, not science. Or it is just arguing about word definitions.

Spanish translation:

Usted puede creer lo que quiere creer, pero si puedo tocar mi coche, sé que existe el coche ahora. Y si veo otro coche que venía hacia mí, sé que en un futuro próximo que el coche estará más cerca de mí de lo que era en el pasado. Fantasear sobre si alguna de ella es real o no sirve para nada. Está despierto, no ciencia. O se acaba discutiendo sobre definiciones de la palabra.

23. Bien Ed Lake. como tenes memoria por la cual has ganado experiencia (vivencias) es que podes predecir de antemanos que ese coche se acercara hacia ti en un futuro no muy lejano. Es la mente entonces quien se desplaza de pasado a futuro, por o real es que ese auto cuando este a punto de chocarte y finalmente lo haga, será en un tiempo presente no en u futuro distante.

1. Translated to English: Well Ed Lake. as you got memory which have gained experience (experiences) it is that you can predict that car antemanos come closer to you in the not too distant future. It is the mind then who shifts from past to future, or real is that car when about to crash into and finally do it, be in the present time or not in the distant future.

English response:

Such a discussion is too dependent on precise word definitions. It becomes incomprehensible when translated by a machine.

Spanish translation:

Tal discusión es demasiado dependiente de las definiciones precisas de palabras. Se convierte en incomprensible cuando se traduce por una máquina.

24. El tiempo lo contamos tomando como referencia al siclo que tarda en rotar la tierra sobre su mismo eje por la que completa una vuelta en un periodo de 24 horas, y al año lo definimos mediante el movimiento de traslación, donde la tierra completando su vuelta de recorrido a cumplido un año o 365 días. Eso es lo que observamos desde el lugar que nos encontramos ahora. Ahora un viajero que va e una nave que se desplaza a una velocidad cercana a la de la luz, dicho viajero observara el mismo recorrido que nosotros solo que a un ritmo más rápido pero la misma cantidad de veces al fin. Así que tanto nosotros como el viajero una vez concluido su viaje y su hermano gemelo de la tierra han de tener la misma edad, solo que uno ha conservado su figura y el otro no. Pero ¿quien se dilato entonces, el tiempo o el cuerpo?

1. English translation: Time will count with reference to the shekel it takes to rotate the earth on its axis by completing a lap in a period of 24 hours and a year as defined by the translational movement, where land completing his return from journey completed one year or 365 days. That's what we see from where we are now. Now a traveler and a ship is traveling at a speed close to that of light, that traveler observed the same route as us just that at a faster pace but the same amount of times at last. So we and the traveler once his journey and his twin brother concluded land must have the same age, only one has retained its shape and the other not. But who then dilate, time or the body?

English response:

That translation is almost indecipherable. I have to guess what you are asking and try to respond.

Time is local. In the "twin paradox," the astronaut twin travels at 99.5% of the speed of light, which means 1 year for him at his location will be 10 years for his twin brother located on earth.

So the astronaut twin will see the earth orbit the sun every 36.5 days while his brother on earth will see one orbit every 365 days. When the astronaut twin returns to earth, they will have seen the same number of orbits of the earth around the sun, but the astronaut will have seen 10 orbits in 1 year while the twin on earth will have seen 10 orbits in 10 years.

The astronaut twin will have shaved 365 times. The twin on earth will have shaved 3650 times.

The astronaut twin will have eaten 365 breakfasts. The twin on earth will have eaten 3650 breakfasts.

The astronaut will be one year older by his clocks. The twin on earth will be ten years older by his clocks.

Time dilated for the astronaut twin. His space ship, his body, his clocks all experienced time running slower.

Meanwhile, the twin on earth experienced time running normally.

The earth's orbits around the sun are not time. It is a way of MEASURING LOCAL TIME.

The twin on earth measured 10 orbits in 10 years of his LOCAL time.

The astronaut twin observed those same 10 orbits occur in 1 year of his LOCAL time.

I don't know if any of this will translate well, but I hope so.

Spanish translation:

Que la traducción es casi indescifrable. Tengo que adivinar lo que están pidiendo y tratar de responder.

El tiempo es local. En la "paradoja de los gemelos," el gemelo astronauta viaja a 99,5% de la velocidad de la luz, lo que significa 1 año para él en su lugar será de 10 años para su hermano gemelo se encuentra en la tierra.

Así que el gemelo astronauta verá la tierra alrededor del Sol cada 36,5 días, mientras que su hermano en la tierra verá una órbita cada 365 días. Cuando el gemelo astronauta regresa a la tierra, ellos han visto el mismo número de órbitas de la Tierra alrededor del Sol, pero el astronauta se han visto 10 órbitas in 1 año, mientras que el gemelo de la tierra se han visto 10 órbitas en 10 años.

El gemelo astronauta habrá afeitado 365 veces. El gemelo en la tierra habrá afeitado 3650 veces.

El gemelo astronauta se habrá comido 365 desayunos. El gemelo en la tierra habrá comido desayunos 3650.

El astronauta será un año más por sus relojes. El gemelo en la tierra será de diez años mayor por sus relojes.

Tiempo dilatado para el gemelo astronauta. Su nave espacial, su cuerpo, sus relojes de todos los tiempos con experiencia a funcionar más despacio.

Mientras tanto, el gemelo de la tierra experimentó tiempo de funcionamiento normal.

órbitas de la Tierra alrededor del sol no son tiempo. Es una forma de medir la hora local.

El gemelo de la tierra mide 10 órbitas en 10 años de su hora local.

