I came across articles where it is reported about physicists looking to separate time from space.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-space-evidence
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-ab...sion-space.html
most interesting papers
yours albert
31 views and no comment.....strange strange
Ok it was my understanding that time was not an extension of as a 4th spatial dimension but is another "branch"of dimension - a temporal dimension. It has independantly been verified by a number of individuals that physical law which accounts for the observed behavior of physical phenomena can only be represented mathematically by 3 spatial dimensions (x,y,z) and 1 temporal dimension ( t ). If you can find a different configuration of dimensions to work with, then this is quite amazing.
QUOTE (albert2+May 5 2012, 08:48 AM)
31 views and no comment.....strange strange
Touting your bullshit as if it came from somebody as ignorant as you is pretty stupid. Amrit Sorli is a imbecile.
Touting your bullshit as if it came from somebody as ignorant as you is pretty stupid. Amrit Sorli is a imbecile.
QUOTE (brucep+May 5 2012, 05:26 PM)
Amrit Sorli is a imbecile.
Too kind.
Too kind.
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+May 5 2012, 05:37 PM)
Too kind.
Why he is allowed to maintain this charade in this forum is beyond me. The sock puppet albert2 is enough for me.
Why he is allowed to maintain this charade in this forum is beyond me. The sock puppet albert2 is enough for me.
who is amrit Sorli? just remind me?
you quite afriad of charades i see.
"Time" is actually a 'subjective' entity in my opinion.
I would have reminded this fact to Prof. Einstein, if I were present at that time!
'Space' is an objective entity; whereas 'time' is a 'subjective' entity; we subjectively perceive 'time'. But the 'rate' at which my time flows may be different from the rate at which your time may be flowing. So, to bring uniformity in our descriptions, we use an objective device known as 'clock' to communicate our experiences. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak that 'time' runs faster or slower; rather we should speak that a particular process, e.g. decay of a particular radio-active-material takes longer 'duration'. If we change both: the 'time-scale' as well as 'durations' of an event, then we can not measure anything accurately. So, we cannot describe a phenomenon accurately. So, in my opinion, just as we have agreed upon the definition of a meter: the bar kept in Paris-musium, at NTP, we should agree upon a definition of 'time' e.g. half-life of a radio-active substance at NTP, and gravitational-fieldstrength G M /R where M is mass of the earth and R radius of the earth. In short we need to 'standardise' or 'absolutize' the 'Relativity Theory' if we wish to progress faster. The starter of this page has to write this page after more than a century of Special-Relativity, because we have not 'standardized' and 'absolutized' 'distance' and 'time'. What do you think, dear reader?!
I would have reminded this fact to Prof. Einstein, if I were present at that time!
'Space' is an objective entity; whereas 'time' is a 'subjective' entity; we subjectively perceive 'time'. But the 'rate' at which my time flows may be different from the rate at which your time may be flowing. So, to bring uniformity in our descriptions, we use an objective device known as 'clock' to communicate our experiences. Therefore, it is meaningless to speak that 'time' runs faster or slower; rather we should speak that a particular process, e.g. decay of a particular radio-active-material takes longer 'duration'. If we change both: the 'time-scale' as well as 'durations' of an event, then we can not measure anything accurately. So, we cannot describe a phenomenon accurately. So, in my opinion, just as we have agreed upon the definition of a meter: the bar kept in Paris-musium, at NTP, we should agree upon a definition of 'time' e.g. half-life of a radio-active substance at NTP, and gravitational-fieldstrength G M /R where M is mass of the earth and R radius of the earth. In short we need to 'standardise' or 'absolutize' the 'Relativity Theory' if we wish to progress faster. The starter of this page has to write this page after more than a century of Special-Relativity, because we have not 'standardized' and 'absolutized' 'distance' and 'time'. What do you think, dear reader?!
OK. so you agree that time is a separate branch of dimension. so on a basis of individuality we have only two dimensions in the x,y,z have no property of distinguishablity.
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 6 2012, 09:04 AM)
who is amrit Sorli? just remind me?
