mufcdiver.

General relativity can't posit an absolute value for all vectors so it 'amalgamates' distance and time (thus, space-time continuum). Somehow, the 'space-time continuum' doesn't take account of 'speed of transmission'. This gives a 'clerical error' in the equation which offers an accurate summation, but the 'factors' are wrong. IT'S A FUDGE! This really messes up the logic of the theory.

Best regards, suricat.

I'm sure that all of this would be blindingly obvious if we knew what "time" actually was...

My guess is that time is multidimensional (like space), and that we can only experience 1 of its dimensions (like with space we can only experience 3Ds - unless you have experienced the mindblowingness of trying to imagine a 4D "cube", or "squodge" as I prefer to call it), and that the other dimensions probably explain all the weird things that go on in quantum mechanics and SoM's head.

Lucibee

quote:

and that the other dimensions probably explain all the weird things that go on in quantum mechanics and SoM's head.

I take that as a compliment. Thanks.

quote:

Somehow, the 'space-time continuum' doesn't take account of 'speed of transmission

You'll have to tell me what this means suricat

Lucibee.

quote:

I'm sure that all of this would be blindingly obvious if we knew what "time" actually was...

I doubt it. Time is just 'change', 'animation', kinetics'. You can give it whatever label you want, but it's difficult to measure without making 'comparisons'. One thing is for sure, by the time any change is 'observable' it's already happened. Accurate 'prediction' looks to be essential for microscopic observation, but then again these things aren't actually observed. Are they?

quote:

My guess is that time is multidimensional

I think you'll find it only has one dimension. Forwards. Though observations of concurrent events can be confusing.

For example, kids playing football in a park and the observer is quite a distance away. The observer sees that the ball is struck hard and flies into the goal. A fraction of a second later the observer hears a 'thump', then a cheer.

Well, it's obvious that the sound would reach the observer after seeing the ball kicked, but it's less obvious that the 'boot' made contact with the 'ball' a microscopic fraction of a second before it was seen to. I know that this can't be detected by an 'observer' (even with a telephoto lens), but we are knowledgeable enough to be able to 'predict' this as fact. It just seems impossible to make this prediction accurately, but then again, that depends on how accurate you need to be.

This is about as near as I can get to 'multidimensional' with 'time'.

As for the rest, we can't live in 3D can we? How can I get to the Pub at night if I'm 'frozen in space'. I think this needs to be 4D at least! I'll not miss 'my' night out for anything (well, perhaps 'some' things)!

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

You'll have to tell me what this means suricat

Well the 'speed of transmission' for all electromagnetic phenomena (or 'communications') is always slower than c₀ because there is always 'mass' around to 'slow' the progress of, or 'divert' the direction of, 'the information'. Even in 'deep space' there is a fairly high abundance of 'mass' (solid state electronic chip manufacturers use a vacuum much greater than that encountered in 'deep space' within their 'vacuum plating' plants, but even 'they' don't pull 'c₀').

Although I'm unimpressed with 'wiki' it's the best I can find for C4 linkage and it's probably best if you read this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

I'm here for any questions you may have afterwards, though not about 'wiki'.

BTW. This is a bit more 'complex' than 'UV on O₃'.

Best regards, suricat.

rudolfh.

I think this thread is beginning to descend into confusion. Thus, I'll try to clarify a few things.

The 'photon'. A photon is described (among other things) as the 'lowest observable quantity of electromagnetic activity' within an electromagnetic field. This relates to a 'propagated electromagnetic wave', or 'beam of light' (observed 'transmission'). However, physics can 'predict' that even lower levels of 'electromagnetic activity' are able to add to (or detract from) any 'transmission', or 'the general pool of electromagnetic activity', by way of 'residual electromagnetic product' from a mass interaction (for example, the chemical change in valence of an electron, the 'cracking of a molecule', or the 'frictional' removal of electrons etc). Thus, the 'energy of a photon' is hard to describe as a 'standard' and it 'definitively' isn't an 'elementary particle'. It's the 'best resolution' that we can achieve.

I didn't want to get into 'tensors' here, but I suppose that this is inevitable (given the 'incompatibilities' between 'Special' and 'General' relativity).

No, I'll not do this yet. This would only complicate matters even more!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

I think this thread is beginning to descend into confusion

I don't think we are descending into confusion suricat, the original question asked 'how does it?' and pretty much all the later posts have be relevant to 'how it doesn't!' And judging by Rudolfh's link to his diagram is very much in-line with the reason he asked the question in the first place!
And a very interesting thread it is to, thanks Rudolfh!

quote:

I think you'll find it only has one dimension. Forwards.

In our own experience, yes. But there are lots of things we can't experience that physicists have predicted (ie, more spatial dimensions, bosons, etc).

Also, time is not really a fourth spatial dimension, so I think it is the beer that is helping you experience things in 4D!

Ultimately our understanding of time is dependent on our consciousnes, so you could say that there are as many time dimensions as there are beings in this universe that can experience its passing...

Hey, I'm trying to post a link whith an animation. But someway I can not post this.

If you search on youtube under rudolfhendriques you can find a few animations I made. Maybe they help to understanbd my ideas..

rudolfh.

I've found most of your 'renditions' to Youtube now and, to be frank, they didn't 'speak volumes' to me in 'physics'. So physics 'constraints' are off! OK. From here onwards it's P to P 'honest injun'.