El gemelo astronauta observa esos mismos 10 órbitas se presentan en 1 año de su hora local.

No sé si algo de esto se traducirá bien, pero espero que sí.

25. Pero es ahora donde me surge el interrogante de ¿cual es la velocidad real en la que se mueve el universo como para definir su edad exacta (tiempo)? , ya que despues de todo los 14000 millones de años que se le atribuyen son teniendo en cuenta el movimiento de la tierra. De la misma manera ¿cual es la velocidad real con la que se mueve la tierra al rededor del sol? la que nosotros observamos o la que observaría el viajero a velocidad luz?.

26. English translation:

But it is now where the question arises of what is the real speed in which the universe moves to define its exact age (time)? , Since after all the 14000 million years that are attributed to it are taking into account the movement of the earth. In the same way, what is the real speed with which the earth moves around the sun? The one we observed or the one observed by the traveler at light speed ?.

All time is local.

So, the "real" speed of time for the astronaut twin is the time he observes.

The "real" speed of time for the twin on Earth is the time he observes.

Because "all time is local," neither is the "official" or "preferred" time. It is just the local time.

The age of the universe is 13.7 billion earth years. If you want to know what the age of the universe is for the astronaut twin or for someone in some distant galaxy, it can be computed. You just need to know the time dilation difference.

Spanish translation:

Todo el tiempo es local.

Así pues, la velocidad "real" del tiempo para el gemelo del astronauta es el tiempo que él observa.

La velocidad "real" del tiempo para el gemelo en la Tierra es el tiempo que observa.

Porque "todo el tiempo es local", tampoco es el tiempo "oficial" o "preferido". Es sólo la hora local.

La edad del universo es de 13.700 millones de años terrestres. Si quieres saber cuál es la edad del universo para el gemelo astronauta o para alguien en alguna galaxia distante, se puede calcular. Sólo necesita saber la diferencia de tiempo de dilatación.

27. Pero el tiempo y el espacio si se dilatar quiere decir con sin objetos físicos?

1. English translation:

But time and space if it means dilating without physical objects?

I can make no sense of that statement. It does not translate into anything understandable.

Time dilation only involves objects. Only objects are affected by velocity time dilation. Only objects are affected by gravitational time dilation.

There is no time in empty space. Time is a property of matter.

Spanish translation:

No puedo hacer ningún sentido de esa declaración. No se traduce en algo comprensible.

La dilatación del tiempo sólo involucra objetos. Sólo los objetos se ven afectados por la dilatación del tiempo de velocidad. Sólo los objetos son afectados por la dilatación del tiempo gravitatorio.

No hay tiempo en el espacio vacío. El tiempo es una propiedad de la materia.

28. Por eso lo que se dilata no es el espacio ni el tiempo que no existe, lo que se dilata son los cuerpos físicos existentes.

1. English translation:

That is why what is dilated is not the space nor the time that does not exist, what is dilated are the existing physical bodies.

In 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) showed that they can measure gravitational Time Dilation very precisely. They used two identical atomic clocks. When the two clocks were positioned side by side, the clocks ticked at exactly the same rate. When one of the clocks was raised by just one foot (33 cm), the higher clock ran faster than the lower clock because it was farther from the center of the earth. This confirmed Gravitational Time Dilation.

The clocks did not change size.

Clocks aboard GPS satellites tick faster than identical clocks on earth by 38 microseconds per day because they are farther from the center of the earth. The clocks are the same size as they where when they were launched.

Time is a property of matter. The clocks are matter. They measure how their Time is affected by velocity or by a gravitational mass.

Spanish translation:

En 2010, el Instituto Nacional de Estándares y Tecnología (NIST) demostró que pueden medir la dilatación gravitatoria del tiempo muy precisamente. Usaron dos relojes atómicos idénticos. Cuando los dos relojes se colocaron uno al lado del otro, los relojes coincidían exactamente con la misma velocidad. Cuando uno de los relojes se elevaba con sólo un pie (33 cm), el reloj más alto corría más rápido que el reloj inferior porque estaba más alejado del centro de la tierra. Esto confirmó la Dilatación por Tiempo Gravitacional.

Los relojes no cambiaban de tamaño.

Los relojes a bordo de los satélites del GPS marcan más rápido que los relojes idénticos en la tierra en 38 microseconds por día porque están más lejos del centro de la tierra. Los relojes son del mismo tamaño que cuando fueron lanzados.

El tiempo es una propiedad de la materia. Los relojes son materia. Miden cómo su Tiempo se ve afectado por la velocidad o por una masa gravitatoria.

29. Existen objetos, cuerpos físicos en movimiento. Dicha cuerpos físicos y segun en la frecuencia que vibren pueden manifestar sus movimientos en una determinada velocidad. y es de ahí donde nos surge un plan de medir esos movimientos y surgen los números y surge la idea de time.
De todo ello, supongo el time no es otra cosa que un concepto. Y los conceptos no se pueden dilatar.

1. English translation:

There are objects, physical bodies in motion. Said physical bodies and depending on the frequency they vibrate can manifest their movements at a certain speed. And that is where we come up with a plan to measure those movements and the numbers come up and the idea of ​​time arises.

Of all this, I suppose the team is nothing more than a concept. And concepts can not be extended.

Much of that comment does not translate into anything understandable. How the "idea of time" arose is not important. What is important is: What is time? It isn't what we once thought it was. We know more about the universe now than we did when the idea of time first arose.

