Re: How to Draw a Straight line?

On Nov 6, 1:53 pm, Nimo <azeez...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 6, 11:06 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"



<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:28 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
I like the context of the OP. Especially I think considering
rotational reference frames you could escape the surface paradigm and
move on to a proposition of whether a particle split remembers its
initial rotational reference frame.

Well, actually they do, the instanton is complex, it's a point with
complexly-valued coordinates. The event is or has the instanton.

Photons are granted wavelengths
and if this behavior were attributed to the initial properties at the
time of photon release from say an electron then we'd have created a
more mechanistic context for the life of the photon. By accepting a
rotational reference frame the 'straight line' context should take on
a twist shouldn't it?

With the observer/detector, measuring the frequency of the light
collapses its wave function towards an instanton. Of course, in modern
day physics with the curved space-time, the shortest distance is the
straight line. It's just not actually, and can never be, a straight
line in the space-time, as I explain.

It seems to me that the catch with working on curved spaces is that
you'll always have to grant another dimension to develop the
curvature. I don't know why this doesn't stump more people. When a
flatlander lands in this super dimensional world is he not still a
flatlander? The initial constraint on say a spherical surface is being
freed up in your model right? Is it still a radius? Upon folding
things over things could get really goopy. But again what does it
matter to a flatlander? The constraint that you built the system out
of isolates the construction doesn't it?
If you breach your brane you'll wind up with FTL signalling.

Yes, but Ross, somewhere in this realm is where I see the problem.
You've ignored the breaching of the brane and if it never happens then
the imperceptible nature of working on such a surface at anything
other than a global level. Since we are caught doing local experiments
we are no better off in the curved space so long as the meter stick we
use seemes straight to us but is actually perhaps twisted into a
pretzel in the proposed space.

As the flatlander when my meter
stick gets stretched out I cannot tell the difference. Locally such
effect should be invisible shouldn't they? Globally a finite size
universe makes it feel good, but we are still stuck being local;
immersed as prisoners.

- Tim

Well in the string theory they talk about the 10 or 11 dimensions of
interest in physics. That's a really big space. They have six
dimensions of space, two for each of what are normally considered the
space dimensions, with three space dimensions. Then there are some 3
and 1 dimensions for light and then the eleventh is for perspective as
most adopt. That is where, more standardly, there are three space
dimensions and one time dimension, even if time can be called a
dimension instead of a direction, there are 3 and 1 giving the 3,1
Clifford algebras with normally the extra 1 dimension for perspective..

I don't believe in Clifford algebra. I've spent some time with it and
its area interpretation as a bivector product is flawed. The
expression
x1 ^ x1
is undefined in my opinion, not zero, and so the superposition matrix
is inherently undefined. I am open to being wrong, but this is my
current understanding of Clifford as a branch off of Grassman.

Or, maybe it is 9 space dimensions in the string theory, and then just
the one time dimension.

Physics basically understands that there are the space-like vector and
time-like vectors in the space-time, also the light-like vectors about
the origin, and perhaps another. Normally the time dimension is
considered "imaginary", where really it is over events and transport,
space dimensions "real", they are interchangeable because the standard
reflection based paradigm of the model doesn't know or care about
generally flow associated parallel transport link relations, in the
linear with boundaries and partitions.

The construction is arbitrary rather than derived. Upon introducing
the higher dimensions the theory should yield spacetime rather than
construct it manually. This is the farcical nature that string theory
exposed to me years ago. The same farce is embedded in clasical
physics, but for instance in Newton's scholium he fully owns that it
is beyond him to explain.

Those are simple and convenient models for physics because they work
very perfectly. It is said things like "Quantum Mechanics has never
been proven wrong." That really helps in ascribing faith to the model.

Quantum mechanics isn't known to disagree with Special and General
Relativity obviously. Any difference in terms of "randomness" or
"hidden variables" in SR are measurement loss. The harder you try. So,
there's not actually any problem using both QM and SR/GR, as I explain.
QM and SR are very much both normal parts of the computation of the
mathematics describing the model of physical reality, being totally
fundamental and so on.

Oh come on. These are hardly parallel theories. But here is a common
failing of both of them. Neither can answer the question
Why Spacetime?
because they construct spacetime manually. If you are happy to pull
that out of a hat then what else will you pull from the hat? Just
about anything you like, really. It is fine to grant things and we
must, but we must do so axiomatically. In effect all of quantum
mechanics then is resting down deep on Newton's schollium in his
Principia, a purely classical document. Relativity theory goes
superdimensional and string theory follows. Einstein did a pretty
careful rendition, but his reliance on a claim of isotropic space
following in Maxwell's domain is I believe the mistake of that period.

