What is great about this description, is that it would appear to uncover the relationship between, density, mass, relativity and gravity.
Please have a read at this, I feel that it is workable. Keep in mind that it is a from a series of quick posts, and the origonal poster was assuming a good level of knowledge in Physics.
I would like to hear some feedback on this:
QUOTE
Its important when you consider what you are saying when you say "time". The best discription we have is some form of hyperbolic space. Therefore, when you say "speed", you would be refering to a "perception".
I'll explain:
Speed = Distance / Time or;
Speed = Distance / Quantizied Representation of Hyperbolic Distance
An output such as meters per second, miles per hour is really "Linear Distance per Hyperbolic Distance". This produces an arc.
Therefore "speed" is a "conceptual" and the true output of such is EXCLUSIVELY distance.
Your problem is your concept of "Time", thus your interpretation of what speed actually means in real terms, is incorrect.
Those who lean towards VSL do not understand their basic relativity too well, as Variable Distance Transversed By Light (VDTL) is ALL it could ever be.
I'll bet your head hurts...
it continues:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Its important when you consider what you are saying when you say "time". The best discription we have is some form of hyperbolic space. Therefore, when you say "speed", you would be refering to a "perception". I'll explain: Speed = Distance / Time or; Speed = Distance / Quantizied Representation of Hyperbolic Distance An output such as meters per second, miles per hour is really "Linear Distance per Hyperbolic Distance". This produces an arc. Therefore "speed" is a "conceptual" and the true output of such is EXCLUSIVELY distance. Your problem is your concept of "Time", thus your interpretation of what speed actually means in real terms, is incorrect. Those who lean towards VSL do not understand their basic relativity too well, as Variable Distance Transversed By Light (VDTL) is ALL it could ever be. I'll bet your head hurts... |
it continues:
I'll explain that better. Time is different depending on the frame of reference of the observer.
You are trying to say "entropy" changes as you approach the speed of light...no.
Time has a dual sense, it is both a measurement and a physical aspect of of a relative universe.
it continues:
QUOTE
quote:
VSL in its purest sense means that the SOL can be altered, most notably by gravity.
Gravity would alter the linear path, making it move in a curve relative to the source. Therefore, it would travel a longer or shorter linear distance, thus giving the "illusion" of altering speed. The same would happen at a blackhole.
quote:
In other words, in the absence of any gravity, SOL is higher than we measure it here on earth.
No, the speed of light in a vacuum is well known. The speed of light in space, is the same as on Earth. Light does not slow down when entering the atmosphere, it must travel further because of all the interactions. An increase in linear distance.
quote:
Additionally, where gravity is extremely high (event horizon of a BH) the SOL is essentially zero.
A BH alters both time and distance. This would be because it drops off into an infinity. Light is still traveling at light speed, it just has an infinite distance to cover.
quote:
This would answer the age old question of, "What happens to mass that has fallen into a BH?" What if it never does? If you adjust the SOL to 0, time stops, and the infalling matter stops with it. This would also explain why the {purported} BHs at the centers of spiral galaxies continue to grow exponentially, and we can see them!
Light can escape, that is common misconception. It is travelling an infinite path on a single plane, its not "trapped" per se.
Its free to travel other planes, which are not infinite, hence, you see the light....
it continues:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
quote: VSL in its purest sense means that the SOL can be altered, most notably by gravity. Gravity would alter the linear path, making it move in a curve relative to the source. Therefore, it would travel a longer or shorter linear distance, thus giving the "illusion" of altering speed. The same would happen at a blackhole. quote: In other words, in the absence of any gravity, SOL is higher than we measure it here on earth. No, the speed of light in a vacuum is well known. The speed of light in space, is the same as on Earth. Light does not slow down when entering the atmosphere, it must travel further because of all the interactions. An increase in linear distance. quote: Additionally, where gravity is extremely high (event horizon of a BH) the SOL is essentially zero. A BH alters both time and distance. This would be because it drops off into an infinity. Light is still traveling at light speed, it just has an infinite distance to cover. quote: This would answer the age old question of, "What happens to mass that has fallen into a BH?" What if it never does? If you adjust the SOL to 0, time stops, and the infalling matter stops with it. This would also explain why the {purported} BHs at the centers of spiral galaxies continue to grow exponentially, and we can see them! Light can escape, that is common misconception. It is travelling an infinite path on a single plane, its not "trapped" per se. Its free to travel other planes, which are not infinite, hence, you see the light.... |
it continues:
Symmetry breaking is something I have a major problem with. Communications would be impossible without someform of mechanism around each system, providing some form of "order" or "symmetry".
it continues:
QUOTE
IMO, Time is a physical dimension of hyperbolic space, that space would be "shattered or fragmented". As such, it is incompatible with our notion of Euclidean geometry, making it difficult to visualize.
it continues:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
IMO, Time is a physical dimension of hyperbolic space, that space would be "shattered or fragmented". As such, it is incompatible with our notion of Euclidean geometry, making it difficult to visualize. |
it continues:
Relativity is NOT just a mathmatical concept. It defines a particular problem with frames of reference.
The curvature of space, is a real manifestation, that occurs because all observers must observe light travelling at the same speed.
Speed is a factor of both distance and time, therefore, to maintain a constant speed of light, between observers moving at different rates, space must curve.
it continues:
QUOTE
In regards to gravity and BH formation, perhaps, this will explain the mechanism of formation.
quote:
Why would a critical density of matter shrink space itself ?
Motion based upon relativity can expand or contract 4th dimensional space as a result of "dilations" in time and distance.
it continues:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In regards to gravity and BH formation, perhaps, this will explain the mechanism of formation. quote: Why would a critical density of matter shrink space itself ? Motion based upon relativity can expand or contract 4th dimensional space as a result of "dilations" in time and distance. |
it continues:
Actually, the more I think about it. I could explain gravity as a removal of hyperbolic space between bodies due to the "dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level.
An increase in density, would mean more "dilations" per nm, resulting in a faster rate of "destruction" of space through "dilations". That would manifest as "gravity".
Einstein would support me...
it continues:
QUOTE
In a way, yes, you must first understand exactly what gravity is. In this case, it would appear to be loss encountered by a co-ordinate system based upon relativity, at the quantum level.
This would have the effect of a "warping action" of space in the presence of matter. If I use Einstein's concept of the 4th dimension, then in the presence of mass, it would be constantly "appear" to be sucked into a void.
In reality, it is a result of errors that occur in a co-ordinate system based upon relativity. That is, time or the 4th dimension is "lost". This is what causes the "curve" of the 4th dimension.
If you could picture the planet as a ball of countless atoms, or in reality "wavelets", then this loss is occured between the relative motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles.
This is why there is a relationship between mass, density and gravity as speculated by Newton.
it continues:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In a way, yes, you must first understand exactly what gravity is. In this case, it would appear to be loss encountered by a co-ordinate system based upon relativity, at the quantum level. This would have the effect of a "warping action" of space in the presence of matter. If I use Einstein's concept of the 4th dimension, then in the presence of mass, it would be constantly "appear" to be sucked into a void. In reality, it is a result of errors that occur in a co-ordinate system based upon relativity. That is, time or the 4th dimension is "lost". This is what causes the "curve" of the 4th dimension. If you could picture the planet as a ball of countless atoms, or in reality "wavelets", then this loss is occured between the relative motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. This is why there is a relationship between mass, density and gravity as speculated by Newton. |
it continues:
Its a theory, that what we call gravity, is actually the result of a "loss of space", due to relative motion of particles.
In a co-ordinate system developed from relativity, such as the way reality is, then time/4th dimension dilations would occur between sub-atomic particles. This would result in the loss of physical space, rather like a vacuum.
Thus, it would creating a pulling effect on space.
The more motions based on relativity per nm, the faster that rate of loss would be. That is, a greater gravitional pull.
Therefore, this shows a clear method of how to link gravity, mass, density, relativity, QM and a solid explanation of why.
Mass removes 4th dimensional space through relative motion causing a negative curve, or bending of space.
it continues:
QUOTE
In simpler terms, does relative motion of atoms and sub-atomic particles result in dilations that cause gravity?
it continues:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In simpler terms, does relative motion of atoms and sub-atomic particles result in dilations that cause gravity? |
it continues:
quote:
Not really. The big problem with quantum gravity is how we make the geometry of spacetime respond to the tug of quantum matter.
I tried to explain this "tug" by a loss of 4th dimensional space, requiring spaced to be "stretched and curved" to fill the voids that appear. This explanation (short version) is quoted here:
quote:
Does relative motion of atoms and sub-atomic particles result in "dilations" (loss of 4th dimensional space) that cause gravity (a pulling of space)?
Yeah....very similar to my spacial compression concept, see my equally "skull crunchingly" painful account in my Spacial Vacuoles thing.
Yeah....very similar to my surface wave concept, see my account in Aether wave theory thingy.
QUOTE
Yeah....very similar to my surface wave concept, see my account in Aether wave theory thingy.
I had a brief look at the link. It is very close in terms that the theory looks for mechanical solutions. I like the graphics, the light propogation is perfect.
I don't agree with the "Origin of the universe based on the model of the supercritic pressure condensation". The simple reason is that there is no such thing as linear time, therefore, a point of "creation" would sound a little silly. A "creation" would imply that a "universal uniform time" exists...it doesn't.
I may have some good news for Stephen Hawkings, this model ALLOWS information loss...
...oh dear, is this debate going to go on for another 30 years????
...oh dear, is this debate going to go on for another 30 years????
QUOTE (MMC+Nov 20 2005, 12:08 AM)
a "creation" would imply that a "universal uniform time" exists...it doesn't.
Why? Haven't the universe well defined age (the very same for all universe)?
Why? Haven't the universe well defined age (the very same for all universe)?
QUOTE
Why? Haven't the universe well defined age (the very same for all universe)?
No. Our notion of days, months, years, etc. does not exist in reality. It is "illusion" based upon errors that appear in a relative co-ordinate system.
I take it you have not read Einstein's relativity then?
Another quote from the origonal conversation on this topic:
There is no need. I understand exactly what mass is.
It is the pull, or void, created by the dilation of time during relative motion of sub-atomic particles.
This provides mass. Relative weight, would be a result of the interaction of a number of masses. That is, the different rate of dilations in each chemical interacting, would produce a sum of those dilations.
Gravity and mass, therefore, would be different aspects of the same phenomenon.
QUOTE
There is no need. I understand exactly what mass is.
It is the pull, or void, created by the dilation of time during relative motion of sub-atomic particles.
This provides mass. Relative weight, would be a result of the interaction of a number of masses. That is, the different rate of dilations in each chemical interacting, would produce a sum of those dilations.
Gravity and mass, therefore, would be different aspects of the same phenomenon.
Just to show that this is not too far off the current theories, here is a link to NASA's latest mission on space/time. As you will see, it also describes a "vortex", or void, as I have described here. The different positions of the dilations would manifest a "vortex-like" behavior...
Space-time Vortex
11.16.2005
NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft has gathered all the data physicists need to check a bizarre prediction of Einstein's relativity.
Space-time Vortex
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16....htm?list766847
QUOTE
Space-time Vortex
11.16.2005
NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft has gathered all the data physicists need to check a bizarre prediction of Einstein's relativity.
Space-time Vortex
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16....htm?list766847
In my current model, relative time dialation occurs within spacial vacuoles of differing asymmetry in respect of the vacuole perimeter to the grey hole singularity present at the heart of all particulate matter.
Hi MMC,
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics.
I can see what you mean, however, he was the one to introduce the dilations. At the time, quantum mechanics had no evidence to support it. Today it is different and even Einstein would have to accept that. By ignoring the dilations at quantum level, Einstein missed the simplist method of integration.
I can see what you mean, however, he was the one to introduce the dilations. At the time, quantum mechanics had no evidence to support it. Today it is different and even Einstein would have to accept that. By ignoring the dilations at quantum level, Einstein missed the simplist method of integration.
Certainly he would not approve of quantum gravity (without a good reason). Now this theory may be right or it may be wrong... I dunno... I just know Einstein would not be supporting it.
Actually, he would. Mass is mass, whether quantum or otherwise. Mass and gravity are related.
What I would like to mention is the term 4th Dimension is not the one Einstein used which was "Time". This 4th Dimension is certainly not Time.... so what is it exactly? How many dimensions in this theory altogether? Does it incorporate Special Theory and General Theory?... or is this slyly another theory altogether made to appear superficially to be similar to Einstein's Theory?
The theory deals only with the manifestation of gravity and probably mass also. It looks for a mechanical explanation and the basic principle is drawn from Einstein. It is fully compatible with both special and general relativity and actually shows how these arise and why.
The theory deals only with the manifestation of gravity and probably mass also. It looks for a mechanical explanation and the basic principle is drawn from Einstein. It is fully compatible with both special and general relativity and actually shows how these arise and why.
I have an open mind so you may be able to settle this matter easily. Is there some experimental justification for this "extension" that prompted this theory?
Yes, experimentation on relativity, involving Atomic clocks and frames of reference in motion. In addition to this, theories of VSL, symmetry breaking, entanglement and faster than light communication at the sub-atomic level led to the possibility of an "alternating distance" as being the source of the events. This "alternating distance" would be produced by "dilations" in time, during relative motion.
