Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[freeztar]

I reject your rejection! Everything you have presented is based on the presumption your world view is “correct” and no other is possible. You obviously have utterly no idea as to what Anssi and I are talking about. I am sorry for you as what Anssi and I are talking about seems to be totally over your head. I suppose my best bet would be to place you on my “ignore” list. I hate to do that but tirades like yours are distasteful.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Rather than denounce misunderstanding, it might serve your goals better to attempt a simple explanation and show where the differences lie. Otherwise, your comment can be viewed as arrogant and dismissive. As we all know (hopefully), arrogance and a dismissive attitude are very bad tools for promoting understanding.

 

I'm quite sure that most people here are here to learn. Teach us! :Glasses:

 

Have fun!

[watcher]

There IS a problem with incorporating the finite velocity of light in an otherwise Newtonian environment; the sums don't add up. That is the point that is being made to you by some of the other contributors, and you do not seem to have an answer to that.

 

and im surprise that no one seemed to wander why c does not add up.

if this can be explained, it can revealed alot the nature of space and time.

 

What you have to show that the sums CAN add up in an appropriate conceptual environment. That does not mean that you (or I) are right. It just means we COULD be right. At present you are not even wrong, because you have presented no argument for your conclusions (other than Gnostic ones).

 

what would be a more correct statement?

space is empty or space is transparent?

i'm curious as to michael would think of this..

 

 

which suggests that the differences in simultaneity suggested by Einstein were a by-product of the way that he derived the Lorentz transformation. I.e. They are not real:

 

the lorentz distortion of spacetime is as real as the doppler's effect.

[Boerseun]

I reject your rejection!

Well, hereby I reject your rejection of my rejection...er.

Everything you have presented is based on the presumption your world view is “correct” and no other is possible.

How on Earth did you reach that conclusion? What I asked you is to explain to me how you expect to throw the bending of space-time (as an explanation for gravity) out the window, without throwing Thermodynamics out, too - because now you have to cater for some sort of "perpetual-motion" device in order to cater for orbits. I expect that to be a very real question, and not one based on my view being the only "correct" one. I just want to know how your view fits in with observation, and such un-petty and undismissable little things like Thermodynamics.

You obviously have utterly no idea as to what Anssi and I are talking about. I am sorry for you as what Anssi and I are talking about seems to be totally over your head.

Although that is certainly possible, you should keep in mind what Hypo is all about. If you truly believe that I don't understand what you're on about, then this is a golden opportunity for you to enlighten yet another ignoramus. Michael Mooney tried to argue from authority based on his high IQ. Whether his IQ is that high or not is immaterial - nothing here matters but the argument. The same applies to you.

I suppose my best bet would be to place you on my “ignore” list. I hate to do that but tirades like yours are distasteful.

Tirade? What tirade? I have asked you a very valid question, pertaining to your opinion regarding "space-time" being a fallacy, and how your opinion in this particular matter relates to that very real obstacle in your way, Thermodynamics. And now, instead of answering the question, you play the man, and not the ball. That's not very scientific of you, Doctor Richard, and is, indeed, particularly distasteful. Ignore me as much as you like, but you will achieve exactly as much in doing that, as a flat-earther would believe to be flat because it makes sense, and ignoring all data to the contrary, because it does not fit their theory.

Have fun -- Dick

Answer the question -- Boerseun.

[jedaisoul]

the lorentz distortion of spacetime is as real as the doppler's effect.

Exactly. But the Lorentz transformation does not predict differences in simultaneity. It just predicts that different amounts of time can pass between two instances of the present, depending upon your frame of reference. I.e. Time dilates the faster you travel. That is very different from suggesting that events which are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another.

[AnssiH]

Hi Boerseun,

 

I believe DD assumed you had already seen my comments on your post, but that happened at a different thread so maybe you didn't:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/11733-what-can-we-know-of-reality-33.html#post265173

 

Note, that it is one thing to talk about the validity of a specific worldview, and another thing entirely to talk about all the valid possibilities open to us.

 

I thought DD's post, about dimensions as means to represent measurements, or degrees of freedom, was fairly straightforward and clear exposition of the matter. With orthogonally aligned dimensions, the expressed parameters can change independetly. Non-orthogonal dimensions (such as those in Minkowski spacetime) are essentially expressing specific relationship between specific parameters. When you change one parameter, another parameter is forced to change in a specific manner.

 

And if you get down and dirty with that matter, you will find that nothing prevents us from defining nature with such parameters that operate on orthogonal axes, without losing any observational feature of Minkowski spacetime.

 

In other words, the form of "space and time" that you see, is a function of the parameters you chose to define and express.

