What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
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
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 20 Jul 2010 10:07 On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > In article > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [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 I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its description. I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to provide observational correspondence. - Tim > > > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > > > Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > > > cannot fix another. > > > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > and probably havent been laid in years.
From: Huang on 20 Jul 2010 13:03
On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical > construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, > and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I > interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its > description. > > I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the > rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've > tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat > on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to > provide observational correspondence. > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > > > > Hide > > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > > > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > > > > cannot fix another. > > > > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > > > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > > > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > > and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Starting with some preliminaries: If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. Futher, I dont want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows: Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments and nonexistent segments. Planck length is the smallest unit of length which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe that this is the only correct view, but that there are several approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as [eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee] and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as [nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn] If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent. Some examples of would include an infinite number of different discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it. My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one were to attempt to make an observation. This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically intractible. So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which space may be bent by performing such operations. If it were not for this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a pretty good place to start. (a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable" as a means of conveying the broader idea. |