Definition;- "Amrit Sorli" (Oxford Concise Dictionary)
Some codswallop merchant, ego-blown idiot and general parasitic disease of the "can you fund my 'research'" variety. Famed/hallmarked by a remarkable, galactic supercluster-magnitude ineptitude regarding discourse (tends to repeatedly spout one-line drivel, avoiding any attempts @ coherent dialogue/criticism).
Synonyms- Transparent Flim-Flam, Cretnous Assfuck & Twatferbrains.
Definition;- "Amrit Sorli" (Oxford Concise Dictionary)
Some codswallop merchant, ego-blown idiot and general parasitic disease of the "can you fund my 'research'" variety. Famed/hallmarked by a remarkable, galactic supercluster-magnitude ineptitude regarding discourse (tends to repeatedly spout one-line drivel, avoiding any attempts @ coherent dialogue/criticism).
Synonyms- Transparent Flim-Flam, Cretnous Assfuck & Twatferbrains.
Here albert2 introduces a system of clocks and asks "How to resolve this paradox" - er.. what paradox?
Here waitedavid137 analyses the first clock and albert2 ignores the analysis*, later waitedavid137 analyses the second clock and albert2 also ignores that analysis .
I am suspecting albert2 may have an IQ of 178.
-C2.
Here waitedavid137 analyses the first clock and albert2 ignores the analysis*, later waitedavid137 analyses the second clock and albert2 also ignores that analysis .
I am suspecting albert2 may have an IQ of 178.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+May 6 2012, 01:32 PM)
I am suspecting albert2 may have an IQ of 178.
-C2.
You know, I'll bet you're right.
-C2.
You know, I'll bet you're right.
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 6 2012, 09:04 AM)
who is amrit Sorli? just remind me?
One of the many orbiting the dunce stool.
The crackpot physorg article is about Amrit Sorli. He was banned from posting for constant disconnect with reality and when the forum was completely rudderless, the last 1/2 of 2011 and the first 1/4 of 2012, his sock puppet albert2 appeared. So he links the crackpot article with the article on Horava-Lifshitz gravity. Then he acts like his bullshit nonsense has an interested person. Him.
One of the many orbiting the dunce stool.
The crackpot physorg article is about Amrit Sorli. He was banned from posting for constant disconnect with reality and when the forum was completely rudderless, the last 1/2 of 2011 and the first 1/4 of 2012, his sock puppet albert2 appeared. So he links the crackpot article with the article on Horava-Lifshitz gravity. Then he acts like his bullshit nonsense has an interested person. Him.
Oh thanks Lady Elizabeth i was more looking for an actual definition for the individual rather than allowing you to vent your suppressed rage his may have caused.
I was reading last night you have developed a theory the bridges quantum mechanics with GR or SR , have i read this correctly or was it another one of my "dream-state" forum reads?
I was reading last night you have developed a theory the bridges quantum mechanics with GR or SR , have i read this correctly or was it another one of my "dream-state" forum reads?
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 6 2012, 09:57 AM)
OK. so you agree that time is a separate branch of dimension. so on a basis of individuality we have only two dimensions in the x,y,z have no property of distinguishablity.
Yes, we are able to perceive 'time', because our brain has 'memory'.
Supposing, we were not having any memory, then there were no perception of time.
With the help of 'memory' we are able to compare previous perception with the new perception. So, we are able to recognize a pattern; then we are able to predict an event; and then we learn to control events to some extent.
'Time' is a 'subjective' entity, the 'time' that our clocks show are for bringing regularity in the 'subjective' perceptions of 'time' of all the members of the society.
Einstein talked about 'stretching' of 'time'; 'time-dilation'. He should have used a term 'duration', and then told that 'duration' of a process, say decay of a particle, gets stretched. Isn't it?
More details can be found at:
http://sites.google.com/site/theultimaterealitysite
Sub-page-titled: Holistic Theory of Everything
Yes, we are able to perceive 'time', because our brain has 'memory'.
Supposing, we were not having any memory, then there were no perception of time.
With the help of 'memory' we are able to compare previous perception with the new perception. So, we are able to recognize a pattern; then we are able to predict an event; and then we learn to control events to some extent.
'Time' is a 'subjective' entity, the 'time' that our clocks show are for bringing regularity in the 'subjective' perceptions of 'time' of all the members of the society.