 

I'm not surprised DD gave you such a blunt reply, I'm sure he just feels his time is not well spent trying to walk you all the way from here to the actual issues he is talking about, as I'm sure he feels he's been in that position way too many times before. (Well I also thought it was amusing, the way you were describing general relativity to a Ph.D nuclear physicist)

 

Anyway... If you are really willing to do the walk, there exists discussion about those relationships that are common to all valid world views... Maybe try to follow my attempts to explain it to Rade:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/11733-what-can-we-know-of-reality-29.html#post264413

 

I think won't say "the ball is on your court", until we are playing the same game ;)

 

-Anssi

[watcher]

Exactly. But the Lorentz transformation does not predict differences in simultaneity.

 

the idea is plain oxymoronic.

 

It just predicts that different amounts of time can pass between two instances of the present, depending upon your frame of reference. I.e.

 

if we are in a two different frame of ref and different speed," two instances of present with different amount of time" means a longer period of my life cycle compare with your life cycle. can you appreciate the profoundness of its meaning?

 

for a point particle, this could mean the first particle regenerate twice for every one regeneration of the second particle.

 

Time dilates the faster you travel. That is very different from suggesting that events which are simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another.

 

events are simultaneous. the point is events do not happen in instants. these events are composed of instants. there is a difference between the statement ... in every event there is an instant and ... in every instant there is an event.

 

the former is an accurate description while the latter is a misconception and a redundance.

[jedaisoul]

the idea is plain oxymoronic.

I'm not sure whether you are saying that my comments are oxymoronic, or that the idea of differences in simultaneity are? The view that differences in simultaneity are real is current mainstream physics. I'm opposing that view.

 

if we are in a two different frame of ref and different speed," two instances of present with different amount of time" means a longer period of my life cycle compare with your life cycle. can you appreciate the profoundness of its meaning?

Yes I can. But again, the idea of differences in the passage of time is mainstream physics. Furthermore there is ample empirical evidence that shows that differences in the passage of time correlate to a real measured phenomenon. I choose my words carefully here, because I disagree with the view that differences in the elapsed time recorded equate to actual differences in the passage of time. However, I don't want to pursue that here, as it would be a lengthy diversion from the topic of the thread.

 

events are simultaneous. the point is events do not happen in instants. these events are composed of instants. there is a difference between the statement ... in every event there is an instant and ... in every instant there is an event.

 

the former is an accurate description while the latter is a misconception and a redundance.

Sorry , I could not follow your meaning here...

[Michael Mooney]

Note to self: always, ALWAYS, compose posts off line. Save them, and copy them to the thread. It works.

Good advice, but I seldom do it unless it's a long reply. But even an old dog like me can learn new tricks.... maybe.

I'm still waiting for Qfwfq to re-open the "spacetime" thread and"uncork" those two posts so everyone can see my replies... as s/he said in last "spacetime" post:

 

I reckon this thread could possibly continue whenever it should become feasible to settle differences that are due, essentially, to misconceptions. Should this ever come to pass, it will include the post Dick was in the middle of working on and the two in the cork that attempted to come bobbing back up. Fair enough?

Michael

[arkain101]

Since others are making comments here about earlier post to “What is space-time really?”, I would like to make a comment about arkain101's post #774 to that thread.

Dimensions are not measurements of a location; dimensions are the abstract space within which a measurement is represented. A “dimension” is a concept used to express some kind of unique distribution of possibilities (each possibility is quite often expressed as a position on that “dimension”). In many cases, the full description of a complex object involves specification of many variables all of which may very well be totally independent of one another. (A comment due here is that, if those variables are totally independent, Euclidean geometry will suffice; if they are not then it is perhaps of value to use a non-Euclidean geometry but only if the correct nature of that relationship is known.)

 

A full description of such a complex object is commonly referred to as a multidimensional description. Paintings, for example, can be spoken of as entities of many dimensions, and often are. Many of these “dimensions” can be seen as a range of possibilities. The issue is, how many dimensions does it require to describe a specific physical object? To say that every physical object can be totally described within three dimensions is pure foolishness; a strong indicator that the speaker either has no concept of “dimensions” or no understanding of the complexities which can be assigned to “objects”.

 

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Summery: Trying to understand DD. Is he responding in a way that will serve me well if I open a textbook and study some formal physics or mathematics? Or is he extending his response with a motive to provide insight into his work he has provided and communicated here.?

 

I am going to have to agree you had done a much better definition of a dimension than I, whom went more so on a whim of intuition based on context.

 

I wonder though if my point in context -of what a dimension was not- was missed. What I intended to communicate was that a dimension should not be confused with a specific 3 dimensional world (ie the one we finds ourselves a part of). Such that, the 4th dimension is not, JUST "another 3 dimensional universe", or even a 5th dimension where yet another 3 dimensional universe is considered.

