What will be the changes if we move from 3rd dimension level to 4rth dimension level

[alexander]

 

quote:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...the point I am making here is in the macro world space/time is flat, so any object in a flat space/time no matter how slower than it competition would eventually catch up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This is amazing. You are telling us that if I travel through space at .5 c, and you travel on the same trajectory leaving one hour later at .1 c, that you will eventually catch up to me? PLEASE explain how this works.

Upon my quest on finding something out about gravity i came up on a relativity tutorial (for those that are interested its at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm ) and on about page 13 in the first paragraph of the section titled Curved Spacetime i came along the lines that really troubled me as they did Uncle Martin as seen in the quote above, the quote from the page goes as following

 

Curved coordinates alone, such as the polar graph, do not provide a satisfactory model for gravity. Two straight lines through the same point but with different directions will never cross again, while two worldlines influenced only by gravity which pass through the same event with different velocities can cross again. Consider the Galileo spacecraft, which made two Earth flybys. In between the flybys, Galileo was on an elliptical orbit with a 2 year period. In order to allow "straight" lines to cross multiple times, a curved space-time is needed.

[Tormod]

I'd like to point you folks to a hypography feature I did on hyperspace and multiple dimensions a while back. I just checked it and most of the links still work.

 

http://www.hypography.com/topics/hyperspace.cfm

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

In GR time is bidirectional. It is a dimension to the exact same extent as X,Y or Z.

Again, it seems rediculous to me. Far better to view time as a function of matter itself; matter interacts with other matter and energy, thease intereactions chance the matter from it's original form. 'Memory' itself is where the intereactions of matter and energy have caused them to assume a new form. To 'passage of time' is only recogniseable because we have memory

 

In QM a particle moving forward in time is the same as an anti-particle moving backwards in time.

Anti-matter is still a dubious subject that I have no care to delve into; it isn't a dimension in of itself so means nothing to the current conversation. As well there is no way to show an anti-particle going 'backwards'' in time except for math, which can't be applied to such things because we havn't observed it, if we are even capable of doing so, and if it really exists. Even if all the above weren't true, it would simply indicate that anti-particles have their own 'anti-time" and are locked into what for them is 'forward' motion in that 'time'. aNd again time can be viewed simply as a function of matter(or anti-matter in this case).

 

It would almost seem that in QM, with uncertaintiy, that TIME is more "concrete" or "existant" than SPACE. e.g. we can not know WHERE an electron is. Only a probablity based on a specific time. It seems OUR existence in time is one of the only ones restricted to forward only.

Since both are constructs of the human mind, no wonder they mesh so well. You could also say that light is restricted to 'forward' cronological movement, and electrons, and protons and neutrons...pritty much all the matter we can actually proove exists....

 

As Stephen Hawking said regarding time direction bias of humans, "We do not remember the future".

so would you say an anti-human would 'remember' the future? Or would that anti-human simply progress 'forward' in their time and view the rest of us as anti and backwards?

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: alexander

Upon my quest on finding something out about gravity i came up on a relativity tutorial (for those that are interested its at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm ) and on about page 13 in the first paragraph of the section titled Curved Spacetime i came along the lines that really troubled me as they did Uncle Martin as seen in the quote above, the quote from the page goes as following

 

 

 

Curved coordinates alone, such as the polar graph, do not provide a satisfactory model for gravity. Two straight lines through the same point but with different directions will never cross again, while two worldlines influenced only by gravity which pass through the same event with different velocities can cross again. Consider the Galileo spacecraft, which made two Earth flybys. In between the flybys, Galileo was on an elliptical orbit with a 2 year period. In order to allow "straight" lines to cross multiple times, a curved space-time is needed.

 

This shows nothing aboout 'time', only that curved space is necessary. They only say space-time because it's the generally accepted term.

I don't see why it would trouble you; earth is on a slightly eliptical orbit, Galileo was on a heavilly eliptical orbit to 'slingshot' it outwards.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

In GR time is bidirectional. It is a dimension to the exact same extent as X,Y or Z.