Einstein talked about 'stretching' of 'time'; 'time-dilation'. He should have used a term 'duration', and then told that 'duration' of a process, say decay of a particle, gets stretched. Isn't it?
More details can be found at:
http://sites.google.com/site/theultimaterealitysite
Sub-page-titled: Holistic Theory of Everything
right! but for the sake of generalisation, we need a system which accounts for this dilation relating to the "duration" of an event in a system back to equal arbitary units so that the analysis becomes independant of the source of propagation ...... relativity achieves this goal.
Regarding time there is one fundamental question: is time a mass/energy phenomenon? If yes than time is a physical dimension, if not time is exclusively a mathematical dimension. I consider time being only a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of change. In my view time is not a mass/energy phenomenon, but it has physical existence as a numerical order of change. This means mathematics has its independent existence of the human mind, mathematics is a intrinsic quantity of the physical world, but is not a mass/energy phenomena.
QUOTE (albert2+May 9 2012, 07:10 AM)
I consider time being only a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of change.
So how come we can experience it, and only in one direction?
So how come we can experience it, and only in one direction?
In which one direction ?????
where is this direction ??
where is this direction ??
QUOTE (albert2+May 9 2012, 08:28 PM)
In which one direction ?????
where is this direction ??
Birth to death.
Start to finish
beginning to the end
Alpha to omega
A to Z
Not a spacial direction but a direction of time, the "now" wave moving through, with the past, present and future times easily seen.
where is this direction ??
Birth to death.
Start to finish
beginning to the end
Alpha to omega
A to Z
Not a spacial direction but a direction of time, the "now" wave moving through, with the past, present and future times easily seen.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+May 9 2012, 08:54 PM)
Birth to death.
Start to finish
beginning to the end
Alpha to omega
A to Z
Not a spacial direction but a direction of time, the "now" wave moving through, with the past, present and future times easily seen.
clocks run in a 3D quantum vacuum, no present, no past, no future
see more on
http://www.spacelife.si/
Start to finish
beginning to the end
Alpha to omega
A to Z
Not a spacial direction but a direction of time, the "now" wave moving through, with the past, present and future times easily seen.
clocks run in a 3D quantum vacuum, no present, no past, no future
see more on
http://www.spacelife.si/
QUOTE (albert2+May 10 2012, 01:02 PM)
clocks run in a 3D quantum vacuum, no present, no past, no future
see more on
http://www.spacelife.si/
If time were purely a mathematical concept, which might make sense, then how does one explain those particles reaching earth surface from space, despite their lifetime being to short to cross that distance?
see more on
http://www.spacelife.si/
If time were purely a mathematical concept, which might make sense, then how does one explain those particles reaching earth surface from space, despite their lifetime being to short to cross that distance?
Special Relativity makes disconnecting space from time not plausible.
The problem I have is that by inference and inference only Special Relativity would seem to indicate that there should be an absolute reference frame.
Why else would the universe tell your clock to move at a different rate than any other clock.
I understand the relative nature of things and that no absolute reference frame can be observed.
There is the quantum mechanical thing as well.
To me it would seem as if events of a quantum nature do not experience time. This would suggest to me that there is an absolute reference frame where time does not move and events happen not all at the same time but @ different locations in spacial time.
The problem I have is that by inference and inference only Special Relativity would seem to indicate that there should be an absolute reference frame.
Why else would the universe tell your clock to move at a different rate than any other clock.
I understand the relative nature of things and that no absolute reference frame can be observed.
There is the quantum mechanical thing as well.
To me it would seem as if events of a quantum nature do not experience time. This would suggest to me that there is an absolute reference frame where time does not move and events happen not all at the same time but @ different locations in spacial time.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 11 2012, 04:45 AM)
Special Relativity makes disconnecting space from time not plausible.
The problem I have is that by inference and inference only Special Relativity would seem to indicate that there should be an absolute reference frame.
Why else would the universe tell your clock to move at a different rate than any other clock.
I understand the relative nature of things and that no absolute reference frame can be observed.
There is the quantum mechanical thing as well.
