Space-Time?
Merryfield9
Thanks
Andrew
FrediFizzx
news:20030706021457...@mb-m15.wmconnect.com...
| What is space-time, really?
It is what quantum objects exist in. And I suspect these quantum objects
might even define spacetime.
FrediFizzx
Martin Hogbin
"Merryfield9" <merry...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:20030706021457...@mb-m15.wmconnect.com...
> What is space-time, really?
Spacetime is the mathematical concept used by physicists to describe
the world in which we live, particularly with regard to high speed
motion and gravity.
Physicists have not yet managed to produce a model that
accounts for all the observed results of quantum mechanics
and relativity.
Martin Hogbin
Tom Roberts
> What is space-time, really?
It is a model used by physicists to represent the spatial and temporal
interrelationships between/among objects in the real world. As such, it
"exists" in the minds of analysts only; there is no object or "thing" in
the real world to which it corresponds..
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Hayek
Merryfield9 wrote:
> What is space-time, really?
>
Space *and* "Time" are created by mass.
This mass generates inertia (also called
gravitation), and causes objects to shrink.
The mainstream calls this 'inflation', as seen
just after the big bang.
This inertia also makes objects harder to move
back and forth, as in the escapement of clocks.
Hence makes 'time' move slower.
It is no surprise then that the main ingredient of
the Einstein Field Equations is gravitating
*MASS*. It defines the conditions of space (by
object contraction) and time (by inertia).
Forget the time "dimension". There is no such
thing. There is only motion, controlled by
inertia, caused by mass.
And then a small word about Quantum Mechanics.
Inertia seems not to hold for a combination of
small distances and low masses. Imagine a world
without inertia. Would time play a role if you
could move instantly from one location to another
? Or would distance be important if all locations
where instantly accessible ?
In this way, you could say that inertia creates
both the notion of "distance" and "time".
Hayek.
YBM
>
>
> Merryfield9 wrote:
> > What is space-time, really?
> >
>
> Space *and* "Time" are created by mass.
Here is what I posted on 28 of June, as a response
to some Hayek nonsensical message :
------------
I propose you a challenge : take a week to work on you
idea that is supposed to mean something that nobody, except
you, can see, that is supposed to present a better point of
view than the space-time formalism of Relativity and show us
then :
1. a model without time parameter describing a classical
SR situation (such as the muon decay)
2. a model without time parameter describing a classical
GR situation (free fall to a black hole horizon, or whatever
you choose)
Heap of weak mataphors, quoted "words", declaration of empty
principles are worthless, use as much math as you can, wherever
SR or GR gives quantitative results, you should give some too.
If you don't succeed to show something even partially incomplete
but with real physical content, I'll suggest you to shut up
your buzzwords.
Day one : 28 of June, 2003. 7 days left.
------------
We are now 8 days later, I have seen nothing.
Bill Rowe
merry...@wmconnect.com (Merryfield9) wrote:
> What is space-time, really?
I've seen good answers to this posted by Tom Roberts and Martin Hogbin.
I would only add the observations that it is usually spelled "spacetime"
without the hyphen. And if you are truly interested in learning more
about this concept, a good place to start would be the book "Spacetime
Physics" written by Taylor and Wheeler.
Hayek
YBM wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Merryfield9 wrote:
>> > What is space-time, really?
>> >
>>
>> Space *and* "Time" are created by mass.
>
> [snip usual empty nonsense]
Translation : Ybm does not understand a boo
>
> Here is what I posted on 28 of June, as a response
> to some Hayek nonsensical message :
>
> ------------
> I propose you a challenge : take a week to work on you
> idea that is supposed to mean something that nobody, except
> you, can see, that is supposed to present a better point of
> view than the space-time formalism of Relativity and show us
> then :
>
> 1. a model without time parameter describing a classical
> SR situation (such as the muon decay)
>
> 2. a model without time parameter describing a classical
> GR situation (free fall to a black hole horizon, or whatever
> you choose)
>
> Heap of weak mataphors, quoted "words", declaration of empty
> principles are worthless, use as much math as you can, wherever
> SR or GR gives quantitative results, you should give some too.