Again, it seems rediculous to me. Far better to view time as a function of matter itself; matter interacts with other matter and energy, thease intereactions chance the matter from it's original form. 'Memory' itself is where the intereactions of matter and energy have caused them to assume a new form. To 'passage of time' is only recogniseable because we have memory

You are anthropomorphizing. You are trying to define TIME based exclusively on HUMAN perception, what you relate to "memory", as in "'passage of time' is only recogniseable because we have memory". TIME exists independant of human memory. (OK, we could argue to absurdity as to whether ANYTHING exists, much less can only exist with intentional human perception.)

 

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: FreethinkerIn QM a particle moving forward in time is the same as an anti-particle moving backwards in time.

Anti-matter is still a dubious subject that I have no care to delve into; it isn't a dimension in of itself so means nothing to the current conversation. As well there is no way to show an anti-particle going 'backwards'' in time except for math, which can't be applied to such things because we havn't observed it,

Relativity can not be SHOWN except for math. Even thought experiments that explain it are based on the math behind them. QM is no more or less "dubious" than GR. Nor is it less relevant to the discussion. Your desire to not delve into it does not stop it from being relevant.

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: FreethinkerIt would almost seem that in QM, with uncertaintiy, that TIME is more "concrete" or "existant" than SPACE. e.g. we can not know WHERE an electron is. Only a probablity based on a specific time. It seems OUR existence in time is one of the only ones restricted to forward only.

Since both are constructs of the human mind,

I would not agree that they are "constructs of the human mind". Yes ALL science is nothing more than our attempts to comprehend the world around us, to "construct" models that help us understand and predict. But that does not mean they ONLY exist as human INVENTIONS (constructs). They EXIST, and then humans devise ways to UNDERSTAND those happenings.

You could also say that light is restricted to 'forward' cronological movement, and electrons, and protons and neutrons...pritty much all the matter we can actually proove exists....

No you can't. Again, a proton "moving" forward in time is the same as an ANTI-proton (which "we can actually proove exists") moving backwards in time.

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: FreethinkerAs Stephen Hawking said regarding time direction bias of humans, "We do not remember the future".

so would you say an anti-human would 'remember' the future? Or would that anti-human simply progress 'forward' in their time and view the rest of us as anti and backwards?

No. I would say an "anti-human" would be a Christian. :-)

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

You are anthropomorphizing. You are trying to define TIME based exclusively on HUMAN perception, what you relate to "memory", as in "'passage of time' is only recogniseable because we have memory". TIME exists independant of human memory. (OK, we could argue to absurdity as to whether ANYTHING exists, much less can only exist with intentional human perception.)

Semantics. TIME can not be shown(proof) to be bi-directional. You cannot 'rewind' time in a given area to 'undo' a reaction. You can cause a new reaction wich results in a material of the same composition to occur, but the original(I must stress this) material is gone, lost to 'time'.

You have yet to say anything about what I posted prior to that little nitpick. I agree Time as interactions exists independant of humans(an human memory), yet it is still only a function of matter. Time cannot be shown to pass in an area DEVOID of matter.

Relativity can not be SHOWN except for math. Even thought experiments that explain it are based on the math behind them. QM is no more or less "dubious" than GR. Nor is it less relevant to the discussion. Your desire to not delve into it does not stop it from being relevant.

Redshift, Blueshift; relativity in action, without math(though math can explain it). Doppler effect of a car approching, passing, then distancing itself from your stationary self; relativity in action on a smaller scale. Both are observeable, identifiable, and explianable(again, math being used AFTER the fact. Something SR does not do).

Relativity indicates how an object will appear to an observer relative to the difference in their motion. Thought experiments aside, Special Relativity can only be shown by math; therein lies the difference most fail to grasp.

 

 

I would not agree that they are "constructs of the human mind". Yes ALL science is nothing more than our attempts to comprehend the world around us, to "construct" models that help us understand and predict. But that does not mean they ONLY exist as human INVENTIONS (constructs). They EXIST, and then humans devise ways to UNDERSTAND those happenings.