I certainly hope so since Einsten's Theories are very well tested and there have been no errors noted to date. You would be pushing "it" up a hill with a stick without some reason to do so!
It is drawn from Einstein's work...so there is no problems here.
It is drawn from Einstein's work...so there is no problems here.
The causality exist, as is the base of most of physical laws. If these laws are valid, so then the causality must exists. If the causality exists, so the time must exist too, as the general causality construct.
Using this method, I can both implement uncertainty and relativity, whilst, demonstrating the connection between mass, density and gravity in a real sense.
Moreover, GR just concludes, the time coordinate exists by the same way, as the space coordinate. They're have equal meaning in GR.
Yes, time is another form of space. A non-linear hyperbolic space, which is why entaglement works as this hyperbolic space, is non-linear.
Yes, time is another form of space. A non-linear hyperbolic space, which is why entaglement works as this hyperbolic space, is non-linear.
It can be shown, after all, the time quantity is the only quantity, which cannot be derived from the others.
It would also be true of my work.
It means, time is the only quantity, which is "real", really.... wink.gif All other quantities can be derived just from the time quantity flow deformations.
Bingo...its something tangable, not a concept.
Bingo...its something tangable, not a concept.
Most awesome. To brings the Schrodinger's equations and Heisenberg's equation to union with Einstein's relativity formula and Plank's (and Bohr) subatomic observations. Uniting gravity with electromagnetic ....well I must say it all sounds very good but is it possible, and even if a solution is made is it just a theory like String Theory?
It is a theory with a solid basis and a clear mechanical function. It matches all know manifestions of the events and any evidence can be explained through the mechanism.
well, without evidence and proof , it is impossible for us to say for certain so the question still remains.
Yes, however, this can be put to the test and I have found no circumstances where the model fails in describing the relationship between gravity, mass and density.
In my current model, relative time dialation occurs within spacial vacuoles of differing asymmetry in respect of the vacuole perimeter to the grey hole singularity present at the heart of all particulate matter.
I see no reason to break symmetry. In fact, from the standpoint of communications, it would be impossible without some form of "hidden layer" syncronising everything. This theory would take the symmetry of Einstein's relativity and apply it to the quantum world.
In regards to this, I found that most phenomenon could be reduced to an "alternating distance", that would effect speed results. Particles, or wavelets would appear to travel faster, whereas the truth is, the distance is shrinking and the velocity remains constant.
Simple Lorentz....
I see no reason to break symmetry. In fact, from the standpoint of communications, it would be impossible without some form of "hidden layer" syncronising everything. This theory would take the symmetry of Einstein's relativity and apply it to the quantum world.
In regards to this, I found that most phenomenon could be reduced to an "alternating distance", that would effect speed results. Particles, or wavelets would appear to travel faster, whereas the truth is, the distance is shrinking and the velocity remains constant.
Simple Lorentz....
In addition to this, theories of VSL, symmetry breaking, entanglement and faster than light communication at the sub-atomic level led to the possibility of an "alternating distance" as being the source of the events. This "alternating distance" would be produced by "dilations" in time, during relative motion.
I think it fits very well.
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition).
Frequency, is cycles per second. The "rate of dilation", is the amount of dilations that occur for a given amount of particles in relative motion.
Two different things entirely.
Frequency, is cycles per second. The "rate of dilation", is the amount of dilations that occur for a given amount of particles in relative motion.
Two different things entirely.
My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration".
A "dilation" is the loss or gain of Time in a relative co-ordinate system.
Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left.
You are talking about peaks and troughs...sorry, not related, at least not at this point. This is simply the dilation of time in a relative system.
I have not extended it beyond solid matter, yet, however, yes, it does work.
You are talking about peaks and troughs...sorry, not related, at least not at this point. This is simply the dilation of time in a relative system.
I have not extended it beyond solid matter, yet, however, yes, it does work.
This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength.
Doppler shift has nothing to do with frequency, it is wavelength:
It is important to realize that the frequency of the sounds that the source emits does not actually change. To understand what happens, consider the following analogy. Someone throws one ball every second in your direction. Assume that balls travel with constant velocity. If the thrower is stationary, you will receive one ball every second. However, if he is moving towards you, you will receive balls more frequently than that because there will be less spacing between the balls. The converse is true if the person is moving away from you. So it is actually the wavelength which is affected; as a consequence, the perceived frequency is also affected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
The nice thing about BF, is that it can be summed to produce the final frequency (your dilation), and is easy to relate to the original frequency (tonic, or fundamental).
No. A "dilation" is the loss or gain of "Time" in a relative co-ordinate system.
To this, you can add other dimensions as needed to get to the "perspective" that you are looking for (energy, mass, gravity, etc.).
Only if you are interested in "conceptual physics"...This is a working model, quite different.
I'm sorry that you didn't understand anything I said.
It wasn't that. It didn't make sense.
It wasn't that. It didn't make sense.
Good luck with you rigid approach, but remember nothing is solid. I'm not sure where that leaves you.
It has no effect, my work still functions.
Dilation is a dualistic perception; so is everything else we didn't "agree" on.
No, its not. "Dilation" is a specific thing in relativity.
No, its not. "Dilation" is a specific thing in relativity.
Your doppller quote/analogy on sound doesn't apply to EM vibration.
Yes, it does. The "Doppler Effect" is caused by wavelengths either crashing together, or expanding apart. This causes the shift.
TRoc, you do not appear to know anything about this subject, every last one of your answers is either wrong or based upon junk science.
I didn't sign on to be your teacher; you asked for comments.
Sorry, I read it read it too fast and got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.
Sorry, I read it read it too fast and got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.
I finished my post with "if you're interested", read my other posts. You didn't do that. I do not have time to re-explain everything to you.
I do understand you now:
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition). My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration". Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left. This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength.
You are saying that the effect of the "loss or void", would cause wavelengths to move closer together resulting in doppler shift and would also provide a mechanism for "vibration" itself.
That's bang on the money TRoc.
You are saying that the effect of the "loss or void", would cause wavelengths to move closer together resulting in doppler shift and would also provide a mechanism for "vibration" itself.
That's bang on the money TRoc.
It's great that your approach works for "solids". Next you need to UNDERSTAND what "solid" means; there is no such thing as a rigid body.
I understand PERFECTLY what it means. I was referring to matter as opposed to EM waves, etc.
Semantics will get you nowhere...
You may have every text memorized, but Science (the texts) stands divided. It is not holistic, it fails UNDERSTANDING at the fundamental level. Therefore, your understanding mirrors that of Science: Incomplete.
That's true of everyone.
That's true of everyone.
Relativity is ENTIRELY base on perception; you need to leave your self-centric world view behind in order to see duality for what it is: illusion.
No, its not. This shows that you do not understand relativity. "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance.
I said nothing of the "Doppler Effect"; I said your analogy/quote. Baseball being thrown by a moving pitcher does not equal EM waves being consistently clocked at ©, regardless of the velocities involved.
That analogy was in relation to the Doppler effect and its relation to wavelength. If you feel strongly enough about it, you could always edit the example in Wikipedia.
That analogy was in relation to the Doppler effect and its relation to wavelength. If you feel strongly enough about it, you could always edit the example in Wikipedia.
Again, best wishes for your personal growth.
I was waiting for a link that could add 3 inches...
You say: "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance."
True. The only way to maintain light speed for all observers is if something physical is happening.
True. The only way to maintain light speed for all observers is if something physical is happening.
I think you should consider carefully WHERE that bending of space [did you mean 'spacetime'?] takes place.
I have. Time, it would appear, would be a form of non-linear hyperbolic space. Its a mouthful, but it does explain the concept. It acts like a padding, filling gaps in a relative system.
Any observer in motion has a particular 'process-rate' that determines THEIR local 'timing' rate for 'detection/perception'.
You are refering to the "perception of time". This is quite differnet from "Time" as defined in a relative co-ordinate system.
You are refering to the "perception of time". This is quite differnet from "Time" as defined in a relative co-ordinate system.
It is THEIR 'dilated' (SLOWED) 'perception-rate' that allows them to 'abstractly calculate' the speed of a light pulse as being THE SAME AS OTHER OBSERVERS....only because EACH OBSERVER is ('perforce' of their local 'timing') automatically MATHEMATICALLY COMPENSATING for any relative velocity between themselves and the light pulse they are 'following/perceiving'.
No. It has nothing to with perception or the rate of that perception.
Basically, since it is only an observers' local 'space-timing' parameters that are variable/affected (ie, the light pulse carries on its merry way irrespective of who else is moving/perceiving relative to it progress), then the 'speed value arrived at by that 'observer/perceptor' IS BASED ON LOCAL OBSERVATIONS/PERCEPTIONS OF AN EXTERNAL 'INDEPENDENT' PHENOMENA (light propagation) whose ACTUAL ABSOLUTE speed is UNAFFECTED by that observer's calculation of their SUBJECTIVELY-CORRECTED-FOR 'perception' of comparative velocities.
Again, you are refering to "Time" in the sense of perception...this has nothing to do with "Time" as a dimension of a relative co-ordinate systyem. These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion.
Again, you are refering to "Time" in the sense of perception...this has nothing to do with "Time" as a dimension of a relative co-ordinate systyem. These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion.
Be extra careful when treating effects/results across BOTH absolute AND relative frames of reference SIMULATANEOUSLY in the same analysis/explanation.
Be extra careful that you correctly understand the difference between conceptual definitions and co-ordinate definitions.
>>>You say: "These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion."
Yes.
Yes.
In which case they are independent, simultaneous 'events' in their own frames of reference wherein their respective processes are as they are according to localised physical parameters.
No. There is no such thing as "simultaneous".
And therefore the introduction of ANY 'comparative' LANGUAGE/EXPLANATION into the analysis/reality of any two such absolutely-separate, 'self-contained' events/processes/situations as you describe would be invalid and irrelevant (WHETHER as a conceptual (virtual) 'entity' OR as a would-be tangible (actual/physical) 'entity/parameter').
Its not self contained.
Its not self contained.
I know why time slows in gravity: space is in motion. This has the same effect as matter in motion; time slows
Time does not slow, it dilates, altering linear distance.
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics.
Einstein is just a puny human being who either had a good perspective on things or was a cheap theif of other men or women's patented data. I wont even give him a second throught. THE METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC proof is the only fact and not some old weird looking doofus.
But apparently there IS 'simultaneity' in YOUR view of things as you described till now. Where there is NO 'time' BETWEEN any two events/situation/processes NOT in the SAME frame of reference ABSOLUTELY, then of course there will be 'ABSOLUTE' simultaneity...as both events are occurring in their respective 'spacetime frame' coccoon...and hence no COMMUNICATION (read 'time') is 'transpiring' between them RELATIVELY, only ABSOLUTELY at their respective 'locations' in that 'spacetime'.
No, you have the mechanism confused.
Without 'absolute processes' there ARE no 'mechanisms' for ANYthing....including 'relativity theory' concepts like 'time'.
Time reversal symmetry is a VERY basic principle. It does work with this, however, for QM compatibility uncertainties would arise. The end result would be symmetry breaking, whilst maintaining symmetry, hence, "non-linear hyperbolic space".
Time reversal symmetry is a VERY basic principle. It does work with this, however, for QM compatibility uncertainties would arise. The end result would be symmetry breaking, whilst maintaining symmetry, hence, "non-linear hyperbolic space".
And since absolute processes DO transpire, whatever 'relative' constructs we arrive at to 'represent' that reality is perforce 'bounded' by observational-construct comparisons----that's what 'RELATIVITY' means....comparison of one 'observationally-bounded' process/event 'relative' to another 'observationally bounded' process/event.
In the co-ordinate system, yes. When translated to reality, the "observational-construct" is replaced by "relative particle-construct". So, we move from a concept, to a real thing.
It's ONLY when a 'complete' theory, based on ABSOLUTE-FRAME considerations, is applied, will one have any idea WHAT 'fundamental/underlying' CYCLING RATE exists; from which 'base' Universal-Process RATE then one can 'absolutely' measure' 'other' more 'evolved' Local-Process RATES. THAT would be the 'correct' cycle-rate 'timing' for whatever 'local' process is being considered.
Again, you are dealing with the conceptual.
Again, you are dealing with the conceptual.
It should be noted that at NO POINT is 'time' necessary (as either 'mechanism', effect, or physical dimension') for the Universal/Local processes to 'cycle'/'evolve'/devolve irrespective of frame of reference considerations.
It is when you are not dealing with a concept.
Any 'dilations/contractions' in the 'cycling rates' and 'spatial(only)-dimensional translations/extensions' of diverse LOCAL PROCESSES occur irrespective of any 'timing' of such rates....only constructive/destructive interactions between 'unit processes' is required in objective reality; and, again, this 'happens as it happens', whether an observer 'judges/wishes' any interaction to be constructive/destructive.
No, this is not true. An observer does not "judge/wish" for the velocity of light to be maintained. It happens, whether or not we are here.
No, this is not true. An observer does not "judge/wish" for the velocity of light to be maintained. It happens, whether or not we are here.