For centuries we thought of time as a "concept" or as an "idea." Now we know that Time Dilation is real. And we know that time can slow down. Concepts cannot slow down. Ideas cannot slow down. Time must be a property of matter. When the object (matter) moves or gets closer to a gravitional mass, time slows down for that object and only for that object. How? Why? There can be only one answer: Time is a property of matter.

Translated to Spanish:

Gran parte de ese comentario no se traduce en algo comprensible. No es importante saber cómo surgió la "idea del tiempo". Lo que es importante es: ¿Qué es el tiempo? No es lo que una vez pensamos que era. Sabemos más sobre el universo ahora que lo hicimos cuando surgió la idea del tiempo.

Durante siglos pensamos en el tiempo como un "concepto" o como una "idea". Ahora sabemos que la Dilatación del Tiempo es real. Y sabemos que el tiempo puede disminuir. Los conceptos no pueden reducir la velocidad. Las ideas no pueden frenar. El tiempo debe ser una propiedad de la materia. Cuando el objeto (materia) se mueve o se acerca a una masa gravitacional, el tiempo se ralentiza para ese objeto y sólo para ese objeto. ¿Cómo? ¿Por qué? Sólo puede haber una respuesta: El tiempo es una propiedad de la materia.

30. PERO NO ES EL TIEMPO QUIEN SE REUTILIZAN, SINO MÁS BIEN EL MOVIMIENTO DE DICHO OBJETO O CUERPO.

1. English translation:

BUT IT IS NOT THE TIME WHO REUTILIZES, BUT THE MOVEMENT OF SUCH OBJECT OR BODY.

Sorry, but I can make no sense of that translation.

Time who reutilizes? No comprendo.

Spanish translation:

Lo siento, pero no tengo sentido de esa traducción.

¿Tiempo que reutiliza? No comprendo.

31. Lo que digo es que los objetos físicos o cuerpos son lo que se hacen más lento segun su velocidad, el tiempo no existe.
Cuando usted hace referencia hacia los relojes, donde el que permanece mas alto uno de otro gira mas rápido, pero es el objeto físico quien se dilata y no el tiempo ilusorio.

1. English translation:

What I say is that physical objects or bodies are what slow down according to their speed, time does not exist.

When you refer to the clocks, where the one that stands higher one of the other rotates faster, but it is the physical object that expands and not the illusory time.

The facts and evidence say you are wrong.

The facts say that Time is a property of matter. It is the only explanation for how time can run slower for one object than for another.

Muon paticles live longer when they travel fast. They do not change size. A fast-moving muon particle is not a thousand times smaller than a slow-moving muon. They are the same size. Yet time moves slower for a fast-moving muon. That fact shows you are wrong. There are many other such facts.

Spanish translation:

Los hechos y las pruebas dicen que usted está equivocado.

Los hechos dicen que el Tiempo es una propiedad de la materia. Es la única explicación de cómo el tiempo puede correr más lento para un objeto que para otro.

Los paquetes de muón viven más tiempo cuando viajan rápido. No cambian de tamaño. Una partícula de muón de movimiento rápido no es mil veces más pequeña que un muón de movimiento lento. Son del mismo tamaño. Sin embargo, el tiempo se mueve más lentamente para un muón que se mueve rápidamente. Ese hecho demuestra que estás equivocado. Hay muchos otros hechos semejantes.

32. Un reloj es un objeto físico que puede ralentizar o acelerar su movimiento, pero el time no puede tarazarse o acelerarse. Es el objeto quien se dilata mientras que el time solo existe en nuestra mente.

1. English translation:

A watch is a physical object that can slow or accelerate its movement, but the team can not be tarazarse or accelerated. It is the object that expands while the team exists only in our mind.

That does not translate into anything understandable. Tarazarse does not translate "The Team" has no meaning. It looks like you used the English work "time" which translated to "team." Time does not exist only in the mind. It is a property of matter. That can be demonstrated scientifically. So, you are wrong.

Spanish translation:

Eso no se traduce en algo comprensible. Tarazarse no traduce "El Equipo" no tiene sentido. Parece que usaste la obra inglesa "time" que tradujo a "team". El tiempo no existe sólo en la mente. Es una propiedad de la materia. Eso puede demostrarse científicamente. Así que, estás equivocado.

Este es otro video de Bill Gaede donde demuestra que Einstein se equivoco

1. English translation:

This is another video of Bill Gaede where he proves that Einstein was wrong.

The link doesn't work. I get a message that says, "This video is unavailable. Sorry about that."

I've watched many Bill Gaede videos. He just states his beliefs and misunderstandings. He proves nothing other than that he does not understand science.

Spanish translation:

El enlace no funciona. Recibo un mensaje que dice: "Este video no está disponible. Lo siento."

He visto muchos videos de Bill Gaede. Él sólo afirma sus creencias y malentendidos. No prueba nada más que que no entiende la ciencia.

34. Explica que la curvatura del espacio debería hacer que todos los planetas se acercasen mas al sol por el efecto en caída que tiene la olla dimensional (espacio-tiempo).
Usted dirá ¡pero con la única diferencia de que esto no puede ser así ya que en el espacio no hay fricción! Y yo respondo con una pregunta ¿si un cuerpo físico como un planeta puede curvar al espacio-tiempo significa que este ultimo es un objeto constituido de algún material, y si es así entonces debería de producir algún tipo de fricción a los cuerpos celestes.

1. English translation:

He explains that the curvature of space should cause all the planets to get closer to the sun because of the falling effect of the dimensional pot (space-time).