 

Here are some examples where I am bothered by the wrong use of the word dimension. They use the word dimension for the actual concept in their mind, of a world, another 3d world, in some other 'location'.

-Spiritual enthusiets saying, that possibly in 'world #11" is where the world of 'heaven' resides or something to this incorrect manner.

-In the 7th dimension god places angles to live.

(you should get the point, I am just sharing other hypothetical 3d worlds, thought of as dimensions, and am not suggesting beliefs of anyone on this forum)

 

So that I am saying in short: Dimensions are not separate 3D universes.

 

So getting back to the response that I inititially replied to: To ask, where are they? (these extra dimensions) They should not be confused in the way has been covered above. Such that, it may be more valid to rephrase the question as: how are they?

 

 

As for the correct way to see them, you correct me here saying:

 

Dimensions are not measurements of a location; dimensions are the abstract space within which a measurement is represented.

 

But, if I continue with the context, what I had said, basically translates into say, a dimension is a "form of" measurement within a location.

And as layman see's it, a location is The only location -as people naturally see it- , the sane 3d world.

 

 

From your definition and descriptions on dimensions, I gather you are not just repeating what I would generally read in a textbook or on wikipedia.

 

I assume you are, (without warning or mention), extending beyond a formal text book definition, by usage of and reference to your work (whether or not you consider it theoretical, at this point).

 

That is to say, it is coming from the world view you have been in the process of sharing in the many topics on these forums; a world view you find very few are able to comprehend.

 

Is this correct?

 

 

 

When I DO go to read such a formal definition, I read something similar to what you say. Although don't consider the normal 1,2 and 3 dimensions abstract. Where as, you say, and I think in reference to your work, all dimensions are a form of abstraction, such that they are world view orientated.

High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics. Ie: these are abstract spaces, independent of the actual space we live in. The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity and higher-dimensional string theories. wiki on dimensions (higher dimensions)

 

 

Why I gather what I do (that you are not repeating a formal text book type of response) from your posted definition and description this through your usage of the word abstract:

 

# consider a concept without thinking of a specific example; consider abstractly or theoretically

# existing only in the mind; separated from embodiment; "abstract words like `truth' and `justice'"

# not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature; "a large abstract painting"

# outline: a sketchy summary of the main points of an argument or theory

 

and as another example.as well as where you say:

 

To say that every physical object can be totally described within three dimensions is pure foolishness; a strong indicator that the speaker either has no concept of “dimensions” or no understanding of the complexities which can be assigned to “objects”.

 

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

 

I believe it is possible you are saying this without mention of world views and their ability to produce relative wisdom (opposite to your use of foolishness). (I am not sure, and need a response on this)Maybe you are assuming you work on world views is being obviously considered or maybe you are just preaching what you have learned without teaching the steps to reach such statements.

 

Though, keep in mind, I am making no such judgments, I am simply trying to align as much as possible to your way of thinking, and what exactly your thinking is premised from, and as I do so I am providing examples of the extent of my insights (see the various, "maybe you mean this" as a exposure of my able educated guess), so that you can judge your level of response relative to my insight and understanding.

 

This is exactly what I am trying to determine of you. That is, what level of insight you are exposing and using in your statements.(so excuse my terminology I am doing my best to come across as an investigator, not a judge)

 

 

 

Reading much of what you have written, I believe you would agree with me that the statement-

To say that every physical object can be totally described within three dimensions is pure foolishness;

- is false. In that, it is not fully covered, and comes from mathematical logical perspective only.

 

To my understanding, I have read of your words that you would agree, ONLY relative to certain world views, physical objects can be totally described within and or, by three dimensions maximum. For example, If a squirrel needs a total amount of information to leap from tree to tree, it gathers it 3 dimensionally in order to make the leap successfully, right? In a world view of squirrel like rationality, 3 dimensions is not foolishness. I gather you are saying, "in the context of a formal logical investigation of the possibility of reality, and taking in consideration of world view variance, limiting the description to 3 dimensions is foolishness."

 

But again, I think you are making this statement in the context of this fundamental work you are sharing here, which I believe, I both understand, and have come to realize on my own terms before ever realizing what you were on about at these forums. (to note as insight into,(the expression) "where I am coming from")

 

However, I am here to realize it in even more detail, and complexity. You complain of a lack of listeners, or students, but here is one very interested 25 year old (willing listener and speaker), who has needed to develop an understanding to this fundamental problem in order to recover from the unintentional discovery. This problem for me came to be realized more so through an unintentional development of my awareness than it did by a need to satisfy a curiosity about the universe. reading and/ or study. (if that makes sense). Making sense and understanding of the problem in turn became quite essential to my state of health and functionality, as I guess I can call, a recovery from too rapid of an identity desintrigration, or alteration.