Pardon me, I should have lumped that in with the rest of probability math. Predictions of specific ocurrences can only be based on the probability that a set of outcomes will occur. This is the nature of uncertainty; there can be multiple outcomes of any one interaction. In the case of predicting the location of any one particle the outcomes are magnified by any and all particles adjacent to said particle.

in this situation 'time' is the only 'concrete' thing as everything is based on how much 'time' it takes for thease results to make themselves evident. 'Probability' is a construct, I should have been more long-winded in my reply.

 

No you can't. Again, a proton "moving" forward in time is the same as an ANTI-proton...moving backwards in time.

*sigh*

can a proton move 'backwards' in 'time'?

can an 'anti-proton' move 'forwards' in 'time'?

Can we detect these occurances, if they do indeed happen?(Protons from the future! What a headline! "future gardeners solve current world hunger problem!" What a Nobel prize!)

If the above answers are 'no' then time is monodirectional based on the type of matter experiencing it(or causing it to occur, as I assert), and thus does not qualify to be defined as a dimension.

(which "we can actually proove exists")

Show me this proof. "suspected anti-matter particle created" does not count.

 

Originally posted by: GAHD

so would you say an anti-human would 'remember' the future? Or would that anti-human simply progress 'forward' in their t

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: GAHD

can a proton move 'backwards' in 'time'?

can an 'anti-proton' move 'forwards' in 'time'?

 

To claify, I should have used "matter" in place of "proton"

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

You are anthropomorphizing. You are trying to define TIME based exclusively on HUMAN perception, what you relate to "memory", as in "'passage of time' is only recogniseable because we have memory". TIME exists independant of human memory. (OK, we could argue to absurdity as to whether ANYTHING exists, much less can only exist with intentional human perception.)

 

Semantics. TIME can not be shown(proof) to be bi-directional.

Yes it is almost always a matter of semantics, or Point of Reference.

 

No one can PROVE that the Earth is NOT the center of the galaxy. In fact it can be PROVEN that it IS. In fact it can be PROVEN that the entire galaxy rotates around my big toe! It's all a matter of sematics and POR. Of course establishing my big toe as the center of the galaxy dramatically complicates calculations for everything else. Especially if I start walking.

 

All that obfuscation aside. There are established understandings that allow a greater level of accurate predictability. One of those established understandings is that particles CAN move forward and backward in time.

 

Or we can have NASA attach a GPS device to my big toe so they can more accurately calculate galactic movements.

You cannot 'rewind' time in a given area to 'undo' a reaction.

My big toe! You're anthropomorphizing again.

You have yet to say anything about what I posted prior to that little nitpick. I agree Time as interactions exists independant of humans(an human memory), yet it is still only a function of matter. Time cannot be shown to pass in an area DEVOID of matter.

Wrong, background radiation is not MATTER, it is ENERGY and it's distribution, freq and level all show passage of time.

 

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: FreethinkerRelativity can not be SHOWN except for math. Even thought experiments that explain it are based on the math behind them. QM is no more or less "dubious" than GR. Nor is it less relevant to the discussion. Your desire to not delve into it does not stop it from being relevant.

 

Redshift, Blueshift; relativity in action, without math(though math can explain it).

Now you are playing semantics games. Doppler can ONLY be proven mathematically. It is a SHIFT in freq based on wave compression or expansion. Without math, it could just as easily explained as something switching the actual freq. Esp in cases of redshift of celestial objects.

Relativity indicates how an object will appear to an observer relative to the difference in their motion.

Wrong again. NOT "motion". POSITION. "motion" is not required.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

Semantics. TIME can not be shown(proof) to be bi-directional.

Yes it is almost always a matter of semantics, or Point of Reference.

No one can PROVE that the Earth is NOT the center of the galaxy. In fact it can be PROVEN that it IS. In fact it can be PROVEN that the entire galaxy rotates around my big toe! It's all a matter of sematics and POR. Of course establishing my big toe as the center of the galaxy dramatically complicates calculations for everything else. Especially if I start walking.