>
> If you don't succeed to show something even partially incomplete
> but with real physical content, I'll suggest you to shut up
> your buzzwords.
>
> Day one : 28 of June, 2003. 7 days left.
> ------------
>
> We are now 8 days later, I have seen nothing.
Work out your own challenge.
I never challenged the things you mention.
Learn to read my posts.
Begin with conic sections. You did know they
result in Hyperbolae did you ? Also circles,
ellipses and parabolae.
Hayek.
Hayek
YBM wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Merryfield9 wrote:
>> > What is space-time, really?
>> >
>>
>> Space *and* "Time" are created by mass.
>
> [snip usual empty nonsense]
>
http://users.erols.com/ems57/Distortion/article_full.html
"
* a gravitational time dilation effect which
decreases the observed temporal intervals between
events,
* a gravitation length contraction effect (due to
Postulate 2) which is of the same magnitude as the
gravitational time dilation and increases the
observed spatial distance between
events[72002Schaefer], and
"
http://users.erols.com/ems57/Distortion/distance.html
"
There is also an effect unanticipated by the
Lenz-Schiff Argument: The gravitational length
contraction is isotropic, since Eq. (15) is a
function only of the z position of the rod, and
not of the xy distance j which affects its
orientation.
"
Now go back and study your hyperbolae, and stop
insulting adults on gravitational length contraction.
Hayek.
Hayek
Maybe "Merryfield" does not want to study 10
years, and just wants an expert answer.
Why don't you answer him, instead of hiding behind
Roberts & Hogbin, while referring to a standard
textbook with the message "find out yourself".
"Was Einstein right" from Clifford Will, would be
a much better point to start.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465090869
Hayek.
YBM
[snip usual empty nonsense]
YBM
Hayek
YBM wrote:
[spam]
This Creutzfeld-Jacob is getting to you fast.
Check the links I gave you.
Did you know you can click on an URL ?
Or is your mouse stuck on the send button ?
Hayek.
Bill Rowe
Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Bill Rowe wrote:
> > I've seen good answers to this posted by Tom Roberts and Martin Hogbin.
> > I would only add the observations that it is usually spelled "spacetime"
> > without the hyphen. And if you are truly interested in learning more
> > about this concept, a good place to start would be the book "Spacetime
> > Physics" written by Taylor and Wheeler.
> Maybe "Merryfield" does not want to study 10
> years, and just wants an expert answer.
Perhaps. If so, the answer provided by Tom Roberts certainly satisfies
this desire. Also, 10 years of study isn't required to master the basics.
> Why don't you answer him, instead of hiding behind
> Roberts & Hogbin, while referring to a standard
> textbook with the message "find out yourself".
There was no hiding nor an implied "find out yourself". There was little
point in repeating information already supplied by Tom Roberts. But if
there is a desire to learn more, it is useful to have a starting place.
Hence my answer.
Hayek
Bill Rowe wrote:
> In article <3F088ADF...@nospam.xs4all.nl>,
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>> Bill Rowe wrote:
>
>
>>> I've seen good answers to this posted by
>>> Tom Roberts and Martin Hogbin. I would only
>>> add the observations that it is usually
>>> spelled "spacetime" without the hyphen. And
>>> if you are truly interested in learning
>>> more about this concept, a good place to
>>> start would be the book "Spacetime Physics"
>>> written by Taylor and Wheeler.
>>
>
>> Maybe "Merryfield" does not want to study 10
>> years, and just wants an expert answer.
>
>
> Perhaps. If so, the answer provided by Tom
> Roberts certainly satisfies this desire. Also,
> 10 years of study isn't required to master the
> basics.
You have simple desires.
"
It is a model used by physicists to represent the
spatial and temporal interrelationships
between/among objects in the real world. As such,
it "exists" in the minds of analysts only; there
is no object or "thing" in the real world to which
it corresponds..
"
What is "temporal" as Roberts clearly obfuscates ?
A real dimension ?
If it exist in the minds of analysts only, how
come it (GR) has such correct predictive power ?
There must be some correspondence to reality,
obviously.