Best regards, suricat.

Lucibee.

quote:

Also, time is not really a fourth spatial dimension, so I think it is the beer that is helping you experience things in 4D!

I don't drink beer and I only go to the pub occasionally to 'interact' with the 'locals', but that doesn't mean that I don't expect to be able to do this whenever I want to.

Time isn't a 'spatial' dimension at all. If anything it's a dimension of 'interaction'. So this leads us into the realm of 'arrays' that can show 'values' for 'unconnected dimensions' during the same 'observation'. These usually follow the format of; 1st dimension , 2nd dimension , 3rd dimension ....etc. With algebraic logic (though this can follow 'any' prescribed format).

If we want to put a 3D animated 'film' into an array we could show this array as; 3D film , slide number. This would give us the exact 3D slide within the sequence of the 'movie' that we wanted to look at. However, an 'array' offers even more flexibility than this. With an array we are able to associate data that relates only to a 'given' set of circumstances which may be applicable in 'other (unallocated) areas' of interaction for the 'computation of the overall equation'. This is done with the General Theory of Relativity, but the 'allocations' are wrong!

quote:

Ultimately our understanding of time is dependent on our consciousnes, so you could say that there are as many time dimensions as there are beings in this universe that can experience its passing...

This isn't 'physics', it's psychology! While it may well be valid in this thread, I'll not comment on it.

Best regards, suricat.

rudolfh.

From my last post.

quote:

This is done with the General Theory of Relativity, but the 'allocations' are wrong!

I expected to be 'jumped on' for this remark, but 'nothing'!

If I had to reallocate the 'arrays' for the General Theory of Relativity I'd delete the 'time' and 'space' 'arrays' to make these values 'absolute' and install 'arrays' for 'light speed' and 'light deflection' (among 'other tweaks').

What would be your 'main changes'?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

If I had to reallocate the 'arrays' for the General Theory of Relativity I'd delete the 'time' and 'space' 'arrays' to make these values 'absolute' and install 'arrays' for 'light speed' and 'light deflection' (among 'other tweaks').

suricat, Wouldn't this end up being 'change for the sake of change' with the results remaining the same? And aren't the values of time and space 'absolutes' in a sense anyhow!?

mufcdiver.

quote:

Wouldn't this end up being 'change for the sake of change' with the results remaining the same?

Not at all, IMHO.

If light transmission speed is maintained at its maximum in a calculation, when its real speed is slower, the measurement of distance is altered. The light source is closer in reality than the calculation places it. Mach 1 isn't a constant speed for sound transmission and I don't see any logical reason to assume that electromagnetic 'light' transmission speed should be constant either. Especially when we already know that the speed and direction of light is affected by the presence of a transmissive mass (permittivity) and proximity of a non-transmissive mass for its frequency.

Relativistic calculations aren't usually encountered in everyday life so they're not 'that' important to us, but greater accuracy would help towards a theory of everything.

quote:

And aren't the values of time and space 'absolutes' in a sense anyhow!?

They should be, but the 'bending' of time and space in a calculation makes this impossible. Doesn't it?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Relativistic calculations aren't usually encountered in everyday life so they're not 'that' important to us, but greater accuracy would help towards a theory of everything.

These are encountered all the time by everything! There would be no 'Past' by your reasoning!

suricat, follow this link and spool down to 'General relativity'

mufcdiver.

quote:

These are encountered all the time by everything!

Yes, but they don't have any real bearing on our lives.

quote:

There would be no 'Past' by your reasoning!

How?

quote:

follow this link and spool down to 'General relativity'

Well, I read this all the way down to "Philosophic understandings of time travel" and I can relate to the 'four dimensionalism' philosophy (with reservations) and also the 'Presentism school' (but I don't want to read more of this 'unsupported entry' to wiki).

It seems that this subject is 'well' open for debate on wiki. However, the line of the agenda isn't well set by wiki. In fact it isn't set at all.

Perhaps this is because wiki strives to achieve a definition by the outcome of their subscription and their subscription hasn't arrived at a definition yet?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:its difficult to find the worms

i'll bet.

quote:

quote:

There would be no 'Past' by your reasoning!


How?

'Cos time has to equal 1 for the present or a negative whole digit for the past. This is why time is tied to distance.Its a variable!

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by mufcdiver:its difficult to find the worms



i'll bet. Big Grin

mufcdiver.

quote:

'Cos time has to equal 1 for the present or a negative whole digit for the past. This is why time is tied to distance.Its a variable!

'Now' is zero. The nearest 'past' is -1 and the nearest 'future' (if you are 'predictive') is +1. These are extra dimensions again that require all of the 'arrays' of the present time (in an accurate temporal form) before they can provide 'still slides' of a 'film'. However, we have a 'memory' that serves us quite well when it comes to 'historical events', but prediction requires 'clairvoyance', or a thorough knowledge of the 'back yard' where things are expected to happen.

Distance is a constant (without a vectored scalar change). Time is a constant (events happen in 'true series' however they are observed). It's the speed of light with the 'observation' that's a 'variable', but this requires 'foreknowledge' to understand its perspective.

Particles travel faster than the speed of light until their momentum is exhausted (Cherenkov radiation) and this supports an EM connection to gravity with 'sterile neutrinos' as the mediator.

Time 'is' tied to distance, but it's 'tied' by 'speed' (vectoring is yet another factor of this)!

Best regards, suricat.