Spaces: Logic and illogic in SRT / GRT.
In SRT 4D is: ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - d^z^2.
What is 4D in the Nature ?
When 4D curved we have new D.
What is new D in the Nature ?
One comment:
Your English is not clear to me.
In both special relativity theory, and general relativity,
there are four dimensions. We use the symbols x, y, z, and t.
When these four dimensions are curved, we still have four
dimensions, we do NOT have a new dimension
/ Morningf /
==============.
I try to understand situation. Am I mistaken?
1.
In SRT 4D is: ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - d^z^2.
What is 4D in the Nature ? Nobody knows.
2.
But if we put mass in 4D - then 4D will curved.
Question: Will all continuum 4D be curved or
only small, local part of it ?
3.
What experiment says?
The experiment says: near a big concentration of mass
( like our Sun ) the space is curved.
But in the beginning we decided to put the mass in 4D.
And a bit later we forgot this decision and
started to say, we don’t know that the 4D in the Nature.
So, in my opinion our Sun must be in 4D .
4.
But what is 4D in the Universe ?
4D is Space between billion and billion stars and galactic.
The whole mass of these billion and billion stars and
galactic are very few. They cannot produce effect of Gravity
in the whole Universe. They can produce effect of Gravity
only in the small, local part of the whole Universe.
4D is the Vacuum (spacetime).
Vacuum is some kind of Energy space in the condition T=0K.
And when 4D (spacetime) curved we will have a new small,
local D (space and time).
New D in the Universe is some star ( like our Sun ),
or some planet (like our Earth ).
========== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
================.
Comment 2.
When 4D curved we have new D.
Not necessarily. Take a piece of paper and put a
rectangular grid. That is the 2D euclidean space.
Now take another piece of paper and make something
like a rectangluar grid, but use wavey lines, and make the
boxes between the lines bigger on some parts of the paper
than on others. This is a case where there is a nonzero curvature
in 2D, because the grid is now the natural coordinate system.
> What is new D in the Nature ?
There doesn't have to be any "new D". The curvature
refers to the notion that the natural coordinate frame in
(t,x,y,z) has distances shorter and the clock speeding up
or slowing down, but where it is not possible for an observer
to see the effect locally.
/ by John Stockwell /
====================.
When 4D curved we have new D.
Not necessarily. Take a piece of paper and put a
rectangular grid. That is the 2D euclidean space.
Now take another piece of paper and make something
like a rectangluar grid, but use wavey lines, and make the
boxes between the lines bigger on some parts of the paper
than on others. This is a case where there is a nonzero curvature
in 2D, because the grid is now the natural coordinate system.
> What is new D in the Nature ?
There doesn't have to be any "new D". The curvature
refers to the notion that the natural coordinate frame in
(t,x,y,z) has distances shorter and the clock speeding up
or slowing down, but where it is not possible for an observer
to see the effect locally.
/ by John Stockwell /
====================.
you are correct but who are you debating with? noone said its wrong, did they?
QUOTE (Factfinder+Apr 14 2010, 06:43 AM)
you are correct but who are you debating with?
noone said its wrong, did they?
Excuse me Mr. Factfinder
How can I be correct, if in every book and encyclopedia
we can read: 4D is only Minkowski light cone ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
In its place ( the light cone !!!) , we have the
Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime.
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIG.../minkowski.html
They say: In the Nature we cannot find 4D.
You cannot find book where is written: 4D is Vacuum.
How can I be correct ?
===============================.
Socratus
noone said its wrong, did they?
Excuse me Mr. Factfinder
How can I be correct, if in every book and encyclopedia
we can read: 4D is only Minkowski light cone ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
In its place ( the light cone !!!) , we have the
Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime.
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIG.../minkowski.html
They say: In the Nature we cannot find 4D.
You cannot find book where is written: 4D is Vacuum.
How can I be correct ?
===============================.
Socratus
Perhaps, more links to your work might help them understand it better.
Mathforum.org
More of your mathematical insight
socratus.com
You are definitely a traveling salesman. This theory has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Here's the link for the guidelines.
Physical Review D Guidelines
If this does not work out try this link.
Math Geniuses
Good luck!
N/A
Mathforum.org
More of your mathematical insight
socratus.com
You are definitely a traveling salesman. This theory has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Here's the link for the guidelines.
Physical Review D Guidelines
If this does not work out try this link.
Math Geniuses
Good luck!
N/A
I think most here already know that, but thanks for letting everyone know 
I know, Matador. Just my civic duty to help reduce confusion to potential newbies and balancing my give and take quota. I really enjoyed rpenner’s screaming red marks on this OP’s prior contributions. 
The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos
Lanczos served as assistant to Einstein during the period 1928–29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos
My brief comment on ‘ The lecture № 3.’
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of view it seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
. . It was needed the great Einstein’s courage to do this unite. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
1
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
2
And these two postulates can be unite in spacetime- 4D.
3
As the result we can see different occurrences :
( for example: not only the physical parameters of particles
can change but space and time too )
And Lanczos wrote: now we are accustomed to this conception
and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking.
==================.
Very well.
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is 4D?
Nobody knows.
S.
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos
Lanczos served as assistant to Einstein during the period 1928–29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos
My brief comment on ‘ The lecture № 3.’
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of view it seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
. . It was needed the great Einstein’s courage to do this unite. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
1
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
2
And these two postulates can be unite in spacetime- 4D.
3
As the result we can see different occurrences :
( for example: not only the physical parameters of particles
can change but space and time too )
And Lanczos wrote: now we are accustomed to this conception
and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking.