All that obfuscation aside. There are established understandings that allow a greater level of accurate predictability. One of those established understandings is that particles CAN move forward and backward in time.

Or we can have NASA attach a GPS device to my big toe so they can more accurately calculate galactic movements.

interesting, I'd love to see this proven. In fact, if it was proven I'd stat yelping for Christ too, or maby I'd just cut off the toe in question to cause galactic havoc.

You cannot 'rewind' time in a given area to 'undo' a reaction.

My big toe! You're anthropomorphizing again.

How is 'rewinding' 'anthropomorphizing'? I fail to see the correlation, please explain further.

 

You have yet to say anything about what I posted prior to that little nitpick. I agree Time as interactions exists independant of humans(an human memory), yet it is still only a function of matter. Time cannot be shown to pass in an area DEVOID of matter.

Wrong, background radiation is not MATTER, it is ENERGY and it's distribution, freq and level all show passage of time.

e=mc^2 remove that too. Pure space here buddy, build a box and peek inside.

Just for clarification, it's distribution and frequencies are indicative of the initial expansion speed of the universe.

Originally posted by: GAHD

Redshift, Blueshift; relativity in action, without math(though math can explain it).

Now you are playing semantics games. Doppler can ONLY be proven mathematically. It is a SHIFT in freq based on wave compression or expansion. Without math, it could just as easily explained as something switching the actual freq. Esp in cases of redshift of celestial objects.

What is this something? ooh yeah, motion. Great new discovery that.(I'd prefer not to turn this into a battle of sarcastic wit, but 'when in Rome'or, in this case, Hypography...)

Relativity indicates how an object will appear to an observer relative to the difference in their motion.

Wrong again. NOT "motion". POSITION. "motion" is not required.

Blatently wrong. Something 50', or 50'*10^50 away makes no change in overall appearance unless differing motion is involved.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Tormod

I'd like to point you folks to a hypography feature I did on hyperspace and multiple dimensions a while back. I just checked it and most of the links still work.

http://www.hypography.com/topics/hyperspace.cfm

 

After looking through that I found this article. Quite informative. too bad You need a membership to view the actual paper (An Alternative to Compactification, Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Or we can have NASA attach a GPS device to my big toe so they can more accurately calculate galactic movements.

 

interesting, I'd love to see this proven. In fact, if it was proven I'd stat yelping for Christ too, or maby I'd just cut off the toe in question to cause galactic havoc.

Here is a simple thought experiment to show how it would work. The math would follow the graphical construction.

 

We'll start by establishing the motions of bodies in our Solar System. If you imagine a physical model of the universe with the sun at it's center with the paths of the various planets around it and the various satelites around them. The model has the Sun setting on a post holding the entire model stationary at that point. We flip a switch that sets the model in motion. The post holds the Sun in place and the planets start to move around the sun and so on.

 

Now if we took this "model in motion" and grabbed ahold of the Earth and lifted the entire model off the post holding the sun, the model would now have all the same motions, except the earth would be stationary relative to the person holding it. Thus all motion of the Solar System would be seen using the Earth fixed as the center. This is the concept used by some religious groups, that yes all (other) planets move around the Sun as their center, but the sun moves around the earth as it's center. You will even find sites that specifically claim and explain this:

 

"Geocentricity has descended from the ancient notion of geocentrism, or the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe. Theorists use the Biblical theme of an earth-centered creation for substantiation, and Biblical references that some believe imply the earth does not move. Some ardent geocentrists do not believe the earth is orbiting the sun, but instead propose the solar system model pictured at right, where the sun is orbiting the earth."

http://www.nwcreation.net/geocentricity.html

 

or:

 

"The Biblical Astronomer"

http://www.geocentricity.com/

 

In fact, I wish I could find the site I ran across some time ago that offered a reward to anyone that could prove that we live in an Sun centered solar system.