The EFFECTS of process-interactions are not being 'TIMED/MEASURED' by the Universe...these process-interactions do what they do; either ONE thing OR the other.
Nobody said they were. You have this really confused, the dimension is called "Time", but that has nothing to do with the "perception of time". Its apples and oranges.
In other words, the Universe is only 'interested' (so to speak) in 'coincidences' (as in 'meetings/interactions') between 'unit processes'; and it doesn't 'care' (so to speak) how/where they occur. It is only 'conscious observers' who may have what could be termed a 'stake' in 'timing/measuring' such things.
Once again, you are off-topic. This is not what we are discussing. RealityCheck, you really need to sit down and both read and understand Einstein's relativity.
You are lost when it comes to the definition of "Time" and the difference between concepts and reality.
No. PROCESSES are reversible; 'time' is a 'one-way-cumulative' accounting/analytical term REGARDLESS of which 'direction' the observed 'process' proceeds in reality.
No, again, you are talking about the "perception of time", not "Time" as a dimension.
No, again, you are talking about the "perception of time", not "Time" as a dimension.
The 'reversibility is a 'fictitious' accounting convenience, NOT spacially significant except as a VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION' IN AN EQUATION, basically 'standing-in' for the 'reversible-directionality' of the ACTUAL PROCESS ITSELF to which the 'time' analytical term pertains.
The reversibility is "spacially significant".
And what is that 'real thing'?...it is the "relative particle-construct" ITSELF, not any 'timing' of that constructs process(es).
Time is a dimension of the relative co-ordinate system. Also, I am not going to keep explaining this, this has NOTHING to do with "timing of constructs" or the "perception of time".
Time is an ARBITRARY NAME given to a dimension of a relative co-ordinate system.
Time is a dimension of the relative co-ordinate system. Also, I am not going to keep explaining this, this has NOTHING to do with "timing of constructs" or the "perception of time".
Time is an ARBITRARY NAME given to a dimension of a relative co-ordinate system.
That's exactly what I've been saying! Perhaps we have been talking at cross-purposes? Could it be we are actually in agreement, but misunderstanding each other????
Your terminology is the source of the problem. Each of your points refer to ANOTHER definition of "Time" and, as such, don't make sense in this context.
QUOTE (MMC Posted on Nov 19 2005+ 09:29 PM)
Actually, the more I think about it. I could explain gravity as a removal of hyperbolic space between bodies due to the "dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level.
An increase in density, would mean more "dilations" per nm, resulting in a faster rate of "destruction" of space through "dilations". That would manifest as "gravity".
Einstein would support me...
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics. Certainly he would not approve of quantum gravity (without a good reason). Now this theory may be right or it may be wrong... I dunno... I just know Einstein would not be supporting it. What I would like to mention is the term 4th Dimension is not the one Einstein used which was "Time". This 4th Dimension is certainly not Time.... so what is it exactly? How many dimensions in this theory altogether? Does it incorporate Special Theory and General Theory?... or is this slyly another theory altogether made to appear superficially to be similar to Einstein's Theory?
If you are looking for a "dumb" Theory based on Einsteins Ideas then "look at my ideas". Pure Special and General Relativity and an extension into Gravity (using a corollary from the Equivalence principle from Einstein's General Theory) that does not involve space-quantization at the Planck's Length. Theories which have quantization of Space-time at the Planck's Length "introduce" bb's that size weighing 10
gms each... filling all space with a massive matter millions of times denser than dwarf star matter. I don't think so. It might be possible to quantize the "Uberspace" but it is not my first choice.
I have an open mind so you may be able to settle this matter easily. Is there some experimental justification for this "extension" that prompted this theory? I certainly hope so since Einsten's Theories are very well tested and there have been no errors noted to date. You would be pushing "it" up a hill with a stick without some reason to do so!
Cheers
An increase in density, would mean more "dilations" per nm, resulting in a faster rate of "destruction" of space through "dilations". That would manifest as "gravity".
Einstein would support me...
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics. Certainly he would not approve of quantum gravity (without a good reason). Now this theory may be right or it may be wrong... I dunno... I just know Einstein would not be supporting it. What I would like to mention is the term 4th Dimension is not the one Einstein used which was "Time". This 4th Dimension is certainly not Time.... so what is it exactly? How many dimensions in this theory altogether? Does it incorporate Special Theory and General Theory?... or is this slyly another theory altogether made to appear superficially to be similar to Einstein's Theory?
If you are looking for a "dumb" Theory based on Einsteins Ideas then "look at my ideas". Pure Special and General Relativity and an extension into Gravity (using a corollary from the Equivalence principle from Einstein's General Theory) that does not involve space-quantization at the Planck's Length. Theories which have quantization of Space-time at the Planck's Length "introduce" bb's that size weighing 10
gms each... filling all space with a massive matter millions of times denser than dwarf star matter. I don't think so. It might be possible to quantize the "Uberspace" but it is not my first choice.I have an open mind so you may be able to settle this matter easily. Is there some experimental justification for this "extension" that prompted this theory? I certainly hope so since Einsten's Theories are very well tested and there have been no errors noted to date. You would be pushing "it" up a hill with a stick without some reason to do so!
Cheers
QUOTE (MMC+Nov 20 2005, 04:11 AM)
...our notion of days, months, years, etc. does not exist in reality. It is "illusion" based upon errors that appear in a relative co-ordinate system....
The causality exist, as is the base of most of physical laws. If these laws are valid, so then the causality must exists. If the causality exists, so the time must exist too, as the general causality construct.
Moreover, GR just concludes, the time coordinate exists by the same way, as the space coordinate. They're have equal meaning in GR. It can be shown, after all, the time quantity is the only quantity, which cannot be derived from the others.
It means, time is the only quantity, which is "real", really.... All other quantities can be derived just from the time quantity flow deformations.
The causality exist, as is the base of most of physical laws. If these laws are valid, so then the causality must exists. If the causality exists, so the time must exist too, as the general causality construct.
Moreover, GR just concludes, the time coordinate exists by the same way, as the space coordinate. They're have equal meaning in GR. It can be shown, after all, the time quantity is the only quantity, which cannot be derived from the others.
It means, time is the only quantity, which is "real", really....
All other quantities can be derived just from the time quantity flow deformations.
Most awesome. To brings the Schrodinger's equations and Heisenberg's equation to union with Einstein's relativity formula and Plank's (and Bohr) subatomic observations. Uniting gravity with electromagnetic ....well I must say it all sounds very good but is it possible, and even if a solution is made is it just a theory like String Theory? well, without evidence and proof , it is impossible for us to say for certain so the question still remains.
QUOTE
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics.
I can see what you mean, however, he was the one to introduce the dilations. At the time, quantum mechanics had no evidence to support it. Today it is different and even Einstein would have to accept that. By ignoring the dilations at quantum level, Einstein missed the simplist method of integration.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics. |
I can see what you mean, however, he was the one to introduce the dilations. At the time, quantum mechanics had no evidence to support it. Today it is different and even Einstein would have to accept that. By ignoring the dilations at quantum level, Einstein missed the simplist method of integration.
Certainly he would not approve of quantum gravity (without a good reason). Now this theory may be right or it may be wrong... I dunno... I just know Einstein would not be supporting it.
Actually, he would. Mass is mass, whether quantum or otherwise. Mass and gravity are related.
QUOTE
What I would like to mention is the term 4th Dimension is not the one Einstein used which was "Time". This 4th Dimension is certainly not Time.... so what is it exactly? How many dimensions in this theory altogether? Does it incorporate Special Theory and General Theory?... or is this slyly another theory altogether made to appear superficially to be similar to Einstein's Theory?
The theory deals only with the manifestation of gravity and probably mass also. It looks for a mechanical explanation and the basic principle is drawn from Einstein. It is fully compatible with both special and general relativity and actually shows how these arise and why.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What I would like to mention is the term 4th Dimension is not the one Einstein used which was "Time". This 4th Dimension is certainly not Time.... so what is it exactly? How many dimensions in this theory altogether? Does it incorporate Special Theory and General Theory?... or is this slyly another theory altogether made to appear superficially to be similar to Einstein's Theory? |
The theory deals only with the manifestation of gravity and probably mass also. It looks for a mechanical explanation and the basic principle is drawn from Einstein. It is fully compatible with both special and general relativity and actually shows how these arise and why.
I have an open mind so you may be able to settle this matter easily. Is there some experimental justification for this "extension" that prompted this theory?
Yes, experimentation on relativity, involving Atomic clocks and frames of reference in motion. In addition to this, theories of VSL, symmetry breaking, entanglement and faster than light communication at the sub-atomic level led to the possibility of an "alternating distance" as being the source of the events. This "alternating distance" would be produced by "dilations" in time, during relative motion.
QUOTE
I certainly hope so since Einsten's Theories are very well tested and there have been no errors noted to date. You would be pushing "it" up a hill with a stick without some reason to do so!
It is drawn from Einstein's work...so there is no problems here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I certainly hope so since Einsten's Theories are very well tested and there have been no errors noted to date. You would be pushing "it" up a hill with a stick without some reason to do so! |
It is drawn from Einstein's work...so there is no problems here.
The causality exist, as is the base of most of physical laws. If these laws are valid, so then the causality must exists. If the causality exists, so the time must exist too, as the general causality construct.
Using this method, I can both implement uncertainty and relativity, whilst, demonstrating the connection between mass, density and gravity in a real sense.
QUOTE
Moreover, GR just concludes, the time coordinate exists by the same way, as the space coordinate. They're have equal meaning in GR.
Yes, time is another form of space. A non-linear hyperbolic space, which is why entaglement works as this hyperbolic space, is non-linear.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Moreover, GR just concludes, the time coordinate exists by the same way, as the space coordinate. They're have equal meaning in GR. |
Yes, time is another form of space. A non-linear hyperbolic space, which is why entaglement works as this hyperbolic space, is non-linear.
It can be shown, after all, the time quantity is the only quantity, which cannot be derived from the others.
It would also be true of my work.
QUOTE
It means, time is the only quantity, which is "real", really.... wink.gif All other quantities can be derived just from the time quantity flow deformations.
Bingo...its something tangable, not a concept.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It means, time is the only quantity, which is "real", really.... wink.gif All other quantities can be derived just from the time quantity flow deformations. |
Bingo...its something tangable, not a concept.
Most awesome. To brings the Schrodinger's equations and Heisenberg's equation to union with Einstein's relativity formula and Plank's (and Bohr) subatomic observations. Uniting gravity with electromagnetic ....well I must say it all sounds very good but is it possible, and even if a solution is made is it just a theory like String Theory?
It is a theory with a solid basis and a clear mechanical function. It matches all know manifestions of the events and any evidence can be explained through the mechanism.
QUOTE
well, without evidence and proof , it is impossible for us to say for certain so the question still remains.
Yes, however, this can be put to the test and I have found no circumstances where the model fails in describing the relationship between gravity, mass and density.
I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on this...
There is no need. I understand exactly what mass is.
It is the pull, or void, created by the dilation of time during relative motion of sub-atomic particles.
This provides mass. Relative weight, would be a result of the interaction of a number of masses. That is, the different rate of dilations in each chemical interacting, would produce a sum of those dilations.
Gravity and mass, therefore, would be different aspects of the same phenomenon.
I not sure if this is the mechanism, however, it is a possible source. It would also explain why mass is consistant; its atomic weight would define a set number of dilations per mole.
QUOTE
There is no need. I understand exactly what mass is.
It is the pull, or void, created by the dilation of time during relative motion of sub-atomic particles.
This provides mass. Relative weight, would be a result of the interaction of a number of masses. That is, the different rate of dilations in each chemical interacting, would produce a sum of those dilations.
Gravity and mass, therefore, would be different aspects of the same phenomenon.
I not sure if this is the mechanism, however, it is a possible source. It would also explain why mass is consistant; its atomic weight would define a set number of dilations per mole.
QUOTE
In my current model, relative time dialation occurs within spacial vacuoles of differing asymmetry in respect of the vacuole perimeter to the grey hole singularity present at the heart of all particulate matter.
I see no reason to break symmetry. In fact, from the standpoint of communications, it would be impossible without some form of "hidden layer" syncronising everything. This theory would take the symmetry of Einstein's relativity and apply it to the quantum world.
In regards to this, I found that most phenomenon could be reduced to an "alternating distance", that would effect speed results. Particles, or wavelets would appear to travel faster, whereas the truth is, the distance is shrinking and the velocity remains constant.
Simple Lorentz....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In my current model, relative time dialation occurs within spacial vacuoles of differing asymmetry in respect of the vacuole perimeter to the grey hole singularity present at the heart of all particulate matter. |
I see no reason to break symmetry. In fact, from the standpoint of communications, it would be impossible without some form of "hidden layer" syncronising everything. This theory would take the symmetry of Einstein's relativity and apply it to the quantum world.
In regards to this, I found that most phenomenon could be reduced to an "alternating distance", that would effect speed results. Particles, or wavelets would appear to travel faster, whereas the truth is, the distance is shrinking and the velocity remains constant.
Simple Lorentz....