You will say, but with the only difference that this can not be so since there is no friction in space! And I answer with a question: if a physical body like a planet can bend to space-time means that the latter is an object constituted of some material, and if this is so it should produce some kind of friction to the celestial bodies.

Spanish translation:

La traducción no tiene sentido. Parece ser acerca de sus conceptos erróneos.

35. Ed lake... Discúlpame, al vídeo no lo puede ver por que yo cometí un error! la ultima letra escribi K con mayúscula y va k con minúscula.

1. English translation:

Ed Lake ... Excuse me, you can not see the video because I made a mistake! The last letter wrote K with a capital letter and goes k with a lowercase letter.

Okay, I watched the video. Gaede distorts what Einstein wrote and then argues against the distortion. It is a waste of time to watch Gaede's videos. They are all nonsense.

Spanish translation:

Bueno, vi el video. Gaede distorsiona lo que Einstein escribió y luego argumenta en contra de la distorsión. Es una pérdida de tiempo ver los videos de Gaede. Todos son tonterías.

36. Si el tiempo es una propiedad de la materia ¿a que elemento químico corresponde? Si los objetos físicos y los cuerpos tiene movimiento: _¿movimiento rápido y movimiento lento es igual a tiempo? a mi me parece que no.

1. English translation:

If time is a property of matter, what chemical element does it correspond to? If physical objects and bodies have movement: - rapid movement and slow motion equals time? I do not think so.

Time a property of all matter, therefore it is not like any chemical element. Time appears to be particle spin. Particles spin at or near the speed of light. When they are moved laterally, the spin must slow down because the lateral movement and the particle spin together cannot exceed the speed of light. When particle spin slows down, time slows down.

Spanish translation:

Tiempo una propiedad de toda la materia, por lo tanto, no es como cualquier elemento químico. El tiempo parece ser spin de partículas. Las partículas giran en o cerca de la velocidad de la luz. Cuando se mueven lateralmente, el giro debe disminuir porque el movimiento lateral y la partícula giran juntos no pueden exceder la velocidad de la luz. Cuando el spin de partículas disminuye, el tiempo se ralentiza.

37. Y si uno de los gemelos viaja a la velocidad de la luz y el otro no viaja sino que permanece en la tierra entonces quien vivió mas? ¿el gemelo de la tierra que tuvo mas vivencias (experiencias vividas) o el gemelo viajero que no ha hecho otra cosa que retrasar su vida?

1. English translation:

And if one of the twins travels at the speed of light and the other does not travel but remains on the land then who lived the most? The twin of the land that had more experiences (experiences lived) or the twin traveler who has done nothing but delay his life?

If both twins die at their body age of 90, they will both say they lived 90 years. However, the astronaut twin will have died nine years later than his earth-bound twin because for 1 year of his life was lived at a slower rate than his brother. While the astronaut twin was aging 1 year, the earth-bound twin was aging 10 years. A life span is determined by how long you live, not by how many times the earth goes around the sun.

Spanish translation:

Si ambos gemelos mueren a la edad de 90 años, ambos dirán que vivieron 90 años. Sin embargo, el gemelo del astronauta habrá muerto nueve años más adelante que su gemelo tierra-consolidado porque por 1 año de su vida fue vivido en una tarifa más lenta que su hermano. Mientras que el gemelo del astronauta envejecía 1 año, el gemelo tierra-consolidado era envejecimiento 10 años. La duración de la vida está determinada por cuánto tiempo vives, no por cuántas veces la tierra gira alrededor del sol.

38. Bill Gaede hoy justamente es su cumpleaños!

1. English Translation:

Bill Gaede today is just his birthday!

Who cares?

Spanish translation:

¿A quien le importa?

2. Please do not waste my time by writing about Bill Gaede or about anything Bill Gaede says and does.

As far as I am concerned, Bill Gaede is just preaching nonsense to see if he can get others to believe his nonsense. When he gets others to believe his nonsense, he can then feel superior because he has proved that others cannot tell the difference between reality and nonsense.

I'm not going to respond to any more messages that mention Bill Gaede or his teachings.

Spanish translation:

Por favor, no pierdas mi tiempo escribiendo sobre Bill Gaede o sobre cualquier cosa Bill Gaede dice y hace.

En lo que a mí respecta, Bill Gaede sólo está predicando tonterías para ver si puede hacer que otros crean sus tonterías. Cuando consigue que otros crean sus tonterías, entonces puede sentirse superior porque ha demostrado que los demás no pueden distinguir la realidad de las tonterías.

No voy a responder a más mensajes que mencionen Bill Gaede o sus enseñanzas.

39. O sea, el que tiende a viajar más rápido tal vez viva más tiempo que el que no viaja pero a la vez vive mas lento.

1. English translation:

That is, the one that tends to travel faster may live longer than the non-traveling but at the same time lives slower.

Correct.

Spanish translation:

Correcto.

2. The one who travels fast only lives slower while traveling fast. When he is on Earth, he lives at the same rate as his twin brother.

So, the traveling twin lives 90 years his time. But that is 89 years of normal time and 1 year of slowed time.

The earth-bound twin lives 90 years of normal time.

If the twins were born in 2000, the earth-bound twin dies in 2090 at age 90, and the astronaut twin dies in 2099 at age 90.

Spanish translation:

El que viaja rápido sólo vive más lento mientras viaja rápido. Cuando está en la Tierra, vive al mismo ritmo que su hermano gemelo.

Así, el gemelo viajero vive 90 años su tiempo. Pero eso es 89 años de tiempo normal y 1 año de tiempo lento.

El gemelo ligado a la tierra vive 90 años de tiempo normal.