And what are the spatial and temporal
relationships ? Not only he does not mention them
but completely forgets the cause : mass.
It is not : if you have (proper) time then...space,
neither is it : if you have space then...(proper)
time.
It is : if you have mass then ..gamma space AND
gamma time. Space and time do not "interrelate"
they are just caused by the same thing.
>> Why don't you answer him, instead of hiding
>> behind Roberts & Hogbin, while referring to a
>> standard textbook with the message "find out
>> yourself".
>
>
> There was no hiding nor an implied "find out
> yourself". There was little point in repeating
> information already supplied by Tom Roberts.
We have different opinions on "information".
Pardon me, but I do recognize myself in
"Merryfield" ten years ago. And I do recall the
smugness of the answers given here, by
self-proclaimed specialists. And I do recall their
condescending answers like : "inertia is just is a
property of space, it is not caused by anything".
This is sci.physics.relativity, and I think you
ought to be able to do better than that. Having a
contest on "Who said this" every two weeks just
will not cut it.
I repeat some smugness here by DVdm :
Hayek (translation):
In your model [temporal dimension] there are many
Earths. That of yesterday and that of today. In my
model there is only one. It just moved wrt the
stars and sun, and so on.. It is not the same.
Parallel worlds and a "time dimension" are in
conflict with conservation of energy. Every unit
of time along, would have to create a whole
universe plus some infinite more for every quantum
overlap.
DVdm :
"
Oh my, what booklets have you been reading ?
Hawking for sure ?
You d'better started at the beginning instead of
at the end.
If you want, take the last word. I leave the
discussion.
"
I guess this is what DHR 's call discussion. If it
gets remotely lukewarm, get the hell out of the
water, and shun the one who heats it.
t(ship)<t(earth), and then refer to spacetime
physics by Wheeler. There, we've done the math.
Hayek.
kenseto
"Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:be8qq7$ot$3...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Wrong...see the following link:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:be9l1c$e...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
It can be correspond to a structured stationary aether and the distortions
in this stationary aether caused by the absolute motions of interacting
objects moving through it.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3F093C44...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
[snip]
>
> I repeat some smugness here by DVdm :
>
> Hayek (translation):
> In your model [temporal dimension] there are many
> Earths. That of yesterday and that of today. In my
> model there is only one. It just moved wrt the
> stars and sun, and so on.. It is not the same.
> Parallel worlds and a "time dimension" are in
> conflict with conservation of energy. Every unit
> of time along, would have to create a whole
> universe plus some infinite more for every quantum
> overlap.
>
> DVdm :
> "
> Oh my, what booklets have you been reading ?
> Hawking for sure ?
> You d'better started at the beginning instead of
> at the end.
>
> If you want, take the last word. I leave the
> discussion.
> "
Nice translation, apart from the word 'discussion'.
You could have included a pointer to the source:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=CXaH8.92684$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
> I guess this is what DHR 's call discussion.
Ha, but it was not a discussion. I said "I leave it at this".
It was the end of a futile attempt at helping someone who
seems not capable of grasping the concept of dimension.
I had been trying to explain what dimensions are and
how they are *defined* by us human beings. The taste of
red wine is roughly 3-dimensional (sour, sweet, bitter)
and that of white wine is 2-dimensional (sour, sweet).
The set of real 3x13 matrices is 39-dimensional because
you need 39 real numbers to fix a matrix.
The set of spacetime events is 4-dimensional because you
need 4 numbers to fix an event.
That is what I was trying to tell you. Your whine about
"my model" with "parallel worlds" made me realize that
you were not just some silly armchair philosopher, but
rather an obnoxious hardboiled armchair idiot.
My mistake.
> If it
> gets remotely lukewarm, get the hell out of the
> water, and shun the one who heats it.
...and shun the one who uses the swimming pool as
a toilet. "But mommy, I did it because the water is
sooooo cold, honestly!"
>
> t(ship)<t(earth), and then refer to spacetime
> physics by Wheeler. There, we've done the math.
Sorry if you're too dense to understand the language
of physics.
Why don't you take a good swim in the North Sea?
