Prev: Gravitation is not geometrical
Next: Cranks on the endangered species list
From: eric gisse on 5 Dec 2008 12:29
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), Albertito
<albertito1992(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

One cannot help but wonder why you are abandoning Minkowski
space-time, which possesses a well defined notion of "past" and
"future", for Newtonian space-time which makes no such distinction.
From: Daryl McCullough on 5 Dec 2008 12:49
eric gisse says...
>
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), Albertito
><albertito1992(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>One cannot help but wonder why you are abandoning Minkowski
>space-time, which possesses a well defined notion of "past" and
>"future", for Newtonian space-time which makes no such distinction.

Why do you say that? In Newtonian spacetime, for two events e1 and e2
either (1) e1 comes before e2, (2) e2 comes before e1, or (3) e1 and
e2 are simultaneous. In Minkowsky spacetime, there are also three
possibilities: (1) e1 is in the backwards light cone of e2,
(2) e2 is in the backwards light cone of e1, or (3) e1 and e2 are
spacelike separated. In case (3), whether they are simultaneous
or not is reference-frame dependent.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

From: eric gisse on 5 Dec 2008 14:49
On 5 Dec 2008 09:49:39 -0800, stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

>eric gisse says...
>>
>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), Albertito
>><albertito1992(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>One cannot help but wonder why you are abandoning Minkowski
>>space-time, which possesses a well defined notion of "past" and
>>"future", for Newtonian space-time which makes no such distinction.
>
>Why do you say that? In Newtonian spacetime, for two events e1 and e2
>either (1) e1 comes before e2, (2) e2 comes before e1, or (3) e1 and
>e2 are simultaneous. In Minkowsky spacetime, there are also three
>possibilities: (1) e1 is in the backwards light cone of e2,
>(2) e2 is in the backwards light cone of e1, or (3) e1 and e2 are
>spacelike separated. In case (3), whether they are simultaneous
>or not is reference-frame dependent.

As I recall, the only consistent way to define Newtonian space-time is
on constant time slices. Hard to have temporal ordering when time
never changes.

Which of course doesn't address the larger issue of the universe being
Lorentzian as opposed to Newtonian...

From: eric gisse on 5 Dec 2008 14:52
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:06:11 -0800 (PST), Albertito
<albertito1992(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 5, 5:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:47:41 -0800 (PST), Albertito<albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> One cannot help but wonder why you are abandoning Minkowski
>> space-time, which possesses a well defined notion of "past" and
>> "future", for Newtonian space-time which makes no such distinction.
>
>Hi Eric,
>
>The motivation for abandoning Minkowski spacetime is clear,

Yeah - you hate relativity and will say anything, no matter how
absurd, if you think it will replace it.

>I want to put space and time at the same footing. And,

They already are.

ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

>by doing that, past and future lose their standard meanings,
>because a real physical universe has neither past nor future,
>but only present. Then, time becomes relative as space, when
>you measure distances and time intervals. The model I'm
>proposing in this thread is not exactly a Newtonian spacetime,
>but a complixified Euclidean 3-d space, where absolute time
>does not exist. Absolute time is replaced by a two-fold symmetry,
>and a time interval arises naturally as the distance between two
>temporal points.

Except Newtonian spacetime takes place on Euclid, and your latest
asinine little idea doesn't.

Model Compton scattering, and get back to us. Or create another stupid
idea - whichever works for you.
From: Daryl McCullough on 5 Dec 2008 15:38
eric gisse says...

>As I recall, the only consistent way to define Newtonian space-time is
>on constant time slices. Hard to have temporal ordering when time
>never changes.

No, that's not true. I think what you might be thinking is that
there is no *metric* except for events that are on the same
time-slice. But you can have a perfectly good manifold without
having a metric.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Gravitation is not geometrical
Next: Cranks on the endangered species list