Si los gemelos nacieron en el 2000, el gemelo muerto en tierra en 2090 a los 90 años, y el gemelo del astronauta muere en 2099 a los 90 años.

40. I do not think I can continue this discussion much longer. It is too much work to translate your comments to English and my comments to Spanish and to try to understand the bad translations. I have a lot of other work I need to do.

Spanish:

No creo que pueda continuar esta discusión mucho más tiempo. Es demasiado trabajo traducir sus comentarios al inglés y mis comentarios al español y tratar de entender las malas traducciones. Tengo mucho trabajo que tengo que hacer.

41. "La duración de la vida está determinada por cuánto tiempo vives, no por cuántas veces la tierra gira alrededor del sol"
¿Acaso una cosa no va relacionada el la otra?, es decir el tiempo que medimos nuestra duración de vida la contamos a partir de los años, meses , semanas y días en que la tierra gira alrededor del sol.

1. English translation:

"The duration of life is determined by how long you live, not by how many times the earth revolves around the sun"

Is not one thing related to the other? That is to say, the time that we measure our life span is counted from the years, months, weeks and days when the earth revolves around the sun.

No, there is a difference between “ordinary” time and “dilated” time. Dilated Time passes slower than “ordinary” time.

We ordinarily only experience time as measured by how many times the earth revolves around the sun. But Time Dilation is not “ordinary.” If we experience significant Time Dilation, the number of times the earth revolves around the sun no longer has any meaning. It no longer correctly measures the time we experience. Only a mechanical clock that we take with us when we experience time dilation will give the true time we experience and our “body clocks” measured.

Spanish translation:

No, hay una diferencia entre el tiempo "ordinario" y el tiempo "dilatado". Tiempo dilatado pasa más lento que el tiempo "ordinario".

Normalmente solo experimentamos el tiempo medido por cuantas veces la Tierra gira alrededor del Sol. Pero la dilatación del tiempo no es "ordinaria". Si experimentamos una dilatación significativa del tiempo, el número de veces que la tierra gira alrededor del sol ya no tiene ningún significado. Ya no mide correctamente el tiempo que experimentamos. Solamente un reloj mecánico que llevamos con nosotros cuando experimentamos dilatación del tiempo dará el tiempo verdadero que experimentamos y nuestros "relojes del cuerpo" medidos.

42. Insinuar de que el tiempo es generado por el movimiento de las particulas, es lo mismo que decir que el tiempo es generado por el movimiento de los planetas.

1. English translation:

To imply that time is generated by the movement of particles, is to say that time is generated by the movement of the planets.

No, time is generated by particles and those particles can generate time at different rates depending on their movement. That says that the particles at the equator of a rotating planet experience time that moves slower than particles at the north and south poles of the planet because particles at the equator move faster during the planet’s rotation than particles at the poles.

Spanish translation:

No, el tiempo es generado por partículas y esas partículas pueden generar tiempo a diferentes velocidades dependiendo de su movimiento. Eso dice que las partículas en el ecuador de un planeta giratorio experimentan el tiempo que se mueve más lento que las partículas en los polos norte y sur del planeta porque las partículas en el ecuador se mueven más rápido durante la rotación del planeta que las partículas en los polos.

43. O sea que el tiempo es un subproducto proveniente del movimiento de un cuerpo o partícula, lo que termina siendo nada menos que una idea creada a través de nuestra mente. Lo cuerpos o particulas en movimiento que observamos, de eso nace la idea de tiempo.
Conclusión: el tiempo no existe por si solo, mientras que una partícula en movimiento sí.

1. English translation:

That is, time is a byproduct from the movement of a body or a particle, which ends up being nothing less than an idea created through our mind. The bodies or particles in motion that we observe, from that is born the idea of time.

Conclusion: time does not exist by itself, while a moving particle does.

No, there is a difference between an “idea of time” and how time actually works. Our “idea of time” is that it is the same for everyone. It is universal. A second for me is a second for everyone everywhere.

Our “idea of time” does not agree with reality.

In reality, the length of a second is different for me than it is for an astronaut on the International Space Station (ISS). Because I am closer to the center of the earth than the astronaut, time runs slower for me, and the length of a second for me is longer than the length of a second for the astronaut.

The problem is that the length my second is just one trillionth of a second longer than the astronaut’s second. So, it is not noticeable. Only precision clocks can measure the difference.

But the difference is real.

So, how do we reconcile our “idea of time” with “the reality of time?” We can do so by ignoring the difference. However, if we want to try to understand the difference, we can envision “now” as being the same for everyone, even though time is moving at a different rate for everyone.

Imagine we are on a large rotating disk on a playground or at a carnival. I am in the center of the disk facing you, and you are at the edge of the disk facing me. Midway between us is a white spot painted on the rotating disk. You are moving much faster than I am but you appear stationary to me. The spot midway between us doesn’t change its position, even though it is moving at a different rate than both you and me.

So it is with time. Time is moving at different rates for all of us, but “now” is the same for all of us. So, you do not disappear into the past because you are moving slower, and I do not jump into the future because I am moving faster. We are all in the same “now.”

My feet move slower through time than my hips, and my hips move slower through time than my head. I do not fly apart because “now” is the same for all parts of me.

And if it is simpler and easier for me to imagine that time is the same for all parts of me, I can do so, even if it is untrue.

2. Spanish translation:

No, hay una diferencia entre una "idea de tiempo" y cómo el tiempo realmente funciona. Nuestra "idea del tiempo" es que es la misma para todos. Es universal. Un segundo para mí es un segundo para todos en todas partes.

