The Dimension of Time
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity Researcher: Increase Your Research Productivity with the Leading Web 2.0 Research Portal
Next: Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 23:08 On 22 Dec, 01:06, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > Incidentally, what do you think of this hypothesis: light moves only > > in three dimensions, not four, > > Everything does .. as movement is, by definition, a change in spatial > dimension of a period of time No it isn't by definition. Anyway, we'll refer to "pime" from now on. Pime = 4th dimension. Time = something else with which we need not concern ourselves. > > and that 4 dimensions are only required > > to describe the behaviour of matter? > > Except light takes time to travel No it doesn't. The speed of light is constant. Light does not move through pime. > > I'm sure you'll agree that it's a > > hypothesis that immediately explains why light always propagates at a > > constant speed. > > No .. it does not .. it's really a nonsense as you have expressed it. And > it would mean light would not travel anywhere (or rather would travel > instantly, so would simultaneously be everywhere at once) It would mean neither. It would mean light travels across space, but it does not travel through pime. No matter what the frame of reference, the time it takes for light to travel through space remains constant. Therefore, light does not move through pime.
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 23:09 On 22 Dec, 01:09, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> Science is not about proof, but disproof. We make guesses as to how > >> Nature will behave, then we find out how good our guesses were. How > >> can we disprove your idea? What features would you expect to see, > >> that differ from other models of time? > > > What can I disprove? Well, what have you got? We have the irresolvable > > paradoxes of the existing model of time. > > What paradoxes? If you mean the so-called 'paradoxes' of relativity (like > the twins paradox) .. they are not paradoxes at all .. just > counter-intuitive examples that 'resolve' when relativity is applied > correctly. They are teaching / learning aids. > > > Then what are the remaining > > problems in physics between what we can observe, and what we can't > > explain with a unified theory? Gravity, perhaps? > > > Perhaps I should turn my hand to theoretical physics after all, > > because I've turned them to pretty much everything else. > > You'd need a different approach than your current approach to do so. At the > moment you are just discussing philosophy (metaphysics). And you'll need to > understand more clearly what physics currently does say about time and > space. As I say, the reading I've done suggests that I've independently discovered what is currently a big issue in physics; namely, the nature of time, and why people refuse to accept that we are not moving in the 4th dimension when at rest.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 23:30 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e6088b0c-a8d7-4226-acb9-afd99dee9ea1(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 01:09, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> Science is not about proof, but disproof. We make guesses as to how >> >> Nature will behave, then we find out how good our guesses were. How >> >> can we disprove your idea? What features would you expect to see, >> >> that differ from other models of time? >> >> > What can I disprove? Well, what have you got? We have the irresolvable >> > paradoxes of the existing model of time. >> >> What paradoxes? If you mean the so-called 'paradoxes' of relativity >> (like >> the twins paradox) .. they are not paradoxes at all .. just >> counter-intuitive examples that 'resolve' when relativity is applied >> correctly. They are teaching / learning aids. >> >> > Then what are the remaining >> > problems in physics between what we can observe, and what we can't >> > explain with a unified theory? Gravity, perhaps? >> >> > Perhaps I should turn my hand to theoretical physics after all, >> > because I've turned them to pretty much everything else. >> >> You'd need a different approach than your current approach to do so. At >> the >> moment you are just discussing philosophy (metaphysics). And you'll need >> to >> understand more clearly what physics currently does say about time and >> space. > > As I say, the reading I've done suggests that I've independently > discovered what is currently a big issue in physics; namely, the > nature of time, That's only been a big issue for physics and philosophy for as long as there has been physics and philosophy. Welcome to civilization. > and why people refuse to accept that we are not moving > in the 4th dimension when at rest. Because we ARE "moving" in the 4th dimension when at rest (as much as we are when we are not at rest). The notion of 'at rest' is dependent on one' frame of reference .. there is no absolute 'rest' .. everything is in motion relative to something else. People will not accept what is clearly not true (well, the rational one's, which are few and far between in this newsgroup)
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 23:36 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:99ff6b4c-91cc-4bea-8897-2b92e07b582b(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 01:06, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Incidentally, what do you think of this hypothesis: light moves only >> > in three dimensions, not four, >> >> Everything does .. as movement is, by definition, a change in spatial >> dimension of a period of time > > No it isn't by definition. Yes .. it is > Anyway, we'll refer to "pime" from now on. I don't really care what you call it. Movement, by definition is a change (in spatial dimensions) over time. You cannot sensibly talk of movement in time (or "pime"). > Pime = 4th dimension. Time = something else with which we need not > concern ourselves. Its the same thing >> > and that 4 dimensions are only required >> > to describe the behaviour of matter? >> >> Except light takes time to travel > > No it doesn't. Wrong > The speed of light is constant. yes .. and it is finite. It takes time to travel > Light does not move > through pime. 'Move' makes no sense in terms of pime or time. There are different 'pime' coordinates for when light is emitted and when it is received. That is 'moving' in the 'pime' dimension as much as anything else 'moves' >> > I'm sure you'll agree that it's a >> > hypothesis that immediately explains why light always propagates at a >> > constant speed. >> >> No .. it does not .. it's really a nonsense as you have expressed it. >> And >> it would mean light would not travel anywhere (or rather would travel >> instantly, so would simultaneously be everywhere at once) > > It would mean neither. Yes .. it would > It would mean light travels across space, but > it does not travel through pime. But it does. As much as it makes sense to talk about 'travel' through pime (as again, travel is a work that means a change over time) > No matter what the frame of > reference, the time it takes for light to travel through space remains > constant. Yes .. and it is not zero > Therefore, light does not move through pime. No .. it is the same 'movement' for all observers. It is not zero. It would take the same ZERO time for all observers if it did not 'move' through 'pime'. You really haven't thought this through well.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 23:39
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:86893142-99ad-4593-9ec5-6419e72660b0(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 01:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > I'm convinced after tens of hours of contemplation in total, and no >> > prior training in physics, that we must throw out the assumption of >> > constant movement forward in time. And if that sounds ludicrous, then >> > that is why I want someone to tell me why I'm wrong. >> >> Do you think physics says the the "movement in time" is constant? If so, >> you've not really understood physics > > Obviously I don't think that, But you just said it. If that is not what you think physics says, don't say that it is. > because throughout this thread I've > referred to "movement along the 4th dimension". Except above where you said "constant movement forward in time" > What I am challenging > is that we are constantly moving forward in time *at all*. So get rid of the word 'constant' if that is not what you mean you want to challenge the notion of "moving forward in time". Whatever that actually means (which is not clear). |