In addition to this, theories of VSL, symmetry breaking, entanglement and faster than light communication at the sub-atomic level led to the possibility of an "alternating distance" as being the source of the events. This "alternating distance" would be produced by "dilations" in time, during relative motion.
I think it fits very well.
MMC,
It would be interesting to know who you are quoting in your original post.
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition). My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration". Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left. This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength. The nice thing about BF, is that it can be summed to produce the final frequency (your dilation), and is easy to relate to the original frequency (tonic, or fundamental). To this, you can add other dimensions as needed to get to the "perspective" that you are looking for (energy, mass, gravity, etc.).
If you are interested in seeing more, see my posts in the following threads:
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT., 'Complete' T.O.E. construction project.
MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project, Discuss TOE implications for maths/geom.
TRoc
It would be interesting to know who you are quoting in your original post.
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition). My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration". Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left. This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength. The nice thing about BF, is that it can be summed to produce the final frequency (your dilation), and is easy to relate to the original frequency (tonic, or fundamental). To this, you can add other dimensions as needed to get to the "perspective" that you are looking for (energy, mass, gravity, etc.).
If you are interested in seeing more, see my posts in the following threads:
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT., 'Complete' T.O.E. construction project.
MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project, Discuss TOE implications for maths/geom.
TRoc
QUOTE
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition).
Frequency, is cycles per second. The "rate of dilation", is the amount of dilations that occur for a given amount of particles in relative motion.
Two different things entirely.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition). |
Frequency, is cycles per second. The "rate of dilation", is the amount of dilations that occur for a given amount of particles in relative motion.
Two different things entirely.
My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration".
A "dilation" is the loss or gain of Time in a relative co-ordinate system.
QUOTE
Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left.
You are talking about peaks and troughs...sorry, not related, at least not at this point. This is simply the dilation of time in a relative system.
I have not extended it beyond solid matter, yet, however, yes, it does work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left. |
You are talking about peaks and troughs...sorry, not related, at least not at this point. This is simply the dilation of time in a relative system.
I have not extended it beyond solid matter, yet, however, yes, it does work.
This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength.
Doppler shift has nothing to do with frequency, it is wavelength:
QUOTE
It is important to realize that the frequency of the sounds that the source emits does not actually change. To understand what happens, consider the following analogy. Someone throws one ball every second in your direction. Assume that balls travel with constant velocity. If the thrower is stationary, you will receive one ball every second. However, if he is moving towards you, you will receive balls more frequently than that because there will be less spacing between the balls. The converse is true if the person is moving away from you. So it is actually the wavelength which is affected; as a consequence, the perceived frequency is also affected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It is important to realize that the frequency of the sounds that the source emits does not actually change. To understand what happens, consider the following analogy. Someone throws one ball every second in your direction. Assume that balls travel with constant velocity. If the thrower is stationary, you will receive one ball every second. However, if he is moving towards you, you will receive balls more frequently than that because there will be less spacing between the balls. The converse is true if the person is moving away from you. So it is actually the wavelength which is affected; as a consequence, the perceived frequency is also affected. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
The nice thing about BF, is that it can be summed to produce the final frequency (your dilation), and is easy to relate to the original frequency (tonic, or fundamental).
No. A "dilation" is the loss or gain of "Time" in a relative co-ordinate system.
QUOTE
To this, you can add other dimensions as needed to get to the "perspective" that you are looking for (energy, mass, gravity, etc.).
Only if you are interested in "conceptual physics"...This is a working model, quite different.
MMC,
I'm sorry that you didn't understand anything I said.
Good luck with you rigid approach, but remember nothing is solid. I'm not sure where that leaves you.
Dilation is a dualistic perception; so is everything else we didn't "agree" on.
Your doppler quote/analogy on sound doesn't apply to EM vibration.
TRoc
I'm sorry that you didn't understand anything I said.
Good luck with you rigid approach, but remember nothing is solid. I'm not sure where that leaves you.
Dilation is a dualistic perception; so is everything else we didn't "agree" on.
Your doppler quote/analogy on sound doesn't apply to EM vibration.
TRoc
QUOTE
I'm sorry that you didn't understand anything I said.
It wasn't that. It didn't make sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I'm sorry that you didn't understand anything I said. |
It wasn't that. It didn't make sense.
Good luck with you rigid approach, but remember nothing is solid. I'm not sure where that leaves you.
It has no effect, my work still functions.
QUOTE
Dilation is a dualistic perception; so is everything else we didn't "agree" on.
No, its not. "Dilation" is a specific thing in relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Dilation is a dualistic perception; so is everything else we didn't "agree" on. |
No, its not. "Dilation" is a specific thing in relativity.
Your doppller quote/analogy on sound doesn't apply to EM vibration.
Yes, it does. The "Doppler Effect" is caused by wavelengths either crashing together, or expanding apart. This causes the shift.
TRoc, you do not appear to know anything about this subject, every last one of your answers is either wrong or based upon junk science.
MMC,
I didn't sign on to be your teacher; you asked for comments.
I finished my post with "if you're interested", read my other posts. You didn't do that. I do not have time to re-explain everything to you.
It's great that your approach works for "solids". Next you need to UNDERSTAND what "solid" means; there is no such thing as a rigid body. You may have every text memorized, but Science (the texts) stands divided. It is not holistic, it fails UNDERSTANDING at the fundamental level. Therefore, your understanding mirrors that of Science: Incomplete.
Relativity is ENTIRELY base on perception; you need to leave your self-centric world view behind in order to see duality for what it is: illusion.
I said nothing of the "Doppler Effect"; I said your analogy/quote. Baseball being thrown by a moving pitcher does not equal EM waves being consistently clocked at ©, regardless of the velocities involved.
Again, best wishes for your personal growth.
TRoc
I didn't sign on to be your teacher; you asked for comments.
I finished my post with "if you're interested", read my other posts. You didn't do that. I do not have time to re-explain everything to you.
It's great that your approach works for "solids". Next you need to UNDERSTAND what "solid" means; there is no such thing as a rigid body. You may have every text memorized, but Science (the texts) stands divided. It is not holistic, it fails UNDERSTANDING at the fundamental level. Therefore, your understanding mirrors that of Science: Incomplete.
Relativity is ENTIRELY base on perception; you need to leave your self-centric world view behind in order to see duality for what it is: illusion.
I said nothing of the "Doppler Effect"; I said your analogy/quote. Baseball being thrown by a moving pitcher does not equal EM waves being consistently clocked at ©, regardless of the velocities involved.
Again, best wishes for your personal growth.
TRoc
QUOTE
I didn't sign on to be your teacher; you asked for comments.
Sorry, I read it read it too fast and got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I didn't sign on to be your teacher; you asked for comments. |
Sorry, I read it read it too fast and got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.
I finished my post with "if you're interested", read my other posts. You didn't do that. I do not have time to re-explain everything to you.
I do understand you now:
QUOTE
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition). My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration". Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left. This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength.
You are saying that the effect of the "loss or void", would cause wavelengths to move closer together resulting in doppler shift and would also provide a mechanism for "vibration" itself.
That's bang on the money TRoc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
On your last question: the "rate of dilation" seems to be commonly measured in Frequency (by definition). My term for dilation itself is simply "vibration". Since frequency has a time parameter built in, the distance of the oscillation is all that is left. Indeed, there would be a "void" of sorts in the space that the vibration just left. This void would Doppler shift any wave used to measure the original position; I am calling this "beat frequency"(BF), also referred to as the change in distance or wavelength. |
You are saying that the effect of the "loss or void", would cause wavelengths to move closer together resulting in doppler shift and would also provide a mechanism for "vibration" itself.
That's bang on the money TRoc.
It's great that your approach works for "solids". Next you need to UNDERSTAND what "solid" means; there is no such thing as a rigid body.
I understand PERFECTLY what it means. I was referring to matter as opposed to EM waves, etc.
Semantics will get you nowhere...
QUOTE
You may have every text memorized, but Science (the texts) stands divided. It is not holistic, it fails UNDERSTANDING at the fundamental level. Therefore, your understanding mirrors that of Science: Incomplete.
That's true of everyone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You may have every text memorized, but Science (the texts) stands divided. It is not holistic, it fails UNDERSTANDING at the fundamental level. Therefore, your understanding mirrors that of Science: Incomplete. |
That's true of everyone.
Relativity is ENTIRELY base on perception; you need to leave your self-centric world view behind in order to see duality for what it is: illusion.
No, its not. This shows that you do not understand relativity. "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance.
QUOTE
I said nothing of the "Doppler Effect"; I said your analogy/quote. Baseball being thrown by a moving pitcher does not equal EM waves being consistently clocked at ©, regardless of the velocities involved.
That analogy was in relation to the Doppler effect and its relation to wavelength. If you feel strongly enough about it, you could always edit the example in Wikipedia.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I said nothing of the "Doppler Effect"; I said your analogy/quote. Baseball being thrown by a moving pitcher does not equal EM waves being consistently clocked at ©, regardless of the velocities involved. |
That analogy was in relation to the Doppler effect and its relation to wavelength. If you feel strongly enough about it, you could always edit the example in Wikipedia.
Again, best wishes for your personal growth.
I was waiting for a link that could add 3 inches...
Hi MMC!
You say: "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance."
I think you should consider carefully WHERE that bending of space [did you mean 'spacetime'?] takes place. Any observer in motion has a particular 'process-rate' that determines THEIR local 'timing' rate for 'detection/perception'. It is THEIR 'dilated' (SLOWED) 'perception-rate' that allows them to 'abstractly calculate' the speed of a light pulse as being THE SAME AS OTHER OBSERVERS....only because EACH OBSERVER is ('perforce' of their local 'timing') automatically MATHEMATICALLY COMPENSATING for any relative velocity between themselves and the light pulse they are 'following/perceiving'.
Basically, since it is only an observers' local 'space-timing' parameters that are variable/affected (ie, the light pulse carries on its merry way irrespective of who else is moving/perceiving relative to it progress), then the 'speed value arrived at by that 'observer/perceptor' IS BASED ON LOCAL OBSERVATIONS/PERCEPTIONS OF AN EXTERNAL 'INDEPENDENT' PHENOMENA (light propagation) whose ACTUAL ABSOLUTE speed is UNAFFECTED by that observer's calculation of their SUBJECTIVELY-CORRECTED-FOR 'perception' of comparative velocities.
Be extra careful when treating effects/results across BOTH absolute AND relative frames of reference SIMULATANEOUSLY in the same analysis/explanation.
Good luck, MMC!
RealityCheck.
.
You say: "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance."
I think you should consider carefully WHERE that bending of space [did you mean 'spacetime'?] takes place. Any observer in motion has a particular 'process-rate' that determines THEIR local 'timing' rate for 'detection/perception'. It is THEIR 'dilated' (SLOWED) 'perception-rate' that allows them to 'abstractly calculate' the speed of a light pulse as being THE SAME AS OTHER OBSERVERS....only because EACH OBSERVER is ('perforce' of their local 'timing') automatically MATHEMATICALLY COMPENSATING for any relative velocity between themselves and the light pulse they are 'following/perceiving'.
Basically, since it is only an observers' local 'space-timing' parameters that are variable/affected (ie, the light pulse carries on its merry way irrespective of who else is moving/perceiving relative to it progress), then the 'speed value arrived at by that 'observer/perceptor' IS BASED ON LOCAL OBSERVATIONS/PERCEPTIONS OF AN EXTERNAL 'INDEPENDENT' PHENOMENA (light propagation) whose ACTUAL ABSOLUTE speed is UNAFFECTED by that observer's calculation of their SUBJECTIVELY-CORRECTED-FOR 'perception' of comparative velocities.
Be extra careful when treating effects/results across BOTH absolute AND relative frames of reference SIMULATANEOUSLY in the same analysis/explanation.
Good luck, MMC!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
You say: "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance."
True. The only way to maintain light speed for all observers is if something physical is happening.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You say: "Perception" does not maintain the velocity of light between observers, regardless of their velocity. A bending of space is required, an alteration of linear distance." |
True. The only way to maintain light speed for all observers is if something physical is happening.
I think you should consider carefully WHERE that bending of space [did you mean 'spacetime'?] takes place.
I have. Time, it would appear, would be a form of non-linear hyperbolic space. Its a mouthful, but it does explain the concept. It acts like a padding, filling gaps in a relative system.
QUOTE
Any observer in motion has a particular 'process-rate' that determines THEIR local 'timing' rate for 'detection/perception'.
You are refering to the "perception of time". This is quite differnet from "Time" as defined in a relative co-ordinate system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Any observer in motion has a particular 'process-rate' that determines THEIR local 'timing' rate for 'detection/perception'. |
You are refering to the "perception of time". This is quite differnet from "Time" as defined in a relative co-ordinate system.
It is THEIR 'dilated' (SLOWED) 'perception-rate' that allows them to 'abstractly calculate' the speed of a light pulse as being THE SAME AS OTHER OBSERVERS....only because EACH OBSERVER is ('perforce' of their local 'timing') automatically MATHEMATICALLY COMPENSATING for any relative velocity between themselves and the light pulse they are 'following/perceiving'.
No. It has nothing to with perception or the rate of that perception.