Nuestra "idea del tiempo" no concuerda con la realidad.

En realidad, la longitud de un segundo es diferente para mí que para un astronauta en la Estación Espacial Internacional (ISS). Porque estoy más cerca del centro de la tierra que el astronauta, el tiempo corre más lento para mí, y la longitud de un segundo para mí es más larga que la longitud de un segundo para el astronauta.

El problema es que la longitud de mi segundo es sólo un billón de segundo más largo que el segundo del astronauta. Por lo tanto, no es notable. Sólo los relojes de precisión pueden medir la diferencia.

Pero la diferencia es real.

Entonces, ¿cómo conciliamos nuestra "idea del tiempo" con "la realidad del tiempo?" Podemos hacerlo ignorando la diferencia. Sin embargo, si queremos tratar de entender la diferencia, podemos ver que "ahora" es igual para todos, a pesar de que el tiempo se está moviendo a un ritmo diferente para todos.

Imagina que estamos en un gran disco giratorio en un patio o en un carnaval. Estoy en el centro del disco frente a usted, y usted está en el borde del disco frente a mí. A medio camino entre nosotros está una mancha blanca pintada en el disco giratorio. Te estás moviendo mucho más rápido que yo, pero apareces inmóvil para mí. El punto medio entre nosotros no cambia su posición, a pesar de que se está moviendo a un ritmo diferente que tanto tú como yo.

Así es con el tiempo. El tiempo se está moviendo a diferentes ritmos para todos nosotros, pero "ahora" es el mismo para todos nosotros. Por lo tanto, no desaparecen en el pasado porque se están moviendo más lentamente, y no saltar al futuro porque me estoy moviendo más rápido. Todos estamos en el mismo "ahora".

Mis pies se mueven más lentamente a través del tiempo que mis caderas, y mis caderas se mueven más lentamente a través del tiempo que mi cabeza. Yo no volar aparte porque "ahora" es lo mismo para todas las partes de mí.

Y si es más fácil y más fácil para mí imaginar que el tiempo es el mismo para todas las partes de mí, puedo hacerlo, incluso si no es cierto.

44. Pero un reloj, no es el tiempo. Un reloj es simplemente un aparato mecánico donde una aguja que es a su vez parte material de dicho objeto comienza a girar. Si es afectado por la gravedad o la velocidad, puede moverse mas lento o más rápido segun a que prueba sea sometida. Pero en definitiva, quien se dilata no es el tiempo sino más bien el mecanismo formado de materia y que tiene movimiento. El tiempo no se puede dilatar porque el tiempo no existe. El reloj existe, el tiempo no existe, el reloj existe, el tiempo no existe.

1. English translation:

But a clock is not the time. A watch is simply a mechanical device where a needle which is in turn part material of said object begins to rotate. If it is affected by gravity or speed, it can move slower or faster depending on which test is submitted. But in short, whoever expands is not time but rather the mechanism formed of matter and that has movement. Time can not be delayed because time does not exist. The clock exists, the time does not exist, the clock exists, the time does not exist.

I know a clock is not time, but it measures time. How do you measure time except by using some kind of clock?

There are many “clocks” we commonly use to measure time. We use Earth’s the orbits of the Sun to measure years. So, Earth is like the “hand” of a “clock” that is the Sun’s orbit. We use the spin of the Earth to measure days. We use mechanical devices to measure hours, minutes and seconds. We also have our “body clocks.” Our “body clocks” tell us we need to sleep every night. We need food three times a day. We have to shave once a day. A woman needs 9 months to produce a baby. Those are all “clocks” which measure time.

If you are on a rocket ship where time is slowed down, everything on the rocket ship will measure slow time (including our “body clocks”). Everything outside of the rocket ship will still measure normal time.

Remember the Woody Allen movie “Sleeper?” In it, Allen was frozen for 200 years. So, time stopped for him for 200 years while the rest of the universe continued on measuring normal time. When Allen woke up, he was the same age as when he was frozen. But the rest of the universe was 200 years older. Time Dilation is similar, except that time does not stop, it just slows down.

Spanish translation:

Sé que un reloj no es tiempo, pero mide el tiempo. ¿Cómo se mide el tiempo, excepto por el uso de algún tipo de reloj?

Hay muchos "relojes" que comúnmente utilizamos para medir el tiempo. Utilizamos las órbitas del Sol de la Tierra para medir años. Así, la Tierra es como la "mano" de un "reloj" que es la órbita del Sol. Utilizamos el giro de la Tierra para medir los días. Utilizamos dispositivos mecánicos para medir horas, minutos y segundos. También tenemos nuestros "relojes de cuerpo". Nuestros "relojes de cuerpo" nos dicen que necesitamos dormir todas las noches. Necesitamos comida tres veces al día. Tenemos que afeitarse una vez al día. Una mujer necesita 9 meses para producir un bebé. Son todos "relojes" que miden el tiempo.

Si usted está en un cohete donde el tiempo se ralentiza, todo en el cohete medirá el tiempo lento (incluyendo nuestros "relojes corporales"). Todo lo que esté fuera del cohete seguirá midiendo el tiempo normal.

Recuerde la película de Woody Allen "Sleeper?" En él, Allen fue congelado durante 200 años. Así, el tiempo se detuvo para él durante 200 años, mientras el resto del universo continuó midiendo el tiempo normal. Cuando Allen se despertó, tenía la misma edad que cuando estaba congelado. Pero el resto del universo era 200 años mayor. Dilatación del tiempo es similar, excepto que el tiempo no se detiene, sólo se ralentiza.

