Re: Have you ever wondered.....
From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Ben: "Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Previous message: globarr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection""
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Next in thread: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Reply: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:32:44 +0100
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:2YCdnZ_Bns1Sjr7fRVn-2Q@conversent.net...
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4221a66b$0$28989$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:SsmdnYBzhtaZEoLfRVn-sw@conversent.net...
>> >
>> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> > news:421dee80$0$28991$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> >> news:i--dnQjGeYp164HfRVn-vg@conversent.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> >> > news:421c1951$0$28983$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> >> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> >> >> news:q4qdnfYjMOGSDYbfRVn-iQ@conversent.net...
>> >> >
;; Description of experiment by Allyou under discussion:
;; We have a 3D vectorspace sm,
;; unit vector x = unit vector y = toof, unit vector z = nim
;; Moving objects in sm: B1 and B2
;;
;; As the experiment begins, we propel B1 and B2 in
;; sm along randomly chosen, linear, non-parallel paths.
;; Let's stop here. Each point along the path of B1 and B2
;; will have a unique, three dimensional position.
;; There will be an x-axis value, a y-axis value and a z-axis value.
;; IOW, if we abruptly stop all motion in sm at any point,
;; we'd be able to note the values of all three coordinates
;; for both B1 and B2.
;;
;; If we do this often enough, on some attempts, B1 and B2 will
;; collide and on some they will not. On those where they do not,
;; there will still be a point in sm where the paths of B1 and B2
;; could have intersected at x and y, except that the value of z as
;; B1 gets to the potential intersection (think of the paths as temporary
;; roads) will be different than the value shown as B2 gets there.
;; IOW, the value of X and Y for both marbles will be the same, but the
;; value of z will not.
;;
;; Now, on those attempts where there is a collision, all three
;; coordinate values (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis) will
;; be the same for both B1 and B2.
;;
;; Description of scenario agreed by Allyou and Kees Roos:
;; p(x) are the various pictures we might take
;;
;; p(0): B1 location: x = 0, y = 0, m = 0 (0,0,0)
;; B2 location: x = 0, y = 1, m = 0 (0,1,0)
;;
;; p(1): B1 location: x = 3, y = 4, m = 5 (3,4,5)
;; B2 location: x = 6, y = -7, m = 5 (6,-7,5)
;;
;; End of descriptions.
;;
;; Challenge by Allyou:
;; So now the only issue left to resolve is what to call that third axis
;; (i.e., time or motion), and I challenge you to debate the issue with
;; me.
;;
;;
;; Debate by Kees Roos:
;; -I think I have figured out what you mean when you
;; call the z-axis the 'motion'-axis.
;; I think you mean to say that when there has been an interval
;; of progress along the z-axis, objects have moved in space,
;; and that therefore the z-interval is an interval of motion.
;;
;; -Although I agree that during intervals along the z-axis
;; objects can move in space, I don't agree that the essence
;; of this progression along the z-axis is the motion of the objects.
;;
;; -When we look at our scenario, we see that in the interval
;; between the two states, the z-coordinates of B1 and B2 have
;; changed from 0 to 5.
;; However, during that same interval, the z-coordinate of any other
;; location in space has also changed from 0 to 5.
;; If we had placed a nonmoving object at any location in space,
;; its z-coordinate would also have changed in the same amount.
;; Indeed, all locations in space in which there was no object at all,
;; have also changed from z=0 to z=5.
;;
;; -The essence of the progression along the z-axis is a property
;; of space, which happens irrespective of whether anything
;; moves in it or not. I.O.W. space has the property that it
;; progresses along the z-axis.
;;
;; -Motion is a change of spatial coordinates.
;; An interval of progression of space along the z-axis is
;; an interval of 'something', during which motion (=change
;; of spatial coordinates) of objects may or may not take place.
;;
;; -In physics, this progression of space along the nonspace axis
;; of spacetime is called time.
;; End of debate by Kees Roos
>> >> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> I think I found the cause of our continuing misunderstanding.
>
> Implicit in that statement is your reality that you're right and that I'm
> wrong with no
> allowance for the converse. That explains a lot.
>
I don't see where I say that. Sounds a bit paranoid to me.
In fact, if you relate this opening to what I write further
(I alter my interpretation of your construct),
I think the contrary is true
>> When you specified your 3D construct I interpreted it in the
>> mathematical sense, i.e. as an abstract vectorspace sm.
>> In that case your wbt clock does not make any sense, because
>> it is not related to sm in any way.
>> That's what I tried to show to you.
>>
>> However, I think I now understand that your wbt clock measures
>> physical universe-'motion'|'time'(we have to decide which) and
>> that sm relates to the physical universe.
>>
>> Before I speculate on this hypothesis, is this what you mean?
>
> I mean that the rulers are objects which produce distances which we then
> use as references
> to measure other distances in the construct. I also mean the white marble
> tube are
> objects that produce a motion which we then use as a reference to measure
> other motions in
> the construct.
>
I don't see how this relates to what I ask.
Anyway, I shall proceed as if your answer is:
"Yes, my wbt clock measures physical universe-'motion'|'time(we have to
decide which) and sm relates to the physical universe."
OK, revised debate:
-Your wbt clock relates motion of the white ball relative to the
graduated tube to z-ordinates in sm of objects B1 an B2 and
of all the universe as well.
However, if you would have used an atomic clock, that would
have yielded exactly the same results, without involving any
motion at all.
The process which the clock uses, does not influence the
result in any way.
-Even if you use your wbt clock to measure the interval of
m|t(whtdw) that does not imply that what is measured should
be called 'motion'.
As you say, rulers are objects which measure distances.
However, a distance is not an interval of object, but an
interval of 'space'.
Likewise, a clock uses a physical process to measure
intervals of m|t(whtdw).
However, an inerval of m|t(whtdw) is not an interval of
clock process, it is an interval of whatever you want to
call the dimension in which the interval is situated.
To call it 'motion' is highly misleading, because motion
is not at all the only possible clock process. Indeed,
in physics the relation between motion and time
has been abolished because we have far more accurate
calibrating processes.
-- Regards, Kees Roos
- Next message: Ben: "Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Previous message: globarr_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection""
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Next in thread: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Reply: AllYou!: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
