Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: Tim BandTech.com on 4 Aug 2010 10:20 On Aug 3, 9:27 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Here's the argument in favor of applying the Equivalence principle > directly to distortions of spacetime. Please destroy my argument at > any step, I will enumerate the key ideas. > > [1] The equivalence principle can be applied to experiments with > stationary observer and rocket ship. > > [2] The stationary observer has it's own gravitational field. > > [3] The rocket ship has it's own gravitational field. > > [4] It is absurd that the Equivalence Principle would apply to the > rocket or obsever but not the associated gravitational fields. > > [5] Therefore, the equivalence principle must also apply to > gravitational fields because they are component to the Einsteins own > gedanken experiments. > > [6] Hence Equivalence Principle applies to chunks of bent space which > move relative to each other, and > > [7] should also be applicable to cosmic expansion / contraction > because it's a motion no different than any other > > So that's my story and Im stickin to it. Anyone want a piece of this > please step up and hit me with ya best shot. The isotropic assumption is flawed. Hey Huang, I posted some content on http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/2ac6c58e7cb109d5/4706f0e93a7ba78a (Subject: What are space and time?) and was hoping to hear back from you. In this thread there is the title question that can be taken in its rawest form. The answer is yes, but that the dimensional nature of space with its discrete encryption will not go away. Let's simply construct with paper, which we regard as a 2D media, though I think we all accept that our paper exists in 3D space, or worse yet 4D spacetime, where I begin to disagree on the assumption of isotropic behavior, which the tensor demands. Anyway, plunk down an origin at the center of a piece of paper. Make a straight cut from the edge of the paper to this center point. Now, reduce the angular content of the paper by overlapping it at this cut: you will have constructed a cone. This cone space is arguably still 2D, yet has less space in it than we started with, and can now be addressed from that origin with less than two pi of angle. We can likewise insert angle at the cut, and it turns out we can insert as much angle as we like, so that you could construct a four plane for instance with eight pi of angle to address. I have one of these on my wall and it is a nice toy, though it's been a while since I've played with it. The dust on this construction is growing thick. There is no reason that this construction cannot be carried out on 3D space, though like the paper I believe it will have to exist in a 4D container. There is the strange restriction also that these free spaces have a singularity at their origin, where their gaussian curvature is undefined, but are otherwise flat spaces capable of ray tracing and so forth. This construction sits ready for a young mind to leverage it. It has been sitting at my website for some time: http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html I haven't honestly found that it is good for much other than as an eye opener onto folding space, which can be gotten from ray construction techniques. Simply take two rays at a small angle and we have constructed a 2D sector. The angle is irrelevant to representations within it. This is a start to nonorthogonal representation, and if you choose to use multiple sectors as a means of multidimensional representation then some interesting patterns come up. This data is arguable planar, though structured. The funny thing is that if you take polysign seriously then these graphs are zero dimensionally constructed, so that they are in conflict with existing math. The one thing I do feel comfortable with is that the ray is more fundamental than the line. There may still be some false assumptions that lay buried within our image processing routines. - Tim
From: PD on 4 Aug 2010 10:20 On Aug 3, 4:02 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:49 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 6:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe. If you can have > > > > > > > > > centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. > > > > > > > > > > Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", > > > > > > > > > so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". > > > > > > > > > That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > > > > > > > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > > > > > > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > > > > > > > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > > > > > > > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > > > > > > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless. > > > > > > > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > > > > > > > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > > > > > > > Please. Stop with the gobbledygook. > > > > > > The Principle of Relativity does NOT mean "everything is relative". > > > > > > The Principle of Equivalence does NOT mean "opposite things are > > > > > > equivalent." > > > > > > > You can babble if you want. I just don't recommend that you attach > > > > > > buzz phrases from pulp physics to the babbling. It will only put folks > > > > > > off.