Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 September 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 2

The power of intention? How does modern neuroscience explain this bit of ancient wisdom?

Although my spiritual side is content with simply accepting the power of intention as a given, and even celebrating its mysterious nature, the scientist in me is convinced that at least some of the mystery can be associated (without necessarily establishing causality) with detectable, measurable brain activity. I have a deep need to study this further. Where should I begin? Agiftagain (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Begin by recognising that it has little or nothing to do with neuroscience and nothing to do with anything mystical or of some ancient wisdom, but instead is a matter of personal discipline, clear thinking, and commitment. Then, consider carefully the following truism, often taught in management classes in the last few decades:-

Whatever you Vividly Imagine,

Ardently Desire,

Sincerely Believe and

Enthusiastically Act Upon

Must inevitably come to pass.

and if that doesn't help, remember that an effective man has the energy to change what he can, and the wisdom to not waste time on what he cannot change.

Then, and only then, read books on effective living and achieving one's goals.

1.122.55.179 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Vividly" and "ardently" remind me of another truism: that if you pray hard enough, you can make water run uphill. How hard? Hard enough to make water run uphill... Wnt (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's possible, and maybe someone with the right accesses to the right articles can check this out. Here is an article that quotes various papers saying that attitude and/or visualisation contribute as much to health and fitness as actual physical activity. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "power of intention" exactly ? Are you referring to Wayne W. Dyer's book (ISBN 9781401902162) where he claims that intention is "a force in the universe that allows the act of creation to take place" ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Dyer some motivational speaker? so that would be just guff to get people off their backsides. As to it being a real physical force one might as well believe Block Transfer Computations underly reality. This sounds to me like the Cowardly Lion saying 'I do believe in spooks, I do I do I do! This is the Science desk and really something better than being happy with an idea and celebrating its mysterious nature is needed before something gains any acceptance. If this had gained some experimental evidence as a physical force it would be very big news, but all we get for psychic powers is people offering money for some sort of demonstration and charlatans refusing to be tested. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's demonstrably not true - plenty of people have done that whole set of things and failed.

EXAMPLE: Consider Einstein's efforts to come up with a "Theory of Everything" - he clearly believed that such a theory existed, he believed it was possible for him to discover it, he spent a good fraction of his life seeking it, so he clearly both desired and believed it, he worked on it until literally his dying day - and it didn't happen. Bzzzztttt!!! Fail!!!

I could come up with any number of other examples where this idea has simply failed to be correct.

So it's busted - it's a great idea to encourage people to pursue an idea enthusiastically - but promising them that if they do that, they'll definitely succeed is new-age bullshit. The "theory of intention" is a false hypothesis - and we (and our OP) can stop worrying about it.

QED. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Einstein belived in it, he ardently desired it, and he enthusiastically worked on it maybe, but he failed to vividly imagine it. 144.138.223.100 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First time I've heard Einstein associated with a lack of imagination! Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you came up with that one - but it's flat out untrue. He had imagined it since the very beginning of his work on the subject. He's known for having that very imagination. You can't squirm out of this one. When a man knows he's dying and on the last day of his life, he's still frantically scribbling equations in the hope beyond hope that he'll somehow come up with the answers with his last living breath - you can't imagine anyone who had all of those attributes that motivational speakers claim will - with 100% certainty - get what they want. Sorry - but this is so busted. SteveBaker (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not busted at all. Nowhere did I claim that Einstein did not have an imagination. Nowhere did I (or anyone else here) claim that having all the attributes spoken about gets 100% success. There is an important difference between "imagining" one can solve a problem (ie having faith without knowing how) and vividly imagining a solution (ie visuallising/conceptualising the steps so that a proof or solution is rendered a mechanical process). Biographies on Einstein make it clear he had faith that there is a theory of everything, as that has much emotional and personal achievement appeal, but he had little idea on how to go about elucidating it, and was reduced to the "Edison" method - just keep trying every silly darn thing. I can "imagine" I'll win the State lottery, and enthusiastically buy vast numbers of lottery tickets. Most likely, a fat lot of good that will do. Or I could imagine the steps, risks, and challenges involved in corrupting the person who built and maintains the machine that selects the numbered balls in the draw. Yeah! I can vividly imagine that working a treat! 120.145.73.63 (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because Einstein hadn't completely visualised the solution and every step leading up to it, he couldn't find the solution? So if I want a new car, then if I can visualise how I can train for a job, apply for the job, work at the job, earn more money, take it to the car dealership and visualise how to sign on the dotted line, then I can get a car? That's just saying that if you've correctly worked out all of the steps to do something in exacting detail with no possibility of any of the steps failing - and you didn't make any mistakes and if you follow those steps exactly...then you can make it happen...that's hardly any great insight! It boils down to "If you know exactly all of the steps to do something and you do all of those steps then you can do something"...not really something anyone needs a motivational speaker to tell them! It's definitely not what was quoted above:

Whatever you Vividly Imagine,

Ardently Desire,

Sincerely Believe and

Enthusiastically Act Upon

Must inevitably come to pass.