==================.
Very well.
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is 4D?
Nobody knows.
S.
Comment by Androcles:
If SR is based on two postulates, why does every jerk and
his dog mumble about clocks, inertial frames and observers?
/ Androcles /
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics....bd97a99c325d4b#
If SR is based on two postulates, why does every jerk and
his dog mumble about clocks, inertial frames and observers?
/ Androcles /
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics....bd97a99c325d4b#
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 17 2010, 06:41 AM)
socratus.com
It's a weird thing, which happens to everyone, that we grow up assuming that ours is a normal life, that other families do things as we do and other people are much like ourselves. I tend to spend time with people who are coherent, mostly rational and generally moderately educated and even those who aren't moderately educated are at least vaguely rational. Its probably self for-filling since I wish to be friends with people who share many of the interests or views I have. But the internet allows instant access to some people who are quite different from those in my normal circle of associates and s0cratus's website demonstrates that quite clearly.
Its not only ignorant rubbish but its completely incoherent. If I asked someone I know who doesn't know any physics to just make a fake physics website they'd at least make it coherent. Sure the equations would be nonsense and no claims justified but at least the narrative would be coherent. s0cratus's website is not. He not only clearly doesn't know any physics he doesn't even know he doesn't even think coherently. And his posts are testament to his incoherence.
But then I suppose that's related to the fact he's got a website like that. The majority of people who'll put time into making incoherent websites on subjects they don't understand will be those who are unaware they don't understand and are incoherent.
No doubt someone will comment on the irony of me talking about s0cratus's incoherence in a less than coherent way
It's a weird thing, which happens to everyone, that we grow up assuming that ours is a normal life, that other families do things as we do and other people are much like ourselves. I tend to spend time with people who are coherent, mostly rational and generally moderately educated and even those who aren't moderately educated are at least vaguely rational. Its probably self for-filling since I wish to be friends with people who share many of the interests or views I have. But the internet allows instant access to some people who are quite different from those in my normal circle of associates and s0cratus's website demonstrates that quite clearly.
Its not only ignorant rubbish but its completely incoherent. If I asked someone I know who doesn't know any physics to just make a fake physics website they'd at least make it coherent. Sure the equations would be nonsense and no claims justified but at least the narrative would be coherent. s0cratus's website is not. He not only clearly doesn't know any physics he doesn't even know he doesn't even think coherently. And his posts are testament to his incoherence.
But then I suppose that's related to the fact he's got a website like that. The majority of people who'll put time into making incoherent websites on subjects they don't understand will be those who are unaware they don't understand and are incoherent.
No doubt someone will comment on the irony of me talking about s0cratus's incoherence in a less than coherent way
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 19 2010, 09:44 AM)
It's a weird thing, which happens to everyone, that we grow up assuming that ours is a normal life, that other families do things as we do and other people are much like ourselves. I tend to spend time with people who are coherent, mostly rational and generally moderately educated and even those who aren't moderately educated are at least vaguely rational. Its probably self for-filling since I wish to be friends with people who share many of the interests or views I have. But the internet allows instant access to some people who are quite different from those in my normal circle of associates and s0cratus's website demonstrates that quite clearly.
Its not only ignorant rubbish but its completely incoherent. If I asked someone I know who doesn't know any physics to just make a fake physics website they'd at least make it coherent. Sure the equations would be nonsense and no claims justified but at least the narrative would be coherent. s0cratus's website is not. He not only clearly doesn't know any physics he doesn't even know he doesn't even think coherently. And his posts are testament to his incoherence.
But then I suppose that's related to the fact he's got a website like that. The majority of people who'll put time into making incoherent websites on subjects they don't understand will be those who are unaware they don't understand and are incoherent.
No doubt someone will comment on the irony of me talking about s0cratus's incoherence in a less than coherent way ;)
============================.
Its not only ignorant rubbish but its completely incoherent.
If I asked someone I know who doesn't know any physics to just make
a fake physics website they'd at least make it coherent.
Sure the equations would be nonsense and no claims justified
but at least the narrative would be coherent. s0cratus's website is not.
He not only clearly doesn't know any physics he doesn't even know
he doesn't even think coherently.
And his posts are testament to his incoherence.
/ AlphaNumeric /
Can this Scheme be Scientific theory?
THE GENESIS. ( Scheme.)
1
There is a Vacuum some kind of Infinite/ Eternal
Energy Space in the condition: T = 0K
2
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space creates ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
3
Moving Quantum of Light is a Photon
Planck: h =E/t h = 1, c=1.
Einstein: h =kb h =1, c =1
4
Quantum of Light / Photon as an Electron
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h* = h/2pi , c>1
E = h*f
Sommerfeld: e^2 = h*ca (Electron)
The Lorentz transformations
5
Star formation:
e- -> k -> He II -> He I -> rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- -> thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories )
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.)
a) h*f > kT
b) h*f = kT
c) kT > h*f
6
As result of Star formation Proton was created
p ( Proton)
7
Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
8
The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
9.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness/ subconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology . Meditation
==================================== .
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/
#
You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother.
/ Albert Einstein /
And Rutherford said, if you understand something
you can explain it to barmen woman.
And somebody wrote me: Yes, if I understand
something I can explain it to my son.
In my opinion this scheme can understand everybody.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===========================.