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > So, the only time we can apply the Equivalence Principle is when we > > > > > are looking at rectilinear motion. Cant apply it to anything else > > > > > except trains and rockets. > > > > > Nor did I say that. > > > > You, the fuzzy logic champion, seem to veer quite dramatically from > > > > Black to White. > > > > "Well, if it means more than trains and rockets, then I can say it > > > > means whatever I want, can't I?" > > > > > > Ahem - > > > > > > Space is a "physical thing". And whenever two physical things are in > > > > > motion with respect to each other, relativity must apply. > > > > > No, sir. This again is gobbledygook. > > > > > > If one > > > > > region of space (which is a thing) appears to be in motion relative to > > > > > another, then I see no reason why these principles wouldnt apply.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Surely you would concede that expansion of space qualifies as "motion" > > > of something. Something must be in motion, otherwise the concept of > > > expansion is just vacuous. > > > > If the universe were 1-dimensional, then it might be easier to see > > > that something must be in motion. > > > > Are we now arguing that something such as space can expand and that > > > there was no motion involved in this process ? Doesn't that seem a bit > > > contradictory ? > > > First of all, the principle of relativity does not apply to any old > > kind of motion. Nor does the principle of equivalence. > > Secondly, there IS a difference between something moving from one > > coordinate in space to another coordinate in space, and the metric of > > space itself changing. > > > Rather than muddling through with loose interpretations of terms that > > are in fact carefully defined and delineated, don't you think it would > > be beneficial if you actually learned some of the careful delineations > > and definitions? > > > Or is it more fun for you to just babble in free-association style, > > hoping that you can defend some loose connection between your thinking > > and what physics means by these things? > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There's more than one way to skin the cat, and as some of those ways > are equivalent. Has to be. > > All Im suggesting is that there is a maximal segment of time allowable > by physics, and suggesting a way to estimate what it is. Age of > universe based on big bang, added to time we've got left until the big > crunch. What's the rationale that there is even going to be a big crunch? Is your rationale the fact that you heard it on TV some time ago? > That would yield a cosmic counterpart to Planck Time, the > maximal segment of time possible given contemporary physics.' It's only a counterpart in the sense that you would arbitrarily pair a minimum with a maximum. But this is like pairing a virus with a blue whale and implying that they must be related. > > I would actually calculate the time left until the big crunch based on > a contracting spacetime, which I consider equivalent to an expanding > one. > > I dont really know where I might have muddled any definitions in that, > but your perfectly welcome to criticize anyhting I say because frankly > I have a certain amount of confidence that it's a worthwhile idea. > Whether correct or not I do not know, but then again Im not the one > funding things such as SETI am I. That's true, and so now I understand your gambit. You perceive a lot of the research that is being done (like SETI) to be pointless diddling exercises without real rationale or clear thought. If they had a rationale or clear thought behind them, you tell yourself, then you would understand and endorse the projects. But since you don't, then they must not have a well-considered justification. That being said, you figure that you are just as entitled to engage in a similar, pointless, diddling exercise without much in the way of a well-considered justification or clear rationale. And so you toss in your barely baked ideas, imagining that they must be at least as baked as some of the other things you've seen in the news. Perhaps you can get your slice of notoriety by tossing your barely baked contribution into the ring. > > Raises one eyebrow. > > ?.
From: PD on 4 Aug 2010 10:22 On Aug 3, 8:27 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Here's the argument in favor of applying the Equivalence principle > directly to distortions of spacetime. Please destroy my argument at > any step, I will enumerate the key ideas. [0] What do you think the equivalence principle says, exactly? Put it in the context of the observer in a spaceship, if you like. > > [1] The equivalence principle can be applied to experiments with > stationary observer and rocket ship. > > [2] The stationary observer has it's own gravitational field. > > [3] The rocket ship has it's own gravitational field. > > [4] It is absurd that the Equivalence Principle would apply to the > rocket or obsever but not the associated gravitational fields. > > [5] Therefore, the equivalence principle must also apply to > gravitational fields because they are component to the Einsteins own > gedanken experiments. > > [6] Hence Equivalence Principle applies to chunks of bent space which > move relative to each other, and > > [7] should also be applicable to cosmic expansion / contraction > because it's a motion no different than any other > > So that's my story and Im stickin to it. Anyone want a piece of this > please step up and hit me with ya best shot.