QUOTE
Basically, since it is only an observers' local 'space-timing' parameters that are variable/affected (ie, the light pulse carries on its merry way irrespective of who else is moving/perceiving relative to it progress), then the 'speed value arrived at by that 'observer/perceptor' IS BASED ON LOCAL OBSERVATIONS/PERCEPTIONS OF AN EXTERNAL 'INDEPENDENT' PHENOMENA (light propagation) whose ACTUAL ABSOLUTE speed is UNAFFECTED by that observer's calculation of their SUBJECTIVELY-CORRECTED-FOR 'perception' of comparative velocities.
Again, you are refering to "Time" in the sense of perception...this has nothing to do with "Time" as a dimension of a relative co-ordinate systyem. These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Basically, since it is only an observers' local 'space-timing' parameters that are variable/affected (ie, the light pulse carries on its merry way irrespective of who else is moving/perceiving relative to it progress), then the 'speed value arrived at by that 'observer/perceptor' IS BASED ON LOCAL OBSERVATIONS/PERCEPTIONS OF AN EXTERNAL 'INDEPENDENT' PHENOMENA (light propagation) whose ACTUAL ABSOLUTE speed is UNAFFECTED by that observer's calculation of their SUBJECTIVELY-CORRECTED-FOR 'perception' of comparative velocities. |
Again, you are refering to "Time" in the sense of perception...this has nothing to do with "Time" as a dimension of a relative co-ordinate systyem. These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion.
Be extra careful when treating effects/results across BOTH absolute AND relative frames of reference SIMULATANEOUSLY in the same analysis/explanation.
Be extra careful that you correctly understand the difference between conceptual definitions and co-ordinate definitions.
Here is another insight using this explation. Einstein predicted, under special relativity, a relative motion with light and under general relativity, a relative motion to gravity.
Since, this method attributes gravity to loss encountered of 4th dimensional space, through sub-atomic motion, could special relativity be connected throught the motion of the electron?
This would provide a physical mechanism connecting both general and special relativity.
Since, this method attributes gravity to loss encountered of 4th dimensional space, through sub-atomic motion, could special relativity be connected throught the motion of the electron?
This would provide a physical mechanism connecting both general and special relativity.
MMC,
Cool beans!
TRoc
Cool beans!
TRoc
Hi MMC!
>>>You say: "These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion."
In which case they are independent, simultaneous 'events' in their own frames of reference wherein their respective processes are as they are according to localised physical parameters.
And therefore the introduction of ANY 'comparative' LANGUAGE/EXPLANATION into the analysis/reality of any two such absolutely-separate, 'self-contained' events/processes/situations as you describe would be invalid and irrelevant (WHETHER as a conceptual (virtual) 'entity' OR as a would-be tangible (actual/physical) 'entity/parameter').
Over to you, MMC!
RealityCheck.
.
>>>You say: "These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion."
In which case they are independent, simultaneous 'events' in their own frames of reference wherein their respective processes are as they are according to localised physical parameters.
And therefore the introduction of ANY 'comparative' LANGUAGE/EXPLANATION into the analysis/reality of any two such absolutely-separate, 'self-contained' events/processes/situations as you describe would be invalid and irrelevant (WHETHER as a conceptual (virtual) 'entity' OR as a would-be tangible (actual/physical) 'entity/parameter').
Over to you, MMC!
RealityCheck.
.
I know why time slows in gravity: space is in motion. This has the same effect as matter in motion; time slows
Anybody think along these lines?
Roger Penrose does. He believes in moving dimensions.
I call them Dynamic Dimensions in that they curve and
move.
Anybody think along these lines?
Roger Penrose does. He believes in moving dimensions.
I call them Dynamic Dimensions in that they curve and
move.
QUOTE
>>>You say: "These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion."
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
>>>You say: "These "dilations" occur whether or not an observer is present. It is a fact of relative motion." |
Yes.
In which case they are independent, simultaneous 'events' in their own frames of reference wherein their respective processes are as they are according to localised physical parameters.
No. There is no such thing as "simultaneous".
QUOTE
And therefore the introduction of ANY 'comparative' LANGUAGE/EXPLANATION into the analysis/reality of any two such absolutely-separate, 'self-contained' events/processes/situations as you describe would be invalid and irrelevant (WHETHER as a conceptual (virtual) 'entity' OR as a would-be tangible (actual/physical) 'entity/parameter').
Its not self contained.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And therefore the introduction of ANY 'comparative' LANGUAGE/EXPLANATION into the analysis/reality of any two such absolutely-separate, 'self-contained' events/processes/situations as you describe would be invalid and irrelevant (WHETHER as a conceptual (virtual) 'entity' OR as a would-be tangible (actual/physical) 'entity/parameter'). |
Its not self contained.
I know why time slows in gravity: space is in motion. This has the same effect as matter in motion; time slows
Time does not slow, it dilates, altering linear distance.
QUOTE
I would not want to "rain on anyones parade" but I feel certain that Einstein would not approve of ""dilations" produced by relativity at the quantum level". He fought hard and long at the expense of his well earned reputation to counter this very notion. He had a competing theory called the Unified Field Theory which sought to undermine quantum mechanics.
Einstein is just a puny human being who either had a good perspective on things or was a cheap theif of other men or women's patented data. I wont even give him a second throught. THE METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC proof is the only fact and not some old weird looking doofus.
Hi MMC.
But apparently there IS 'simultaneity' in YOUR view of things as you described till now. Where there is NO 'time' BETWEEN any two events/situation/processes NOT in the SAME frame of reference ABSOLUTELY, then of course there will be 'ABSOLUTE' simultaneity...as both events are occurring in their respective 'spacetime frame' coccoon...and hence no COMMUNICATION (read 'time') is 'transpiring' between them RELATIVELY, only ABSOLUTELY at their respective 'locations' in that 'spacetime'.
So 'time' is irrelevant; and 'simultaneous' implies 'absolute concurrency of parallel processes' EVERYWHERE in SPACE(ONLY); rather than implying 'instantaneously-related processes' in SPACE(TIME). You should also bear in mind that all assumptions regarding RELATIVITY theory AREN'T GOSPEL in ABSOLUTE TERMS, but only in the PARTICULAR 'boundary-conditional' terms used in that PARTIAL THEORY construct. Ciao!
RealityCheck.
.
But apparently there IS 'simultaneity' in YOUR view of things as you described till now. Where there is NO 'time' BETWEEN any two events/situation/processes NOT in the SAME frame of reference ABSOLUTELY, then of course there will be 'ABSOLUTE' simultaneity...as both events are occurring in their respective 'spacetime frame' coccoon...and hence no COMMUNICATION (read 'time') is 'transpiring' between them RELATIVELY, only ABSOLUTELY at their respective 'locations' in that 'spacetime'.
So 'time' is irrelevant; and 'simultaneous' implies 'absolute concurrency of parallel processes' EVERYWHERE in SPACE(ONLY); rather than implying 'instantaneously-related processes' in SPACE(TIME). You should also bear in mind that all assumptions regarding RELATIVITY theory AREN'T GOSPEL in ABSOLUTE TERMS, but only in the PARTICULAR 'boundary-conditional' terms used in that PARTIAL THEORY construct. Ciao!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
But apparently there IS 'simultaneity' in YOUR view of things as you described till now. Where there is NO 'time' BETWEEN any two events/situation/processes NOT in the SAME frame of reference ABSOLUTELY, then of course there will be 'ABSOLUTE' simultaneity...as both events are occurring in their respective 'spacetime frame' coccoon...and hence no COMMUNICATION (read 'time') is 'transpiring' between them RELATIVELY, only ABSOLUTELY at their respective 'locations' in that 'spacetime'.
No, you have the mechanism confused.
Hi MMC!
Without 'absolute processes' there ARE no 'mechanisms' for ANYthing....including 'relativity theory' concepts like 'time'.
And since absolute processes DO transpire, whatever 'relative' constructs we arrive at to 'represent' that reality is perforce 'bounded' by observational-construct comparisons----that's what 'RELATIVITY' means....comparison of one 'observationally-bounded' process/event 'relative' to another 'observationally bounded' process/event.
It's ONLY when a 'complete' theory, based on ABSOLUTE-FRAME considerations, is applied, will one have any idea WHAT 'fundamental/underlying' CYCLING RATE exists; from which 'base' Universal-Process RATE then one can 'absolutely' measure' 'other' more 'evolved' Local-Process RATES. THAT would be the 'correct' cycle-rate 'timing' for whatever 'local' process is being considered.
It should be noted that at NO POINT is 'time' necessary (as either 'mechanism', effect, or physical dimension') for the Universal/Local processes to 'cycle'/'evolve'/devolve irrespective of frame of reference considerations.
Any 'dilations/contractions' in the 'cycling rates' and 'spatial(only)-dimensional translations/extensions' of diverse LOCAL PROCESSES occur irrespective of any 'timing' of such rates....only constructive/destructive interactions between 'unit processes' is required in objective reality; and, again, this 'happens as it happens', whether an observer 'judges/wishes' any interaction to be constructive/destructive.
The EFFECTS of process-interactions are not being 'TIMED/MEASURED' by the Universe...these process-interactions do what they do; either ONE thing OR the other.
In other words, the Universe is only 'interested' (so to speak) in 'coincidences' (as in 'meetings/interactions') between 'unit processes'; and it doesn't 'care' (so to speak) how/where they occur. It is only 'conscious observers' who may have what could be termed a 'stake' in 'timing/measuring' such things.
Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
Without 'absolute processes' there ARE no 'mechanisms' for ANYthing....including 'relativity theory' concepts like 'time'.
And since absolute processes DO transpire, whatever 'relative' constructs we arrive at to 'represent' that reality is perforce 'bounded' by observational-construct comparisons----that's what 'RELATIVITY' means....comparison of one 'observationally-bounded' process/event 'relative' to another 'observationally bounded' process/event.
It's ONLY when a 'complete' theory, based on ABSOLUTE-FRAME considerations, is applied, will one have any idea WHAT 'fundamental/underlying' CYCLING RATE exists; from which 'base' Universal-Process RATE then one can 'absolutely' measure' 'other' more 'evolved' Local-Process RATES. THAT would be the 'correct' cycle-rate 'timing' for whatever 'local' process is being considered.
It should be noted that at NO POINT is 'time' necessary (as either 'mechanism', effect, or physical dimension') for the Universal/Local processes to 'cycle'/'evolve'/devolve irrespective of frame of reference considerations.
Any 'dilations/contractions' in the 'cycling rates' and 'spatial(only)-dimensional translations/extensions' of diverse LOCAL PROCESSES occur irrespective of any 'timing' of such rates....only constructive/destructive interactions between 'unit processes' is required in objective reality; and, again, this 'happens as it happens', whether an observer 'judges/wishes' any interaction to be constructive/destructive.
The EFFECTS of process-interactions are not being 'TIMED/MEASURED' by the Universe...these process-interactions do what they do; either ONE thing OR the other.
In other words, the Universe is only 'interested' (so to speak) in 'coincidences' (as in 'meetings/interactions') between 'unit processes'; and it doesn't 'care' (so to speak) how/where they occur. It is only 'conscious observers' who may have what could be termed a 'stake' in 'timing/measuring' such things.
Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
Without 'absolute processes' there ARE no 'mechanisms' for ANYthing....including 'relativity theory' concepts like 'time'.
Time reversal symmetry is a VERY basic principle. It does work with this, however, for QM compatibility uncertainties would arise. The end result would be symmetry breaking, whilst maintaining symmetry, hence, "non-linear hyperbolic space".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Without 'absolute processes' there ARE no 'mechanisms' for ANYthing....including 'relativity theory' concepts like 'time'. |
Time reversal symmetry is a VERY basic principle. It does work with this, however, for QM compatibility uncertainties would arise. The end result would be symmetry breaking, whilst maintaining symmetry, hence, "non-linear hyperbolic space".
And since absolute processes DO transpire, whatever 'relative' constructs we arrive at to 'represent' that reality is perforce 'bounded' by observational-construct comparisons----that's what 'RELATIVITY' means....comparison of one 'observationally-bounded' process/event 'relative' to another 'observationally bounded' process/event.
In the co-ordinate system, yes. When translated to reality, the "observational-construct" is replaced by "relative particle-construct". So, we move from a concept, to a real thing.
QUOTE
It's ONLY when a 'complete' theory, based on ABSOLUTE-FRAME considerations, is applied, will one have any idea WHAT 'fundamental/underlying' CYCLING RATE exists; from which 'base' Universal-Process RATE then one can 'absolutely' measure' 'other' more 'evolved' Local-Process RATES. THAT would be the 'correct' cycle-rate 'timing' for whatever 'local' process is being considered.
Again, you are dealing with the conceptual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's ONLY when a 'complete' theory, based on ABSOLUTE-FRAME considerations, is applied, will one have any idea WHAT 'fundamental/underlying' CYCLING RATE exists; from which 'base' Universal-Process RATE then one can 'absolutely' measure' 'other' more 'evolved' Local-Process RATES. THAT would be the 'correct' cycle-rate 'timing' for whatever 'local' process is being considered. |
Again, you are dealing with the conceptual.