Its not only ignorant rubbish but its completely incoherent. If I asked someone I know who doesn't know any physics to just make a fake physics website they'd at least make it coherent. Sure the equations would be nonsense and no claims justified but at least the narrative would be coherent. s0cratus's website is not. He not only clearly doesn't know any physics he doesn't even know he doesn't even think coherently. And his posts are testament to his incoherence.
But then I suppose that's related to the fact he's got a website like that. The majority of people who'll put time into making incoherent websites on subjects they don't understand will be those who are unaware they don't understand and are incoherent.
No doubt someone will comment on the irony of me talking about s0cratus's incoherence in a less than coherent way ;)
============================.
Its not only ignorant rubbish but its completely incoherent.
If I asked someone I know who doesn't know any physics to just make
a fake physics website they'd at least make it coherent.
Sure the equations would be nonsense and no claims justified
but at least the narrative would be coherent. s0cratus's website is not.
He not only clearly doesn't know any physics he doesn't even know
he doesn't even think coherently.
And his posts are testament to his incoherence.
/ AlphaNumeric /
Can this Scheme be Scientific theory?
THE GENESIS. ( Scheme.)
1
There is a Vacuum some kind of Infinite/ Eternal
Energy Space in the condition: T = 0K
2
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space creates ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
3
Moving Quantum of Light is a Photon
Planck: h =E/t h = 1, c=1.
Einstein: h =kb h =1, c =1
4
Quantum of Light / Photon as an Electron
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h* = h/2pi , c>1
E = h*f
Sommerfeld: e^2 = h*ca (Electron)
The Lorentz transformations
5
Star formation:
e- -> k -> He II -> He I -> rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- -> thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories )
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.)
a) h*f > kT
b) h*f = kT
c) kT > h*f
6
As result of Star formation Proton was created
p ( Proton)
7
Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
8
The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
9.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness/ subconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology . Meditation
==================================== .
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/
#
You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother.
/ Albert Einstein /
And Rutherford said, if you understand something
you can explain it to barmen woman.
And somebody wrote me: Yes, if I understand
something I can explain it to my son.
In my opinion this scheme can understand everybody.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===========================.
This s0cratus fella seems to have a thick skin/brain (incidentally they are the first to form in embryology). Where is Loghorn Foghorn to take a shot. It is always tragic when money (means) comes to someone with completely warped ideas. You can imagine the chaos they are able to wrought. Example Osama bin Laden, Israel bin Sadovnik just to mention two. Ditto for many 'Islamic' websites and complimentary pseudoXtian ones.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 07:40 AM)
You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother.
/ Albert Einstein /
And Rutherford said, if you understand something
you can explain it to barmen woman.
And somebody wrote me: Yes, if I understand
something I can explain it to my son.
In my opinion this scheme can understand everybody.
Your posts make reference to equations in quantum mechanics but its obvious you don't understand quantum mechanics. I know a fair amount of quantum mechanics and your posts are incoherent even to me so if we're to measure your knowledge by the criteria of whether you can explain it to your grandmother or barman then you've failed. Its obvious you don't know this stuff so why are you trying to pretend you can explain it to other people?
I generally don't mind too much when people don't know stuff, there's loads and loads of things I don't know, but I get a little annoyed when someone who obviously doesn't know his stuff tries to teach other people because it means you're infecting other people with your stupidity and they are not able to tell you're basically lying to them.
s0cratus, you simply do not understand physics, particularly quantum mechanics. And even if you did your ability to form coherent sentences and trains of thought is non-existent.
you can explain it to your grandmother.
/ Albert Einstein /
And Rutherford said, if you understand something
you can explain it to barmen woman.
And somebody wrote me: Yes, if I understand
something I can explain it to my son.
In my opinion this scheme can understand everybody.
Your posts make reference to equations in quantum mechanics but its obvious you don't understand quantum mechanics. I know a fair amount of quantum mechanics and your posts are incoherent even to me so if we're to measure your knowledge by the criteria of whether you can explain it to your grandmother or barman then you've failed. Its obvious you don't know this stuff so why are you trying to pretend you can explain it to other people?
I generally don't mind too much when people don't know stuff, there's loads and loads of things I don't know, but I get a little annoyed when someone who obviously doesn't know his stuff tries to teach other people because it means you're infecting other people with your stupidity and they are not able to tell you're basically lying to them.
s0cratus, you simply do not understand physics, particularly quantum mechanics. And even if you did your ability to form coherent sentences and trains of thought is non-existent.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 26 2010, 08:46 AM)
Your posts make reference to equations in quantum mechanics but its obvious you don't understand quantum mechanics. I know a fair amount of quantum mechanics and your posts are incoherent even to me so if we're to measure your knowledge by the criteria of whether you can explain it to your grandmother or barman then you've failed. Its obvious you don't know this stuff so why are you trying to pretend you can explain it to other people?
I generally don't mind too much when people don't know stuff, there's loads and loads of things I don't know, but I get a little annoyed when someone who obviously doesn't know his stuff tries to teach other people because it means you're infecting other people with your stupidity and they are not able to tell you're basically lying to them.
s0cratus, you simply do not understand physics, particularly quantum mechanics. And even if you did your ability to form coherent sentences and trains of thought is non-existent.
Mr. AlphaNumeric spend too mush words.
Instead to say: ‘ the point № 1 isn’t correct ‘, he shows and
explains his emotions.
Why cannot Vacuum be the basis of Universe and Physics ?
============.