The words "must" and "inevitably" in the last sentence do indeed provide a 100% guarantee...and there is no requirement to vividly imagine all of the intermediate steps - it says that whatever I vividly imagine (eg: Walking on Mars), yadda,yadda...must inevitably come to pass. That's nonsense. It's not enough to vividly imagine/desire/believe/act-upon an end result - which is most definitely what these people promise. Instead, I have to vividly imagine/desire/believe/act-upon every tiny step along the way - from applying to NASA for astronaut training to lobbying congress for the money to fund it...and every teeny-tiny micro-step along the way. In fact, even that isn't enough because there are going to be a bunch of conditional steps there too.

Many other things - like wanting to go on a picnic in Hyde park on my birthday - will not "inevitably" come true no matter what I do because the weather might turn out to be terrible and there is nothing I can do to prevent that. I can't even visualize it correctly because chaos theory prevents me from predicting the weather ten months from now.

This is just prime new-age wishful thinking bullshit. You wish your kid didn't have a strictly median IQ and behavioral problems in school - so you vividly imagine it and lo and behold, it turns out that he has a purple aura - so it's all OK. SteveBaker (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Now you are being silly, Steve. The Whatever you Vividly Imagine thing is a truism - an easily remembered menomic that offers guidance. If you think it contains a large element of truth, you are on the right track, as you may then be willing to persue things that are hard - but you will not persue things that are beyond control just because you know this truism - if you do then clearly you are silly. In appying the truism, you don't have to know the details right away.

If whoever originaly wrote these words had instead tried hard to make it accurate, it would be wordy and not have a nice ring to it and be easily remembered. Like "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" - another truism that is a lot of good sense and isn't meant to be taken literally, and doesn't mean that anyone who does throw a metaphoric stone at someone else cannot ever profit from it - some do. Mud sticks.

60.230.217.174 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's what is being said here (and I don't believe that it is because then our OP wouldn't need all of the mysticism, neuroscience and ancient wisdom), then here is a better version:

If you want something to happen,

Research what it takes,

Plan it in detail,

Follow through on your plan,

...and the odds of it happening improve somewhat..

Not exactly the kind of thing that'll pack a motivational speaker's auditorium with converts at $200 a head - but the actual truth. Please feel free to write a 500 page book about "The mantra of Steve" and sell it at your seminars. SteveBaker (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is actually an important and non-mystical question embedded in here somewhere. I form an intention to move my arm, and presto, my arm moves. How does that come about? The connection between intention and action is so consistent that it is difficult to grasp until people encounter cases where it breaks down, as in sleep paralysis. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It tests where people are asked to decide at some random point to do something and then do it quickly it seems it is more like the decision is made and committed before we are aware of thinking about making any decision. Neuroscience of free will discusses this. Dmcq (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all the responses! I feel compelled to clarify what I mean by "power of intention." I haven't read any of Dyer's material, but I'm familiar with it; I've studied spiritual psychology, which attempts to bring soul back to the study of the psyche. Regardless of how 'unscientific' it is from the standpoint of hard science, spiritual experience is real, albeit in a different sense from 'physical reality.' Is it really so far-fetched to imagine that intention may be a type of brain circuitry that functions to set the stage for detecting and selecting sensory input that is relevant to the objective of the intention -- thereby making it more likely that the objective can be achieved? That's the sort of connection I'm curious about. Agiftagain (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea of starting a study to attempt to "bring the soul back into psychology" is a classical pseudo-scientific enterprise. Science doesn't work by pre-supposing the answer and then striving to find evidence to back it up. Doing that leads to horrific systemic bias where you'll tend to push aside or ignore evidence that's contrary to you initial supposition. This is religion or pseudoscience or quackery of one kind or another. SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And another clarification: The practice of setting conscious intentions (similar to creative visualization) is part of the puzzle. But unconscious intentions -- the mental soup that swishes wildly and makes most of us wish we could tame it -- are also part of the puzzle. It seems to me that the type of brain circuitry is the same for both conscious and unconscious intention. Practices (such as creative visualization) aimed at harnessing the 'power of intention' are a way of rewiring the circuitry. If I have a conscious intention to do A (something desirable) but my existing circuitry contains unconscious intentions to do B (bad habits, for instance), then practicing the conscious intention may strengthen the neural connections for A and weaken the ones for B. This way of conceptualizing 'intention' and its 'power' begs for a strong connection between this elusive concept and modern neuroscience. No? Agiftagain (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