 

The 'problem' in consciousness, has now become what I find as a realized fact. One in which I choose not to dwell on in order to enjoy the way of things as are.

 

These acknowledgments (the validity of the problems), because they are so effective at picking apart reality (the function of our dailey lives), it appears to be the fundamental steps to understanding fundamentalism of our universe in general.

[watcher]

I'm not sure whether you are saying that my comments are oxymoronic, or that the idea of differences in simultaneity are? The view that differences in simultaneity are real is current mainstream physics. I'm opposing that view.

 

i think the latter. i mean when we say simultaneous, what is it that we refer as simultaneous? not time because time is what we rely to say that something si simultaneous. so if two things are simultaneous, then what are we reffering as difference. im afraid ive lost what the statement difference in simultaneous means.

 

I choose my words carefully here, because I disagree with the view that differences in the elapsed time recorded equate to actual differences in the passage of time. However, I don't want to pursue that here, as it would be a lengthy diversion from the topic of the thread.

 

okay, but i don't understand the difference bet an elapsed time recorded to actual passage of time.

 

Sorry , I could not follow your meaning here...

 

when an event unfolds... does it unfolds in time and space ala newtonian view or time and space itself unfolds that we called event?

 

for example, does the quantum of action happens in space and time or the quantum of action generates space and time?

[jedaisoul]

i think the latter. i mean when we say simultaneous, what is it that we refer as simultaneous? not time because time is what we rely to say that something si simultaneous. so if two things are simultaneous, then what are we reffering as difference. im afraid ive lost what the statement difference in simultaneous means.

The classic example of simultaneity (and differences thereof) is the thought experiment "Einstein's Train". In brief:

a) There are two lightning strikes, one at each end of the train.

:hihi: To an observer on the platform the strikes are simultaneous, and, as he is equidistant from them, he will see them happen at the same time.

c) To an observer on the train, because he moving with respect to the lightning strikes, he will not only see the strikes asynchronously, they will actually happen asynchronously.

 

I don't want to go into why c) is true (or not). There is a good explanation of the "standard" interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity here. As I say, it's a good explanation, but may be a little advanced for anyone not already familiar with Special Relativity. A simpler explanation is given here.

 

okay, but i don't understand the difference bet an elapsed time recorded to actual passage of time.

That's a theory of mine, and it's not relevant here.

 

when an event unfolds... does it unfolds in time and space ala newtonian view or time and space itself unfolds that we called event?

 

for example, does the quantum of action happens in space and time or the quantum of action generates space and time?

I would suggest that space is no more than the distance between objects. It has no separate existence. Similarly, time is an arbitrary measure of the period elapsed between events. So, no objects, no space. No events, no time.

[maddog]

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

This is what I getting at earlier. Not reified, not re-fried, just a representation space-time is. Simple as that.

 

maddog

 

ps: So as to distinguish myself: In Differential Geometry, a differential form has components that are thought linearly independent (independent of whether curvature is 0)

(Euclidean Geometry or not). In fact the "curvature" of a coordinate system is measured

out of that system.

[watcher]

would suggest that space is no more than the distance between objects. It has no separate existence. Similarly, time is an arbitrary measure of the period elapsed between events. So, no objects, no space. No events, no time.

 

no objects, no space, no time and no events?

so what's left for you?

 

Space-time is a fictional mental concept within which one is to display our physical laws in mathematical form. That is all it is and all it needs to be.

 

its more than that. if it represent something, it is not fictional in any stretch of imagination. these physical laws of nature gives us understanding of the world we lived. further insights as to its make up. so what this spacetime law represents is a valid question. to say that it is nothing more that fictional mental concept is just a matter of your attitude and beliefs.

 

the logic of mind match perfectly with the laws of nature because they sprang from the same "thing". i don't think that ontology and epistemology are mutually exclusive.

[Doctordick]

if it represent something, it is not fictional in any stretch of imagination.

My god, what an insightful assertion! And all this time I thought Harry Potter was fictional character. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[watcher]

My god, what an insightful assertion! And all this time I thought Harry Potter was fictional character. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

cherry picking. sorry

[jedaisoul]

no objects, no space, no time and no events?

so what's left for you?

Nothing.

[arkain101]

Nothing.

exactly the condition of the 'place', that our senses gather data from.

unkown 'x' (in interact with ) unknown 'z' (produces a) known 'y'

unkown 'x' + unknown 'z' = known 'y'

 

For example. If you were born and you had eyes , but (in a hypothetical environment) there was never anything to see (not a peep of light, and no one ever brought vision to your attention), would visual ability be a valid "known" for you? (I answer no)