It should be noted that at NO POINT is 'time' necessary (as either 'mechanism', effect, or physical dimension') for the Universal/Local processes to 'cycle'/'evolve'/devolve irrespective of frame of reference considerations.
It is when you are not dealing with a concept.
QUOTE
Any 'dilations/contractions' in the 'cycling rates' and 'spatial(only)-dimensional translations/extensions' of diverse LOCAL PROCESSES occur irrespective of any 'timing' of such rates....only constructive/destructive interactions between 'unit processes' is required in objective reality; and, again, this 'happens as it happens', whether an observer 'judges/wishes' any interaction to be constructive/destructive.
No, this is not true. An observer does not "judge/wish" for the velocity of light to be maintained. It happens, whether or not we are here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Any 'dilations/contractions' in the 'cycling rates' and 'spatial(only)-dimensional translations/extensions' of diverse LOCAL PROCESSES occur irrespective of any 'timing' of such rates....only constructive/destructive interactions between 'unit processes' is required in objective reality; and, again, this 'happens as it happens', whether an observer 'judges/wishes' any interaction to be constructive/destructive. |
No, this is not true. An observer does not "judge/wish" for the velocity of light to be maintained. It happens, whether or not we are here.
The EFFECTS of process-interactions are not being 'TIMED/MEASURED' by the Universe...these process-interactions do what they do; either ONE thing OR the other.
Nobody said they were. You have this really confused, the dimension is called "Time", but that has nothing to do with the "perception of time". Its apples and oranges.
QUOTE
In other words, the Universe is only 'interested' (so to speak) in 'coincidences' (as in 'meetings/interactions') between 'unit processes'; and it doesn't 'care' (so to speak) how/where they occur. It is only 'conscious observers' who may have what could be termed a 'stake' in 'timing/measuring' such things.
Once again, you are off-topic. This is not what we are discussing. RealityCheck, you really need to sit down and both read and understand Einstein's relativity.
You are lost when it comes to the definition of "Time" and the difference between concepts and reality.
RealityCheck, I think this quote should help you:
"The increasing distance of the physical world picture from the world of the senses means nothing but a progressive approach to the real world."
Max Planck
QUOTE
"The increasing distance of the physical world picture from the world of the senses means nothing but a progressive approach to the real world."
Max Planck
Hi MMC.
>>>QUOTE: "Time reversal symmetry is a VERY basic principle."
No. PROCESSES are reversible; 'time' is a 'one-way-cumulative' accounting/analytical term REGARDLESS of which 'direction' the observed 'process' proceeds in reality. The 'mirror-reversibility' of so-called 'time' is a 'fictitious' accounting convenience, NOT spatially significant except as a VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION' IN AN EQUATION, basically 'standing-in' for the 'reversible-directionality' of the ACTUAL PROCESS ITSELF to which the 'time' analytical term pertains.
>>>QUOTE: "When translated to reality, the "observational-construct" is replaced by "relative particle-construct". So, we move from a concept, to a real thing."
And what is that 'real thing'?...it is the "relative particle-construct" ITSELF, not any 'timing' of that constructs process(es).
>>>QUOTE: ""The increasing distance of the physical world picture from the world of the senses means nothing but a progressive approach to the real world." [Max Planck].
That's exactly what I've been saying! Perhaps we have been talking at cross-purposes? Could it be we are actually in agreement, but misunderstanding each other????
RealityCheck.
.
>>>QUOTE: "Time reversal symmetry is a VERY basic principle."
No. PROCESSES are reversible; 'time' is a 'one-way-cumulative' accounting/analytical term REGARDLESS of which 'direction' the observed 'process' proceeds in reality. The 'mirror-reversibility' of so-called 'time' is a 'fictitious' accounting convenience, NOT spatially significant except as a VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION' IN AN EQUATION, basically 'standing-in' for the 'reversible-directionality' of the ACTUAL PROCESS ITSELF to which the 'time' analytical term pertains.
>>>QUOTE: "When translated to reality, the "observational-construct" is replaced by "relative particle-construct". So, we move from a concept, to a real thing."
And what is that 'real thing'?...it is the "relative particle-construct" ITSELF, not any 'timing' of that constructs process(es).
>>>QUOTE: ""The increasing distance of the physical world picture from the world of the senses means nothing but a progressive approach to the real world." [Max Planck].
That's exactly what I've been saying! Perhaps we have been talking at cross-purposes? Could it be we are actually in agreement, but misunderstanding each other????
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
No. PROCESSES are reversible; 'time' is a 'one-way-cumulative' accounting/analytical term REGARDLESS of which 'direction' the observed 'process' proceeds in reality.
No, again, you are talking about the "perception of time", not "Time" as a dimension.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
No. PROCESSES are reversible; 'time' is a 'one-way-cumulative' accounting/analytical term REGARDLESS of which 'direction' the observed 'process' proceeds in reality. |
No, again, you are talking about the "perception of time", not "Time" as a dimension.
The 'reversibility is a 'fictitious' accounting convenience, NOT spacially significant except as a VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION' IN AN EQUATION, basically 'standing-in' for the 'reversible-directionality' of the ACTUAL PROCESS ITSELF to which the 'time' analytical term pertains.
The reversibility is "spacially significant".
QUOTE
And what is that 'real thing'?...it is the "relative particle-construct" ITSELF, not any 'timing' of that constructs process(es).
Time is a dimension of the relative co-ordinate system. Also, I am not going to keep explaining this, this has NOTHING to do with "timing of constructs" or the "perception of time".
Time is an ARBITRARY NAME given to a dimension of a relative co-ordinate system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And what is that 'real thing'?...it is the "relative particle-construct" ITSELF, not any 'timing' of that constructs process(es). |
Time is a dimension of the relative co-ordinate system. Also, I am not going to keep explaining this, this has NOTHING to do with "timing of constructs" or the "perception of time".
Time is an ARBITRARY NAME given to a dimension of a relative co-ordinate system.
That's exactly what I've been saying! Perhaps we have been talking at cross-purposes? Could it be we are actually in agreement, but misunderstanding each other????
Your terminology is the source of the problem. Each of your points refer to ANOTHER definition of "Time" and, as such, don't make sense in this context.
Here is an explanation of the role of "Time" in a relative co-ordinate system, as a dimension. Whilst it is called "Time", it does not mean "Time" as in the sense of perception, but rather, as a measurement of a physical dimension.
Imagine two cars travelling in the same direction, parallel to each other. Assume Car 1 is travelling at 50Km/h and Car 2 is travelling at 100Km/h.
Now picture a light beam travelling in the same direction as the two vechicles. We will assume the "vacuum speed" of 1,079,252,848.8 km/h.
Now, if the two cars were at rest (stopped) light would pass the cars at a speed of 1,079,252,848.8 km/h.
Simple enough.
Now, if the Car 2 were to pass Car 1 on the road, Car 2 would pass Car 1 at a relative speed of 50 Km/h (100Km/h - 50Km/h).
Again simple enough, now consider this:
If car one was traveling at 50Km/h, light would pass the vechicle at 1,079,252,848.8 km/h and not the 1,079,252,798.8 km/h (light speed - 50Km/h) that would be expected.
In the same way, if car 2 were travelling at 100Km/h, light would still pass by that vechicle at 1,079,252,848.8 km/h and not the 1,079,252,748.8 km/h (light speed -100Km/h) as would be expected.
As Einstein goes on to demonstrate, this is due to "dilations" in the dimension he coined "Time", in a relative co-ordinate system.
So, now consider the implications:
Speed = Distance / Time
As "Distance" is a measurement that uses time, the standard unit of measure will alter. Due to the "dilations" in the dimension of "Time" , it will also alter.
Therefore "speed" would "appear" to alter, when in fact, it remains constant and "distance" alters. Since the "dilations" occur in a dimension known as "Time", and the effect can be measured, it provides emprical evidence of the existence of such a dimension. That is, a concept cannot have "dilations" that can be measured, thus, there must be something to "dilate".
As these "dilations" do not distort the physcial space (think of countless trillions of photons) another "hidden dimension(s)" is required, to warp space and position all the particles. This explains events such as entanglement, VSL, etc.
Its from these understandings that M-Theory, strings, branes, etc., arise. A "hidden" cosmic gap filler.
Imagine two cars travelling in the same direction, parallel to each other. Assume Car 1 is travelling at 50Km/h and Car 2 is travelling at 100Km/h.
Now picture a light beam travelling in the same direction as the two vechicles. We will assume the "vacuum speed" of 1,079,252,848.8 km/h.
Now, if the two cars were at rest (stopped) light would pass the cars at a speed of 1,079,252,848.8 km/h.
Simple enough.
Now, if the Car 2 were to pass Car 1 on the road, Car 2 would pass Car 1 at a relative speed of 50 Km/h (100Km/h - 50Km/h).
Again simple enough, now consider this:
If car one was traveling at 50Km/h, light would pass the vechicle at 1,079,252,848.8 km/h and not the 1,079,252,798.8 km/h (light speed - 50Km/h) that would be expected.
In the same way, if car 2 were travelling at 100Km/h, light would still pass by that vechicle at 1,079,252,848.8 km/h and not the 1,079,252,748.8 km/h (light speed -100Km/h) as would be expected.
As Einstein goes on to demonstrate, this is due to "dilations" in the dimension he coined "Time", in a relative co-ordinate system.
So, now consider the implications:
Speed = Distance / Time
As "Distance" is a measurement that uses time, the standard unit of measure will alter. Due to the "dilations" in the dimension of "Time" , it will also alter.
Therefore "speed" would "appear" to alter, when in fact, it remains constant and "distance" alters. Since the "dilations" occur in a dimension known as "Time", and the effect can be measured, it provides emprical evidence of the existence of such a dimension. That is, a concept cannot have "dilations" that can be measured, thus, there must be something to "dilate".
As these "dilations" do not distort the physcial space (think of countless trillions of photons) another "hidden dimension(s)" is required, to warp space and position all the particles. This explains events such as entanglement, VSL, etc.
Its from these understandings that M-Theory, strings, branes, etc., arise. A "hidden" cosmic gap filler.
Hi MMC,
He he he... I wish that it was as easy as that to convince the die hard Physicists that extra-dimensions exist.
Firstly, I have only ever met a handful of physicists that fully understood what they were talking about. Secondly, just because someone is a physicist does not make them any good at physics, nor does it make them more qualified than a non-physicist.
80% of physicists are teachers, because they couldn't secure a real job. A better way of putting it would be, that 80% of physicists could not translate their work into engineering applications.
I have an engineering background also, mechanical and electronic.
Firstly, I have only ever met a handful of physicists that fully understood what they were talking about. Secondly, just because someone is a physicist does not make them any good at physics, nor does it make them more qualified than a non-physicist.
80% of physicists are teachers, because they couldn't secure a real job. A better way of putting it would be, that 80% of physicists could not translate their work into engineering applications.
I have an engineering background also, mechanical and electronic.
The "dilation's" in time that Einstein spoke about probably do not quite fit your model. If we are speaking about relativistic speeds... space does indeed "modify" but you need to specify from which observer and relative to whom. It is not easy to make a "generalization" in relativity.
You are still dealing with the conceptual. In real terms, that would simply be the interactions of the particles involved, such as electrons and their relative motion. Nothing difficult here, beyond moving away from a concept.
A careful examination of time dilation indicates that while it is expressed in special theory terms it is really a concept that comes from his General Theory of Relativity.
I was thinking that they could be both united under the motion of the electron, providing both general and special relativity.
I was thinking that they could be both united under the motion of the electron, providing both general and special relativity.
Except for time dilation, special theory is a "linear" theory whereas Time Dilation is a scalar property.
Or...space and non-linear hyperbolic space.
I could be rushing around in circles in front of you and "losing time" like some crazy "White Rabbit". If the "Rabbit" does this successfully he may still be running late for appointments but he need not age at the same rate as the rest of us. You may say... going nowhere fast. You could surround him with observers on the outside on the inside or above his "racetrack".
This is conceptual based upon conceptual frames of reference. The only absolute frames of reference, would be sub-atomic particles.
This is conceptual based upon conceptual frames of reference. The only absolute frames of reference, would be sub-atomic particles.
The observers and the rabbit age differently in the same "space".
No, they do not. I understand what you are trying to say. At the quantum level, the rabbit is "taking shortcuts" through hyperbolic space. As he does not travel the same linear distance as the observer, the rabbit will get their faster, hence, be younger.
It is like coming to a river and having one group walk around it for 20 miles and another group cross it, in less than a mile. The group that crossed it, could be said to be "younger" than the group that walked around, simply because they got to that point first.
Don't let these concepts confuse you, its not time per se, but a form of distance.
The optical effects of Special Relativity cause the rabbit to "glow" red when receding and blue when approaching. All the while his "fob-watch" is losing all it's ticks relative to your "clocks". The Doppler shifts are temporary effects and are path dependent along with apparent "slowing" and "speeding" of the fob-watch relative to observers.
Doppler shift are wavelengths arriving faster or slower depending on the speed and direction of the moving body. That, again, is a manifestation of an altering distance.
The "fob-watch" can lose or gain ticks.
Doppler shift are wavelengths arriving faster or slower depending on the speed and direction of the moving body. That, again, is a manifestation of an altering distance.