here is a reference that might be relevant. Vespine (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a grey area, for sure. But sportsmen and women, encouraged by sports scientists, do what they call "psyching themselves up" before an event, which is no more than "Vividly Imagining, Ardently Desiring, Sincerely Believing and Enthusiastically Acting Upon" their goal. They must feel this gives them some advantage over not doing this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There are all sorts of tricks for improving concentration and removing distractions that may well help the person to perform better - and we know that effects like placebo's in medicine depend on the patient believing that the placebo will work. However, it's a gigantic (and unwarranted, unsupported) leap to say that merely wanting something badly enough is enough to make it happen and that if you hope hard enough that some paranormal mechanism would step in and make it happen. People desperately want things all the time (more money, a fast car, whatever) and most of them fail. Obviously, once in a while someone will succeed - but that's either a matter of chance or because (like those atheletes) they did a lot of actual work to make it happen alongside the "hope" part of it. The hope and the wanting is what keeps you working, training, whatever when distractions come by. SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Preparation is key. Branch Rickey used to say, "Luck is residue of Design". Working harder will not guarantee victory - nothing can do that, short of fixing the contest - but it improves your chances of winning. And part of that preparation is psychological. Positive thinking cannot guarantee defeat of a disease, but it can improve your odds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no - at least not in the case of cancer patients. SteveBaker (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Name for the medical trauma caused by having the skin flayed

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was wondering what the proper term for the medical trauma of not having skin due to flaying would be, Hypatia's Syndrome? It would be survivable if only some of the skin was flayed. I am going to reference this condition on the page for circumcision and female genital cutting, unless adding information on a related condition would somehow constitute soap boxing. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC) How, pray tell, is circumcision related to flaying? --Jayron32 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Maybe if there's no scalpel handy, and they have to resort to a bullwhip. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Well the term for the condition of not having skin by definition would apply to any place where the skin has been removed. What's the last part of the word foreskin, skin; how many skins does one have, one. Also bugs you seem to be confusing flaying with flagellation; though you should actually be proud of not having an encyclopedic knowledge of torture, as it is far less creepy than having one and trying to explain it's to reverse the damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Maybe you could tell us exactly what point you're trying to make with your original question. And speaking of confusing things, there is a world of difference between typical male circumcision and clitoral removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC) No one has answered my question yet as to the proper name of the medical condition of not having skin due to removal by a sharp object; be that object scalpel, sea shell or anything else. It's not dermabrasion, as that removes scars, so what is it called? Also Baseball Bugs, do you mean to say that technically speaking that only removing the clitoral hood should not be considered female genital mutilation? Than there should there not be an article for female circumcision to differentiate it from female genital mutilation where in the entire clitoris is removed? CensoredScribe (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC) It's called "surgery". And if you don't understand the practical difference and effect of the two female surgeries you're referring to, you might want to take up another field of study. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Avulsion injury? BbBrock (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