No one will notice a thing when you try to make it
'lukewarm'
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3F088ADF...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> Bill Rowe wrote:
> > In article <20030706021457...@mb-m15.wmconnect.com>,
> > merry...@wmconnect.com (Merryfield9) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What is space-time, really?
> >
> >
> > I've seen good answers to this posted by Tom Roberts
> > and Martin Hogbin.
> > I would only add the observations that it is usually spelled
> > "spacetime" without the hyphen. And if you are truly
> > interested in learning more about this concept, a good
> > place to start would be the book "Spacetime Physics"
> > written by Taylor and Wheeler.
>
> Maybe "Merryfield" does not want to study 10
> years, and just wants an expert answer.
10 years for "Spacetime Physics"? SP is just beyond highschool
level. You should *try* it in stead of scanning pages that you
don't understand from MTW which takes at least a BS before
you can even start thinking about working it.
When compared to MTW, Spacetime Physics is kindergarten.
Try it. Really.
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> 10 years for "Spacetime Physics"? SP is just
> beyond highschool level. You should *try* it in
> stead of scanning pages that you don't
> understand from MTW
Because you haven't got a clue about MP, that does
not mean I haven't. You haven't even tried to
understand these pages. You think it is about
frame dragging, and that it is very complicated.
It is actually very simple.
And there is another aspect besides frame
dragging, that what causes the "absoluteness" of
accelerations, the cause of inertia, mass over there.
I repeated it some twenty times here, GR is based
on MP. It nicely corresponds with Einsteins
thought experiment with fotons escaping gravitation.
There is no mystery about it. With this basis and
understanding Einstein formulated GR, in its
mathematical form. Einstein did not calculate his
way to GR, no, he reasoned his way to it. By
understanding the physics, and not by the
brainless application of mathematical rules.
But you are to stupid to understand that, as you
have proven a dozen times by now.
which takes at least a BS before
> you can even start thinking about working it.
> When compared to MTW, Spacetime Physics is
> kindergarten.
It exactly fits you, then.
When you ever manage to get out of kindergarten,
you might want to try to understand the difference
between 3d and 4d.
> Try it. Really.
Be as condescending as you are ?
I will never reach that level.
Hayek.
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in
> message
> news:3F088ADF...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>>
>> Bill Rowe wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <20030706021457...@mb-m15.wmconne-
>>> ct.com>, merry...@wmconnect.com
>>> (Merryfield9) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is space-time, really?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've seen good answers to this posted by
>>> Tom Roberts and Martin Hogbin. I would only
>>> add the observations that it is usually
>>> spelled "spacetime" without the hyphen. And
>>> if you are truly interested in learning
>>> more about this concept, a good place to
>>> start would be the book "Spacetime Physics"
>>> written by Taylor and Wheeler.
>>
>> Maybe "Merryfield" does not want to study 10
>> years, and just wants an expert answer.
>
>
> 10 years for "Spacetime Physics"? SP is just
> beyond highschool level.
No, 10 years to reach my level of understanding of
GR. Without help from people pointing me to p543
of the MTW, which I acquired by accident, together
with Clifford Will's "Was Einstein Right". Your
level I had 25 years ago, when I did not even care
about it.
And if you're not even trying to understand the 6
pages of the MTW from p543 on, it is going to take
you an eternity.
Hayek.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3F09CF0E...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in
> > message
> > news:3F088ADF...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >>
> >> Bill Rowe wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> <20030706021457...@mb-m15.wmconne-
> >>> ct.com>, merry...@wmconnect.com
> >>> (Merryfield9) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> What is space-time, really?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've seen good answers to this posted by
> >>> Tom Roberts and Martin Hogbin. I would only
> >>> add the observations that it is usually
> >>> spelled "spacetime" without the hyphen. And
> >>> if you are truly interested in learning
> >>> more about this concept, a good place to
> >>> start would be the book "Spacetime Physics"
> >>> written by Taylor and Wheeler.
> >>
> >> Maybe "Merryfield" does not want to study 10
> >> years, and just wants an expert answer.
> >
> >
> > 10 years for "Spacetime Physics"? SP is just
> > beyond highschool level.
