AWA, here is the resolution of your 'false paradox':
The way to avoid the confounding of variables (the varying of both space and time when we simultaneously look far away in distance and far back in time) is this: When we try to verify the homogeneous and isotropic nature of space we must do...
To DaleSpam:
Maybe I'm on a senseless, quixotic quest; perhaps I should cease pursuing this point so implacably. What impels me? I have no “professional” relationship with relativity, nor will I ever—at no time will I have to deftly manipulate Ricci tensors like a juggler does bowling pins...
To DaleSpam:
The century's worth of experimental data you refer to just means that as a mathematical coordinate of spacetime of course time should have been given the equal status it was in fact given. But I'm talking about its role in the MODEL (at least what I see as the only reasonable...
To A.T. (By the way, sorry if you felt I took your comments out of context.)
You say: All that matters in physics is: Can we measure it?
I say: Physicists and non-physicists often desire to understand things in ways that are non-mathematical/quantatative, in fact in ways that TRANSCEND the...
I hope you gentlemen don't mind my returning briefly to a more fundamental matter; I believe I understand how the issue of 'curvature of time' as a causative agent, which has provoked my latent rebellious spirit in my last couple of posts, can be dealt with in a way that is faithful to both the...
To JesseM:
My gosh, it was only earlier this very day that I was introduced, in this very forum, to the notion that curvature of time and curvature of space were separable entities, at least in a practical sense, each with its own domain. The esteemed A.T. in entry # 6, precisely demarcated...
To DaleSpam:
I find it odd that you find it odd that I assume time is non-physical but space is physical.
To me, the intuitive way of viewing space (never even suggested to be illegitimate, as far as I know) is as a structure or framework for matter and energy, a playing field on which...
Now I'm really puzzled!
I can accept abandoning the concept of gravity as a force in order to resolve what would otherwise be intolerable contradictions in the two-elevator scenario discussed in my original post (above), especially when you add to the scenario the element of a ray of light...
Thank you Ich for the link and A.T. for the link and the comments—I found them very instructive. It's odd but I never before encountered an explicit division of space-time curvature into 'curvature of time' with specific effects and 'curvature of space' with another, separate set of...
Thanks for the link atyy but it doesn't explicitly answer my primary question. The link simply shows that special relativity COULD be invoked to explain half of the deflection, but not that it SHOULD be. Is the curvature of space sufficient to account for only half of the deflection and...
Subject: A Baffling Quote from Einstein, badly requiring explanation
All sources I've consulted indicate that Einstein reconceived gravity in General Relativity by discarding the prevailing, intuitive, Newtonian view of it as a 'force' accelerating objects, and daringly envisioned it purely...