Relation between time and space
Mike Helland
I've got some questions on time and space that I've been trying to
find answers for. I haven't found any so I've come up with my own
answers. Let me know what you think, or let me know if these questions
have been answered by others.
What do we know about space and time? We seem to think that space and
time is the medium for matter and its interactions.
Einstein told us that space and time are relative to the observer, and
somehow intertwined with one another.
I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
be broken into two questions:
1. How are time and space alike?
2. How are they different?
Lacking the answers to these questions in my research I've tried to
come up with some of my own answers.
First we'll revist the idea of time and space. It is my understanding
that our scientific knowledge assumes the following intuition in
deciphering nature: the dimensions of space and time are the medium of
matter and its interactions.
To answer my questions I will be adjusting this assumption. I suggest:
Interaction simply happens, and space, time, and matter all exist a
result of this interaction.
I will explain this concept but I should first point out the
reductionist qualities of the idea. Instead of having space and time
as one thing, and these containing both matter its their interactions
through the fundamental forces of nature, I suggest that a fundamental
interaction simply occurs and we can derive the concepts of space,
time, and matter from that.
If I can show that space and time are both the result of an action
that should explain how space and time are alike. This interpretation
also extends our knowledge by making matter equally intertwined with
space and time.
I will now show how it is we derive their existence from analysis, and
thus we will show have shown how it is that they are alike and how it
is that they are different.
We'll start by talking about this interaction I've mentioned. In
nature there are four fundamental forces that describe the
interactions between two bodies. In all of these interactions there is
(presumed by quantum mechanics to be) a force carrying boson or
particle mediating the interaction. We can learn from this that if an
interaction occurs there was a change of state between two bodies
separated by some distance.
Lets take things a step further by considering not one interaction in
nature but all the interactions of nature. Within the set of all the
interactions of nature (we presume by evolution theory) that there is
a creature actually composed of these interactions that aquired the
ability to use the interactions of nature in the environment to
observe whats happening. To pick an example of this creature we'll use
a bear.
The bear knows when he's hungry and he goes to find a place to fish.
When he come within view of a river he knows that this is the place to
fish. How does he know there is a river? The bear in actually
interacting with the river. The rays of light that come to him are
photons coming from the particles in the water.
I said earlier that in an interaction there are two bodies involved.
If the bear knew this, or at least had some developed sense of it,
because he was one of the other bodies involved he knew that the
interaction meant there was another body. In a sense, the bear knew
"there is something."
When the interactions of nature (the set produced by the forces of
nature) become complex enough to produce a computing device such as an
animal brain, then the analysis that "there is something" can be made
and added to the set of nature, thus, matter emerges as an analysis in
nature.
Likewise, were the device capable of realizing that this matter
involved in the interaction is "out there", ie. at some distance, then
space enters nature as the path travelled by the mediating particle to
complete the interaction.
Finally, if the brain were capable of making the observations that
there was a change of state associated with the interaction, and that
there exists a before state and an after state, this analysis leads to
the emergence of time in nature.
We used to believe that time is what is measured by clocks, where I'm
suggesting time (as well as space and matter) exist within the context
of a natural phenomenon.
If these are indeed the correct answers to these questions, what
changes to our understanding of nature are in order? Well there are
two interpretation you can choose.
One is that Einstein has it right, space and time are relative to an
oberver, but after an observation occurs a change of state has taken
place, and the observer is now a "new" observer.
Or we can say this far more simply: space and time (and matter) are
all relative to not just the observer, but the single observation
itself.
In any case, adopting this intuition towards space, time, and matter
should allow us to explain many of the effects of relativity theory
from a quantum mechanical perspective. For example, if time is
relative to motion then we know that with lots of motion there would
be lots of time, time dilation would be inherient in quantum physics.
Also, if space is the path of, say, a photon then to curve space all
we would have to do is curve the path of a photon.
I think that with some work this idea would eliminate the neccessity
for relativity theory leaving us with quantum mechanics as a unified
theory of everything. I've started the ground work here:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
Let me know what you think.
Mike Helland
Jeff Relf
" there is a creature actually composed of these interactions
in the environment to observe what's happening. ".
Every system in the universe, be it biological or not,
is forced to be born, to consume, and to die.
Given a system with a memory,
certain regularities become known,
allowing that system to consume accordingly.
By exploiting various unknowns,
it might even confabulate delusions of grandeur,
giving it a false sense of freedom.
Bill Hobba
> What do we know about space and time? We seem to think that space and
> time is the medium for matter and its interactions.
What makes you think it is any more than what spatial coordinates and clocks
tell us it is?
Thanks
Bill
Old Man
news:ad157aec.0403...@posting.google.com...
> Hey All,
>
> I've got some questions on time and space that I've been trying to
> find answers for. I haven't found any so I've come up with my own
> answers. Let me know what you think, or let me know if these questions
> have been answered by others.
>
> What do we know about space and time? We seem to think that space and
> time is the medium for matter and its interactions.
>
> Einstein told us that space and time are relative to the observer, and
> somehow intertwined with one another.
>
> I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
> relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> be broken into two questions:
>
> 1. How are time and space alike?
> 2. How are they different?
Crackpot.
What kind of "research" could Helland do that would overlook the
space-time metric wherein proper distance is given by:
ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
That's space-time in a nut-shell. [Old Man]
Servo
[...]
> Interaction simply happens, and space, time, and matter all exist a
> result of this interaction.
You offered the above notion in another thread: "What sound does the
universe make when it flips..." Remember?
> When the interactions of nature (the set produced by the forces of
> nature) become complex enough to produce a computing device such as an
> animal brain, then the analysis that "there is something" can be made
> and added to the set of nature, thus, matter emerges as an analysis in
> nature.
a) In that thread, you stated your belief that Godel's Theorems would preclude
a part of nature (humans) from developing a theory which could explain that
nature of which we are a part.
b) Then you stated that your superset of nature would be necessary to explain
our universe and unify physics.
I pointed out that (a) was based upon a misunderstanding of Godel's work, which
in no way precludes a theory which can explain everything in nature. (It only
states that there will be unprovable theorems--in no way excluding the proven
theorems from explaining nature.)
I then pointed out that even if (a) were correct, it contradicts your assertion
in (b). YOUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM FOR THE NECESSITY OF A HYPOTHESIS was self-
contradictory.
I notice that you did not respond to that post, and were absent from our
group for a time. Now you're back, acting as though your stated core idea
was never found self-contradictory, as though we had never had this dis-
cussion.
I repeat: "Hypotheses" which explain nothing are poetry or fiction at best.
What are you trying to explain? Zeno needs no explanation. Godel and Church-
Turing do not demand a supersystem to explain nature. String theory may be
more than adequate to explain nature.
What are you offering which can't be found elsewhere? (Remember your fondness
for Occam.)
Servo
Double-A
> Hi Mike Helland, You observed,
> " there is a creature actually composed of these interactions
> that acquired the ability to use the interactions of nature
> in the environment to observe what's happening. ".
>
> Every system in the universe, be it biological or not,
> is forced to be born, to consume, and to die.
I like to think of physical things as transitioning from one form or
state to another, as existing as one kind of object or another.
Thinking of physical objects being born, consuming, and dying is
projecting of our biological nature onto things which are not
biological. It is so anthropomorphic of us to project our own natures
onto things which are totally foreign to our biological nature.
Double-A
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0403...@posting.google.com...
>
> I've got some questions on time and space that I've been trying to
> find answers for. I haven't found any so I've come up with my own
> answers. Let me know what you think, or let me know if these questions
> have been answered by others.
>
> What do we know about space and time?
One hell of a lot.
> We seem to think that space and
> time is the medium for matter and its interactions.
Who is this "we". Please exclude me.
>
> Einstein told us that space and time are relative to the observer, and
> somehow intertwined with one another.
Einstein was much more precise than that.
> I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> another conceptually?
Via the details of the metric tensor
> I realize the mathematical description of
> relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> be broken into two questions:
>
> 1. How are time and space alike?
> 2. How are they different?
Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
> Lacking the answers to these questions in my research I've tried to
> come up with some of my own answers.
That was very silly of you. You should have cracked a book on SR to start
with, where you would have found that the answers were provided nearly four
generations ago. Reinventing the wheel is not a profitable way of spending
your time
>
> First we'll revist the idea of time and space. It is my understanding
> that our scientific knowledge assumes the following intuition in
> deciphering nature: the dimensions of space and time are the medium of
> matter and its interactions.
You appear to be starting to waffle, so I will snip progressively till the
waffling stops.
[snip].
> Let me know what you think.
Yes. I was right. It was all pretentious waffle all the way down to here.
Franz
Jeff Relf
" It is so anthropomorphic of us to project our own natures
onto things which are totally foreign
Likewise, physicalism is reverse-anthropomorphic.
Hawking says that no place in nature is special.
That's reverse-anthropomorphism.
Theorists use both methods to understand nature.
The farther one zooms in or out,
the more useful physicalism becomes.
We have a memory and that allows us to consume,
but that memory is prejudiced ...
matter is the only reality.
Everything supports the notion that
nature is perfectly static,
despite our inability to directly observe that.
Jeff Relf
Re: Goedel's incompleteness theorem, You suggested,
" It only states that there will be unprovable theorems --
in no way excluding the proven theorems
from explaining nature. ".
There are no perfectly proven theorems.
Everything is self-referential and founded on assumptions.
( Well tested assumptions, if you're lucky )
Much more so when you're talking about
the beginning of the big bang,
which can't be directly observed.
Inconsistencies and insufficiencies abound.
But what is known for sure is that our universe
has always been cooling,
and it will most probably continue to do so,
at least from our preferred scale of heat.
Tom Potter
That's the husk,
not the nut-shell.
The nut-shell is that
man is hardwired to store sensory input,
and to perform correlations on the data
with his double-branched hippocampus.
Man perceives correlations associated with one body (Auto-correlations) as
times,
and correlations associated with two bodies ( cross-correlations) as spaces.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Mike Helland
> > I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> > another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
> > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > be broken into two questions:
> >
> > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > 2. How are they different?
>
> Crackpot.
> What kind of "research" could Helland do that would overlook the
> space-time metric wherein proper distance is given by:
>
> ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> That's space-time in a nut-shell. [Old Man]
Thats our understanding of space-time in a nut shell. Did you read my
questions?
<quote from above>
I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
be broken into two questions:
1. How are time and space alike?
2. How are they different?
</quote>
Since I said "I realize the mathematical description ... exists" I'm
surprised you would reply to that with claim that I've overlooked that
description.
But does your description answer the questions, how are they alike and
how are they different?
Mike Helland
> What makes you think it is any more than what spatial coordinates and clocks
> tell us it is?
Because Einstein hints at it being more. He says they're intertwined.
Can you explain conceptually how they are intertwined?
I know it can be expressed mathematically, but can the connection
between the two be explained literally?
I don't think it has been properly explained conceptually, and
therefore I think there is more to the formulas. There's always more
to the formulas.
Sam Wormley
>
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<vKWdnZeH-8h...@prairiewave.com>...
>
> > What kind of "research" could Helland do that would overlook the
> > space-time metric wherein proper distance is given by:
> >
> > ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
> >
> > That's space-time in a nut-shell. [Old Man]
>
> Thats our understanding of space-time in a nut shell. Did you read my
> questions?
>
> I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
> relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> be broken into two questions:
>
> 1. How are time and space alike?
> 2. How are they different?
Tutorial Background for Helland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldline
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node43.html
Mike Helland
> > Interaction simply happens, and space, time, and matter all exist a
> > result of this interaction.
>
> You offered the above notion in another thread: "What sound does the
> universe make when it flips..." Remember?
Of course. The point of this thread was to ask the group for any
conceptual explanations of the relationship between space and time. So
far the only answers have been mathematical.
It seems to me that if we can explain a relationship mathematically,
but we have no other ways to express this relationship, then there is
room for improvement in our understanding. Is there not?
> > When the interactions of nature (the set produced by the forces of
> > nature) become complex enough to produce a computing device such as an
> > animal brain, then the analysis that "there is something" can be made
> > and added to the set of nature, thus, matter emerges as an analysis in
> > nature.
>
> a) In that thread, you stated your belief that Godel's Theorems would preclude
> a part of nature (humans) from developing a theory which could explain that
> nature of which we are a part.
>
> b) Then you stated that your superset of nature would be necessary to explain
> our universe and unify physics.
>
> I pointed out that (a) was based upon a misunderstanding of Godel's work, which
> in no way precludes a theory which can explain everything in nature. (It only
> states that there will be unprovable theorems--in no way excluding the proven
> theorems from explaining nature.)
But if we take the position that any model we come up with exists in
nature, then isn't it true by theorem that the model cannot produce
all of nature?
If that were true then the model of nature would have to exist in the
model of nature which would all have to exist in the model of
nature... ect.
> I then pointed out that even if (a) were correct, it contradicts your assertion
> in (b). YOUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM FOR THE NECESSITY OF A HYPOTHESIS was self-
> contradictory.
>
> I notice that you did not respond to that post, and were absent from our
> group for a time. Now you're back, acting as though your stated core idea
> was never found self-contradictory, as though we had never had this dis-
> cussion.
I agree with you. I say that "We cannot reproduce N" and then I say
"We should try to use S to reproduce N." This is obviouslly a
contradiction, but in my second statement, I don't honestly expect to
reproduce N. I simply think that we'll do better at reproducing N with
my insights. You would know this if you read my paper, where I state:
"This consistent theory of nature can also be considered complete if
it is able to produce every observable phenomenon as well as account
for why it is incomplete."
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
This means that my proposed model won't "complete" like we would
prefer to have it, it will only be complete because we will explain
everything we can, and everything we can't explain, we will have an
explanation for why it is that we cannot explain it.
Again, you would know this if you took the time to read my paper and
view my model. However, it doesn't appear that this fits into your
schedule, which is why I haven't been rushing to reply to your most
recent post. :-) I just did, so rest assured that I'm not trying to
weasel my way out of anything.
> I repeat: "Hypotheses" which explain nothing are poetry or fiction at best.
My hypothesis explains what space, time, and matter really are, and in
turn allows us to explain relativity from a quantum perspective,
perhaps eliminating the need for relativity, giving us a unified
theory.
To suggest that this hypothesis explains nothing is frustrating for
me, to say the least, as it most likely suggest that I am doing a very
bad job of explaining it. I wish I could do better with this. I really
do.
Mike
Sam Wormley
>
> "Servo" <divi...@zero.moc> wrote in message news:<c2m07...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
> > universe make when it flips..." Remember?
>
> Of course. The point of this thread was to ask the group for any
> conceptual explanations of the relationship between space and time. So
> far the only answers have been mathematical.
>
Well, it's the mathematical answers that count!
Mike Helland
> " there is a creature actually composed of these interactions
> that acquired the ability to use the interactions of nature
> in the environment to observe what's happening. ".
>
> Every system in the universe, be it biological or not,
> is forced to be born, to consume, and to die.
Is physics a system in the universe? I say it is.
It was born from thought. It has consumed our thought.
I am curious. How will physics die?
Actually, I'm not that curious. I have a pretty good idea.
Jeff Relf
" Is physics a system in the universe ? ".
Yes, to facilitate our consumption,
our memories model physical systems.
That makes our models prejudiced.
Despite such prejudices,
it's most likely that no place in our universe is special,
Jeff Relf
Re: Our models of space vs. time, you asked,
" how are they alike and how are they different ? ".
All thinking requires comparisons.
From our perspective, we see inefficiencies.
That makes time seem more directional, and less spatial.
Mike Helland
> > I realize the mathematical description of
> > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > be broken into two questions:
> >
> > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > 2. How are they different?
>
> Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
So, the best answers you can provide to my questions would be:
Q: How are time and space alike?
A: *You* measure them
Q: How are time and space different?
A: One is measured with a ruler and the other with a clock.
Is that correct, or can you elaborate any further? My questions are
not about measurements but about the quiddity of these concepts, which
your reply fails to even scratch.
In my opinion, finding better answers to these questions is not a
silly excersize, which is how you've tried to smear my inquireies. I
find your approach unscientific.
Mike Helland
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c2mlqt$hep$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > I realize the mathematical description of
> > > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > > be broken into two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > 2. How are they different?
> >
> > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
> So, the best answers you can provide to my questions would be:
>
> Q: How are time and space alike?
> A: *You* measure them
>
> Q: How are time and space different?
> A: One is measured with a ruler and the other with a clock.
>
> Is that correct, or can you elaborate any further? My questions are
> not about measurements but about the quiddity of these concepts, which
> your reply fails to even scratch.
This is a physics forum.
Go look for an answer in a place where there are no physicists.
Dirk Vdm
Mike Helland
> > I realize the mathematical description of
> > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > be broken into two questions:
> >
> > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > 2. How are they different?
>
> Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
and time are alike because we measure them, then by that reasoning,
isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct? So everything you
said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
too?
Thats interesting. It was also my thesis, that not only were space and
time intertwined, but matter is rolled in there as well.
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> Yes. I was right. It was all pretentious waffle all the way down to here.
You should consider being nicer to me.
Old Man
For free space, the given space-time metric is a complete description
of the relationship between space and time. ds is invariant for all
inertial observers. Anything else is a metaphysical fairy tale hatched
in a cracked pot. Helland exhibits delusions of competence.
[Old Man]
Servo
> Hi Servo,
>
> Re: Goedel's incompleteness theorem, You suggested,
> " It only states that there will be unprovable theorems --
> in no way excluding the proven theorems
> from explaining nature. ".
>
> There are no perfectly proven theorems.
"Perfect," whatever that would be, is not a requisite for
knowledge.
Servo
Dirk Van de moortel
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:p92dnbMYlqC...@prairiewave.com...
No, no, not at all!
Mike knows very well that he sucks at limits:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ad157aec.03082...@posting.google.com
specially when the numbers are "related to the Planck scales":
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=S232c.24096$bM3.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
So we can safely say that Mike is a Man Who Knows His Limits,
which is A Very Scientific Attitude, right?
Dirk Vdm
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
by many as smoke screen, to cover up their lack of knowledge.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
news:<c2m07...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
> > > Interaction simply happens, and space, time, and matter all exist a
> > > result of this interaction.
> >
> > You offered the above notion in another thread: "What sound does the
> > universe make when it flips..." Remember?
>
> Of course. The point of this thread was to ask the group for any
> conceptual explanations of the relationship between space and time. So
> far the only answers have been mathematical.
Thereby making them more useful than mere qualitative handwaving.
>
> It seems to me that if we can explain a relationship mathematically,
> but we have no other ways to express this relationship, then there is
> room for improvement in our understanding. Is there not?
In the case of yours, that would appear to be correct.
[snip]
Franz
Franz Heymann
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<vKWdnZeH-8h...@prairiewave.com>...
>
> > > I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> > > another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
> > > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > > be broken into two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > 2. How are they different?
> >
> > Crackpot.
> > What kind of "research" could Helland do that would overlook the
> > space-time metric wherein proper distance is given by:
> >
> > ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
> >
> > That's space-time in a nut-shell. [Old Man]
>
> Thats our understanding of space-time in a nut shell. Did you read my
> questions?
>
> <quote from above>
> I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> another conceptually? I realize the mathematical description of
> relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> be broken into two questions:
>
> 1. How are time and space alike?
They occur together in the equation for an invariant interval
ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
> 2. How are they different?
*Solely* and *only* insofar as the algebraic sign in front of the time like
term differs from the signs in front of the space like terms.
> </quote>
>
> Since I said "I realize the mathematical description ... exists" I'm
> surprised you would reply to that with claim that I've overlooked that
> description.
>
> But does your description answer the questions, how are they alike and
> how are they different?
See above.
Franz
Bill Hobba
'Because Einstein hints at it being more. He says they're intertwined. Can
you explain conceptually how they are intertwined?
Please be explicit here. Do you mean ct2 - x2 -y2 - z2 benig an invariant?
That is explained by symmetry considerations - see
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207047
Mike Helland
'I know it can be expressed mathematically, but can the connection between
the two be explained literally?'
Explain Maxwell's equations literally.
Mike Helland
'I don't think it has been properly explained conceptually, and therefore I
think there is more to the formulas. There's always more to the formulas.'
Demonstrate your assertion using Maxwell's equations. If you can't do then
perhaps your assertion is wrong. Exactly what classical EM phenomena can
not be explained by Maxwell's equations?
Thanks
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:404f9...@news.iprimus.com.au...
He can't do limits. What would he know about partial differential
equations?
Dirk Vdm
Servo
[...]
> > > When the interactions of nature (the set produced by the forces of
> > > nature) become complex enough to produce a computing device such as an
> > > animal brain, then the analysis that "there is something" can be made
> > > and added to the set of nature, thus, matter emerges as an analysis in
> > > nature.
> >
> > a) In that thread, you stated your belief that Godel's Theorems would
preclude
> > a part of nature (humans) from developing a theory which could explain that
> > nature of which we are a part.
> >
> > b) Then you stated that your superset of nature would be necessary to
explain
> > our universe and unify physics.
> >
> > I pointed out that (a) was based upon a misunderstanding of Godel's work,
which
> > in no way precludes a theory which can explain everything in nature. (It
only
> > states that there will be unprovable theorems--in no way excluding the
proven
> > theorems from explaining nature.)
>
> But if we take the position that any model we come up with exists in
> nature, then isn't it true by theorem that the model cannot produce
> all of nature?
No. Asked and answered.
It is entirely possible that humans (part of nature) may devise a model
which could fundamentally account for all of nature.
> If that were true then the model of nature would have to exist in the
> model of nature which would all have to exist in the model of
> nature... ect.
No. Already refuted. You're just repeating your claims and ignoring
the refutation.
> > I then pointed out that even if (a) were correct, it contradicts your
assertion
> > in (b). YOUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM FOR THE NECESSITY OF A HYPOTHESIS was
self-
> > contradictory.
> >
> > I notice that you did not respond to that post, and were absent from our
> > group for a time. Now you're back, acting as though your stated core idea
> > was never found self-contradictory, as though we had never had this dis-
> > cussion.
>
> I agree with you. I say that "We cannot reproduce N" and then I say
> "We should try to use S to reproduce N." This is obviouslly a
> contradiction,
Indeed.
> but in my second statement, I don't honestly expect to reproduce N. I
> simply think that we'll do better at reproducing N with my insights.
This is doubletalk. Your claim that 'as part of nature we can't explain
nature but we'll do better with my insights.' Perhaps you're supernatural?
> You would know this if you read my paper, where I state:
>
> "This consistent theory of nature can also be considered complete if
> it is able to produce every observable phenomenon as well as account
> for why it is incomplete."
1) If it can "produce every observable phenomenon" it is NOT incomplete
insofar as nature is concerned.
2) You invoke Godel where it doesn't apply, and fail to when it does.
No complex system can "account for why it is incomplete." THAT is
the nature of the incompleteness theorem, that some things are
undecidable. S may account for ALL of N, but remain unable to decide
all of S's non-N theorems.
Statements like these are also why I haven't read your website.
> This means that my proposed model won't "complete" like we would
> prefer to have it, it will only be complete because we will explain
> everything we can, and everything we can't explain, we will have an
> explanation for why it is that we cannot explain it.
False. See above.
> Again, you would know this if you took the time to read my paper and
> view my model. However, it doesn't appear that this fits into your
> schedule, which is why I haven't been rushing to reply to your most
> recent post. :-) I just did, so rest assured that I'm not trying to
> weasel my way out of anything.
I AM going to "weasel out" of replying. My time is limited, my newsgroup
database broke but I won't make the effort to reconstruct that far back,
and you are recycling self-contradictory ideas already refuted.
> > I repeat: "Hypotheses" which explain nothing are poetry or fiction at best.
>
> My hypothesis explains what space, time, and matter really are, and in
> turn allows us to explain relativity from a quantum perspective,
> perhaps eliminating the need for relativity, giving us a unified
> theory.
You keep saying that, but unless you can produce one example of its
explanatory power, its alleged value exists only in your imagination.
Give us one problem of significance you can solve.
> To suggest that this hypothesis explains nothing is frustrating for
> me, to say the least, as it most likely suggest that I am doing a very
> bad job of explaining it.
It may also suggest that your notions themselves explain nothing.
Servo
Servo
news:DDM3c.17$45....@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <c2o28...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Servo" <divi...@zero.moc>
writes:
> >Jeff Relf <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
> >news:1es5ms4t...@x.Jeff.Relf...
> >> Hi Servo,
> >>
> >> Re: Goedel's incompleteness theorem, You suggested,
> >> " It only states that there will be unprovable theorems --
> >> in no way excluding the proven theorems
> >> from explaining nature. ".
> >>
> >> There are no perfectly proven theorems.
> >
> >"Perfect," whatever that would be, is not a requisite for
> >knowledge.
> >
> Indeed. On the other hand, professed desire for "perfection" is used
> by many as smoke screen, to cover up their lack of knowledge.
Hi, Mati. Yes, thus the saying that 'the perfect is the enemy of the
good.'
If perfection and "complete knowledge" were possible, how could we
ever know for sure? You don't know what you don't know until you
know you didn't know it.
Servo
Old Man
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c2mlqt$hep$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > I realize the mathematical description of
> > > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > > be broken into two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > 2. How are they different?
> >
> > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
> It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
> and time are alike because we measure them, then by that reasoning,
> isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
>
> There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct? So everything you
> said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
> too?
Relativistic mass is an erroneous crutch of the incompetent. Like
proper distance, mass is invariant. In free space, it is related to
total energy and momentum by
mc^2 = sqrt[ E^2 - (pc)^2 ]
A gas of photons, confined in a box, possesses invariant mass.
All inertial observers agree upon its magnitude. [Old Man]
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
><mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:DDM3c.17$45....@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <c2o28...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Servo" <divi...@zero.moc>
>writes:
>> >Jeff Relf <M...@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
>> >news:1es5ms4t...@x.Jeff.Relf...
>> >> Hi Servo,
>> >>
>> >> Re: Goedel's incompleteness theorem, You suggested,
>> >> " It only states that there will be unprovable theorems --
>> >> in no way excluding the proven theorems
>> >> from explaining nature. ".
>> >>
>> >> There are no perfectly proven theorems.
>> >
>> >"Perfect," whatever that would be, is not a requisite for
>> >knowledge.
>> >
>> Indeed. On the other hand, professed desire for "perfection" is used
>> by many as smoke screen, to cover up their lack of knowledge.
>
>Hi, Mati. Yes, thus the saying that 'the perfect is the enemy of the
>good.'
>
>If perfection and "complete knowledge" were possible, how could we
>ever know for sure?
Exactly.
> You don't know what you don't know until you
>know you didn't know it.
>
That's a *good* line, and very true. Could be used as a sig.
Servo
[...]
> >Hi, Mati. Yes, thus the saying that 'the perfect is the enemy of the
> >good.'
> >
> Yep.
>
> >If perfection and "complete knowledge" were possible, how could we
> >ever know for sure?
>
> Exactly.
>
> > You don't know what you don't know until you
> > know you didn't know it.
> >
> That's a *good* line, and very true. Could be used as a sig.
It's from something I wrote many years ago. Donald Rumsfeld said
something like it last year, when explaining the 'fog of war.' It
was repeatedly played by the media as an example of opaque Rumsfeld-
speak, when in fact it was insightful.
Servo
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Yes, I remember. It was very true, and very insightful. It was also
a good intelligence test, one which the media (and all those
"intllectuals" who laughed it off) failed, miserably. No big
surprise.
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <c2oed...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Servo" <divi...@zero.moc>
writes:
>><mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> >Hi, Mati. Yes, thus the saying that 'the perfect is the enemy of the
>>> >good.'
>>> >
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> >If perfection and "complete knowledge" were possible, how could we
>>> >ever know for sure?
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> > You don't know what you don't know until you
>>> > know you didn't know it.
>>> >
>>> That's a *good* line, and very true. Could be used as a sig.
>>
>>It's from something I wrote many years ago. Donald Rumsfeld said
>>something like it last year, when explaining the 'fog of war.' It
>>was repeatedly played by the media as an example of opaque Rumsfeld-
>>speak, when in fact it was insightful.
>
>Yes, I remember. It was very true, and very insightful. It was also
>a good intelligence test, one which the media (and all those
>"intllectuals" who laughed it off) failed, miserably. No big
>surprise.
[emticon putting on naif hat...again] The stupidity left me
speechless. I'm beginning to wonder how I managed to miss
the lobotomy class in kindergarten--I must have been out with
the flu or something.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Mike Helland
> > > I repeat: "Hypotheses" which explain nothing are poetry or fiction at best.
> >
> > My hypothesis explains what space, time, and matter really are, and in
> > turn allows us to explain relativity from a quantum perspective,
> > perhaps eliminating the need for relativity, giving us a unified
> > theory.
>
> You keep saying that, but unless you can produce one example of its
> explanatory power, its alleged value exists only in your imagination.
> Give us one problem of significance you can solve.
Problem:
How can a supposedly indeterminate system (for example, a model of
Quantum Electro Dyanmics demonstrating the Hiesenberg Uncertainty
Principle) co-exist with a supposedly determinate system (for example,
a model of General Relativity)?
Answer:
Create a determinate model wherein there are agents and processes that
gather information from the model over multiple steps in its evolution
and group that information into a generalized subset of information
that represents whats happening in the system without alot of the gory
details. If we can envision a system emerging and evolving from within
the subset, we can envision a system that is aware of the model, but
only the generalized subset. Without the exact details of the agents
and processes underlying the creation and manipulation of the subset,
from the perspective of a system in the subset the evolution of the
model is indeterminate. This solution is made possible only if we
consider both the complete set and the generalized set as capable of
demonstrating their own unique matter, space, and time. This is of
course not possible with our current understanding of space, time, and
matter; but it is possible with my suggested defintions of those
concepts, thus making my defintions a central piece to this solution.
Again, this is explained in pages of detail and a working software
model.
Section III.4 of http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
> > but in my second statement, I don't honestly expect to reproduce N. I
> > simply think that we'll do better at reproducing N with my insights.
>
> This is doubletalk. Your claim that 'as part of nature we can't explain
> nature but we'll do better with my insights.' Perhaps you're supernatural?
Its not double talk. We'll never understand 100% of what gravity is,
but we got closer with Newton, then we got closer with Einstein, and
we might get closer with the graviton concept some day too.
> 1) If it can "produce every observable phenomenon" it is NOT incomplete
> insofar as nature is concerned.
Unless there are contradictions in what is produced, as is the case
with Relativity and QM.
Bill Vajk
> Its not double talk. We'll never understand 100% of what gravity is,
> but we got closer with Newton, then we got closer with Einstein, and
> we might get closer with the graviton concept some day too.
It isn't trite to repeat the admonition, "Never say never."
Mike Helland
> > 1. How are time and space alike?
>
> They occur together in the equation for an invariant interval
> ds^2 = c^2*dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> > 2. How are they different?
>
> *Solely* and *only* insofar as the algebraic sign in front of the time like
> term differs from the signs in front of the space like terms.
Hi Franz. I'd like to ask you your opinon now.
Do you believe these anwsers *really* get to the heart of the matter,
explaining the relationship between time and space? Do you suspect we
truly understand the relationship described by these formulas?
Ok, veering away from opinion and back to physics, the last answers
you had for these questions were different. Remember this?:
-------------
[MH]
1. How are time and space alike?
2. How are they different?
[FH]
Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
[MH]
It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
and time are alike because we measure them, then by that reasoning,
isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct? So everything you
said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
too?
Thats interesting. It was also my thesis, that not only were space and
time intertwined, but matter is rolled in there as well.
-------------
You should have more precisely said:
Distance is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
Duration is what *you* measure with *your* clock
and you could have just as easily added:
Mass is what *you* measure with *your* balance
By this logic, is not matter as equally alike and different to space
and time as they are too each other?
I'm curious, how do you suppose a relationship between space, time AND
matter would be formalized in a formula? I suppose that a three way
relationship like this would be too complicated for a simple equation.
Perhaps thats why one doesn't exist? Perhaps the fact that one does
not exist has had the unfortunate consequence of impacting your
opinion that the relationship does not exist?
Have you considered the possibility that you've been putting so much
emphasis on the equations that you forget that they are simply a tool
to help us decide what explanations are best?
The goal of science was to explain things. Einstein dreamt up the
ideas that space and time were related, and that spacetime could be
curved before he had the equations for them. The equations merely
exist to add weight to his explanations. The equation is not an
explaination! I suspect you've lost sight of this.
Mike Helland
Mike Helland
[snip]
Hey Franz, I just replied to you and asked the question:
"I'm curious, how do you suppose a relationship between space, time
AND
matter would be formalized in a formula?"
The best answer to this would be of course E=mc^2 or maybe h=E*t
(h=d^2 * m / t) .
My thesis that when action is present then matter, space, and time
exist as a result is a consistent interpretation of these formulas.
Any comments on that?
Oriel36
> > Hey All,
> >
> > I've got some questions on time and space that I've been trying to
> > find answers for. I haven't found any so I've come up with my own
> > answers. Let me know what you think, or let me know if these questions
> > have been answered by others.
> >
> > What do we know about space and time?
>
> One hell of a lot.
>
> > We seem to think that space and
> > time is the medium for matter and its interactions.
>
> Who is this "we". Please exclude me.
>
> >
> > Einstein told us that space and time are relative to the observer, and
> > somehow intertwined with one another.
>
> Einstein was much more precise than that.
>
> > I would like to know, how are space and time intertwined with one
> > another conceptually?
>
>
> > I realize the mathematical description of
> > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > be broken into two questions:
> >
> > 2. How are they different?
>
> Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
Actually these guys are begging for it and deserve every friggen fable
you can throw at them.
Tell me that one Franz where Albert associates aether with absolute
space via the MMX after Newton explicitly says he never considers a
medium.
"Newton objectivises
space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things,
for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real.
Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''"
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
Now Franz,I am sorry you followed relativistic rainbows all your life
and probably infected a few minds along the way but you are going to
have to do something about the relativistic myth based on Newton for
the centeniary in 2005.Newton may have gotten what he deserved by
being ambiguous but astronomically he is correct.
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
"I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies.
Principia
> > Lacking the answers to these questions in my research I've tried to
> > come up with some of my own answers.
>
> That was very silly of you. You should have cracked a book on SR to start
> with, where you would have found that the answers were provided nearly four
> generations ago. Reinventing the wheel is not a profitable way of spending
> your time
So now you not only measure time,you spend time or waste time,I guess
your relativistic world is cheap if it plays on a clock and a
wordplay.Tell me what the exchange rate for 'time' is against the
dollar and when you waste time do you recycle it or incinerate it.
It is not because you are profound,it is because your opponents with a
few exceptions are inept and as incompetent as you are.
> >
> > First we'll revist the idea of time and space. It is my understanding
> > that our scientific knowledge assumes the following intuition in
> > deciphering nature: the dimensions of space and time are the medium of
> > matter and its interactions.
>
> You appear to be starting to waffle, so I will snip progressively till the
> waffling stops.
>
> [snip].
>
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> Yes. I was right. It was all pretentious waffle all the way down to here.
>
> Franz
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <BxS3c.23$45....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>writes:
>>><mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> >Hi, Mati. Yes, thus the saying that 'the perfect is the enemy of the
>>>> >good.'
>>>> >
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> >If perfection and "complete knowledge" were possible, how could we
>>>> >ever know for sure?
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> > You don't know what you don't know until you
>>>> > know you didn't know it.
>>>> >
>>>> That's a *good* line, and very true. Could be used as a sig.
>>>
>>>It's from something I wrote many years ago. Donald Rumsfeld said
>>>something like it last year, when explaining the 'fog of war.' It
>>>was repeatedly played by the media as an example of opaque Rumsfeld-
>>>speak, when in fact it was insightful.
>>
>>Yes, I remember. It was very true, and very insightful. It was also
>>a good intelligence test, one which the media (and all those
>>"intllectuals" who laughed it off) failed, miserably. No big
>>surprise.
>
>speechless. I'm beginning to wonder how I managed to miss
>the lobotomy class in kindergarten--I must have been out with
>the flu or something.
>
of dummies is a bliss, being intelligent in a crowd of dumies is
exasperating.
Igor
> 'Because Einstein hints at it being more. He says they're intertwined. Can
> you explain conceptually how they are intertwined?
>
> Please be explicit here. Do you mean ct2 - x2 -y2 - z2 benig an invariant?
> That is explained by symmetry considerations - see
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207047
>
> Mike Helland
> 'I know it can be expressed mathematically, but can the connection between
> the two be explained literally?'
>
> Explain Maxwell's equations literally.
Well, let's see...
For starters, an unchanging charge distribution generates a static
electric field. An unchanging current distribution generates a static
magnetic field. If these sources are changing in time, then the
fields become dynamic. Last, but certaintly not less important is the
notion that a changing electric field generates a magnetic field and
vice versa. Literal enough for you?
Servo
[Diversions snipped.]
Something you avoided:
> My hypothesis explains what space, time, and matter really are, and in
> turn allows us to explain relativity from a quantum perspective,
> perhaps eliminating the need for relativity, giving us a unified
> theory.
"You keep saying that, but unless you can produce one example of its
explanatory power, its alleged value exists only in your imagination.
Give us one problem of significance you can solve."
I reiterate: Give us one problem of significance you can solve.
Zeno doesn't count. Repeated claims of the alleged need for a hypothesis
don't count. Fiction or delusion don't count.
Answers to problem are all that count.
Servo
Igor
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<404e6...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
> > What makes you think it is any more than what spatial coordinates and clocks
> > tell us it is?
>
> Because Einstein hints at it being more. He says they're intertwined.
> Can you explain conceptually how they are intertwined?
It's called the Lorentz transformation. Space and time intervals are
not absolute concepts, as they were in Newtonian physics, but are
different in different frames.
> I know it can be expressed mathematically, but can the connection
> between the two be explained literally?
>
Franz Heymann
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c2mlqt$hep$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > > be broken into two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > 2. How are they different?
> >
> > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
>
> Q: How are time and space alike?
> A: *You* measure them
>
> Q: How are time and space different?
> A: One is measured with a ruler and the other with a clock.
Why did you find it necessary to repeat what I said?
>
> Is that correct, or can you elaborate any further?
I did. Earlier. You must be dense.
> My questions are
> not about measurements but about the quiddity of these concepts, which
> your reply fails to even scratch.
>
> In my opinion, finding better answers to these questions is not a
> silly excersize, which is how you've tried to smear my inquireies. I
> find your approach unscientific.
You are welcome to harbour such thoughts as you wish to. That does not
necessarily confer any value on them.
I did not smear your enquiries. I answered your queries. If you are too
feeble minded to understand, that would be your problem, and not mine.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c2mlqt$hep$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > I realize the mathematical description of
> > > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > > be broken into two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > 2. How are they different?
> >
> > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
> and time are alike because we measure them,
I cannot claim responsibility for what occurs to you.
Don't assign ststements to me which I did not make. If you persist in that,
I shall get angry. When I get angry I start flaming.
> then by that reasoning,
> isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
No. Other folk do not reason in as illogical a way as you do.
> There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct?
Actually, in terms of the present-day preferred nomenclature, NO.
> So everything you
> said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
> too?
Crap.
>
> Thats interesting. It was also my thesis, that not only were space and
> time intertwined, but matter is rolled in there as well.
>
> > > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Yes. I was right. It was all pretentious waffle all the way down to
here.
>
> You should consider being nicer to me.
If you show the slightest sign of an embryonic intellect, I will immediately
be considerably nicer to you.
Franz
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:c2qo4u$42m$7...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
> news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> > You should consider being nicer to me.
>
> If you show the slightest sign of an embryonic intellect, I will immediately
> be considerably nicer to you.
Don't count on it, Franz ;-)
He has decided to outclass Peter Lynds.
Now he is in the process of testing his crap in the science forums,
hoping to collect some fancy jargon. I notice that many posters are
gladly helping. Next step is to find a crappy journalist to write a
spectacular article about him. Ultimate goal: to be world famous
for at least one day longer than P.L.
http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0894-9875/contents
Issue 4, August 2003
pp. 343-355
Abstract:
| It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time
| underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative
| position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical
| magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is
| concluded it is exactly because of this that time (relative
| interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a
| physical process is possible, with there being a necessary
| trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a
| time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is
| also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and
| infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally
| conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea.
| Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are
| also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be
| superseded on a theoretical basis.
Sounds familiar, duznit?
Dirk Vdm
Ed Keane III
>
> "Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
> news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<c2mlqt$hep$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> >
> > isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
>
> No. Other folk do not reason in as illogical a way as you do.
>
Both of you should read some of what Carlo Rovelli has
to say on this subject. Rovelli, if I understand, is a
proponent of the idea that a quantum theory of gravity
should be background free and that interactions are the
only thing that will matter in space and time. Mike might
enjoy Chris Isham who does not agree with most physicists
that philosophy has no bearing on modern physical theory.
Bill Hobba
> For starters, an unchanging charge distribution generates a static
> electric field. An unchanging current distribution generates a static
> magnetic field. If these sources are changing in time, then the
> fields become dynamic. Last, but certaintly not less important is the
> notion that a changing electric field generates a magnetic field and
> vice versa. Literal enough for you?
Lorentz force law, coulombs law, the list goes on an on. You must be a lot
more precise than that. I think when you finished you basically would have
defined in words the meaning of the mathematical terms on the equations and
then described those equations in words.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Do you believe these anwsers *really* get to the heart of the matter,
> explaining the relationship between time and space? Do you suspect we
> truly understand the relationship described by these formulas?
What I believe is that any answer will make predictions that can be tested.
If they do not then you have answered nothing. Now exactly what are you
proposing and what predictions that can be tested does that proposal make?
Mike Helland
> Ok, veering away from opinion and back to physics, the last answers
> you had for these questions were different. Remember this?:
>
> -------------
> [MH]
> 1. How are time and space alike?
> 2. How are they different?
>
> [FH]
> Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
> [MH]
> It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
> and time are alike because we measure them, then by that reasoning,
> isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
Notice that Franz did not say they are alike because we measure them - that
is a false inference Mike Hellend made.
Mike Helland
> There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct? So everything you
> said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
> too?
That is not an inference that can be made.
Mike Helland
> Thats interesting. It was also my thesis, that not only were space and
> time intertwined, but matter is rolled in there as well.
All it indicates is your inability to reason.
Mike Helland
> You should have more precisely said:
>
> Distance is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> Duration is what *you* measure with *your* clock
Since distance and space are different concepts your first statement is
correct but the logical difference between time and duration is?
Mike Helland
> Mass is what *you* measure with *your* balance
Your point being?
Mike Helland
> By this logic, is not matter as equally alike and different to space and
time as they are too each other?
Only if you equate ability to be measured with being equally alike - which
is not logically valid.
Mike Helland
I'm curious, how do you suppose a relationship between space, time AND
> matter would be formalized in a formula? I suppose that a three way
> relationship like this would be too complicated for a simple equation.
> Perhaps thats why one doesn't exist? Perhaps the fact that one does
> not exist has had the unfortunate consequence of impacting your
> opinion that the relationship does not exist?
It can be, but for reasons entirely different from what you propose see
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0302/0302092.pdf
Mike Helland
> Have you considered the possibility that you've been putting so much
> emphasis on the equations that you forget that they are simply a tool
> to help us decide what explanations are best?
It is obvious you do not know any actual physics because all successful
physical theories are written in the language of mathematics. Why this is
is a deep mystery but is nevertheless true.
Mike Helland
> The goal of science was to explain things.
No it's not - the goal of science is to test, hypothesize, test,
hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over so that over time hopefully our
hypothesis cover an ever wider range of tests. It is you that want's to
read that goal into it.
'Einstein dreamt up the ideas that space and time were related, and that
space-time could be curved before he had the equations for them.'
They were developed concurrently ie he developed a bit of the math, thought
a bit more, developed some more of the math over and over. He in fact
rejected the final equations early on for reasons that he later found to be
incorrect. Learn some real history before talking about things you know
nothing about. I recommend 'Subtle is the Lord' by Pias.
'The equations merely exist to add weight to his explanations.'
No - the equations are the an integral part of physical theories eg the
principle of general covariance is a statement about equations.
'The equation is not an explanation!'
Show how G=T does not make predictions that are in accord with experiment
and other predictions that can also be tested. That is all we can ask of a
theory - it is you who demands it be an explanation. But even at the
'explanation' level G=T is an explanation because it explains exactly how
the stress energy tensor is related to space-time curvature.
Mike Helland
I suspect you've lost sight of this.
I suspect you never had sight of any actual knowledge of physics.
BTW I believe that science does explain things - but that is a belief I
have - it is not something that is demanded a priori by the scientific
method.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Of course. The point of this thread was to ask the group for any
> conceptual explanations of the relationship between space and time. So
> far the only answers have been mathematical.
>
> It seems to me that if we can explain a relationship mathematically,
> but we have no other ways to express this relationship, then there is
> room for improvement in our understanding. Is there not?
Now it seems to me that if you have a mathematical explanation then you are
using the divine language of the music of the spheres, the pure expression
of platonic reasoning, the ultimate expression of mans soul. The again a
lot of things seem to me and have about as much validity as what I wrote
above.
Mike Helland
> But if we take the position that any model we come up with exists in
> nature, then isn't it true by theorem that the model cannot produce
> all of nature?
That is not what Godels theorem says. First the system must be at least as
powerful as arithmetic. Second it says that one can formulate questions
that are not answerable within the system. Now does that imply that natures
laws are at least as powerful as arithmetic? - no it does not - but the laws
we do know contain arithmetic so I thingk we can reasonably assume this -
but note those that bring up this theorem seem to leave out this nicety.
Also it does not imply that the questions it does not answer are meaningful
within the system we have because meaning is a human thing. Thus it is
entirely possible that if we ever find a 'final theory' the questions it can
not answer may not have an observational consequences and hence not have any
meaning within the paradigm of science.
Mike Helland
> If that were true then the model of nature would have to exist in the
> model of nature which would all have to exist in the model of
> nature... ect.
So? Exactly what observational consequence does your conjecture have -
none - Zippo - hence is of no scientific value. And since this is a forum
of science has no place here.
Mike Helland
> "This consistent theory of nature can also be considered complete if
> it is able to produce every observable phenomenon as well as account
> for why it is incomplete."
> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
>
> This means that my proposed model won't "complete" like we would
> prefer to have it, it will only be complete because we will explain
> everything we can, and everything we can't explain, we will have an
> explanation for why it is that we cannot explain it.
>
> Again, you would know this if you took the time to read my paper and
> view my model. However, it doesn't appear that this fits into your
> schedule, which is why I haven't been rushing to reply to your most
> recent post. :-) I just did, so rest assured that I'm not trying to
> weasel my way out of anything.
And the consequences of your conjecture that can be used to test it are?
Haven't any of those - then ipso defacto it is of no scientific value.
Someone who I could not determine correctly wrote:
> > I repeat: "Hypotheses" which explain nothing are poetry or fiction at
best.
Mike Helland
> My hypothesis explains what space, time, and matter really are, and in
> turn allows us to explain relativity from a quantum perspective,
> perhaps eliminating the need for relativity, giving us a unified
> theory.
>
> To suggest that this hypothesis explains nothing is frustrating for
> me, to say the least, as it most likely suggest that I am doing a very
> bad job of explaining it. I wish I could do better with this. I really
> do.
Science is the process of hypothesize, test, hypothosise test over and over.
A hypothesis that can not be tested is not a hypothesis and does not belong
in science. Take your rubbish to a philosophy forum - not to one that deals
with science. To suggest you have something of scientific value when it can
not be tested is an insult to the scientific method and those who perform
the much harder task of creating theories that can be tested. Anyone can
create guff like 'Now it seems to me that if you have a mathematical
explanation then you are using the divine language of the music of the
spheres, the pure expression of platonic reasoning, the ultimate expression
of mans soul'; I can do it for hours; but to propose it as a scientific
theory worthy of serious consideration is simply sickening.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Problem:
>
> How can a supposedly indeterminate system (for example, a model of
> Quantum Electro Dyanmics demonstrating the Hiesenberg Uncertainty
> Principle) co-exist with a supposedly determinate system (for example,
> a model of General Relativity)?
>
> Answer:
>
> Create a determinate model wherein there are agents and processes that
> gather information from the model over multiple steps in its evolution
> and group that information into a generalized subset of information
> that represents whats happening in the system without alot of the gory
> details. If we can envision a system emerging and evolving from within
> the subset, we can envision a system that is aware of the model, but
> only the generalized subset. Without the exact details of the agents
> and processes underlying the creation and manipulation of the subset,
> from the perspective of a system in the subset the evolution of the
> model is indeterminate. This solution is made possible only if we
> consider both the complete set and the generalized set as capable of
> demonstrating their own unique matter, space, and time. This is of
> course not possible with our current understanding of space, time, and
> matter; but it is possible with my suggested defintions of those
> concepts, thus making my defintions a central piece to this solution.
>
> Again, this is explained in pages of detail and a working software
> model.
> Section III.4 of http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
Observational consequences that can be used to test it are? None of those -
take your rubbish elsewhere.
Someone who I could not determine correctly wrote:
This is doubletalk. Your claim that 'as part of nature we can't explain
nature but we'll do better with my insights.' Perhaps you're supernatural?
He is super something all right - a super *******ter
Mike Helland
> Its not double talk. We'll never understand 100% of what gravity is,
How do you know that? Exactly what phenomena is GR in conflict with? If
you can not cite that then it is of no scientific value, pure and simple.
In science we have test hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over. If a
consequence of a hypothesis's is you are able to formulate questions in the
system that are not answerable in that system but they have no testable
consequences then it is of no scientific value. Science does not profess to
understand what gravity is, all it professes is to have a theory in accord
with experiment. It is you that want science to have a 100% explanation on
terms where you define what 100% explanation is. But science cares nothing
about your concerns, nothing about what you define a 100% explanation is,
all it cares about is correspondence with experiment - end of story. Take
you silly philosophical mumbo jumbo to where it belongs - a philosophy
forum.
Mike Helland
>but we got closer with Newton, then we got closer with Einstein, and
> we might get closer with the graviton concept some day too.
We get closer or further away from nothing - we simply have a greater number
of tests out theories are consistent with.
Someone who I could not determine correctly wrote:
If it can "produce every observable phenomenon" it is NOT incomplete
insofar as nature is concerned.
Very true.
Mike Helland
> Unless there are contradictions in what is produced, as is the case
> with Relativity and QM.
And those contradictions are? Peer reviewed references please. If you can
not produce those then you are telling at the most a half truth not backed
up by anything and using the methods of the shyster, con merchant and
cheat - you are not engaging in productive intellectual debate.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
Mike Helland
> It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
> and time are alike because we measure them, then by that reasoning,
> isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
It occurs to me that by that reasoning anything that we can measure is like
anything else we can measure so by that reasoning money and time are alike
and since you wasting a lot of peoples time with your rubbish you owe us all
a lot of money - where can I collect mine?
Mike Helland
> There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct? So everything you
> said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
> too?
>
> Thats interesting. It was also my thesis, that not only were space and
> time intertwined, but matter is rolled in there as well.
I want my money.
Frans Heyman wrote:
> > Yes. I was right. It was all pretentious waffle all the way down to
here.
>
Frans Heyman wrote:
> You should consider being nicer to me.
You should put a lot more thought into what you write.
Thanks
Bill
Franz Heymann
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:RR54c.31350$y55.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Actually, it is a masterpiece of its genre.
Franz
Franz Heymann
Did I hell!
There is one ">" missing from that line.
Franz
Bill Hobba
> > > I realize the mathematical description of
> > > relative motion in time and space exists, but what I want to know can
> > > be broken into two questions:
> > >
They form part of the invariant ct2 - x2 -y2 -z2
Mike Helland
> > > 2. How are they different?
In the formula above time has the opposite sign to the space coordinates.
Franz Heyman replied:
> > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
>
Mike Helland
> So, the best answers you can provide to my questions would be:
>
> Q: How are time and space alike?
> A: *You* measure them
>
> Q: How are time and space different?
> A: One is measured with a ruler and the other with a clock.
No - your still is this mode of science providing answers on terms that you
define. All science has are hypothesis that become consistent with a
greater number of tests. It is you that wants it to answer questions on
your terms - however science does not work according to your terms - all it
cares about is do our theories correspond with experiment. This also means
that any ideas you develop are worthless unless they are experimentally
testable. So far I have not seen a single idea of you that meets this
requirement.
Mike Helland
> Is that correct, or can you elaborate any further? My questions are
> not about measurements but about the quiddity of these concepts, which
> your reply fails to even scratch.
>
> In my opinion, finding better answers to these questions is not a
> silly excersize, which is how you've tried to smear my inquireies. I
> find your approach unscientific.
Although science does not a priori say anything beyond corresspondence with
experiment to many that have been exposed to theoretical physics a certain
world view has emerged. This view is not part of science but it is what the
structure of our theories suggests. This view is explained in the following
links that I have posted a number of times recently
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207047 and
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html. However it is a
view based on a mathematical analysis of our theories, the type of analysis
that would seem to be an anthemia to your views. But that in no way changes
the results of that analysis - it would seem the fundamental laws governing
the world are nothing more than expressions of symmetry in some underlying
perhaps abstract mathematical space.
Thanks
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
Bill, could you please follow the quoting standard
of this group? The way you quote, is very confusing,
sometimes impossible to understand, and often
error-prone - as we see here with Franz -.
You don't have to include these insertions with
"X wrote", "Y answered", since this information is
always present in the top lines...
I see you have Outlook Express 6.
You can use the following procedure:
Tools, Options..., Send,
- mark the option "Include message in reply"
- News Sending Format,
- mark the option "Plain Text",
- button "Plain Text Settings..."
-mark the option "Indent the original text with '>'
when replying or forwarding",
- OK
- OK
Please?
I guess on behalf of many others, thanks in advance...
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
I see your point. Trouble is I find this type of nonsense particularly
offensive. Although it may be playing into their hands by fueling the flame
or giving then a supply of buzz words to work with I find it difficult to
ignore the crap they write. I think the reason is that I am not formally
trained in physics, what I know I leant myself the hard way. To see people
coming along, cobbling a few buzz words together and claiming it as some
kind of 'truth' makes a mockery of that time and effort. It also makes a
mockery of the time and effort of any that make a genuine effort.
Thanks
Bill
jmfb...@aol.com
That is true; there were days when I envied them. At this
point in time, I'm almost ready to cede to the ants but I'll
get over it.
Mike Helland
> Mike Helland <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote
>
> [Diversions snipped.]
>
> Something you avoided:
>
> > My hypothesis explains what space, time, and matter really are, and in
> > turn allows us to explain relativity from a quantum perspective,
> > perhaps eliminating the need for relativity, giving us a unified
> > theory.
>
> "You keep saying that, but unless you can produce one example of its
> explanatory power, its alleged value exists only in your imagination.
> Give us one problem of significance you can solve."
>
> I reiterate: Give us one problem of significance you can solve.
Isn't the problem I gave in the preceding post of signifacance?
I guess I'm at a loss for how I avoided supplying a problem and a
solution.
Mike Helland
> > > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > > 2. How are they different?
> > >
> > > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
> >
> > It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
> > and time are alike because we measure them,
>
> I cannot claim responsibility for what occurs to you.
> Don't assign ststements to me which I did not make.
I asked "How are they alike" and you gave that response. If you were
not intended to answer that question with the fact that they are
measured relatively, what was your intended answer?
> > You should consider being nicer to me.
>
> If you show the slightest sign of an embryonic intellect, I will immediately
> be considerably nicer to you.
You have an interesting system of ethics, Franz.
Mike Helland
> Don't count on it, Franz ;-)
> He has decided to outclass Peter Lynds.
...
> http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/
> http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0894-9875/contents
> Issue 4, August 2003
The public beginning of my journey precedes Lynds by several weeks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=a6db6e7.0307172025.78f5befc%40posting.google.com
Unfortunately, I suspect this information will have no impact on your
attempts to damage my character with libel as you haven't been
forgiving in the past.
:-(
Mike Helland
> Mike Helland
> > Unless there are contradictions in what is produced, as is the case
> > with Relativity and QM.
>
> And those contradictions are? Peer reviewed references please.
<quote>General Relativity predicts evolution of an initial system
state with arbitrary certainty. Quantum mechanics' observables display
discrete states. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge
about conjugate variables in a system state, disallowing exact
prediction of its evolution.</quote>
Uncle Al
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3FD9EEE5.ED292F51%40hate.spam.net
The message you replied to attempted to solve this problem:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2124847802d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=ad157aec.0403110737.75d918b0%40posting.google.com
Mike Helland
> > We seem to think that space and
> > time is the medium for matter and its interactions.
>
> Who is this "we". Please exclude me.
If space and time is not the medium for matter and its interactions,
how does space and time relate to matter and its interactions?
You've already said that it can't be the medium.
You dismissed my suggestion that space and time is the by-product of
an interaction as pretentious waffling.
In your understanding, Franz, how exactly does space and time fit into
a phenomena?
You seem to have eliminated the possibilities I've heard or have
thought of.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
news:<RR54c.31350$y55.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > Don't count on it, Franz ;-)
> > He has decided to outclass Peter Lynds.
> ...
> > http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/
> > http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0894-9875/contents
> > Issue 4, August 2003
>
> The public beginning of my journey precedes Lynds by several weeks:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=a6db6e7.0307172025.78f5befc%40posting.google.com
Had you taken the reply to your journey
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=6W-dnZoKAZY...@comcast.com
seriously, you would have earned some respect.
> Unfortunately, I suspect this information will have no impact on your
> attempts to damage my character with libel as you haven't been
> forgiving in the past.
>
> :-(
Unfortunately, the information that was presented to you in that reply
had no impact on the enthusiasm with which you seem to be inflicting
damage to your own character.
:-)
Dirk Vdm
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <eC34c.55$45.1...@news.uchicago.edu>,
>point in time, I'm almost ready to cede to the ants but I'll
>get over it.
>
"people will do the reazonable thing once all other options have been
exhausted".
Franz Heymann
I fully agree with you. Boxing with them with kid gloves is a waste of time
and kid gloves. Kooks should be hit with knuckledusters.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
news:<c2qo4u$42m$7...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > > > 1. How are time and space alike?
> > > > > 2. How are they different?
> > > >
> > > > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > > > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
> > >
> > > It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
> > > and time are alike because we measure them,
> >
> > I cannot claim responsibility for what occurs to you.
> > Don't assign ststements to me which I did not make.
>
> I asked "How are they alike" and you gave that response. If you were
> not intended to answer that question with the fact that they are
> measured relatively, what was your intended answer?
The answer I gave is flawless. I also in an earlier post (in common with
many others) showed you a quantitative expression from which the
relationship between time and space ought to have been obvious to you.
> > > You should consider being nicer to me.
> >
> > If you show the slightest sign of an embryonic intellect, I will
immediately
> > be considerably nicer to you.
>
> You have an interesting system of ethics, Franz.
I am proud of it. I am not nice to practising morons.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
has it not yet dawned on you that I have no high regard for philosophising?
Franz
Servo
The paragraph you cite is incomprehensible to me. So, to be fair, I looked
at the section on your website. The first paragraph stopped me cold:
"To formalize this model I will need to include all of the forces of nature
acting independently of each other. But reproducing the results of such complex
behaviors using equations is extremely difficult. I think the only way to get
the
desired results from a comprehensible mathematical model will be by using a
compu-
tational model formalized as a program."
To me, this is a distinction without a difference. So far as I know, formulas
and equations are generally computable in most respects, and that which is com-
putable can be expressed as a formula or equation. I can think of nothing
distinctively computational which could be brought to bear on modeling physical
systems.
Your apparent use of approximation happens all the time when modeling physical
systems with mathematics, and with computational models for that matter, at
least in the early stages of understanding.
Servo
Mike Helland
> > Unfortunately, I suspect this information will have no impact on your
> > attempts to damage my character with libel as you haven't been
> > forgiving in the past.
> >
> > :-(
>
> Unfortunately, the information that was presented to you in that reply
> had no impact on the enthusiasm with which you seem to be inflicting
> damage to your own character.
>
> :-)
In the last 8 months I have learned a tremendous amount, from that
reply and others. This is easily discoverable comparing the paper I
posted in July with the paper I have now.
Your disrespect is growing tiresome.
Bill Hobba
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
Uncle AL is simply pointing to the well known inconsistencies between GR
which is a classical theory and QM which is not. Since we know that the
world is quantum at small distances GR must be wrong at those distances -
but that is outside it domain of applicability anyway. However there is no
problem reconciling QM and GR provided you do not want to consider energies
and distances beyond a certain cutoff ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9512024).
Thus there are no contradictions - simply an area we don not understand at
this stage. So again we have this issue of you making claims without the
backing of evidence. A post by Uncle Al that I bet you did not really
understand anyway is not evidence - that is generally accepted to be papers
published in peer reviewed journals - papers like the one that I have cited
in this reply.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> > > You should consider being nicer to me.
It was of course Mike Helland who wrote that. So apologies to Franz.
Bill Hobba wrote about Mike Helland:
> > You should put a lot more thought into what you write.
Bill Hobba should take a bit more care as well. But not only should Mike
Heeland think a bit harder he should not come along to a newsgroup dealing
with physics, a subject well known to be mathematical, make statements like
'The equation is not an explanation' and expect to be welcomed with open
arms.
With apologies to Franz
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba
'If space and time is not the medium for matter and its interactions, how
does space and time relate to matter and its interactions?'
Typical philosophical rubbish. It is like the going to a salesman and
enquiring about purchasing say a dishwasher. The salesman replies - yes sir
an excellent choice - will that be cash or charge? Saying 'how does space
and time relate to matter and its interactions' first supposes they are
related. So just like the salesman above you skip the middle step and
proceed onto the issue you want to discuss. A more reasoned query would be,
based on the our best theories, is time and space related to matter and its
interactions? The answer to that is - their is a relation - it is G=T - and
then we can have a reasoned discussion about it.
Mike Helland
'You dismissed my suggestion that space and time is the by-product of an
interaction as pretentious waffling.'
The reason it is pretentious waffling is that you need to be able to have
some hope of making testable predictions with your suggestions. Now please
detail how your suggestion can be tested? And do not retort with Einstein's
suggestions were not testable at first blah, blah, blah. All your
indicating with such statements is your ignorance. When Einstein proposed
the equivalence principle for example it had immediate testable
consequences. It was not vacuous word sophistry based on nothing more than
a superficial understanding of physical concepts.
Mike Helland
'In your understanding, Franz, how exactly does space and time fit into a
phenomena?
I could give an answer, but I suspect all it would be doing is adding to you
list of buzz words. Now in one of my replies I gave the following links:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207047 and
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html. Did you actually
read them? If not why? If you did read them what questions do you have?
You can not expect people who have spent years of their own time and effort
learning physics to help you if your not willing to also put in the required
time and effort. In that vain it might be a good idea for you to get a copy
of The Philosophy of Space and Time by Hans Reichenbach. It is available
quite cheaply at Amazon.
Mike Helland
'You seem to have eliminated the possibilities I've heard or have thought
of.
This just makes it more imperative for you actually do some work to
understand the basics.
Thanks
Bill
Dale Trynor
Bill Hobba wrote:
> Mike Helland
> 'If space and time is not the medium for matter and its interactions, how
> does space and time relate to matter and its interactions?'
>
> Typical philosophical rubbish. It is like the going to a salesman and
> enquiring about purchasing say a dishwasher. The salesman replies - yes sir
> an excellent choice - will that be cash or charge? Saying 'how does space
> and time relate to matter and its interactions' first supposes they are
> related. So just like the salesman above you skip the middle step and
> proceed onto the issue you want to discuss. A more reasoned query would be,
> based on the our best theories, is time and space related to matter and its
> interactions? The answer to that is - their is a relation - it is G=T - and
> then we can have a reasoned discussion about it.
>
> Mike Helland
> 'You dismissed my suggestion that space and time is the by-product of an
> interaction as pretentious waffling.'
>
> The reason it is pretentious waffling is that you need to be able to have
> some hope of making testable predictions with your suggestions. Now please
> detail how your suggestion can be tested? And do not retort with Einstein's
> suggestions were not testable at first blah, blah, blah. All your
> indicating with such statements is your ignorance. When Einstein proposed
> the equivalence principle for example it had immediate testable
> consequences. It was not vacuous word sophistry based on nothing more than
> a superficial understanding of physical concepts.
Dale Trynor wrote:
Bill, not wanting to make a long post here I will keep it short and that
unfortunately means I will have to leave a lot out.
Have you by any chance seen one of the proposed experimental methods I have
described for showing how time dilation in and of itself can be shown to
contract matter and I don't mean the Lorentz contraction even if related.
Try reviewing the old pole in barn gedanken and I hope you are familiar with it
so I wont have to review it here.
Try examining it again only this time put in an exaggerated amount of time
dilation of the sort one could do by placing a small black hole inside the barn.
I will bypass the analogies I usually point out with light entering a medium
like glass where its speed is less and we could show that a 1 meter long light
pulse into less length of glass than 1 meters length before it starts to exit
but the analogy is here.
Note that with enough time dilation within the barn we can now chose
mathematically testable gedanken's where a much longer rod will indeed fit
within the barn doors while "all observers" will also be able to agree that both
doors were closed. While it gets more tricky to be able to also show that from
the rods point of view, more space or rather distance is actually within the
barn from its prospective I am fairly confident this is easily doable.
The point this is leading to is that if valid means that if one were to approach
a black hole one reaches a point where the time dilation effects of gravity will
change our observer astronauts references in such a way that he will begin to
measure more space not less.
This also leads to a bunch of other stuff that would require much too long of a
post for here, but in the end it dose indeed suggest that because mass leads to
gravity and gravity in turn results in time dilation and that in turn results in
what is at the very least, a relative increase in space, then they are all
connected and its indeed testable by imperial methods and I will review them for
you if you ask.
I do recommend you look closely at this theory as it will be to your advantage.
Dale
Jim Greenfield
> Hi Servo,
>
> Re: Goedel's incompleteness theorem, You suggested,
> " It only states that there will be unprovable theorems --
> in no way excluding the proven theorems
> from explaining nature. ".
>
> There are no perfectly proven theorems.
>
> Everything is self-referential and founded on assumptions.
> ( Well tested assumptions, if you're lucky )
>
> Much more so when you're talking about
> the beginning of the big bang,
> which can't be directly observed.
> Inconsistencies and insufficiencies abound.
>
> But what is known for sure is that our universe
> has always been cooling,
> and it will most probably continue to do so,
> at least from our preferred scale of heat.
One man's red shift, is another's blue shift. Therefore
the universe has always been heating!!!!!!!
Jim G
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
You learned a tremendous amount, and you still produce a
tremendous amount of gibberish.
That you are a clown is what you should have learned by now.
>
> Your disrespect is growing tiresome.
Then, like you suggested to Mitch Perkins, ignore it and don't
read my messages.
What do you care? After all, Bozo, they laughed at Galileo,
Copernicus and Columbus as well, didn't they?
Dirk Vdm
jmfb...@aol.com
I'd forgotten; thanks :-). It is not in my nature to wait until
the shit flies uncontrollably. I suspect my lack of patience
(or is it stoism?) is due to not raising kids. AFAICT, the
role of parenting is just waiting for the next disaster to
happen.
Franz Heymann
"Dale Trynor" <da...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:4052EB64...@nbnet.nb.ca...
Why yet again, when it was resolved within the confines of SR at least
eoghty or ninety years ago?
[snip the rubbish]
Franz
Franz Heymann
Bill, I did not expect that. {:-))
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
in message news:<Yem4c.32102$ch2.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > > Unfortunately, I suspect this information will have no impact on your
> > > attempts to damage my character with libel as you haven't been
> > > forgiving in the past.
> > >
> > > :-(
> >
> > Unfortunately, the information that was presented to you in that reply
> > had no impact on the enthusiasm with which you seem to be inflicting
> > damage to your own character.
> >
> > :-)
>
> In the last 8 months I have learned a tremendous amount, from that
> reply and others.
It is not at all obvious, judging by the manure you keep spreading over the
newsgroup.
This is easily discoverable comparing the paper I
> posted in July with the paper I have now.
>
> Your disrespect is growing tiresome.
It may be avoided by your showing some vestige of actually having learnt
some physics.
Franz
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <_yo4c.85$45.2...@news.uchicago.edu>,
>the shit flies uncontrollably. I suspect my lack of patience
>(or is it stoism?) is due to not raising kids.
It could be this:-)
> AFAICT, the role of parenting is just waiting for the next disaster to
>happen.
>
That's pretty poor parenting if that's what you do. The role of
parenting is to, at earlier stage, to predict and prevent (to the extent
possible) disasters and, at later stage, to give the kids the tools to
deal with problems before (hopefully) these turn into fill fledged
disasters. With the understanding that there are no guarantees.
Mike Helland
> Then, like you suggested to Mitch Perkins, ignore it and don't
> read my messages.
I find it interesting that you suggest that I ignore your messages.
You admit they are entirely void of any content yet you continue to
supply them.
Should I have learned that I am a clown, because you and everyone else
in the world thinks what I have to say is gibberish? Perhaps.
Here is what I think: matter, space, and time are related because they
have an identical cause, action in the universe. Here is a formula
consistent with that description of nature: E = Mc^2. It says that
energy is equal to mass (matter) times the speed (space and time) of
light squared. I interpret this as "When action is present, matter
space and time exist as a result."
If my interpretation appears to be gibberish to you, then I am honored
to be the jester of this court.
Bill Hobba
> > Franz Heyman wrote:
> > > > Space is what *you* measure with *your* ruler
> > > > Time is what *you* measure with *your* clock
> > >
> >
> > > It occurs to me, Franz, that if you are right about this, that space
> > > isn't space and time and matter (through mass) all alike too?
> >
> > It occurs to me that by that reasoning anything that we can measure is
like
> > anything else we can measure so by that reasoning money and time are
alike
> > and since you wasting a lot of peoples time with your rubbish you owe us
all
> > a lot of money - where can I collect mine?