I generally don't mind too much when people don't know stuff, there's loads and loads of things I don't know, but I get a little annoyed when someone who obviously doesn't know his stuff tries to teach other people because it means you're infecting other people with your stupidity and they are not able to tell you're basically lying to them.
s0cratus, you simply do not understand physics, particularly quantum mechanics. And even if you did your ability to form coherent sentences and trains of thought is non-existent.
Mr. AlphaNumeric spend too mush words.
Instead to say: ‘ the point № 1 isn’t correct ‘, he shows and
explains his emotions.
Why cannot Vacuum be the basis of Universe and Physics ?
============.
I don’t understand your point at all regarding T=0K. Did you run out of fermions when making your bosonic soup? Doesn’t the Pauli exclusion principle state that Fermi gas has a non-vanishing internal energy?
N/A
N/A
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
Mr. AlphaNumeric spend too mush words.
Instead to say: ‘ the point № 1 isn’t correct ‘, he shows and
explains his emotions.
I didn't bother to go into details because you're wrong pretty much every time you state something and even allowing for English not being your first language you're borderline incoherent so sifting through and decoding your posts is lengthy and ultimately wasted on you. But I'll give a few examples and not sugar coat wmy posts when I need to be technical.
Instead to say: ‘ the point № 1 isn’t correct ‘, he shows and
explains his emotions.
I didn't bother to go into details because you're wrong pretty much every time you state something and even allowing for English not being your first language you're borderline incoherent so sifting through and decoding your posts is lengthy and ultimately wasted on you. But I'll give a few examples and not sugar coat wmy posts when I need to be technical.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
What is 4D in the Nature ?
When 4D curved we have new D.
When 4D curved we have new D.
4 dimensions are time and the three spacial directions. They don't need to be explained any more than that. And curved space-time does not imply additional dimensions. The dimensionality of a space M is defined as the cardinality of the basis of the tangent space of a point p in the space, T_p M. Thus the dimensionality is not defined by whether or not M is flat or not as you consider p in M point by point. The distance (from which follows curvature) of curves in M are defined in terms of a metric G whose action is G : TM x TM -> R. It takes 2 vectors and combines them in a way to give a number. Given a basis e_i for T_p M you have metric components g_ij = g(e_i,e_j). The dimensionality of the space is the range over which i and j can vary. This is seperate from the issue of whether G is constant in over M (ie flat space-time) or dependent on p, ie curved space-time.
So your claim/assertion curvature implies new dimensions is wrong.
So your claim/assertion curvature implies new dimensions is wrong.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
What is 4D in the Nature ? Nobody knows.
The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean others don't. The explanation I just typed I did off the top of my head, I understand it. And if needs be I could explain it to my grandmother.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
Question: Will all continuum 4D be curved or
only small, local part of it ?
only small, local part of it ?
Yes, all of space will. It follows from solving the Einstein Field Equations and making use of various results pertaining to boundary value problems in differential equations.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
So, in my opinion our Sun must be in 4D .
It has 3 dimensional extension and exists through a non-instant period of time but then the same can be said for any object.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
They cannot produce effect of Gravity
in the whole Universe. They can produce effect of Gravity
only in the small, local part of the whole Universe.
in the whole Universe. They can produce effect of Gravity
only in the small, local part of the whole Universe.
Wrong, we see gravitational interactions across billions of light years. And all models of gravity thus far considered which are taken seriously (perhaps) by physicists have had gravity as having an infinite range. Only the issue of causality prevents very very distant galaxies from gravitationally interacting with our own. And you base your claims on nothing, you don't even know what the observations which you need to explain are. A valid model must explain as much as possible. Just because you can think up a solution to one thing in physics doesn't mean it'll work with anything else.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
4D is the Vacuum (spacetime).
Vacuum is some kind of Energy space in the condition T=0K.
Vacuum is some kind of Energy space in the condition T=0K.
Temperature in a pure vacuum, even a quantum mechanical one, is a dubious thing to measure or define. Certainly if you consider vacuum fluctuations you have the issue of how small a scale to probe. In a classical consideration there's no energy at all in an empty non-quantum mechanical universe which has no cosmological constant. You're trying claim that space-time is some kind of physical material like a fluid. Down that path be dragons....
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
And when 4D (spacetime) curved we will have a new small,
local D (space and time).
New D in the Universe is some star ( like our Sun ),
or some planet (like our Earth ).
local D (space and time).
New D in the Universe is some star ( like our Sun ),
or some planet (like our Earth ).
When? You sound like you're saying something is going to happen which will alter gravity and the solar system. Even if you weren't wrong about what curved space-time involves you're still basing your claims on nothing. You don't know the theories and you don't know the observations. You've got nothing to work with other than random guesses.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space creates ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
Space creates ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
Quantum mechanics doesn't say that, you're glossing over the details and incorrectly paraphrasing it. Read the wiki page on virtual particles. They are not 'frozen light quanta'. And C = pi.D and i^2 = -1 are not things quantum mechanics say, they are basic mathematical results/definitions and irrelevant to the issue of you justify your claims. R=kN I don't recognise, likewise for h=0. If that's Planck's constant then h=0 is not true. Finally, you have E=mc^2, which is not true for virtual particles. Firstly E=mc^2 is only valid for objects with mass and which are stationary. For massless objects (which always move at light speed) it is E=pc, where p is their 3-momentum. For the full generalisation you have (setting c=1) m^2 = E^2 - p^2. p=0 gives E=mc^2 or m=0 gives E=pc. And even if you had written the general expression the very definition of virtual particles is that they are 'off shell', they do not satisfy E^2 - p^2 = m^2.
I think I've demonstrated my point....
I think I've demonstrated my point....
Alphanumeric saves the day. Squashed him like a bug.
Nice work!
N/A
Nice work!
N/A
The problem is, s0cratus won't recognize the fact he's been squashed. This is because s0cratus is incapable of recognizing any fact.
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
What is 4D in the Nature ?
When 4D curved we have new D.
AlphaNumeric
4 dimensions are time and the three spacial directions.
They don't need to be explained any more than that.
!!!
S
Why on the one hand we need spacetime (4D) and
on the other hand we need space + time (3D+t ).
What is Minkowski ' light cone' in the Universe ?
==================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
What is 4D in the Nature ? Nobody knows.
AlphaNumeric
The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean others don't.
The explanation I just typed I did off the top of my head, I understand it.
And if needs be I could explain it to my grandmother.
!!!
S
Excuse me.
You didn’t explain: What is 4D in the Nature?
You only wrote:
‘4 dimensions are time and the three spacial directions.
They don't need to be explained any more than that. ‘
=======================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
Question: Will all continuum 4D be curved or
only small, local part of it ?
AlphaNumeric
Yes, all of space will.
It follows from solving the Einstein Field Equations and
making use of various results pertaining to boundary
value problems in differential equations.
!!!
S
The curved effect depends on the mass, on the critical density,
on the cosmological constant. And then we have two events.
Fact № 1
The density (mass) in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Universe ( as whole)
is flat (negative flat because the average temperature of the
Universe would approach absolute zero T=0K )
Fact № 2
The density (mass ) of the Universe is greater than the critical density
then the Universe will begin to curve.
This effect we see near the stars.
=================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
So, in my opinion our Sun must be in 4D .
AlphaNumeric
It has 3 dimensional extension and exists through a non-instant period
of time but then the same can be said for any object.
!!!
S
!!!
===================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
They cannot produce effect of Gravity
in the whole Universe. They can produce effect of Gravity
only in the small, local part of the whole Universe.
AlphaNumeric
Wrong, we see gravitational interactions across billions of light years.
And all models of gravity thus far considered which are taken seriously
(perhaps) by physicists have had gravity as having an infinite range.
Only the issue of causality prevents very very distant galaxies from
gravitationally interacting with our own. And you base your claims on nothing,
you don't even know what the observations which you need to explain are.
A valid model must explain as much as possible.
Just because you can think up a solution to one thing in physics
doesn't mean it'll work with anything else.
!!!
S
!!!
The critical density in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Gravity cannot curve
the Universe ( as whole) and therefore It is flat, infinite flat .
But what to do with INFINITE flat Universe?
Nobody knows.
Okay, said wise scientists, we will say that up to 90% of the matter
in the Universe is dark matter. And this dark mass ( and dark
energy too) will solve all our problems.
What is dark mass/ energy nobody knows.
=====================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
4D is the Vacuum (spacetime).
Vacuum is some kind of Energy space in the condition T=0K.
AlphaNumeric
Temperature in a pure vacuum, even a quantum mechanical one,
is a dubious thing to measure or define. Certainly if you consider
vacuum fluctuations you have the issue of how small a scale to probe.
In a classical consideration there's no energy at all in an empty
non-quantum mechanical universe which has no cosmological constant.
You're trying claim that space-time is some kind of physical material
like a fluid. Down that path be dragons...
!!!.
S
!!!
Temperature in a pure vacuum, even a quantum mechanical one,
is a dubious thing to measure or define.
/ AlphaNumeric /
Why does CERN try to keep the temperature of a pure vacuum . . . ?
S
=================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
And when 4D (spacetime) curved we will have a new small,
local D (space and time).
New D in the Universe is some star ( like our Sun ),
or some planet (like our Earth ).
/ AlphaNumeric /
When?
You sound like you're saying something is going to happen which
will alter gravity and the solar system. Even if you weren't wrong
about what curved space-time involves you're still basing your claims
on nothing. You don't know the theories and you don't know the observations.
You've got nothing to work with other than random guesses.
!!!
S
!!!
===================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space creates ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
/ AlphaNumeric /
Quantum mechanics doesn't say that, you're glossing over the details
and incorrectly paraphrasing it. Read the wiki page on virtual particles.
They are not 'frozen light quanta'.
And C = pi.D and i^2 = -1 are not things quantum mechanics say,
they are basic mathematical results/definitions and irrelevant to the issue
of you justify your claims.
R=kN I don't recognise, likewise for h=0.
If that's Planck's constant then h=0 is not true.
Finally, you have E=mc^2, which is not true for virtual particles.
Firstly E=mc^2 is only valid for objects with mass and which are stationary.
For massless objects (which always move at light speed) it is E=pc,
where p is their 3-momentum. For the full generalisation you have
(setting c=1) m^2 = E^2 - p^2. p=0 gives E=mc^2 or m=0 gives E=pc.
And even if you had written the general expression the very definition
of virtual particles is that they are 'off shell', they do not satisfy E^2 - p^2 = m^2.
I think I've demonstrated my point....
!!!
S
!!!
================================================.
What is 4D in the Nature ?
When 4D curved we have new D.
AlphaNumeric
4 dimensions are time and the three spacial directions.
They don't need to be explained any more than that.
!!!
S
Why on the one hand we need spacetime (4D) and
on the other hand we need space + time (3D+t ).
What is Minkowski ' light cone' in the Universe ?
==================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
What is 4D in the Nature ? Nobody knows.
AlphaNumeric
The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean others don't.
The explanation I just typed I did off the top of my head, I understand it.
And if needs be I could explain it to my grandmother.
!!!
S
Excuse me.
You didn’t explain: What is 4D in the Nature?
You only wrote:
‘4 dimensions are time and the three spacial directions.
They don't need to be explained any more than that. ‘
=======================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
Question: Will all continuum 4D be curved or
only small, local part of it ?
AlphaNumeric
Yes, all of space will.
It follows from solving the Einstein Field Equations and
making use of various results pertaining to boundary
value problems in differential equations.
!!!
S
The curved effect depends on the mass, on the critical density,
on the cosmological constant. And then we have two events.
Fact № 1
The density (mass) in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Universe ( as whole)
is flat (negative flat because the average temperature of the
Universe would approach absolute zero T=0K )
Fact № 2
The density (mass ) of the Universe is greater than the critical density
then the Universe will begin to curve.
This effect we see near the stars.
=================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
So, in my opinion our Sun must be in 4D .
AlphaNumeric
It has 3 dimensional extension and exists through a non-instant period
of time but then the same can be said for any object.
!!!
S
!!!
===================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
They cannot produce effect of Gravity
in the whole Universe. They can produce effect of Gravity
only in the small, local part of the whole Universe.
AlphaNumeric
Wrong, we see gravitational interactions across billions of light years.
And all models of gravity thus far considered which are taken seriously
(perhaps) by physicists have had gravity as having an infinite range.
Only the issue of causality prevents very very distant galaxies from
gravitationally interacting with our own. And you base your claims on nothing,
you don't even know what the observations which you need to explain are.
A valid model must explain as much as possible.
Just because you can think up a solution to one thing in physics
doesn't mean it'll work with anything else.
!!!
S
!!!
The critical density in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Gravity cannot curve
the Universe ( as whole) and therefore It is flat, infinite flat .
But what to do with INFINITE flat Universe?
Nobody knows.
Okay, said wise scientists, we will say that up to 90% of the matter
in the Universe is dark matter. And this dark mass ( and dark
energy too) will solve all our problems.
What is dark mass/ energy nobody knows.
=====================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
4D is the Vacuum (spacetime).
Vacuum is some kind of Energy space in the condition T=0K.
AlphaNumeric
Temperature in a pure vacuum, even a quantum mechanical one,
is a dubious thing to measure or define. Certainly if you consider
vacuum fluctuations you have the issue of how small a scale to probe.
In a classical consideration there's no energy at all in an empty
non-quantum mechanical universe which has no cosmological constant.
You're trying claim that space-time is some kind of physical material
like a fluid. Down that path be dragons...
!!!.
S
!!!
Temperature in a pure vacuum, even a quantum mechanical one,
is a dubious thing to measure or define.
/ AlphaNumeric /
Why does CERN try to keep the temperature of a pure vacuum . . . ?
S
=================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
And when 4D (spacetime) curved we will have a new small,
local D (space and time).
New D in the Universe is some star ( like our Sun ),
or some planet (like our Earth ).
/ AlphaNumeric /
When?
You sound like you're saying something is going to happen which
will alter gravity and the solar system. Even if you weren't wrong
about what curved space-time involves you're still basing your claims
on nothing. You don't know the theories and you don't know the observations.
You've got nothing to work with other than random guesses.
!!!
S
!!!
===================================
QUOTE (s0cratus @ Apr 26 2010, 11:06 AM)
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space creates ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
/ AlphaNumeric /
Quantum mechanics doesn't say that, you're glossing over the details
and incorrectly paraphrasing it. Read the wiki page on virtual particles.
They are not 'frozen light quanta'.
And C = pi.D and i^2 = -1 are not things quantum mechanics say,
they are basic mathematical results/definitions and irrelevant to the issue
of you justify your claims.
R=kN I don't recognise, likewise for h=0.
If that's Planck's constant then h=0 is not true.
Finally, you have E=mc^2, which is not true for virtual particles.
Firstly E=mc^2 is only valid for objects with mass and which are stationary.
For massless objects (which always move at light speed) it is E=pc,
where p is their 3-momentum. For the full generalisation you have
(setting c=1) m^2 = E^2 - p^2. p=0 gives E=mc^2 or m=0 gives E=pc.
And even if you had written the general expression the very definition
of virtual particles is that they are 'off shell', they do not satisfy E^2 - p^2 = m^2.
I think I've demonstrated my point....
!!!
S
!!!
================================================.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 27 2010, 03:23 PM)
Why on the one hand we need spacetime (4D) and
on the other hand we need space + time (3D+t ).
In Newtonian physics there was 4 dimensions, but the time and space ones didn't mix. In relativity there's 4 dimensions, but the time and space can mix.
on the other hand we need space + time (3D+t ).
In Newtonian physics there was 4 dimensions, but the time and space ones didn't mix. In relativity there's 4 dimensions, but the time and space can mix.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 27 2010, 03:23 PM)
What is Minkowski ' light cone' in the Universe ?
This isn't even a coherent sentence, if you knew what a light cone was and its role in relativity you'd not ask what you just asked.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 27 2010, 03:23 PM)
You didn’t explain: What is 4D in the Nature?
Things can move in 3 spacial directions and in one time direction. 3+1 = 4. Understand? Physics has ALWAYS been 4 dimensional, but before relativity the time and space directions didn't mix.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 27 2010, 03:23 PM)
Fact № 1
The density (mass) in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Universe ( as whole)
is flat (negative flat because the average temperature of the
Universe would approach absolute zero T=0K )
Fact № 2
The density (mass ) of the Universe is greater than the critical density
then the Universe will begin to curve.
This effect we see near the stars.
The density (mass) in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Universe ( as whole)
is flat (negative flat because the average temperature of the
Universe would approach absolute zero T=0K )
Fact № 2
The density (mass ) of the Universe is greater than the critical density
then the Universe will begin to curve.
This effect we see near the stars.
You've obviously tried to understand the role of dark energy in cosmology. I suggest you read Wiki again.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 27 2010, 03:23 PM)
The critical density in the Universe ( as whole) is equal to or
below the critical density. In this case the Gravity cannot curve
the Universe ( as whole) and therefore It is flat, infinite flat .
But what to do with INFINITE flat Universe?
Nobody knows.
Okay, said wise scientists, we will say that up to 90% of the matter
in the Universe is dark matter. And this dark mass ( and dark
energy too) will solve all our problems.
What is dark mass/ energy nobody knows.
below the critical density. In this case the Gravity cannot curve
the Universe ( as whole) and therefore It is flat, infinite flat .
But what to do with INFINITE flat Universe?
Nobody knows.
Okay, said wise scientists, we will say that up to 90% of the matter
in the Universe is dark matter. And this dark mass ( and dark
energy too) will solve all our problems.
What is dark mass/ energy nobody knows.
As above.
The rest of your post doesn't respond to anything I said so no point in me replying.
The rest of your post doesn't respond to anything I said so no point in me replying.
Is there something wrong with s0cratus computer or what? How comes he can't quote like everybody else?
Suppose he posts in his first language, or if anyone has read his books in the original language, is it still cranky and/or slopsided? I saw his picture. I don't know why but I found that I pity this grand pa. Maybe he has a story (a sad one) to tell.
Suppose he posts in his first language, or if anyone has read his books in the original language, is it still cranky and/or slopsided? I saw his picture. I don't know why but I found that I pity this grand pa. Maybe he has a story (a sad one) to tell.
Aww 
don’t make us feel guilty, Boit. He get’s plenty of stroking at other forums. I think his big ego can handle the truth. I just don’t think he can accept the truth. If he wants to hang on to his fantasy then he needs to stay in the forums that appreciate him. Nope, this one is not striking my empathy nerve. He’s spreading too much false information. That dumb book “The Secret” is increasing the volume of crap. I can’t believe how many respected people promoted it. 
N/A
don’t make us feel guilty, Boit. He get’s plenty of stroking at other forums. I think his big ego can handle the truth. I just don’t think he can accept the truth. If he wants to hang on to his fantasy then he needs to stay in the forums that appreciate him. Nope, this one is not striking my empathy nerve. He’s spreading too much false information. That dumb book “The Secret” is increasing the volume of crap. I can’t believe how many respected people promoted it. N/A
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 27 2010, 07:11 PM)
Aww don’t make us feel guilty, Boit. He get’s plenty of stroking at other forums. I think his big ego can handle the truth. I just don’t think he can accept the truth. If he wants to hang on to his fantasy then he needs to stay in the forums that appreciate him. Nope, this one is not striking my empathy nerve. He’s spreading too much false information. That dumb book “The Secret” is increasing the volume of crap. I can’t believe how many respected people promoted it.
N/A
Are you talking about the same "the Secret" that is a positivity motivation movie? If so, it gets silly when it claims that material events magically follow from the thought patterns of people, but it is a fun way to explain idealism and I believe it is true that positive thinking increase people's psychological well-being, with makes them healthier, more successful socially, etc. When people react negatively and focus on negativity, they go in the opposite direction. I hope I'm talking about the same "the Secret" because otherwise I've thrown a red herring into this thread.
don’t make us feel guilty, Boit. He get’s plenty of stroking at other forums. I think his big ego can handle the truth. I just don’t think he can accept the truth. If he wants to hang on to his fantasy then he needs to stay in the forums that appreciate him. Nope, this one is not striking my empathy nerve. He’s spreading too much false information. That dumb book “The Secret” is increasing the volume of crap. I can’t believe how many respected people promoted it. N/A
Are you talking about the same "the Secret" that is a positivity motivation movie? If so, it gets silly when it claims that material events magically follow from the thought patterns of people, but it is a fun way to explain idealism and I believe it is true that positive thinking increase people's psychological well-being, with makes them healthier, more successful socially, etc. When people react negatively and focus on negativity, they go in the opposite direction. I hope I'm talking about the same "the Secret" because otherwise I've thrown a red herring into this thread.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Apr 27 2010, 04:46 PM)
If so, it gets silly when it claims that material events magically follow from the thought patterns of people, but it is a fun way to explain idealism and I believe it is true that positive thinking increase people's psychological well-being, with makes them healthier, more successful socially, etc. When people react negatively and focus on negativity, they go in the opposite direction.
It's like a placebo in book form.
It's like a placebo in book form.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 27 2010, 08:50 PM)
It's like a placebo in book form.
It's true. Placebos probably work because people get hopeful and positive about the effects of what they imagine they're taking. The fact that they want to heal and faithfully believe that they will has an actual effect on their body's functioning. Placebos are especially interesting to me, though, because they specifically show how strong faith in materialist solutions are. Idealism is negated by the materialist point of view, but placebos are evidence of the material effects of mind believing in matter.