The "fob-watch" can lose or gain ticks.
Different positioned observers will see different effects at different times. It is not a "global" event.
True.
From the position of the "White Rabbit" nothing is changing other than he is probably getting a Little tired. He would not notice any temporal anomalies other than the massive accelerations going around "tight corners".
At that scale, true, however, there would be a significant change at other scales... The rabbit would begin to see the observers slow down. Relativity maintains consistancy...very important.
At that scale, true, however, there would be a significant change at other scales... The rabbit would begin to see the observers slow down. Relativity maintains consistancy...very important.
That is something he would need to do in straight line segments so that sometimes we are obeying Special Relativity and other times (corners) he takes a "relativistic boost".
No. Special relativity is not limited to straight lines segments. It can seem that way because the samples that are povided. As for the "relativistic boost", well that would come from a shortening of linear distance, thus, making it faster to transverse whilst maintaining constant speed.
Now does this explain higher dimensions?... probably not. Though I would say that it may have an alternative explanation and that may be favorable. But that is not "proof". I am approaching it from the other way around...
4 dimensions plus
I approached the problem from a mechanical viewpoint and an extra dimension must exist, all the evidence clearly shows that.
There is no other way to maintain the velocity of light. This is really a dead issue, and has been, for almost 100 years.
This seems highly suspect. The First Law is immutable, to date. So, Hawking's analogous 1st Law w/r/t Information, it must also be conserved. Even his Hawking radiation does not dispute this...
For 30 years, Hawking's maintained that information loss was possible. Here we would have a model that would support the claim. It must be noted that we do not know what happens to this "loss", so therefore, the information could be preserved through another mechanism.
It also explains why a BH shrinks...
Sorry for the tardy response. Got called away on other matters.
No worries.
No worries.
Before saying anything more, I'd like if I may to put a 'gedanken' scenario to 'check' what our respective 'understandings' are on 'time' and 'space' in that scenario; just to make sure you and I are actually discussing the same things, hehehe!
I read ahead a little, this is a good approach.
SCENARIO:
We have a 'continuous-flow' lap-pool.
(1) The PUMP is OFF and the water is STATIONARY BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the STILL water from one end of the pool to the other.
(2) The PUMP is ON and the water FLOWS BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the MOVING water from one end of the pool to the other.
In (1), the soundwave was travelling across a STATIC or ‘FLAT’ SPACE-WATER; while...
In (2), the soundwave was travelling across a MOVING or ‘CURVED’ SPACE-WATER.
This is how I classed each of the elements in your description:
1. The Pool - Space itself. - Note: In my version there are two types of pool co-existing, space and "non-linear hyperbolic space" (a gap filler).
2. The water - is an ether like substance - one of the more famous null results!!!
3. The pump - whether the ether flows relative to space.
As this proved to be a null result (I know there are theories), I don't support it.
This is how I classed each of the elements in your description:
1. The Pool - Space itself. - Note: In my version there are two types of pool co-existing, space and "non-linear hyperbolic space" (a gap filler).
2. The water - is an ether like substance - one of the more famous null results!!!
3. The pump - whether the ether flows relative to space.
As this proved to be a null result (I know there are theories), I don't support it.
The speed relative to ‘WATER’ is IDENTICAL in both cases.
The speed relative to ‘SPACE’ is DIFFERENT between the cases.
I treat ABSOLUTE-SPACE as THE ‘constant’ SPACE ‘.
I treat the WATER-'SPACE’ as just another ‘variable’ ‘MEDIUM’ in that ABSOLUTE-SPACE.
I likewise treat fundamental particles/waves as ‘SOLITON’ features/perturbations in a FUNDAMENTAL ‘MEDIUM-SPACE’ arising in/from an ABSOLUTE SPACE fabric.
This was a standard thought around the time of Einstein.
The difference between ABSOLUTE-SPACE and the MEDIUM-SPACE(S) is that:
- underlying ABSOLUTE-SPACE is ALWAYS of EUCLIDIAN or ‘FLAT’ (STATIC ‘ARENA’) geometry ; while the ...
This is the problem, relativity, indicates two forms of space. "Flat Space", surrounded by "a non-linear curved space" (coined "Time"). Think of entanglement...it is the only way to explain a connection over an "apparant" dis
QUOTE (MMC Posted on Nov 23 2005+ 01:16 AM)
Therefore "speed" would "appear" to alter, when in fact, it remains constant and "distance" alters. Since the "dilations" occur in a dimension known as "Time", and the effect can be measured, it provides empirical evidence of the existence of such a dimension. That is, a concept cannot have "dilation's" that can be measured, thus, there must be something to "dilate".
He he he... I wish that it was as easy as that to convince the die hard Physicists that extra-dimensions exist. The "dilation's" in time that Einstein spoke about probably do not quite fit your model. If we are speaking about relativistic speeds... space does indeed "modify" but you need to specify from which observer and relative to whom. It is not easy to make a "generalization" in relativity.
A careful examination of time dilation indicates that while it is expressed in special theory terms it is really a concept that comes from his General Theory of Relativity. Except for time dilation, special theory is a "linear" theory whereas Time Dilation is a scalar property. I could be rushing around in circles in front of you and "losing time" like some crazy "White Rabbit". If the "Rabbit" does this successfully he may still be running late for appointments but he need not age at the same rate as the rest of us. You may say... going nowhere fast. You could surround him with observers on the outside on the inside or above his "racetrack".
The observers and the rabbit age differently in the same "space". The optical effects of Special Relativity cause the rabbit to "glow" red when receding and blue when approaching. All the while his "fob-watch" is losing all it's ticks relative to your "clocks". The Doppler shifts are temporary effects and are path dependent along with apparent "slowing" and "speeding" of the fob-watch relative to observers. Different positioned observers will see different effects at different times. It is not a "global" event. From the position of the "White Rabbit" nothing is changing other than he is probably getting a Little tired. He would not notice any temporal anomalies other than the massive accelerations going around "tight corners". That is something he would need to do in straight line segments so that sometimes we are obeying Special Relativity and other times (corners) he takes a "relativistic boost".
Now does this explain higher dimensions?... probably not. Though I would say that it may have an alternative explanation and that may be favorable. But that is not "proof". I am approaching it from the other way around...
4 dimensions plus
Cheers
He he he... I wish that it was as easy as that to convince the die hard Physicists that extra-dimensions exist. The "dilation's" in time that Einstein spoke about probably do not quite fit your model. If we are speaking about relativistic speeds... space does indeed "modify" but you need to specify from which observer and relative to whom. It is not easy to make a "generalization" in relativity.
A careful examination of time dilation indicates that while it is expressed in special theory terms it is really a concept that comes from his General Theory of Relativity. Except for time dilation, special theory is a "linear" theory whereas Time Dilation is a scalar property. I could be rushing around in circles in front of you and "losing time" like some crazy "White Rabbit". If the "Rabbit" does this successfully he may still be running late for appointments but he need not age at the same rate as the rest of us. You may say... going nowhere fast. You could surround him with observers on the outside on the inside or above his "racetrack".
The observers and the rabbit age differently in the same "space". The optical effects of Special Relativity cause the rabbit to "glow" red when receding and blue when approaching. All the while his "fob-watch" is losing all it's ticks relative to your "clocks". The Doppler shifts are temporary effects and are path dependent along with apparent "slowing" and "speeding" of the fob-watch relative to observers. Different positioned observers will see different effects at different times. It is not a "global" event. From the position of the "White Rabbit" nothing is changing other than he is probably getting a Little tired. He would not notice any temporal anomalies other than the massive accelerations going around "tight corners". That is something he would need to do in straight line segments so that sometimes we are obeying Special Relativity and other times (corners) he takes a "relativistic boost".
Now does this explain higher dimensions?... probably not. Though I would say that it may have an alternative explanation and that may be favorable. But that is not "proof". I am approaching it from the other way around...
4 dimensions plus
Cheers
All dimensions are illusions.
QUOTE
He he he... I wish that it was as easy as that to convince the die hard Physicists that extra-dimensions exist.
Firstly, I have only ever met a handful of physicists that fully understood what they were talking about. Secondly, just because someone is a physicist does not make them any good at physics, nor does it make them more qualified than a non-physicist.
80% of physicists are teachers, because they couldn't secure a real job. A better way of putting it would be, that 80% of physicists could not translate their work into engineering applications.
I have an engineering background also, mechanical and electronic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
He he he... I wish that it was as easy as that to convince the die hard Physicists that extra-dimensions exist. |
Firstly, I have only ever met a handful of physicists that fully understood what they were talking about. Secondly, just because someone is a physicist does not make them any good at physics, nor does it make them more qualified than a non-physicist.
80% of physicists are teachers, because they couldn't secure a real job. A better way of putting it would be, that 80% of physicists could not translate their work into engineering applications.
I have an engineering background also, mechanical and electronic.
The "dilation's" in time that Einstein spoke about probably do not quite fit your model. If we are speaking about relativistic speeds... space does indeed "modify" but you need to specify from which observer and relative to whom. It is not easy to make a "generalization" in relativity.
You are still dealing with the conceptual. In real terms, that would simply be the interactions of the particles involved, such as electrons and their relative motion. Nothing difficult here, beyond moving away from a concept.
QUOTE
A careful examination of time dilation indicates that while it is expressed in special theory terms it is really a concept that comes from his General Theory of Relativity.
I was thinking that they could be both united under the motion of the electron, providing both general and special relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A careful examination of time dilation indicates that while it is expressed in special theory terms it is really a concept that comes from his General Theory of Relativity. |
I was thinking that they could be both united under the motion of the electron, providing both general and special relativity.
Except for time dilation, special theory is a "linear" theory whereas Time Dilation is a scalar property.
Or...space and non-linear hyperbolic space.
QUOTE
I could be rushing around in circles in front of you and "losing time" like some crazy "White Rabbit". If the "Rabbit" does this successfully he may still be running late for appointments but he need not age at the same rate as the rest of us. You may say... going nowhere fast. You could surround him with observers on the outside on the inside or above his "racetrack".
This is conceptual based upon conceptual frames of reference. The only absolute frames of reference, would be sub-atomic particles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I could be rushing around in circles in front of you and "losing time" like some crazy "White Rabbit". If the "Rabbit" does this successfully he may still be running late for appointments but he need not age at the same rate as the rest of us. You may say... going nowhere fast. You could surround him with observers on the outside on the inside or above his "racetrack". |
This is conceptual based upon conceptual frames of reference. The only absolute frames of reference, would be sub-atomic particles.
The observers and the rabbit age differently in the same "space".
No, they do not. I understand what you are trying to say. At the quantum level, the rabbit is "taking shortcuts" through hyperbolic space. As he does not travel the same linear distance as the observer, the rabbit will get their faster, hence, be younger.
It is like coming to a river and having one group walk around it for 20 miles and another group cross it, in less than a mile. The group that crossed it, could be said to be "younger" than the group that walked around, simply because they got to that point first.
Don't let these concepts confuse you, its not time per se, but a form of distance.
QUOTE
The optical effects of Special Relativity cause the rabbit to "glow" red when receding and blue when approaching. All the while his "fob-watch" is losing all it's ticks relative to your "clocks". The Doppler shifts are temporary effects and are path dependent along with apparent "slowing" and "speeding" of the fob-watch relative to observers.
Doppler shift are wavelengths arriving faster or slower depending on the speed and direction of the moving body. That, again, is a manifestation of an altering distance.
The "fob-watch" can lose or gain ticks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The optical effects of Special Relativity cause the rabbit to "glow" red when receding and blue when approaching. All the while his "fob-watch" is losing all it's ticks relative to your "clocks". The Doppler shifts are temporary effects and are path dependent along with apparent "slowing" and "speeding" of the fob-watch relative to observers. |
Doppler shift are wavelengths arriving faster or slower depending on the speed and direction of the moving body. That, again, is a manifestation of an altering distance.
The "fob-watch" can lose or gain ticks.
Different positioned observers will see different effects at different times. It is not a "global" event.
True.
QUOTE
From the position of the "White Rabbit" nothing is changing other than he is probably getting a Little tired. He would not notice any temporal anomalies other than the massive accelerations going around "tight corners".
At that scale, true, however, there would be a significant change at other scales... The rabbit would begin to see the observers slow down. Relativity maintains consistancy...very important.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
From the position of the "White Rabbit" nothing is changing other than he is probably getting a Little tired. He would not notice any temporal anomalies other than the massive accelerations going around "tight corners". |
At that scale, true, however, there would be a significant change at other scales... The rabbit would begin to see the observers slow down. Relativity maintains consistancy...very important.
That is something he would need to do in straight line segments so that sometimes we are obeying Special Relativity and other times (corners) he takes a "relativistic boost".
No. Special relativity is not limited to straight lines segments. It can seem that way because the samples that are povided. As for the "relativistic boost", well that would come from a shortening of linear distance, thus, making it faster to transverse whilst maintaining constant speed.
QUOTE
Now does this explain higher dimensions?... probably not. Though I would say that it may have an alternative explanation and that may be favorable. But that is not "proof". I am approaching it from the other way around...
4 dimensions plus
I approached the problem from a mechanical viewpoint and an extra dimension must exist, all the evidence clearly shows that.
