[Bored chemist]

Tell me if you understand this:

Are you really asking a bunch of professionals if they understand a pop science video?

If you tell us what bits you think we don't understand, that might help us track down your errors.

[Kryptid]

Tell me if you understand this:

What I asked you to do was to point out where I was wrong. You haven't done so.

[puppypower]

Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.

A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite  direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.

Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.

If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.

The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.

If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.

For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.

We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.

Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.
 

[Bored chemist]

Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.

A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite  direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.

Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.

If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.

The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.

If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.

For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.

We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.

Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.
 

Did you notice that, after you wrote all that, you were still wrong because time still isn't a vector?

[The Spoon]

I understood that you knew Newton's gravity but not Einstein's explanation of gravity..

Or do you mean equilibrium state of space?.

I don't know what that means, so that's not what I meant.

You really do not know GRAVITY, lol!

This has all the characteristics of a child trolling.

It is vey difficult to explain Cosmology or Physics, if you do not know GRAVITY.  Do you The Spoon? Can you help Kryptid about GRAVITY?

Kryptid appears to understand it perfectly well. However, your vacuous, idiotic, childish statements indicate that you do not.

[Kryptid]

a vector defines direction

In space.

A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity.

In space.

When I say time vector, it is the direction of time.

Which is completely redundant, since time only ever goes in one direction.

The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers.

Exactly, that's why calling time a vector is wrong.

That was a mistake.

It's semantics. Vector is not defined in such a way that time is a vector.

There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time.

Where's a facepalm smiley when you need it?

I am open to a different term that time vector

You could just call it "time", like everyone else does.

You seem to be getting off-topic here. This thread is about MrIntelligentDesign's own ideas and interpretations of gravity, not yours. Feel free to start your own thread about your idea.

I think you are getting off-topic.

[Origin]

Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.

A scalar defines the magnitude, while a vector defines direction. A velocity vector tells us the direction of the scalar of velocity. Time moves to the future, which is 180 degrees in the opposite  direction from the past. When I say time vector, it is the direction of time. The problem may be that the term vector is traditionally limited to space, with time treated separately. Time is not traditionally differentiated enough to require additional modifiers. That was a mistake.

Acceleration, such as due to gravity, has the units of d/t/t, which is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time only needs one part distance and one part time. There is an extra unit of time, in acceleration, beyond what is needed to express space-time. GR tells us about the Relativity of space-time, but it does not fully explain the behavior of matter within gravitational based pressures. This is done better and easier with Newtonian type considerations like pressure and the phases of matter. This is where the extra time in acceleration due to gravity comes in.

If you compare the time profiles implied by GR, to the expression of time of matter/energy under increasing gravitational pressure, time slows in GR as we move to the core of a star, but matter/energy based time expressions speed up; frequencies increases as we move to the core of a star, even though GR based time is slowing.

The change in time; GR and matter/energy transitional frequencies, goes into two different directions; faster and slower. Vector may not be the correct classic term, but the fact remains there are two time based observable phenomena going in opposite directions, as would be expected from d/t/t being space-time1 for GR plus time2 for material transitions. I showed you two states of time. You guys made it hard. I made it simple.

If you look at distance, in both cases of space-time and material transitions, distance always moves in one direct; both contract as we move toward the core and both expand as we head to the surface. This is expected from d/t/t. There is only one part distance or one space vector toward the core. I made a profound discovery™.

For example, we cannot find the theorized particles, gravitons, but we can measure gravity waves. Waves are based on frequency and wavelength; d-t. While a graviton is a particle state that would be more connected to material transitions or the second time vector of gravity. The current theory does not know what it is looking for, since it lacks sufficient differentiation of time.

We can generate pressure with other means, besides gravity, such as mechanical. This will exert a force/in2 like gravity, but it does not have the first time vector associated with GR. A car jack does not generate any GR affects, as we apply pressure to the car. The jack can make some of the matter of then car hotter; higher IR frequency.

Special Relativity is the opposite in that velocity is d/t, which is one part time and one part distance. It creates relativity style affects in space-time, but not material pressure affects, since it lacks the second time vector; d/t instead of d/t/t. Mass and gravity is unique since it combines the two time expressions or vectors. These can happen simultaneously. I am open to a different term that time vector, but the facts remain whatever you call it.

Thanks for addressing this finally.  Time is not a vector because it does not have a directions in space.
Since you are open to a different term than time vector I would vote for the term 'time', there is no need to call time the 'time scalar' either.

Now we can get back to MrIntellegentDesign misrepresenting science...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Tell me if you understand this:

What I asked you to do was to point out where I was wrong. You haven't done so.

You are wrong about GRAVITY per Einstein!

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Now we can get back to MrIntellegentDesign misrepresenting science...

I did not misrepresent science. I had shown you some of the best scientists in the documentary talking the topic of GRAVITY. Did you get their explanations? Like gravity is pushing force?

[The Spoon]

Now we can get back to MrIntellegentDesign misrepresenting science...

I did not misrepresent science. I had shown you some of the best scientists in the documentary talking the topic of GRAVITY. Did you get their explanations? Like gravity is pushing force?

Don't talk crap.

[Bored chemist]

Did you get their explanations? Like gravity is pushing force?

Ok, at what point in the video did you form the opinion that they had said that?

[Kryptid]

You are wrong about GRAVITY per Einstein!

If you don't explain plainly what it is exactly that I have wrong about gravity, I am going to consider your continual accusatory dodging as a form of spam. Keep that up and I may well end up locking your thread because spam is against the rules.