45. Existen particulas en movimiento que vibran incesantemente , pero el tiempo no existe, existen cuerpos y objetos en movimiento pero el tiempo no existe. Todo aquello existente desde menor a mayor tamaño que se mueva o desplace en el espacio, no crea en sensación de algo que podemos llegar a medir y que le damos el nombre de TIEMPO. Fuera de nuestra mente el tiempo no existe.

1. English translation:

There are particles in motion that vibrate incessantly, but time does not exist, there are bodies and objects in motion but time does not exist. Everything that exists from smaller to larger size that moves or moves in space, does not create a sensation of something that we can measure and that we give the name of TIME. Out of our mind time does not exist.

We created the idea of Time before we knew about particles and Time Dilation. Now that we know about particles and Time Dilation we need to understand them and change our thinking to fit the facts and evidence. We can no longer just rely on ancient beliefs. Time seems to be a property of matter. We need to investigate that further and understand it better.

Spanish translation:

Hemos creado la idea del Tiempo antes de conocer las partículas y la Dilatación del Tiempo. Ahora que sabemos acerca de las partículas y la Dilatación del Tiempo, necesitamos entenderlas y cambiar nuestro pensamiento para que se ajuste a los hechos ya la evidencia. Ya no podemos confiar en creencias antiguas. El tiempo parece ser una propiedad de la materia. Necesitamos investigar eso más y entenderlo mejor.

46. Bueno señor Ed Lake,, aunque no consigamos en nuestra postura de percibir las cosas, ha sido un gusto poder debatir en el tema. Veo que estas muy bien instruido en el asunto. Ygracias por el tiempo dedicado, saludos.

1. English translation:

Well, Mr. Ed Lake, even if we do not get into our posture of perceiving things, it has been a pleasure to debate the issue. I see that you are very well educated in the matter. And thanks for the time spent, regards.

It was a pleasure to discuss these topics with you, too.

I am working on a book and on scientific papers about these subjects, and discussing them helps clarify issues. My papers are here: http://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

Saludos.

Spanish translation:

Fue un placer discutir estos temas con usted, también.

Estoy trabajando en un libro y en artículos científicos sobre estos temas, y discutirlos ayuda a aclarar los problemas. Mis documentos están aquí: http://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

Saludos.

47. Ed Lake ... ¿y como entiende usted eso de espacio-temporal curvándose por un cuerpo celeste como por ejemplo el sol?.
Si lo miramos al espacio-tiempo como una sabana y al astro sol como una pelota. Pues bien se sabe de que para que una pelota corve a una sabana tendida horizontalmente, este fenómeno requerirá de dos factores: PRIMERO; de que dicha sabana este colgada sobre el aire y no tendida sobre un lugar rígido.
SEGUNDO; que exista un cuerpo (tierra) que sirva de medio para atraer a la pelota y así conseguir que el peso que posea dicha pelota consiga hundir a la sabana.
Ahora bien, si la tela espacio-temporal se curva por un cuerpo celeste, esto querrá decir que tal tela no se encuentra asentada sobre una base firme, lo más lógico es pensar de que esta colgada sobre un espacio vacío que es independiente al nuestro y que a la vez exista en ese espacio independiente otro astro de una magnitud mas enorme que lo que nosotros observamos sobre nuestro universo, para que así consiga atraer a nuestro planeta por ejemplo para que este pueda finalmente curvar a la tela espacio-tiempo hacia abajo. Porque ni modo que lo curve hacia arriba, aunque tengo entendido que en el espacio no existen los puntos direccionales.

¿Qué piensa usted de todo esto?

1. English translation:

Ed Lake ... and how do you understand that of space-time curving by a celestial body such as the sun ?.
If we look at space-time as a savannah and the sun as a ball. Well it is known that for a ball to run a horizontally stretched savanna, this phenomenon will require two factors: FIRST; That said savannah is hanging above the air and not lying on a rigid place.
SECOND; That there is a body (earth) that serves as a means to attract the ball and thus get the weight that has such a ball to sink the savannah.
Now, if the space-time fabric is curved by a celestial body, this means that such a fabric is not seated on a firm base, it is most logical to think that it is hanging over an empty space that is independent of ours and That at the same time exists in that independent space another star of a magnitude more enormous than what we observe about our universe, so that it can attract our planet for example so that it can finally bend the space-time fabric down. Because no way I curve it up, although I understand that in space there are no directional points.

What do you think of all this?

Space has three dimensions. So the illustration of using a flat sheet to visualize gravity is misleading. I think you are talking about an illustration that is only useful to mathematicians. It has nothing to do with reality. Space is empty. Gravity is a force that carries through empty space.

Spanish translation:

El espacio tiene tres dimensiones. Así que la ilustración de usar una hoja plana para visualizar la gravedad es engañosa. Creo que estás hablando de una ilustración que sólo es útil para los matemáticos. No tiene nada que ver con la realidad. El espacio está vacío. La gravedad es una fuerza que transporta a través del espacio vacío.

48. Y si no existe más nada fuera del espacio-tiempo telar, ¿tiene sentido que se curve sobre sí mismo y por un cuerpo que ni siquiera es atraído gravitacionalmente por otro de mayor magnitud como lo es nuestro planeta a diferencia de una pelota ?

1. English translation:

And if there is nothing else outside the space-time loom, does it make sense to curve over itself and a body that is not even gravitationally attracted to a larger one as our planet is unlike a ball?

Sorry, but the translation makes no sense.