 

Anyway, take this concept of being able to grab this "model in motion" (MIM) at any point, any planet, any satelite, ... and have the model keep moving, but around this arbitrary center point. The model still works perfectly. Everything moves in it's correct path. The only difference is the Point Of Reference. The math required to properly predict any particular body's relative motion can increase dramatically, or be simpler, based on the POR and the specific object.

 

Thus if we identify the specific point on the Earth where my big toe is, we can grab our MIM at that point and we have now constructed a MIM of a system based on my big toe as the center.

 

Now extend that to the MIM of the entire Galaxy.

 

And it revolves around MY BIG TOE! Er, left or right?

 

And then there is this pair of boxer shorts I have that indicate a different Center of the universe. :-)

[GAHD]

interesting, ridiculous, but interesting.

Time to track you down and chop off the center of the universe...

 

meanwhile I await something to further the topic...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

You cannot 'rewind' time in a given area to 'undo' a reaction.

My big toe! You're anthropomorphizing again.

How is 'rewinding' 'anthropomorphizing'? I fail to see the correlation, please explain further.

"rewinding" or "undoing" an event is based on the human perception of time as a linear forward moving process. People often have problems getting past this anthropomorphizing. That is why some people can't deal with it correctly.

 

e.g. an anti-particle (or particle) that has an event (perhaps collision) that has a resultant negative time vector is not "rewinding" or "undoing" an event. It is PRODUCING an event that has a negative time vector.

 

In order to correctly understand this, a person needs to drop their human forward time prejudice/ bias/ anthropomorphism.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

You cannot 'rewind' time in a given area to 'undo' a reaction.

My big toe! You're anthropomorphizing again.

Hey wasn't anyone impressed with how I built the whole presentation about POR using my big toe just so I could use that punch line?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

I agree Time as interactions exists independant of humans(an human memory), yet it is still only a function of matter. Time cannot be shown to pass in an area DEVOID of matter.

Wrong, background radiation is not MATTER, it is ENERGY and it's distribution, freq and level all show passage of time.

e=mc^2 remove that too. Pure space here buddy, build a box and peek inside.

??? What does "e=mc^2" have to do with it? Background radiation is electromagnetic (RF) waves. it is NOT matter in any sense.

Just for clarification, it's distribution and frequencies are indicative of the initial expansion speed of the universe.

WRONG again! it is "indicative" of the CURRENT state of enegry released at the BB, relative to the TIME that has lapsed since.

 

If the ONLY reference was the "initial expansion speed of the universe", there would be no accounting for changes in that speed nor that FACT that the [/i]"intial"[/i] conditions at the time of the BB change entirely shortly there after. Our existing "Laws" of physics were not in effect at the [/i]"intial"[/i] instant of the BB.

(I'd prefer not to turn this into a battle of sarcastic wit, but 'when in Rome'or, in this case, Hypography...)

Don't worry, I would not fight an unarmed man! :-)

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

Relativity indicates how an object will appear to an observer relative to the difference in their motion.

Wrong again. NOT "motion". POSITION. "motion" is not required.

Blatently wrong. Something 50', or 50'*10^50 away makes no change in overall appearance unless differing motion is involved.

In his book "Relativity, Special and General" Einstein presents a thought experiment explaining Relativity based on location of the observer to two events. The events are basically flashs of light. There is no "motion" invloved at any point. It is strictly the RELATIVE and FIXED position of the two events and the observer.

 

But I am always willing to learn and change my understandings. Perhaps you could get Albert to rewrite his book (and Theories) and then we could all agree with your assertion?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

interesting, ridiculous, but interesting.

 

Time to track you down and chop off the center of the universe...

I hope it is my TOE you are referring to! :-)

meanwhile I await something to further the topic...

How about showing where my proof is WRONG instead of just saying it is "ridiculous".

 

Otherwise we can only assume that I was right.

[Uncle Martin]

Freethinker,

I enjoyed your geocentric thought experiment, very interesting. Doesn't Newtonian physics refute it however. Am I incorrect in assuming that the most massive body of a system will be the center of gravity and hence,...rotation? Or is the center of gravity actually a point in space located in the system, similar to the Lagrange points?