>
> No, 10 years to reach my level of understanding of
> GR.
No no no. You have no way out of this one.
Certainly not with a pathetic attempt like that.
It doesn't even *qualify* as a lie.
> Without help from people pointing me to p543
> of the MTW, which I acquired by accident,
Accidents like that should not happen.
They should have taught you to add and multiply first.
Poor you.
Dirk Vdm
YBM
[...]
> No, 10 years to reach my level of understanding of
> GR.
This is one of the funniest thing I've ever read here.
Are you challenging Wilson or Peter K. as the funniest
of the group ?
(P.S. D. Day + 2)
Hayek
I assumed that Spacetime Physics was more
complicated than the MTW. Since you kept bragging
about it. Now you say it is kindergarten stuff.
Now I understand why you keep bragging about it.
And why you do not understand the MTW.
A lot of riddles got solved today.
How long are you "studying" relativity ?
And you are only at this level ?
Btw : I found a flaw in your escape velocity
argument. You assume that inertia is constant into
infinity. You can't assume that, because it simple
is not correct. Again you forgot to take account
of the background metric. You are still a
Newtonian, with some minor SR tendencies.
>
>
>>Without help from people pointing me to p543
>>of the MTW, which I acquired by accident,
>
>
> Accidents like that should not happen.
Even "engineers" like you should know that ivory
is not good building material for towers.
> They should have taught you to add and multiply first.
> Poor you.
You have people that are good at adding and
multiplying, and people that are good at solving
problems. I wonder why you claim superior
intelligence because of something a $20 calculator
does a better job at.
Hayek.
Peter K.
Frenchy you still remember me! Sniff!
So How is Gay Paris this time of year eh???
Thank Heaven for little girls ...
Peter K.
Ah pourquois pas de comment on Space-Time and the Flashlight Frenchy Eh???
Hayek
YBM wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
> [...]
>
>> No, 10 years to reach my level of understanding of
>> GR.
>
>
> This is one of the funniest thing I've ever read here.
I am waiting more than 4 months for you giving a
single argument, based on your rich "knowledge" of
GR, that seems to consist of three words :
"GR is difficult".
>
> Are you challenging Wilson or Peter K. as the funniest
> of the group ?
>
> (P.S. D. Day + 2)
Suddenly you remember D-day ?
Do you remember what it was about ?
How far does the French collective amnesia go?
Hayek.
YBM
[...]
> Suddenly you remember D-day ?
> Do you remember what it was about ?
>
> How far does the French collective amnesia go?
Have you ever forget that you gave up on you own pretentions
three days ago now ?
Time is inertia or amnesia ?
How can you even speak of amnesia if time *does not exist* ?
What about being proven to be a moron ?
Dirk Van de moortel
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:3f09f235$0$27221$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
> [...]
> > No, 10 years to reach my level of understanding of
> > GR.
>
> This is one of the funniest thing I've ever read here.
Title: "10 years to reach my level of understanding of GR
and biting without teeth"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/10years.html
>
> Are you challenging Wilson or Peter K. as the funniest
> of the group ?
Clearly he's trying to outclass Ken Seto.
And that *already* has written a book ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:3f09f235$0$27221$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
>
>>Hayek wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>No, 10 years to reach my level of understanding of
>>>GR.
>>
>>This is one of the funniest thing I've ever read here.
>
>
> Title: "10 years to reach my level of understanding of GR
> and biting without teeth"
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/10years.html
It is not even boring anymore.
>
>>Are you challenging Wilson or Peter K. as the funniest
>>of the group ?
>
>
> Clearly he's trying to outclass Ken Seto.
> And that *already* has written a book ;-)
Whatever.
Hayek.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Abhi" <Abhijit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:befcle$4kr1k$1...@ID-195116.news.dfncis.de...
> Dirk, as I said, I am watching you......
Don't forget to attach your garters to infinity.
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
YBM wrote:
> Hayek wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Suddenly you remember D-day ?
>> Do you remember what it was about ?
>>
>> How far does the French collective amnesia go?
>
>
> Have you ever forget that you gave up on you own pretentions
> three days ago now ?