There is no other way to maintain the velocity of light. This is really a dead issue, and has been, for almost 100 years.
hello, RC, Drude, et al.
This seems highly suspect. The First Law is immutable, to date. So, Hawking's analogous 1st Law w/r/t Information, it must also be conserved. Even his Hawking radiation does not dispute this...
ss
This seems highly suspect. The First Law is immutable, to date. So, Hawking's analogous 1st Law w/r/t Information, it must also be conserved. Even his Hawking radiation does not dispute this...
ss
QUOTE
This seems highly suspect. The First Law is immutable, to date. So, Hawking's analogous 1st Law w/r/t Information, it must also be conserved. Even his Hawking radiation does not dispute this...
For 30 years, Hawking's maintained that information loss was possible. Here we would have a model that would support the claim. It must be noted that we do not know what happens to this "loss", so therefore, the information could be preserved through another mechanism.
It also explains why a BH shrinks...
Hi MMC!
Sorry for the tardy response. Got called away on other matters.
Before saying anything more, I'd like if I may to put a 'gedanken' scenario to 'check' what our respective 'understandings' are on 'time' and 'space' in that scenario; just to make sure you and I are actually discussing the same things, hehehe!
****************************************************************************
SCENARIO:
We have a 'continuous-flow' lap-pool.
(1) The PUMP is OFF and the water is STATIONARY BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the STILL water from one end of the pool to the other.
(2) The PUMP is ON and the water FLOWS BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the MOVING water from one end of the pool to the other.
In (1), the soundwave was travelling across a STATIC or ‘FLAT’ SPACE-WATER; while...
In (2), the soundwave was travelling across a MOVING or ‘CURVED’ SPACE-WATER.
The speed relative to ‘WATER’ is IDENTICAL in both cases.
The speed relative to ‘SPACE’ is DIFFERENT between the cases.
I treat ABSOLUTE-SPACE as THE ‘constant’ SPACE ‘.
I treat the WATER-'SPACE’ as just another ‘variable’ ‘MEDIUM’ in that ABSOLUTE-SPACE.
I likewise treat fundamental particles/waves as ‘SOLITON’ features/perturbations in a FUNDAMENTAL ‘MEDIUM-SPACE’ arising in/from an ABSOLUTE SPACE fabric.
The difference between ABSOLUTE-SPACE and the MEDIUM-SPACE(S) is that:
- underlying ABSOLUTE-SPACE is ALWAYS of EUCLIDIAN or ‘FLAT’ (STATIC ‘ARENA’) geometry ; while the ...
- MEDIUM-SPACE(S) CAN BE ALSO...
.........STATIC (‘FLAT’) IN EFFECT----relative to ‘solitons’ propagating along it; or...
........MOBILE (‘CURVED’) IN EFFECT----relative to ‘solitons’ propagating along it.
.
In this scenario, I treat any ‘curvature’ as FLOW-RELATED EFFECTS OF MEDIA-SPACE(S)....and NOT as some ‘hyperdimensional curvature’ of ABSOLUTE-SPACE.
*****************************************************************************
Now regarding what you were saying re ‘time’ as a co-ordinate-system ‘dimension’. In my perspective, I see ‘co-ordinate time’ as the result of a PLOTTING TECHNIQUE used in analyses based on that co-ordinate system [Which co-ordinate system, by the way, I see as actually being merely an analyst’s ‘shorthand’ representation of the infinite spherical spread of possible ‘Direction-line’ degrees of freedom that any soliton can move/extend along/across absolute-space/medium-space(s) 'analysis contexts']. As such, the ‘resultant dimensional term’ (TIME) is a co-ord-system-analysis 'dimension’, NOT an ‘absolute-/media-spatial’ dimension.
Whenever ‘plotting analyses’ are undertaken, it is CRITICAL to understand that the ABSOLUTE-SPACE and MEDIUM-SPACE(S) ‘contexts’ are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; and should therefore be ‘analysed SEPARATELY: the former treated with ‘FLAT’ ABSOLUTE SPACE geometry; the other treated with ‘CURVED’ RELATIVE MEDIA-SPACE(S) geometries (hyperbolic etc)...all the while it being UNDERSTOOD that ‘CURVATURE’ IS A ‘MOTION’-RELATED EFFECT OF MEDIA-SPACE PHENOMENA; and NOT an effect of ABSOLUTE-SPACE per se. That is, ‘plotting analyses’ in co-ordinate ‘spaces’ must distinguish between absolute ‘plots’ and relative plots...where motion/location of ‘solitons’ (ie, particles/waves) have very different TIME results, depending on whether:
- it is the PARTICLE/WAVE doing the MOVING; or...
- it is the MEDIUM-SPACE (never absolute-space!) doing the moving (‘flowing’); or...
- BOTH the particle/wave AND the MEDIUM-SPACE (never absolute-space) moving in their separate ways (ie, particles/waves propagating in a medium-space which is ITSELF moving (‘flowing’) in absolute-space).
****************************************************************************
Anyhow, MMC, that’s where I’m coming from. Whatever our respective perspective on these things, I will have to leave off this particularly interesting discussion with you for a while; as I have much call on my time re on-line TOE project activities/discussions. Naturally I am interested in your further thoughts in light of my ‘understandings’ as outlined above. But any further prolonged interchange will have to occur as part of TOE activities. Perhaps if you also similarly outlined your own ‘understandings’ here, this thread might prove useful to TOE progress, and so might well be ‘required reading’ for participants in that project, hehehe.
Good luck, mate!
Regards from: RealityCheck.
.
Sorry for the tardy response. Got called away on other matters.
Before saying anything more, I'd like if I may to put a 'gedanken' scenario to 'check' what our respective 'understandings' are on 'time' and 'space' in that scenario; just to make sure you and I are actually discussing the same things, hehehe!
****************************************************************************
SCENARIO:
We have a 'continuous-flow' lap-pool.
(1) The PUMP is OFF and the water is STATIONARY BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the STILL water from one end of the pool to the other.
(2) The PUMP is ON and the water FLOWS BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the MOVING water from one end of the pool to the other.
In (1), the soundwave was travelling across a STATIC or ‘FLAT’ SPACE-WATER; while...
In (2), the soundwave was travelling across a MOVING or ‘CURVED’ SPACE-WATER.
The speed relative to ‘WATER’ is IDENTICAL in both cases.
The speed relative to ‘SPACE’ is DIFFERENT between the cases.
I treat ABSOLUTE-SPACE as THE ‘constant’ SPACE ‘.
I treat the WATER-'SPACE’ as just another ‘variable’ ‘MEDIUM’ in that ABSOLUTE-SPACE.
I likewise treat fundamental particles/waves as ‘SOLITON’ features/perturbations in a FUNDAMENTAL ‘MEDIUM-SPACE’ arising in/from an ABSOLUTE SPACE fabric.
The difference between ABSOLUTE-SPACE and the MEDIUM-SPACE(S) is that:
- underlying ABSOLUTE-SPACE is ALWAYS of EUCLIDIAN or ‘FLAT’ (STATIC ‘ARENA’) geometry ; while the ...
- MEDIUM-SPACE(S) CAN BE ALSO...
.........STATIC (‘FLAT’) IN EFFECT----relative to ‘solitons’ propagating along it; or...
........MOBILE (‘CURVED’) IN EFFECT----relative to ‘solitons’ propagating along it.
.
In this scenario, I treat any ‘curvature’ as FLOW-RELATED EFFECTS OF MEDIA-SPACE(S)....and NOT as some ‘hyperdimensional curvature’ of ABSOLUTE-SPACE.
*****************************************************************************
Now regarding what you were saying re ‘time’ as a co-ordinate-system ‘dimension’. In my perspective, I see ‘co-ordinate time’ as the result of a PLOTTING TECHNIQUE used in analyses based on that co-ordinate system [Which co-ordinate system, by the way, I see as actually being merely an analyst’s ‘shorthand’ representation of the infinite spherical spread of possible ‘Direction-line’ degrees of freedom that any soliton can move/extend along/across absolute-space/medium-space(s) 'analysis contexts']. As such, the ‘resultant dimensional term’ (TIME) is a co-ord-system-analysis 'dimension’, NOT an ‘absolute-/media-spatial’ dimension.
Whenever ‘plotting analyses’ are undertaken, it is CRITICAL to understand that the ABSOLUTE-SPACE and MEDIUM-SPACE(S) ‘contexts’ are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; and should therefore be ‘analysed SEPARATELY: the former treated with ‘FLAT’ ABSOLUTE SPACE geometry; the other treated with ‘CURVED’ RELATIVE MEDIA-SPACE(S) geometries (hyperbolic etc)...all the while it being UNDERSTOOD that ‘CURVATURE’ IS A ‘MOTION’-RELATED EFFECT OF MEDIA-SPACE PHENOMENA; and NOT an effect of ABSOLUTE-SPACE per se. That is, ‘plotting analyses’ in co-ordinate ‘spaces’ must distinguish between absolute ‘plots’ and relative plots...where motion/location of ‘solitons’ (ie, particles/waves) have very different TIME results, depending on whether:
- it is the PARTICLE/WAVE doing the MOVING; or...
- it is the MEDIUM-SPACE (never absolute-space!) doing the moving (‘flowing’); or...
- BOTH the particle/wave AND the MEDIUM-SPACE (never absolute-space) moving in their separate ways (ie, particles/waves propagating in a medium-space which is ITSELF moving (‘flowing’) in absolute-space).
****************************************************************************
Anyhow, MMC, that’s where I’m coming from. Whatever our respective perspective on these things, I will have to leave off this particularly interesting discussion with you for a while; as I have much call on my time re on-line TOE project activities/discussions. Naturally I am interested in your further thoughts in light of my ‘understandings’ as outlined above. But any further prolonged interchange will have to occur as part of TOE activities. Perhaps if you also similarly outlined your own ‘understandings’ here, this thread might prove useful to TOE progress, and so might well be ‘required reading’ for participants in that project, hehehe.
Good luck, mate!
Regards from: RealityCheck.
.
Where's the math doc?
QUOTE
Sorry for the tardy response. Got called away on other matters.
No worries.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Sorry for the tardy response. Got called away on other matters. |
No worries.
Before saying anything more, I'd like if I may to put a 'gedanken' scenario to 'check' what our respective 'understandings' are on 'time' and 'space' in that scenario; just to make sure you and I are actually discussing the same things, hehehe!
I read ahead a little, this is a good approach.
QUOTE
SCENARIO:
We have a 'continuous-flow' lap-pool.
(1) The PUMP is OFF and the water is STATIONARY BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the STILL water from one end of the pool to the other.
(2) The PUMP is ON and the water FLOWS BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the MOVING water from one end of the pool to the other.
In (1), the soundwave was travelling across a STATIC or ‘FLAT’ SPACE-WATER; while...
In (2), the soundwave was travelling across a MOVING or ‘CURVED’ SPACE-WATER.
This is how I classed each of the elements in your description:
1. The Pool - Space itself. - Note: In my version there are two types of pool co-existing, space and "non-linear hyperbolic space" (a gap filler).
2. The water - is an ether like substance - one of the more famous null results!!!
3. The pump - whether the ether flows relative to space.
As this proved to be a null result (I know there are theories), I don't support it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
SCENARIO: We have a 'continuous-flow' lap-pool. (1) The PUMP is OFF and the water is STATIONARY BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the STILL water from one end of the pool to the other. (2) The PUMP is ON and the water FLOWS BETWEEN BOTH ENDS of the pool. A soundwave propagates through the MOVING water from one end of the pool to the other. In (1), the soundwave was travelling across a STATIC or ‘FLAT’ SPACE-WATER; while... In (2), the soundwave was travelling across a MOVING or ‘CURVED’ SPACE-WATER. |
This is how I classed each of the elements in your description:
1. The Pool - Space itself. - Note: In my version there are two types of pool co-existing, space and "non-linear hyperbolic space" (a gap filler).
2. The water - is an ether like substance - one of the more famous null results!!!
3. The pump - whether the ether flows relative to space.
As this proved to be a null result (I know there are theories), I don't support it.
The speed relative to ‘WATER’ is IDENTICAL in both cases.
The speed relative to ‘SPACE’ is DIFFERENT between the cases.
I treat ABSOLUTE-SPACE as THE ‘constant’ SPACE ‘.
I treat the WATER-'SPACE’ as just another ‘variable’ ‘MEDIUM’ in that ABSOLUTE-SPACE.
I likewise treat fundamental particles/waves as ‘SOLITON’ features/perturbations in a FUNDAMENTAL ‘MEDIUM-SPACE’ arising in/from an ABSOLUTE SPACE fabric.
This was a standard thought around the time of Einstein.
QUOTE
The difference between ABSOLUTE-SPACE and the MEDIUM-SPACE(S) is that:
- underlying ABSOLUTE-SPACE is ALWAYS of EUCLIDIAN or ‘FLAT’ (STATIC ‘ARENA’) geometry ; while the ...
This is the problem, relativity, indicates two forms of space. "Flat Space", surrounded by "a non-linear curved space" (coined "Time"). Think of entanglement...it is the only way to explain a connection over an "apparant" dis