From: Huang on 4 Aug 2010 14:21 On Aug 4, 9:20 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 9:27 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Here's the argument in favor of applying the Equivalence principle > > directly to distortions of spacetime. Please destroy my argument at > > any step, I will enumerate the key ideas. > > > [1] The equivalence principle can be applied to experiments with > > stationary observer and rocket ship. > > > [2] The stationary observer has it's own gravitational field. > > > [3] The rocket ship has it's own gravitational field. > > > [4] It is absurd that the Equivalence Principle would apply to the > > rocket or obsever but not the associated gravitational fields. > > > [5] Therefore, the equivalence principle must also apply to > > gravitational fields because they are component to the Einsteins own > > gedanken experiments. > > > [6] Hence Equivalence Principle applies to chunks of bent space which > > move relative to each other, and > > > [7] should also be applicable to cosmic expansion / contraction > > because it's a motion no different than any other > > > So that's my story and Im stickin to it. Anyone want a piece of this > > please step up and hit me with ya best shot. > > The isotropic assumption is flawed. > > Hey Huang, I posted some content onhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/2ac6c... > (Subject: What are space and time?) > and was hoping to hear back from you. > > In this thread there is the title question that can be taken in its > rawest form. > The answer is yes, but that the dimensional nature of space with its > discrete encryption will not go away. > > Let's simply construct with paper, which we regard as a 2D media, > though I think we all accept that our paper exists in 3D space, or > worse yet 4D spacetime, where I begin to disagree on the assumption of > isotropic behavior, which the tensor demands. > > Anyway, plunk down an origin at the center of a piece of paper. Make a > straight cut from the edge of the paper to this center point. Now, > reduce the angular content of the paper by overlapping it at this cut: > you will have constructed a cone. This cone space is arguably still > 2D, yet has less space in it than we started with, and can now be > addressed from that origin with less than two pi of angle. > > We can likewise insert angle at the cut, and it turns out we can > insert as much angle as we like, so that you could construct a four > plane for instance with eight pi of angle to address. I have one of > these on my wall and it is a nice toy, though it's been a while since > I've played with it. The dust on this construction is growing thick. > > There is no reason that this construction cannot be carried out on 3D > space, though like the paper I believe it will have to exist in a 4D > container. There is the strange restriction also that these free > spaces have a singularity at their origin, where their gaussian > curvature is undefined, but are otherwise flat spaces capable of ray > tracing and so forth. > > This construction sits ready for a young mind to leverage it. It has > been sitting at my website for some time: > http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html > > I haven't honestly found that it is good for much other than as an eye > opener onto folding space, which can be gotten from ray construction > techniques. Simply take two rays at a small angle and we have > constructed a 2D sector. The angle is irrelevant to representations > within it. This is a start to nonorthogonal representation, and if you > choose to use multiple sectors as a means of multidimensional > representation then some interesting patterns come up. This data is > arguable planar, though structured. The funny thing is that if you > take polysign seriously then these graphs are zero dimensionally > constructed, so that they are in conflict with existing math. The one > thing I do feel comfortable with is that the ray is more fundamental > than the line. There may still be some false assumptions that lay > buried within our image processing routines. > > - Tim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Been very busy working on some small business related things but will take a look and try to answer - sorry for not seeing this earlier.