I never accepted that challenge. Besides I replied
that what you asked whas not neccesary, but you
could not understand that reasoning either.
> Time is inertia or amnesia ?
> How can you even speak of amnesia if time *does not exist* ?
You haven't got any clue, do you ?
The discussion here has been running in many side
threads on 'time', but of course, you were too
busy bullying people of who you think have less
knowledge on relativity than you.
Our 'experience' of time, comes from our memory.
For someone with amnesia, time would not even
exist in his experience.
Try picking up the movie "johnny memento".
> What about being proven to be a moron ?
At least you beat me there.
Hayek.
YBM
[...]
>>
>> Have you ever forget that you gave up on you own pretentions
>> three days ago now ?
>
>
> I never accepted that challenge. Besides I replied that what you asked
> whas not neccesary, but you could not understand that reasoning either.
If "time does not exist" makes some sense, the challenge was only to
illustrate a very weak form of it. Your buzzwords here, while prooving
nothing, is the affirmation of a much stronger form.
But you don't care, do you ? Only doing sounds without arguments, and
getting wrong every time you try to talk about physics seems to be
the joy of your life...
Hayek
YBM wrote:
> Hayek wrote: [...]
>
>>>
>>> Have you ever forget that you gave up on
>>> you own pretentions three days ago now ?
>>
>>
>>
>> I never accepted that challenge. Besides I
>> replied that what you asked whas not
>> neccesary, but you could not understand that
>> reasoning either.
>
>
> If "time does not exist" makes some sense, the
> challenge was only to illustrate a very weak
> form of it.
There is ample proof. Why the electrons in a
synchroton do not disappear ? If there is a time
dimension, and they "move" slower through time,
they should remain stuck in the past. If a car on
the road accelerates next to you, it schould
disappear, since the higher speed would make its
time run slower, just that fraction of a moment.
This means that whatever influences time, does not
work in a "dimensional" way. There is another
mechanism. This mechanism is increased inertia.
The clock (inertiameter) on board of the faster
car runs somewhat slower, but there is no time
dimension involved. Every molecule of the car
moves through 3D space and remains in one single
3d slice. An eternal now, if you want. The past is
just another arrangement of the same matter as the
now and the future is. But as soon as the position
changes, the previous position disappears.
> Your buzzwords here, while prooving nothing, is
> the affirmation of a much stronger form.
Relativity "proved" that t is smaller on board of
a moving spaceship.
But *WHAT* does it mean?
Einstein drew abolutely the wrong conclusion by
assuming that there is a time dimension.
> But you don't care, do you ? Only doing sounds
> without arguments, and getting wrong every time
> you try to talk about physics seems to be the
> joy of your life...
I think you do not have the capacity to judge that
I am wrong.
I am waiting more than 4 months for you to produce
any sensible argument. So far you been only
shouting "wrong". Just say why. First try to
understand the arguments against "time". It also
necessitates you to see the flaws in your own
assumption that there is a time dimension.
"Everybody knows that time exists", is as stupid
an argument as saying "everybody knows that the
sun rotates around the Earth"
What proof do you have that time exists ?
Show me some form of time travel and I admit that
I am wrong ! It is as simple as that.
Hayek.
YBM
[...]
> I think you do not have the capacity to judge that
> I am wrong.
>
> I am waiting more than 4 months for you to produce
> any sensible argument. So far you been only
> shouting "wrong". Just say why. First try to
> understand the arguments against "time". It also
> necessitates you to see the flaws in your own
> assumption that there is a time dimension.
What else could one do but say "it's complete nonsense,
could you give some real argument ?" with such nevrotic
crap (quoted from before in you post) :
> There is ample proof. Why the electrons in a
> synchroton do not disappear ? If there is a time
> dimension, and they "move" slower through time,
> they should remain stuck in the past. If a car on
> the road accelerates next to you, it schould
> disappear, since the higher speed would make its
> time run slower, just that fraction of a moment.
who but a fool can pretend that to be any kind of
a logical argument ? There is absolutly no logical
connexion between any of these sentences...