People who perform quantum mechanical computations have readily
admitted to the limitations of their work. That is fine. But if
statistical phenomenon are fundamental then how is it that the coffee
stain on my keyboard is so stable? I don't believe that it has moved
one millimeter since it was generated. Furthermore I haven't found any
dragons in my coffee can in quite a while. How about you? In trying to
go beneath the superposition state they think they can smooth out the
weirdness and call it good. That detail reeks. Is superposition
grounds for filtering out the random claim? At a global scale it is,
but at a local scale it is not. We don't need all of this to claim
inaccuracy. The noncomputable nature of reality is inherently true.
Now the spintronic people are coming down there and claiming to make
well behaved devices, down at that local scale right? Why is this so?

My own way forward is to consider that question about spacetime and
consider one possibility in particular that does yield spacetime.
Clearly the old arguments on isotropic space are flawed.
Is space the same in all directions?
Or is space unique in all directions?
Structured spacetime is the way to go, especially when electromagnetic
phenomena are in play as behaviors of spacetime such as the electric
and magnetic constants of free space.
Especially when the introduction of a negative distance factor in the
Minkowski metric is so readilly accepted and unidirectional time goes
ignored except by the enforcement of a light cone. If you are willing
to make a break with Euclid then how about trying this on
http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html?
In 3D this suggests that there could be much more space out there than
we realize, even without raising the dimension of the system. Yet
declaring an origin is beyond us. Would that send us...

read more »

http://deco-01.slide.com/r/1/30/dl/gEGIyeFZ6j9qgt3pCC0qbacaSwUPxsFj/w...
Bcoz of the presence of massive mass
the space-time is curved, but that is not my question.
In the figure. the blue plane is curved and it is 'smooth'
In reality can it be so smooth ?
I mean like our highway road from distant point looks like
smooth, if we go near and observe it will have roughness
on its surfaces.
I think same applies to space-time curve too

Thanks.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I saw your site, I want to discuss with you.

Cool. New thread? Or email? Anything you like.
Nice graphics. But again my troubling over your roughed up surface is
the same problem restated again. When you stretch your tape measure
out it will take on the roughness of the surface right?
Does the red line in your diagram exist for the ants? They have no
such ability to point to each other that way because they are immersed
in the brane. Upon granting superdimensional access weird things are
going to happen aren't they? If you could restrict the number of weird
things down to the level of dynamics we observe then you might have a
convincing system, but what that makes of your red line is a very
large puzzle.

It may be that what I'm claiming is that curved space is an optional
feature. You can construct that way, but if you are going to claim
dynamics in that constricted brane and all of the dynamics are in that
brane, then the theory perhaps should have a parallel theory with just
the braned space itself (without superdimensions). This would be the
most gentle way to handle such a dispute. I have criticism's of the
curved spacetime of Einstein yet his predictions do follow the
dynamics. Does then a parallel theory exist? Yes, I think so. A
leading question for you: Since Einstein relied upon the speed of
light how did he get away without ever treating the electric and
magnetic fields, only to recover them as an antisymmetric tensor
within his theory, built upon the speed of light?

Thanks Nimo, for considering my words.

- Tim
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Braneworlds
    ... book page (or brane) can exist a few cm away. ... dimension and it is only 1 millimeter thick. ... brane is composed of a complete 3D spacetime. ... must be a property of the quantum objects ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Braneworlds
    ... exist 1 millimeter or even a a few planck distance away. ... book page (or brane) can exist a few cm away. ... dimension and it is only 1 millimeter thick. ... brane is composed of a complete 3D spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dirac Gamma matrices including gamma^5, and the Spacetime Metric g_uv
    ... It is of course well-known that the spacetime metric ... equal to the well-known Dirac matrices which incorporate pairs of the ... gravitational field, one may write: ... This "fifth" dimension thereby naturally acquires a timelike signature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dirac Gamma matrices including gamma^5, and the Spacetime Metric g_uv
    ... just say, "gee, that ought to be a fifth spacetime dimension" without ... Am I correct therefore, in thinking that in a gravitational field, ... Is there any reason, therefore, why we ought not rewrite the ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Dirac Gamma matrices including gamma^5, and the Spacetime Metric g_uv
    ... Am I correct therefore, in thinking that in a gravitational field, ... h^uv which define the geometric curvature of spacetime, ... as the "structure matrices of spacetime," and because gamma^5 appears to ... This "fifth" dimension thereby naturally acquires a timelike signature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading