3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Physics]
|
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 17:09 BURT wrote: >> What flows? > > Energy flows while in motion through space. Hmm, but energy is conserved, tho. > But sometimes the energy flow is simply an appearence of > you passing something it while moving through space Ok, that is gravity. When you consider things like moving cars tho, not moving galaxy centres with a few million sun masses, the gravity is fully negligible.
From: Thomas Heger on 9 May 2010 18:03 Tim BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: >>> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: >>>> Thomas Heger schrieb: >>>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or >>>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. >>> I'm sure there is some more apt quote... >> Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on >> mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. >> >> You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, >> so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would >> a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics? > > I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in > that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does > indeed observe differently than the others. The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see, because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance we could see this and our worldline would be visible. The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the same, but different parts are visible and we would see different configurations of the same things. Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant, because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our impression only and does not represent something 'real'. So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general. This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us to complex four-vectors. Greetings Thomas
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 10 May 2010 09:57 On May 9, 6:03 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tim BandTech.com schrieb: > > > > > On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > >>> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >>>> Thomas Heger schrieb: > >>>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or > >>>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. > >>> I'm sure there is some more apt quote... > >> Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on > >> mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. > > >> You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, > >> so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would > >> a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics? > > > I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in > > that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does > > indeed observe differently than the others. > > The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in > this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is > possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see, > because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance > we could see this and our worldline would be visible. > The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we > could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote > spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different > impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our > view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every > single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the > same, but different parts are visible and we would see different > configurations of the same things. > Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant, > because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our > impression only and does not represent something 'real'. > So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at > imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real > numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general. > This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us > to complex four-vectors. > > Greetings > > Thomas Well, I don't believe there is even any need to use the moon within the argument. We are not just in an inertial reference frame. We are in a rotational reference frame. This is a restriction of the relativity theory that perhaps should not come later. I believe it is standard mathematics to treat rotation as translation but the opposite is also possible, particularly through the usage of purely spherical systems, which is nearby to Riemann. Here is a tantalizing quote "I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of constructing the notion of a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It will follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of different measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular case of a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary consequence that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general notions of magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other con- ceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from experience. Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from which the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from the nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be several systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure- relations of spacethe most important system for our present purpose being that which Euclid has laid down as a foundation." - http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still, until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental. - Tim
From: Karl Heinz on 10 May 2010 10:59 Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: The spacetime is a (abstract) phase space, or state space, its not the physical space that represents the real world. > Here is a tantalizing quote "I have in the first place... > ... > but that the properties which distinguish space from other > conceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced > from experience Well, for instance, the 3d space (not just the spacetime) might be curved, which was investigated by Gauss, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_egregium and which indeed can only be deduced from experience. > The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four > directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that > the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the > reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of > time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of > the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime > does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still, > until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than > of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where > magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of > generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental. Initially I just wanted to mention this simple statement: While different observers might see total different views of a physical scene or situation, for instance take the abberation, so is there still one and the same physical situation with one physics, which just means that for instance one and the same body or object cannot have a different shape or energy at the same (proper) time. It is clear, that an object might appear differen from different (space-time) distances.
From: Thomas Heger on 10 May 2010 16:04
Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 9, 6:03 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tim BandTech.com schrieb: >> >> >> >>> On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: >>>> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: >>>>> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: >>>>>> Thomas Heger schrieb: >>>>>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or >>>>>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. >>>>> I'm sure there is some more apt quote... >>>> Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on >>>> mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. >>>> You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, >>>> so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would >>>> a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics? >>> I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in >>> that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does >>> indeed observe differently than the others. >> The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in >> this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is >> possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see, >> because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance >> we could see this and our worldline would be visible. >> The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we >> could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote >> spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different >> impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our >> view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every >> single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the >> same, but different parts are visible and we would see different >> configurations of the same things. >> Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant, >> because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our >> impression only and does not represent something 'real'. >> So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at >> imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real >> numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general. >> This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us >> to complex four-vectors. >> >> Greetings >> >> Thomas > > Well, I don't believe there is even any need to use the moon within > the argument. > We are not just in an inertial reference frame. > We are in a rotational reference frame. > This is a restriction of the relativity theory that perhaps should not > come later. > I believe it is standard mathematics to treat rotation as translation > but the opposite is also possible, particularly through the usage of > purely spherical systems, which is nearby to Riemann. Here is a > tantalizing quote > "I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of > constructing the notion of > a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It > will > follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of > different > measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular > case of > a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary > consequence > that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general > notions of > magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other > con- > ceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from > experience. > Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from > which > the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from > the > nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be > several > systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure- > relations of > space�the most important system for our present purpose being that > which > Euclid has laid down as a foundation." > - http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf > > The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four > directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that > the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the > reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of > time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of > the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime > does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still, > until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than > of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where > magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of > generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental. > > - Tim Hi Tim Riemann used the German term "Gr��e", what can have different translations in English like (mainly) size, or value or magnitude. Or it can address a parameter or a variable in a function. This text of Riemann is more mathematical than physical and leaves out time, as you wrote. Personally I didn't like it too much, but quantum-physicists seemingly like it, because a lot of their 'lingo' could have the origin in this text. Euclid's space is 'predefined', what means a line is an entity and would exist in an instant. Could be, that certain lines would exist without time, but as space is defined over light, our usual (observed) space isn't instantaneous. So, Euclidean space is not a good description of reality, but of our view. My idea was, that light is only a special case of interactions and that it would be emitted in opposite directions, what would lead to a cone (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant, what would look static. Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could not be one-dimensional. Greetings Thomas |