From: Huang on 4 Aug 2010 14:26
On Aug 4, 9:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 4:02 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 2:49 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 2, 6:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe. If you can have > > > > > > > > > > centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. > > > > > > > > > > > Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", > > > > > > > > > > so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > > > > > > > > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > > > > > > > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > > > > > > > > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > > > > > > > > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > > > > > > > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless.. > > > > > > > > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > > > > > > > > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > > > > > > > > Please. Stop with the gobbledygook. > > > > > > > The Principle of Relativity does NOT mean "everything is relative". > > > > > > > The Principle of Equivalence does NOT mean "opposite things are > > > > > > > equivalent." > > > > > > > > You can babble if you want. I just don't recommend that you attach > > > > > > > buzz phrases from pulp physics to the babbling. It will only put folks > > > > > > > off.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > So, the only time we can apply the Equivalence Principle is when we > > > > > > are looking at rectilinear motion. Cant apply it to anything else > > > > > > except trains and rockets. > > > > > > Nor did I say that. > > > > > You, the fuzzy logic champion, seem to veer quite dramatically from > > > > > Black to White. > > > > > "Well, if it means more than trains and rockets, then I can say it > > > > > means whatever I want, can't I?" > > > > > > > Ahem - > > > > > > > Space is a "physical thing". And whenever two physical things are in > > > > > > motion with respect to each other, relativity must apply. > > > > > > No, sir. This again is gobbledygook. > > > > > > > If one > > > > > > region of space (which is a thing) appears to be in motion relative to > > > > > > another, then I see no reason why these principles wouldnt apply.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Surely you would concede that expansion of space qualifies as "motion" > > > > of something. Something must be in motion, otherwise the concept of > > > > expansion is just vacuous. > > > > > If the universe were 1-dimensional, then it might be easier to see > > > > that something must be in motion. > > > > > Are we now arguing that something such as space can expand and that > > > > there was no motion involved in this process ? Doesn't that seem a bit > > > > contradictory ? > > > > First of all, the principle of relativity does not apply to any old > > > kind of motion. Nor does the principle of equivalence. > > > Secondly, there IS a difference between something moving from one > > > coordinate in space to another coordinate in space, and the metric of > > > space itself changing. > > > > Rather than muddling through with loose interpretations of terms that > > > are in fact carefully defined and delineated, don't you think it would > > > be beneficial if you actually learned some of the careful delineations > > > and definitions? > > > > Or is it more fun for you to just babble in free-association style, > > > hoping that you can defend some loose connection between your thinking > > > and what physics means by these things? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > There's more than one way to skin the cat, and as some of those ways > > are equivalent. Has to be. > > > All Im suggesting is that there is a maximal segment of time allowable > > by physics, and suggesting a way to estimate what it is. Age of > > universe based on big bang, added to time we've got left until the big > > crunch. > > What's the rationale that there is even going to be a big crunch? > Is your rationale the fact that you heard it on TV some time ago? > > > That would yield a cosmic counterpart to Planck Time, the > > maximal segment of time possible given contemporary physics.' > > It's only a counterpart in the sense that you would arbitrarily pair a > minimum with a maximum. > But this is like pairing a virus with a blue whale and implying that > they must be related. > > > > > I would actually calculate the time left until the big crunch based on > > a contracting spacetime, which I consider equivalent to an expanding > > one. > > > I dont really know where I might have muddled any definitions in that, > > but your perfectly welcome to criticize anyhting I say because frankly > > I have a certain amount of confidence that it's a worthwhile idea. > > Whether correct or not I do not know, but then again Im not the one > > funding things such as SETI am I. > > That's true, and so now I understand your gambit. > You perceive a lot of the research that is being done (like SETI) to > be pointless diddling exercises without real rationale or clear > thought. If they had a rationale or clear thought behind them, you > tell yourself, then you would understand and endorse the projects. But > since you don't, then they must not have a well-considered > justification. That being said, you figure that you are just as > entitled to engage in a similar, pointless, diddling exercise without > much in the way of a well-considered justification or clear rationale. > And so you toss in your barely baked ideas, imagining that they must > be at least as baked as some of the other things you've seen in the > news. Perhaps you can get your slice of notoriety by tossing your > barely baked contribution into the ring. > > > > > > > Raises one eyebrow. > > > ?.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I was only joking about SETI. Personally I tend to believe that indeed we are not the only living things in this universe. It's not very reasonable to think that we are alone. But the justification for a big crunch would be the idea that we are contracting away form space, causing redshift. Certainly we can only contract just so far until we are no more. If cosmic contraction and expansion are equivalent, then you have a big bang and a big crunch, the time to go from big bang to big crunch would be the maximal time segment allowable under physics. |