Spanish translation:

Lo siento, pero la traducción no tiene sentido.

49. Entonces si el espacio-tiempo tiene tres dimensiones esto quiere decir que tiene profundidad y que envuelve a todos los cuerpos. Pero ¿en y entonces, como podemos decir de que luego la masa curva el espacio-tiempo? es ilógico pensar en ello? es lo mismo que si una canica puesta en el centro de un cubo lleno de agua, entre el piso y la superficie, y esta logre curvarla.

50. English translation:

So if space-time has three dimensions this means that it has depth and that it involves all bodies. But in and then, how can we say that the mass then curves space-time? Is it illogical to think about it? Is the same as if a marble placed in the center of a bucket full of water, between the floor and the surface, and this can bend it.

English response:

Space is the emptiness between objects. Space does not bend. Time is a property of matter. Time does not bend. "Spacetime" is a concept that mathematicians dreamed up to solve mathematical problems. It has nothing to do with reality.

Your comment about a marble and a bucket did not translate into English in any understandable way.

Spanish translation:

El espacio es el vacío entre los objetos. El espacio no se dobla. El tiempo es una propiedad de la materia. El tiempo no se dobla. "Spacetime" es un concepto que los matemáticos soñaron para resolver problemas matemáticos. No tiene nada que ver con la realidad.

Su comentario sobre un mármol y un cubo no se tradujo al inglés de ninguna manera comprensible.

51. Ed lake... ¿Porqué cree usted de que el supuesto campo de Higgs puede afectar a ciertas particulas elementales otorgandeles masa, pero con el foton no interactúa en lo más mínimo?

1. English translation:

Ed Lake - Why do you think that the supposed Higgs field can affect certain elementary particles giving them mass, but with the photon it does not interact in the least?

That is outside my areas of interest. I have no thoughts about it. My interest is in Time and Time Dilation.

Spanish translation:

Eso está fuera de mis áreas de interés. No tengo pensamientos al respecto. Mi interés está en la dilatación del tiempo y del tiempo.

52. 1_¿Por qué los cuerpos con masa curvan el espacio-tiempo? es decir, que propiedad poseen para cometer semejante hazaña?

2_¿El espacio tiempo es una pared para los cuerpos materiales?

1. English translation:

1. Why do bodies with mass curve space-time? That is, what property do they possess to commit such a feat?

2. Is space time a wall for material bodies?

English response:

I think “space-time” is just a mathematical construct used to solve math problems. It has nothing to do with reality. In reality, space is emptiness, time is a property of matter. There is no time in empty space. That’s the way I see it.

Spanish translation:

Creo que "espacio-tiempo" es sólo una construcción matemática utilizada para resolver problemas de matemáticas. No tiene nada que ver con la realidad. En realidad, el espacio es vacuidad, el tiempo es una propiedad de la materia. No hay tiempo en el espacio vacío. Así es como lo veo.

53. Gracia por su humilde e inteligente opinión. Creo concordar con usted.

54. que diferencia existe entre masa cero y masa infinita?

55. que diferencia existe entre masa cero y masa infinita?

That translates to:

What is the difference between zero mass and infinite mass?

Response in English:

I'm not a physicist, so my answer would probably not be what you need.

Translated into Spanish:

No soy un físico, así que mi respuesta probablemente no sería lo que usted necesita.

Ed

56. Usted una vez me respondió en una pregunta que yo le hice de que pasaba si un cuerpo viajara a la velocidad de la luz y usted en su respuesta me dio a entender de que si un cuerpo llegase a semejante velocidad se transformaría en energia (luz) , y ahora me nació la duda ¿un cuerpo a ese extremo pasa a tener masa infinita o masa cero?.

1. Translated to English, the above comments says:

"You once answered me in a question that I asked of what would happen if a body traveled at the speed of light and you in your answer gave me to understand that if a body were to reach such a speed it would transform into energy (light) , And now I was born the doubt, a body to that end happens to have infinite mass or zero mass ?."

English response:

Neither. There is not enough energy in the universe to push the body to the speed of light.

The body is comprised of particles. If you convert each particle into a wave of energy, I think each wave of energy would have the amplitude determined by the energy expended to make the conversion.

At least that is how I see it.

Translated to Spanish:

Ninguno. No hay suficiente energía en el universo para empujar el cuerpo a la velocidad de la luz.

El cuerpo está compuesto de partículas. Si conviertes cada partícula en una onda de energía, creo que cada onda de energía tendría la amplitud determinada por la energía gastada para hacer la conversión.

Al menos así es como lo veo.

Ed

57. digamos que pasaría transformarse en luz (energía) puesto la ecuación de (E=mc2), es decir si la masa alcanzara tal velocidad se transforma en energía absoluta.

58. The comment from Anonymous translates into English as this:

Let us say that it would happen to transform into light (energy) given the equation of (E = mc2), ie if the mass reaches such a velocity it becomes absolute energy.

My response in English:

What is "absolute energy"? Energy is energy.

Einstein's equation merely says that mass converts to MUCH energy. Each ORDINARY particle from each atom becomes a wave of energy. But it is ORDINARY energy. The small mass is DECOMPRESSED and transformed to become MUCH energy.

Translated into Spanish:

¿Qué es "energía absoluta"? La energía es energía.

La ecuación de Einstein simplemente dice que la masa se convierte en MUCHA energía. Cada partícula ORDINARIA de cada átomo se convierte en una onda de energía. Pero es energía ORDINARIA. La pequeña masa es DESCOMPRIMIDA y transformada para convertirse en MUCHA energía.

Ed