> >
> > Mike Helland
> > > There is such a thing as relativistic mass, correct? So everything you
> > > said, logically, means that matter is intertwined with space and time
> > > too?
> > >
> > > Thats interesting. It was also my thesis, that not only were space and
> > > time intertwined, but matter is rolled in there as well.
> >
> > I want my money.
> >
> > Frans Heyman wrote:
> > > > Yes. I was right. It was all pretentious waffle all the way down to
> > here.
> > >
> >
> > Frans Heyman wrote:
> > > You should consider being nicer to me.
> >
> >
> > Bill
>
> Bill, could you please follow the quoting standard
> of this group? The way you quote, is very confusing,
> sometimes impossible to understand, and often
> error-prone - as we see here with Franz -.
> You don't have to include these insertions with
> "X wrote", "Y answered", since this information is
> always present in the top lines...
>
> I see you have Outlook Express 6.
> You can use the following procedure:
> Tools, Options..., Send,
> - mark the option "Include message in reply"
> - News Sending Format,
> - mark the option "Plain Text",
> - button "Plain Text Settings..."
> -mark the option "Indent the original text with '>'
> when replying or forwarding",
> - OK
> - OK
>
> Please?
> I guess on behalf of many others, thanks in advance...
No problemo. Thanks for the tip
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
Franz in his reply expresses my view exactly. I find SR very compelling and
would need experimental refutation to look into other theories.
Thanks
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
news:<OFB4c.32824$_F1.22...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > Then, like you suggested to Mitch Perkins, ignore it and don't
> > read my messages.
>
> I find it interesting that you suggest that I ignore your messages.
You are beginning to sound like Tom Potter,
> You admit they are entirely void of any content yet you continue to
> supply them.
... and use Tom Potter tactics as well.
>
> Should I have learned that I am a clown, because you and everyone else
> in the world thinks what I have to say is gibberish? Perhaps.
That is a good operational definition of a clown, yes.
>
> Here is what I think: matter, space, and time are related because they
> have an identical cause, action in the universe.
Gee, you *are* Tom Potter!
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4053b4c8$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:2Fg4c.778$St4...@news.cpqcorp.net...
[snip]
> > Bill, could you please follow the quoting standard
> > of this group? The way you quote, is very confusing,
> > sometimes impossible to understand, and often
> > error-prone - as we see here with Franz -.
> > You don't have to include these insertions with
> > "X wrote", "Y answered", since this information is
> > always present in the top lines...
> >
> > I see you have Outlook Express 6.
> > You can use the following procedure:
> > Tools, Options..., Send,
> > - mark the option "Include message in reply"
> > - News Sending Format,
> > - mark the option "Plain Text",
> > - button "Plain Text Settings..."
> > -mark the option "Indent the original text with '>'
> > when replying or forwarding",
> > - OK
> > - OK
> >
> > Please?
> > I guess on behalf of many others, thanks in advance...
>
> No problemo. Thanks for the tip
No problem, you're welcome.
This is much better already.
Of course I hope *you* don't feel uncomfortable with it :-)
Thanks & Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
It is interesting to observe that I have conditioned "Dirk Van de moortel"
to salivate when certain bells are rung.
As can be seen "Dirk Van de moortel"
has become so obsessed with certain expressions,
that he salivates like Pavlov's dogs,
when he is exposed to these expressions.
Of course, rational, intelligent folks,
who respond with intellect, rather than emotion,
can easily perceive enormous differences in stimuli,
whereas conditioned animals
can only perceive what they have been conditioned to.
I am pleased, and flattered, that I have been able
to conditioned some of the sci.physics sociopaths
to think about me, and my posts,
when they are exposed to similar stimuli.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:c31afh$22ngj5$1...@ID-151067.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:pBV4c.33879$hX3.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> > Gee, you *are* Tom Potter!
>
> It is interesting to observe that I have conditioned "Dirk Van de moortel"
> to salivate when certain bells are rung.
>
> As can be seen "Dirk Van de moortel"
> has become so obsessed with certain expressions,
> that he salivates like Pavlov's dogs,
> when he is exposed to these expressions.
>
> Of course, rational, intelligent folks,
> who respond with intellect, rather than emotion,
> can easily perceive enormous differences in stimuli,
> whereas conditioned animals
> can only perceive what they have been conditioned to.
>
> I am pleased, and flattered, that I have been able
> to conditioned some of the sci.physics sociopaths
> to think about me, and my posts,
> when they are exposed to similar stimuli.
Juicy.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Hitler.html
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
in message news:<OFB4c.32824$_F1.22...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > Then, like you suggested to Mitch Perkins, ignore it and don't
> > read my messages.
>
> I find it interesting that you suggest that I ignore your messages.
> You admit they are entirely void of any content yet you continue to
> supply them.
>
> Should I have learned that I am a clown, because you and everyone else
> in the world thinks what I have to say is gibberish? Perhaps.
>
> Here is what I think: matter, space, and time are related because they
> have an identical cause, action in the universe. Here is a formula
> consistent with that description of nature: E = Mc^2.
Unfortunately, it is actually wrong in the sense of being incomplete. It is
no more than a pop soundbite.
The expression you want is
E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4
It reduces to your emasculated version in the particular case of p = 0
There are those who say that I should have tacked a suffix 0 to the m, but I
will keep it as it is out of respect for the new notation.
> It says that
> energy is equal to mass (matter) times the speed (space and time) of
> light squared. I interpret this as "When action is present, matter
> space and time exist as a result."
>
> If my interpretation appears to be gibberish to you, then I am honored
> to be the jester of this court.
You are indeed a clown.
Franz
Tom Potter
As my pappy used to say,
"You get better information from the horses mouth,
than you do from a horses ass."
If you want comprehensive, factual information
about me, visit my web site at: http://tompotter.us
It has all kinds of information about me, my family and my thoughts.
On the other hand, if you want to understand "Dirk Van de moortel"
a good place to start would be the article by
Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD
at http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/ entitled:
"The Psychopath's Brain"
Note that sociopaths are egocentric, have shallow emotions,
lack of empathy for other human beings, are calloused, etc.
Sociopaths have irresistible compulsions to
stroke their ego's by harming people and destroying things.
Note that "Dirk Van de moortel" maintains a web site,
the sole purpose of which is to try to demean folks.
I must admit, that a few years ago,
I got pissed at a couple of posters
who attacked messengers rather than messages,
and I attacked them by name on my web site.
I got up early the next morning,
and deleted that page, as it made me feel real dirty,
and I didn't want my family and friends, to think
that I was such a petty person.
jmfb...@aol.com
I think one needs this kind of training while one has the energy
to cope. I don't see how any parent can have a project plan
and adhere to it with a time constraint.
>
>> AFAICT, the role of parenting is just waiting for the next disaster to
>>happen.
>>
>That's pretty poor parenting if that's what you do. The role of
>parenting is to, at earlier stage, to predict and prevent (to the extent
>possible) disasters and, at later stage, to give the kids the tools to
>deal with problems before (hopefully) these turn into fill fledged
>disasters. With the understanding that there are no guarantees.
Oh, good grief, Mati. That's called mess prevention. It is
not appropriate to do such things.
Gregory L. Hansen
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> AFAICT, the role of parenting is just waiting for the next disaster to
>>happen.
>>
>That's pretty poor parenting if that's what you do. The role of
>parenting is to, at earlier stage, to predict and prevent (to the extent
>possible) disasters and, at later stage, to give the kids the tools to
>deal with problems before (hopefully) these turn into fill fledged
>disasters. With the understanding that there are no guarantees.
A friend of mine has a daughter, had a wife. When the daughter was
little, she was pulling on a tablecloth, and something like a box of
Kleenex was sliding along with it. The wife said stop her, that's going
to land on her. My friend said it won't hurt her, and she'll learn not
to do that.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Bill Hobba
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04031...@posting.google.com...
in message news:<OFB4c.32824$_F1.22...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
>
> > Then, like you suggested to Mitch Perkins, ignore it and don't
> > read my messages.
>
> I find it interesting that you suggest that I ignore your messages.
> You admit they are entirely void of any content yet you continue to
> supply them.
>
> Should I have learned that I am a clown, because you and everyone else
> in the world thinks what I have to say is gibberish? Perhaps.
>
> Here is what I think: matter, space, and time are related because they
> have an identical cause, action in the universe. Here is a formula
> consistent with that description of nature: E = Mc^2. It says that
> energy is equal to mass (matter) times the speed (space and time) of
> light squared. I interpret this as "When action is present, matter
> space and time exist as a result."
Learn some physics - action has a specific technical meaning in physics - a
meaning you obviously do not know.
>
> If my interpretation appears to be gibberish to you, then I am honored
> to be the jester of this court.
Thanks
Bill
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <BlK4c.97$45.3...@news.uchicago.edu>,
>to cope.
Most certainly so. Thus, the modern trend of postponing childbirth
till later stage of life is, to put it mildly, problematic.
I don't see how any parent can have a project plan
>and adhere to it with a time constraint.
>
Only if the plan is but a general guidance, not a detailed set of
goals.
>>
>>> AFAICT, the role of parenting is just waiting for the next disaster to
>>>happen.
>>>
>>That's pretty poor parenting if that's what you do. The role of
>>parenting is to, at earlier stage, to predict and prevent (to the extent
>>possible) disasters and, at later stage, to give the kids the tools to
>>deal with problems before (hopefully) these turn into fill fledged
>>disasters. With the understanding that there are no guarantees.
>
>Oh, good grief, Mati. That's called mess prevention. It is
>not appropriate to do such things.
>
Yes, that's the modern attitude:-) Thus, we get mess.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
teacher.
Double-A
Your site experience would be even better if a person didn't have to
first spend 10 minutes downloading a complete Chinese language add-on
just for the privilege of seeing your site's error messages displayed
in Chinese!
Double-A
Tom Potter
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.04031...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for the report.
I plan to restore Earthlink as my server,
as they are more reliable.
David Evens
wrote:
>[canned spam attempting to trick people into ignoring his praise of
>the Nazis]
Still trying to evade your religious statements of the past, Potty the
Vandal?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----