hunting, foraging and the grandmother hypothesis

The menopause article’s description of the grandmother hypothesis says Some evidence suggests that hunters contribute less than half the total food budget of most hunter-gatherer societies, and often much less than half, so that foraging grandmothers can contribute substantially to the survival of grandchildren at times when mothers and fathers are unable to gather enough food for all of their children. (This information is not repeated in the full grandmother hypothesis article.) What I don’t understand is why a society on the edge of survival would continue to hunt if hunting made such a small contribution. You’d expect groups that had all adults forage would bring in more food and have a survival advantage, which has nothing to do whether the foragers were grandmothers or other people. Please clarify how this argument works? Thanks. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suspect that it's not a matter of having enough food, but having enough variety of food. Hunting/fishing oftentimes provides the necessary fats and proteins that are difficult to find by simply gathering wild edibles or when certain wild edibles are out of season. Also, in many such societies, hunting has a cultural component as well. A boy's first hunt can be his initiation into manhood and skills learned while stalking and taking game translate into skills needed for warfare and defense of the group.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that there's an upper limit on the amount of food that can be obtained by foraging. Once you've cleaned out an area of roots and berries, it doesn't matter how many people are searching. Hunting adds an extra source of food, which due to its higher calorie density, can be brought in from larger distances. I don't believe that primitive societies paid much attention to the concept of a healthy, varied diet, but survived on whatever was available; and hunting-related cultural activities would only have evolved if the underlying practice was of benefit to the community. However, both William and I are speculating without any references to back us up. Rojomoke (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks William Thweatt and Rojomoke. Does this mean, then, that you think the mention of hunting really doesn’t play a part in the grandmother hypothesis (the sentence I quoted says grandmothers increase the amount of food in total), but you seem to think they really couldn’t add much. Perhaps I should delete it from the article? It’s not sourced in the article. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a hypothesis in Evolutionary psychology that male hunters are gambling for status. The average payoff for hunting activities is low, but the lucky ones who bag a large kill will gain reproductive advantage with females. Something grandmothers aren't seeking. --Digrpat (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Digrpat. I understand there are other pressures for continuing to hunt. Perhaps the sentence needs to go? The argument is not so much about hunting but about having adults bringing in food solely, rather than both bringing in food and increasing the number of mouths to feed (as reproducing adults do)? 184.147.119.141 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I'd say it should go. What does it have to do with menopause, anyway ? But I agree that calories alone are not enough to keep people alive. Pretty much everything we crave and get way too much of now was scarce then, like protein, fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar. Sugar is the only one of those you are more likely to find in fruit. You can get protein from beans and nuts, and a bit from grain, but you get a lot more from an animal. Fats you can get only in small quantities from most plant sources, with a few exceptions like avocados and macadamia nuts. I'm not sure if any plant source provides cholesterol. For salt you would need something like seaweed, which wasn't an option if they didn't live near the sea. So, while vegetarians today can have a healthy diet, this is only because we can get produce from around the world, allowing us to fill in all the gaps in a vegetarian diet. StuRat (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do we get dizzy when we rotate rapidly?

WHY DOES DIZZINESS OCCUR WHEN WE ROTATE OURSELVES? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SREELEKSHMI SREE (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(I added a title to this question) SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is probably that dizziness is due to a mismatch between our vestibular, somatosensory and visual systems. In particular, our vestibular (balance) system hasn't evolved to handle rapid rotation well, and tends to give confusing results. This is apparent when you stop rotating, as you then get a distinct sensation of rotating in the opposite direction. As our article on the vestibular system explains, the balance organs work by detecting motion of fluid in three 'canals' in each of the two inner ears. Rapid rotation will cause the fluid to rotate in unison with the canals - and when the rotation stops, the fluid continues to rotate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This explains the causes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dizziness#Mechanism 217.158.236.14 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The section you have linked says nothing about dizziness caused by rotation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Physiologic vertigo, you mean? There is a bit about it in equilibrioception, but not much. Illusions of self-motion might be related...Ssscienccce (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that turning the head briefly leaves the vestibular fluid largely stationary as the Ampullary cupula is turned, but doing so for a long period allows friction to bring the fluid up to speed. When it stops, the fluid then continues moving for some time until friction finally brings it to rest. My prediction, therefore, is that Doppler measurement of the fluid in the ear of a just-stopped person will observe physical motion within it until their dizziness ceases. I found the article I linked in a web search because it says the same thing (minus the proposed experiment), but it isn't sourced. I didn't see quite the experiment I wanted in NCBI, but there was somewhat similar work and it might turn up with a more careful search. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Semicircular canal seems to decribe it: "The bending of these cilia alters an electric signal that is transmitted to the brain. Within approximately 25–30 seconds of constant motion, the endolymph catches up to the movement of the duct and the cupula is no longer affected, stopping the sensation of acceleration." Ssscienccce (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Because distant stars are the inertial frame of reference and such spinning puts one at odds with the entire universe. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparing antimuscarinic effects of chlorpromazine and trihexyphenidyl.

I am wondering if there is anywhere in the literature comparison between anticholinergic effects of those two drugs. The question has practical significance. If the anticholinergic action of chlorpromazine is sufficiently strong, "side effect medications" like trihexyphenidyl should not be used on the same person, correct?