It's true. Placebos probably work because people get hopeful and positive about the effects of what they imagine they're taking. The fact that they want to heal and faithfully believe that they will has an actual effect on their body's functioning. Placebos are especially interesting to me, though, because they specifically show how strong faith in materialist solutions are. Idealism is negated by the materialist point of view, but placebos are evidence of the material effects of mind believing in matter.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Apr 27 2010, 08:46 PM)
Are you talking about the same "the Secret" that is a positivity motivation movie?
Light,
Yes Sir, that's the one. s0cratus had it in one of his threads. The law of attraction is the main theme in this motivational, metaphysical, malarkey. It claims that quantum physics is part of this law. There are even particle physicists, and quantum physicists, that support it. If the power of "The Secret" is true then let's put it to the test. I'm going to focus all my positive thoughts, and my wish will be, that from this moment on, this forum will be free of cranks.
N/A
The Secret Video
There is no secret
Light,
Yes Sir, that's the one. s0cratus had it in one of his threads. The law of attraction is the main theme in this motivational, metaphysical, malarkey. It claims that quantum physics is part of this law. There are even particle physicists, and quantum physicists, that support it. If the power of "The Secret" is true then let's put it to the test. I'm going to focus all my positive thoughts, and my wish will be, that from this moment on, this forum will be free of cranks.
N/A
The Secret Video
There is no secret
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 28 2010, 02:27 AM)
Light,
Yes Sir, that's the one. s0cratus had it in one of his threads. The law of attraction is the main theme in this motivational, metaphysical, malarkey. It claims that quantum physics is part of this law. There are even particle physicists, and quantum physicists, that support it. If the power of "The Secret" is true then let's put it to the test. I'm going to focus all my positive thoughts, and my wish will be, that from this moment on, this forum will be free of cranks.
N/A
The Secret Video
There is no secret
It wouldn't work because you only superficially believe that it could work, while deep down you think it's a test that will falsify the law of attraction. So according to the law of attraction, you would be attracting your experiment to fail with the belief that it probably will. I'm not saying I believe it - just explaining how it works. But think about it, did people get to the moon because the people working on the project doubted it would work? If they had doubted it, isn't there a good chance they would have subconsciously sabotaged their own work? I think it's possible, although I can't say more.
Now I'm going to use the law of attraction to send this post and I believe that I'm going to get negative reactions criticizing "the Secret" and "the law of attraction" some more. I truly believe this, so am I attracting it to come true?
Yes Sir, that's the one. s0cratus had it in one of his threads. The law of attraction is the main theme in this motivational, metaphysical, malarkey. It claims that quantum physics is part of this law. There are even particle physicists, and quantum physicists, that support it. If the power of "The Secret" is true then let's put it to the test. I'm going to focus all my positive thoughts, and my wish will be, that from this moment on, this forum will be free of cranks.
N/A
The Secret Video
There is no secret
It wouldn't work because you only superficially believe that it could work, while deep down you think it's a test that will falsify the law of attraction. So according to the law of attraction, you would be attracting your experiment to fail with the belief that it probably will. I'm not saying I believe it - just explaining how it works. But think about it, did people get to the moon because the people working on the project doubted it would work? If they had doubted it, isn't there a good chance they would have subconsciously sabotaged their own work? I think it's possible, although I can't say more.
Now I'm going to use the law of attraction to send this post and I believe that I'm going to get negative reactions criticizing "the Secret" and "the law of attraction" some more. I truly believe this, so am I attracting it to come true?
Yep, you're right. It didn't work. You're still here.
N/A
N/A
Minkowski (1908)
" the views of space and time that I wish to lay before you
have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein
lies their strength. They are radical.
Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself are doomed
to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union
of the two will preserve an independent reality."
#
My comment.
We have two kinds of spaces:
One where space by itself, and time by itself ( 3D + t ) are
different conceptions. These different conceptions we can
see on our and another planets.
Another one where space and time is " a kind of union
of the two will preserve an independent reality. " (-4D ).
More than 100 years passed and still nobody knows
what (-4D ) is in the Nature.
I say Minkowski (-4D ) is Vacuum T=0K.
But maybe we need more 100 years to understand this fact.
=========.
After about five years I finish my participation in this forum.
I want to thank everybody, who took part in the conversation.
Your participation was important to me because your emails
helped me better understood the philosophy of physics.
===================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
2010–04–28.
===============.
" the views of space and time that I wish to lay before you
have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein
lies their strength. They are radical.
Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself are doomed
to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union
of the two will preserve an independent reality."
#
My comment.
We have two kinds of spaces:
One where space by itself, and time by itself ( 3D + t ) are
different conceptions. These different conceptions we can
see on our and another planets.
Another one where space and time is " a kind of union
of the two will preserve an independent reality. " (-4D ).
More than 100 years passed and still nobody knows
what (-4D ) is in the Nature.
I say Minkowski (-4D ) is Vacuum T=0K.
But maybe we need more 100 years to understand this fact.
=========.
After about five years I finish my participation in this forum.
I want to thank everybody, who took part in the conversation.
Your participation was important to me because your emails
helped me better understood the philosophy of physics.
===================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
2010–04–28.
===============.
QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 28 2010, 10:39 AM)
After about five years I finish my participation in this forum.
I want to thank everybody, who took part in the conversation.
Your participation was important to me because your emails
helped me better understood the philosophy of physics.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or the men in white coats miss you.
I want to thank everybody, who took part in the conversation.
Your participation was important to me because your emails
helped me better understood the philosophy of physics.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or the men in white coats miss you.
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.