> "Everybody knows that time exists", is as stupid
> an argument as saying "everybody knows that the
> sun rotates around the Earth"
>
> What proof do you have that time exists ?
> Show me some form of time travel and I admit that
> I am wrong ! It is as simple as that.
I (and many others) asked you what you mean by
"exist" in this context. No one here never said you
that "times exists". It is not the point.
What would be in physics the proof of the existence of
anything ?
Hayek
Oh yes, it *IS* the point.
Einstein :
"
It is a wide spread error that the special theory
of relativity is supposed to have, to a certain
extent, first discovered, or at any rate, newly
introduced, the four-dimensionality of the
physical continuum. This, of course, is not the
case. Classical mechanics, too, is based on the
four-dimensional continuum of space and time. But
in the four-dimensional continuum of classical
physics the subspaces with constant time value
have an absolute reality, independent of the
choice of the reference system. Because of this,
the four dimensional continuum falls naturally
into a three dimensional and a one-dimensional
(time), so that the four-dimensional point of view
does not force itself upon one as necessary. The
special theory of relativity, on the other hand,
creates a formal dependence between the way in
which the spatial coordinates, on the one hand,
and the temporal coordinates on the other, have to
enter into the natural laws.
"
If time does not exist as a dimension, it has
certain consequences for the interpretation of SR
and GR. Mutual time contraction and relativity of
simultaneity is in trouble, then.
And it leads to the conclusion :
A clock is an inertiameter.
It becomes outright silly to speak of "temporal
coordinates", since it becomes "inertial influence".
Do you say "my refrigerator slows down the
temporal coordinate of my food" ? It actually does
that, by the old definition, see Einsteins text
above"
Think about this one : If you had no fridge but a
time machine, how would you operate it to get
fresh food the next three days ?
> What would be in physics the proof of the existence of
> anything ?
It is easier to prove something existing than
proving something nonexisting.
Wether you like it or not, this theory is going to
go places. The reason why I keep discussing this
with you, is to test out the acceptance of
arguments by people that have challenged
understanding, are sceptic, or not very intrested
in the subject. You are one hell of a challenge.
Hayek.
Timothy Golden
may be a transform from traditional spacetime to a new space without
something so assymetrical as time?
Shouldn't this transformation be the focus?
gedanken:
A ball with a hole in it is mounted to a rod.
The ball moves along the rod by motion of my hand.
Now characterize the process.
traditional
------------
at time t0 the ball was put on the rod.
call this position along the rod x = 0.
Using a clock and a tape measure we keep measuring the distance of the
ball from this end of the rod and do our best to mark the time on the
clock when we measured with the tape measure. We build a table in x
and t.
As the process gets more and more refined more and more samples are
taken within the same range.
new timeless method
-------------------
Simply take a series of measurements on the distance of the ball from
the end of the rod and improve the instrumentation. As the quantity of
samples in this series increases maxima and minima will be observed.
This seems to be the best route that I can think of right now.
I think the car example that follows is questionable.
The car actually does eventually disappear.
I'm sorry Hayek. That's not an insult.
Could you please look up "three-signed arithmetic" on sci.math and
give me some feedback?
-Tim
Hayek wrote:
> > > There is ample proof. Why the electrons in a
> > > synchroton do not disappear ? If there is a time
> > > dimension, and they "move" slower through time,
> > > they should remain stuck in the past. If a car on
> > > the road accelerates next to you, it schould
> > > disappear, since the higher speed would make its
> > > time run slower, just that fraction of a moment.
> >> What proof do you have that time exists ?
> >> Show me some form of time travel and I admit that
> >> I am wrong ! It is as simple as that.
> Wether you like it or not, this theory is going to
Hayek
The old method is timeless enough. The motion of
the ball is compared with the motion of the clock.
No "time" is actually involved.
We calibrated our clocks with the motion of the
Earth and then compared the motion of the ball
with the motion of the clock.
>
> I think the car example that follows is questionable.
> The car actually does eventually disappear.
In the distance, yes.
> I'm sorry Hayek. That's not an insult.
But the electrons in the cyclo/synchrotron don't,
and their 'time dilation' is considerable.
Hayek.