What are space and time?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.5: Why is P(B) or P(AB) = 2P(A) - 1 Optimal Rather than nP(A) - 1, n > 2?
Next: Quantum Gravity 400.6: Mechanical Advantage in Terms of Force, Distances, Probabilities
From: Huang on 19 Jul 2010 17:57 On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Huang wrote: > > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > >> > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with > >> > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to > >> > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower > >> > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. > > >> Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. > > > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our > > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are > > the same thing. > > > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we > > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two > > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can > > derive many things. > > [1] Relativity > > [2] HUP > > [3] WP-Duality > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > Length > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics > > > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the > > balls to hold my feet to the fire. > > How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? > > /BAH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. the bending of dimensions of time and length. I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early Christmas that's your present. You measure mass by the distortion of rulers.
From: Huang on 19 Jul 2010 21:23 On Jul 19, 4:57 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Huang wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > > >> > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with > > >> > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to > > >> > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower > > >> > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. > > > >> Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. > > > > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our > > > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are > > > the same thing. > > > > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we > > > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two > > > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can > > > derive many things. > > > [1] Relativity > > > [2] HUP > > > [3] WP-Duality > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > > Length > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics > > > > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the > > > balls to hold my feet to the fire. > > > How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? > > > /BAH- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of > gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. > the bending of dimensions of time and length. > > I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR > which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability > distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental > consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early > Christmas that's your present. > > You measure mass by the distortion of rulers.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I do believe that I just said that mass should be modellable using probability distributions, making GR compatible with QM. Not seeing any comments. Schrodingers cat got ya tongue ?
From: HVAC on 20 Jul 2010 07:24 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9a854e15-c227-423e-9e35-0544a9011aeb(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... Even if i beleived in time dilation it really would be delayed variant time units ala SR, that is not time Sam time is the nonevariant flow of change it is not the variant units that you hold so dear. I think i have to go Seto and declare PROPER TIME. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Time dilation is one of those things that you don't get a vote on. It exists. It has been observed. The observations have confirmed theory. -- "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jul 2010 07:26 Huang wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:57 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Huang wrote: >> > > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: >> >> > >> > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with >> > >> > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to >> > >> > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower >> > >> > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. >> >> > >> Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. >> >> > > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our >> > > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are >> > > the same thing. >> >> > > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we >> > > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two >> > > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can >> > > derive many things. >> > > [1] Relativity >> > > [2] HUP >> > > [3] WP-Duality >> > > [4] A correct understanding of causality >> > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime >> > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck >> > > Length >> > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder >> > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics >> >> > > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the >> > > balls to hold my feet to the fire. >> >> > How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? >> >> > /BAH- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of >> gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. >> the bending of dimensions of time and length. >> >> I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR >> which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability >> distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental >> consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early >> Christmas that's your present. >> >> You measure mass by the distortion of rulers.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > I do believe that I just said that mass should be modellable using > probability distributions, No, you didn't just say that. > making GR compatible with QM. You have claimed that everything can be described using only space and time. So I've asked you to describe mass using only those two entities so that a mass can be measured in a lab. > > Not seeing any comments. Schrodingers cat got ya tongue ? All word salad and no action. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jul 2010 07:26
Huang wrote: > On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> Huang wrote: >> > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: >> >> >> > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with >> >> > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to >> >> > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower >> >> > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. >> >> >> Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. >> >> > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our >> > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are >> > the same thing. >> >> > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we >> > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two >> > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can >> > derive many things. >> > [1] Relativity >> > [2] HUP >> > [3] WP-Duality >> > [4] A correct understanding of causality >> > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime >> > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck >> > Length >> > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder >> > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics >> >> > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the >> > balls to hold my feet to the fire. >> >> How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? >> >> /BAH- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of > gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. > the bending of dimensions of time and length. So define it, without all the word salad, so that a person can calculate using a measurement. > > I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR > which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability > distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental > consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early > Christmas that's your present. > > You measure mass by the distortion of rulers. How do you measure the distortion of the ruler? You still have not answered the question about how you physically measure mass with a ruler. /BAH |