To me it would seem as if events of a quantum nature do not experience time. This would suggest to me that there is an absolute reference frame where time does not move and events happen not all at the same time but @ different locations in spacial time.
An examination of time
From the moment we enter this life we are in the flow of it
We measure it and we mock it,but we cannot defy it
We cannot even speed it up or slow it down
Or can we?
The problem I have is that by inference and inference only Special Relativity would seem to indicate that there should be an absolute reference frame.
Why else would the universe tell your clock to move at a different rate than any other clock.
I understand the relative nature of things and that no absolute reference frame can be observed.
There is the quantum mechanical thing as well.
To me it would seem as if events of a quantum nature do not experience time. This would suggest to me that there is an absolute reference frame where time does not move and events happen not all at the same time but @ different locations in spacial time.
An examination of time
From the moment we enter this life we are in the flow of it
We measure it and we mock it,but we cannot defy it
We cannot even speed it up or slow it down
Or can we?
QUOTE (krash661+May 11 2012, 06:20 PM)
An examination of time
From the moment we enter this life we are in the flow of it
We measure it and we mock it,but we cannot defy it
We cannot even speed it up or slow it down
Or can we?
You can speed up and/or slow the passage of time relative to something else or your point of origin by accelerating. You just can't stop it or go backward. Matter cannot move through space @ C only light can perform that trick.
Speeding up time is a bit more tricky than stopping it
From the moment we enter this life we are in the flow of it
We measure it and we mock it,but we cannot defy it
We cannot even speed it up or slow it down
Or can we?
You can speed up and/or slow the passage of time relative to something else or your point of origin by accelerating. You just can't stop it or go backward. Matter cannot move through space @ C only light can perform that trick.
Speeding up time is a bit more tricky than stopping it
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 12 2012, 04:12 AM)
You can speed up and/or slow the passage of time relative to something else or your point of origin by accelerating.
The same is true for movement though. If there were no reference point, no movement would be possible either.
The same is true for movement though. If there were no reference point, no movement would be possible either.
Actually time is not a dimension or a plane. its just an imaginary frame of reference like independent value which helps us to study observations at different intervals. if we say more scientifically then time is a record of disorders which helps us to find the disorder happening every moment. the mater of time actually came from the expansion of the universe, because the disorders are increasing. of course its true that the theme of time was before that but it wasn't engaged or studied independently.this is the second law of "Thermodynamics"
good reading at tea time
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/...-dimension.html
please do not comment before reading twice
yours albert2
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/...-dimension.html
please do not comment before reading twice
yours albert2
From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
A few quotes showing the view of the author of SR.
Note it was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time.
The light clock is simple in form, very precise, and universally consistent because light speed is constant and independent of frames. If we use a light clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same 'time' duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. In this case we only use the end points of the path, with the light path s folded inside the clock. The entire experiment only involves a sequence of events in space and memory.
No objective 'time' has yet been discovered , thus it remains subjective, especially when it varies with observer motion. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity.
That's what science does, it measures things.
A clock can be adjusted to run faster or slower but the number of non-clock events does not change nor the event rate!
It seems there's nothing to separate.
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
A few quotes showing the view of the author of SR.
Note it was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time.
The light clock is simple in form, very precise, and universally consistent because light speed is constant and independent of frames. If we use a light clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same 'time' duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. In this case we only use the end points of the path, with the light path s folded inside the clock. The entire experiment only involves a sequence of events in space and memory.
No objective 'time' has yet been discovered , thus it remains subjective, especially when it varies with observer motion. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity.
That's what science does, it measures things.
A clock can be adjusted to run faster or slower but the number of non-clock events does not change nor the event rate!
It seems there's nothing to separate.
From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
A few quotes showing the view of the author of SR.
Note it was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time.
The light clock is simple in form, very precise, and universally consistent because light speed is constant and independent of frames. If we use a light clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same 'time' duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. In this case we only use the end points of the path, with the light path s folded inside the clock. The entire experiment only involves a sequence of events in space and memory.
No objective 'time' has yet been discovered , thus it remains subjective, especially when it varies with observer motion. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity.
That's what science does, it measures things.
A clock can be adjusted to run faster or slower but the number of non-clock events does not change nor the event rate!