Thanks, - Alex174.52.14.15 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems like an odd question. Trihexyphenidyl is used entirely because of its antimuscarinic effects, so if chlorpromazine had such strong anticholinergic effects by itself, there would be no need for a drug like trihexyphenidyl. Anyway, chlorpromazine (aka Thorazine) is very rarely used nowadays, so it is probably a moot point for practical purposes. Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The question does make sense. First the chlorpromazine is still used in certain practices especially where cost cutting is an issue. Secondly, although both are anticholinergic there is a chance that the anticholinergic effect of chlorpromazine is much too weak as compared with trihexyphenidyl and thus the latter must be used to counteract the antidopaminergic effects of Thorazine. Of course trihexyphenidyl is not the only medication that can be used for this purpose but I am particularly interested in the latter.

- Alex174.52.14.15 (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gravity affects Time

Is anyone checking gravity affects on reaction rates? Seems to me gravity affects the rate at which the clocks work, not Time itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.169.3 (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No - gravity most certainly affects "time itself" - you can see the effect in atomic clocks (which measure the speed that atoms do their thing), and since human brains are made of atoms, our perception of time (and our reaction times and so forth) is indeed affected by gravity. SteveBaker (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

But isn't gravity affecting rate at which atoms decay, not TIME itself but the instruments used, the clocks. And yes our own chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.169.3 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that 'TIME itself' exists except by measuring it using instruments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you measure your reaction with the clock at the same gravitational potential you should get consistent results. If you try to measure with extreme accuracy then you will have to consider this. But even for the sun the gravitational time dilation will not be much, only about 1 part in 100,000,000. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Time dilation, from both speed (in special relativity) and gravity (in general relativity) affects everything, not just clocks. This is a common misunderstanding. The clock does not run slower due to some bizarre relativistic effect that only impacts clocks. Or, you could think of everything as a clock. Your brain trying to count the seconds, will run slower. The chemical reaction proceeding at a certain rate, will run slower. So you could declare that only clocks run slower, but everything is a clock :) Someguy1221 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. If you do the classic thing of climbing into a rocketship and accelerating up to somewhere close to the speed of light, the person inside the rocket would look at their wristwatch and see nothing at all surprising. Despite (let's say) time running 100 times faster than it does back on Earth, the inside of the spacecraft, the clocks and everything else would seem entirely normal to anyone inside the ship.

The whole "relativity" thing is based on the idea that when two objects are moving apart (the rocketship and the earth) at a uniform speed, there is no concievable experiment that will tell you which one is "moving" and which one is "staying still"...because there is no absolute frame of reference to measure against. It's not that clocks behave strangely in your spaceship and "normally" on earth - it's that from your perspective, time outside of your spacecraft is running at a different rate from your time.

Gravitational time dilation is caused by a different thing - but the net result is exactly the same kind of time dilation. In this case, you can't tell whether you're in a gravitational field or whether you're accelerating - no experiment can tell the difference between those two situations either.

So the rate at which atoms decay, the speed at which a pendulum swings or a spring unwinds, the time it takes a beam of laser light to bounce back and forth between two mirrors - or the amount of time it takes for an influx of sodium ions to cause the polarity of the plasma membrane in your brain cell to reverse...all of those things are going to seem to happen at an accelerated rate to an outside observer. To you, in your spacecraft, in some gravitational field - all of those things are in perfect synchrony. It most definitely is time itself that's being distorted. It's not just some process relating to atoms because it affects photons and everything else too.

This all comes about because the speed of light is exactly the same for all observers - and for that to be true, both time and distances have to be distorted in order for two different observers to measure the time to be the same, no matter how they are moving or what gravitational field they are in. SteveBaker (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gravitational time dilation is really not that difficult to understand. In fact it is just a form of glorified Doppler effect and I much prefer the term "gravitational Doppler shift" to describe it. To understand how it works, just remember that by the principle of equivalence gravity is indistinguishable from being inside an accelerated frame of reference - say a rocket. Now imagine yourself at the top end of a rocket. If somebody at the bottom of the rocket sends you a light signal, it will take it some time to reach you. During that time you will be accelerating away from the light source creating a minute relative motion between you and the source. There will be a miniscule Doppler effect associated with that relative motion. There you go, that is the gravitational Doppler shift AKA gravitational time dilation. By the way, if you accelerate fast enough, that light signal might never catch up with you, creating an event horizon. Dauto (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For some reason that made no sense to me in college, but it did just now. Thanks, Dauto! Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)