It seems there's nothing to separate.
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
A few quotes showing the view of the author of SR.
Note it was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time.
The light clock is simple in form, very precise, and universally consistent because light speed is constant and independent of frames. If we use a light clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same 'time' duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. In this case we only use the end points of the path, with the light path s folded inside the clock. The entire experiment only involves a sequence of events in space and memory.
No objective 'time' has yet been discovered , thus it remains subjective, especially when it varies with observer motion. It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure of activity.
That's what science does, it measures things.
A clock can be adjusted to run faster or slower but the number of non-clock events does not change nor the event rate!
It seems there's nothing to separate.
QUOTE (phyti+May 29 2012, 04:05 PM)
From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
A few quotes showing the view of the author of SR.
Note it was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time.
It seems there's nothing to separate.
This can be accepted as the 'concluding remarks'; with this, the topic has reached its generally-agreeable 'conclusion'.
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."
A few quotes showing the view of the author of SR.
Note it was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time.
It seems there's nothing to separate.
This can be accepted as the 'concluding remarks'; with this, the topic has reached its generally-agreeable 'conclusion'.
QUOTE (Hasmukh K. Tank+May 30 2012, 03:55 PM)
This can be accepted as the 'concluding remarks'; with this, the topic has reached its generally-agreeable 'conclusion'.
I agree!... but have my $.02 to add anyway.
You said, and I agree:
Yes. Clocks “tick” more slowly the faster they go... or the deeper into a ‘gravity well’.
Making “time” into ?something? that “dilates” or “stretches” is one of the two primary misconceptions behind relativity theory, along with also reifying space and then "weaving" both misconceptions together into the “fabric of spacetime”... which then gets “curved by mass” as an explanation of how gravity works. ...
...Being as fields of gravitational force generated by masses and extending beyond them was arbitrarily discarded in favor of the fantasy fabric.
No question that the math&model, the new tool of GR was an improvement over Newtonian gravity... but Newton couldn’t handle the “action at a distance” part of gravity... as an attracting field of force between masses... so Einstein and Minkowski invented “spacetime.”
Yet science refuses to even ask the (merely ontological) question, "What is it exactly that mass is supposed to curve?" Empty space (where not occupied by "stuff", obviously) and the concept of "duration" or "elapsed time" as things move?
I agree that Phyti has summed it up very clearly.
I agree!... but have my $.02 to add anyway.
You said, and I agree:
QUOTE
Einstein talked about 'stretching' of 'time'; 'time-dilation'. He should have used a term 'duration', and then told that 'duration' of a process, say decay of a particle, gets stretched. Isn't it?
Yes. Clocks “tick” more slowly the faster they go... or the deeper into a ‘gravity well’.
Making “time” into ?something? that “dilates” or “stretches” is one of the two primary misconceptions behind relativity theory, along with also reifying space and then "weaving" both misconceptions together into the “fabric of spacetime”... which then gets “curved by mass” as an explanation of how gravity works. ...
...Being as fields of gravitational force generated by masses and extending beyond them was arbitrarily discarded in favor of the fantasy fabric.
No question that the math&model, the new tool of GR was an improvement over Newtonian gravity... but Newton couldn’t handle the “action at a distance” part of gravity... as an attracting field of force between masses... so Einstein and Minkowski invented “spacetime.”
Yet science refuses to even ask the (merely ontological) question, "What is it exactly that mass is supposed to curve?" Empty space (where not occupied by "stuff", obviously) and the concept of "duration" or "elapsed time" as things move?
I agree that Phyti has summed it up very clearly.
QUOTE (mik+May 31 2012, 05:59 PM)
Making “time” into ?something? that “dilates” or “stretches” is one of the two primary misconceptions behind relativity theory, along with also reifying space and then "weaving" both misconceptions together into the “fabric of spacetime”... which then gets “curved by mass” as an explanation of how gravity works. ...
Folks,
To me, time is a property of discrete matter and it passes at rates inversely proportional to an object's speed in space. It accrues to discrete objects only and is not imposed as a so-called "fabric of space" over the universe.
Please read my essay at
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
for a truly alternative view of what time is.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.