Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??
From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: aleksandar.vukelja_at_gmail.com: "Re: origin of inertia"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Mar 2005 10:36:47 -0800
TomGee wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > TomGee wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > TomGee wrote:
[snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > P 1. Matter exists in the space of our universe and so does
the
> > > > > dimension of time. In physics, a dimension is a property or
> > > > magnitude,
> > > > > or groups of such, that collectively define a physical
> quantity.
> > > >
> > > > Disputed. Back it up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sure, soon as you note the basis of your dispute so that we can
> know
> > > what it is you dispute.
> >
> > A dimension is better described as one of the counted independent
> > degrees of freedom within a space, where a space consists of
elements
> > that can be described as related by a set of mathematical rules.
> >
> > > >
> True, when it refers to math. However, this is physics, not
> mathematics.
Back up your claim that my definition does not apply to physics.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > P 2. According to SR, time is a property of matter
> > > >
> > > > Disputed. Back it up. This is the linch pin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sure, soon as you note the basis of your dispute so that we can
> know
> > > what it is you dispute.
> >
> > OK, see below, as well. Time is not a property of matter. The claim
> > that it is, is based on a false chain of logic. Time is one of the
> > dimensions in spacetime, in which events live.
> >
> >
> No, sorry. Events do not "live" anywhere. Events "occur" in time.
Events occur both at a place and at a time. They have both space and
time coordinates. Here is the Wikipedia blurb about spacetime, since
you seem to value Wikipedia as being authorized by well-respected
physicists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
> And time is a real dimension of the universe and not of fantasy
> spacetime. If time was a dimension of space, space could not be
> dependent on time then, could it? And time cannot be a dimension of
> time, can it?
Here is your argument, as far as I can tell.
a) Time cannot be a dimension of space
b) Time cannot be a dimension of time
c) Therefore time cannot be a dimension of space or time, and thus
cannot be a dimension of spacetime.
d) Therefore spacetime, which claims to have dimensions of time and
space, cannot exist.
Have I got it?
> >
> >
> > Events can be separated
> > in time, and there exists a region of time in which no events
occur.
> >
> >
> That would depend on your definition of "event", would it not? In
> Relativity, it is a single point in space-time, which is chosen by
> whomever is making the s-t diagram.
No. That is incorrect. An event is a physical occurrence which has a
localized place in space and a localized place in time. It therefore
*corresponds* to a location in spacetime.
The *values* of the coordinates in spacetime depend on the observer,
but that does not deny the physicality of the event, any more than a
choice of coordinate axes determines the physicality of a paperclip
hitting the floor in classical physics.
> However, events do not occur on
> the whim of humans, nor are they confined to single events. The
> orbiting of the moon is a single event,
Not according to the definition that SR uses.
> to some, but to others, it is
> continual succession of events because it is a continuous
acceleration
> of the moon which keeps it in its orbit. For us, each of those tiny
> little events is of utmost importance because if just one fails to
> occur, we're done.
And SR agrees with you on that.
>
> S-t, however, ignores those little intricate events which together
make
> up larger events, in saying that if nothing significant occurs, it is
> not an event.
That is not so. Back this claim up with a reference.
> Fortunately for us, s-t does not define our reality.
> Our reality takes into account the relatedness of events to other
> events which makes up the "now" and leads into the future. S-t is a
> math construct which only accounts for the distances traveled by
> objects within certain time spans. It is a tool for theoretical
> physicists and as such it cannot be taken as a real place like our
> universe.
> >
> >
>
> It
> > therefore makes no sense to say that time exists only in the
presence
> > of matter.
> >
> > > >
> Then SR is wrong in saying that the twins will age differently?
Not at all. One does not imply the other.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > and it passes for
> > > > > discrete objects or systems inversely proportional
> > > >
> > > > Disputed. "Inversely proportional" has a definite meaning, and
> > using
> > > it
> > > > here is an error.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So give us your definite meaning and how it conflicts with the
way
> I
> > > use it here. I have had one poster who also said I was using it
> > > wrongly and I should make that statement read better. I tried it
> for
> > > awhile but then I forgot how I was using it wrongly and it crept
> back
> > > in again. I didn't bother with it anymore, I confess, because it
> did
> > > not seem germane to the issue in which I used it. No one else
but
> > you
> > > has been bothered with my use of it, but if you will state your
> > > argument about my use of it, I will try to let you win one.
> >
> > Understand that "winning one" means that you must then revisit your
> > model and revise it to be correct, right. Saying that "you won one"
> and
> > then changing nothing about your thinking accomplishes nothing.
> >
> >
> Ha Ha! You wish! I can let you win your contention that I am using
it
> wrongly, but not that I am wrong in what I mean.
> >
> >
> > Inversely proportional implies a specific mathematical ratio. A is
> > inversely proportional to B if increasing B by a factor of m
> decreases
> > A by a factor of m, where m is a nonzero number. For example, time
> > would have to dilate by a factor of 2 if the "state of motion"
> > increased by a factor of 2. It does not.
> >
> > > >
> And how do you know it does not? How do you determine A if A is the
> time rate and B is the state of motion of the object? Let's say,
e.g.,
> that the time rate of A is 9, B is 20, and m is 2. Increasing B by m
> gives us 40 and decreasing A by 2 gives us 8. Is that not an
inversely
> proportional change? If not, why not?
Because time dilation and state of motion simply do not have that
relationship. If the velocity doubles, for example, the time dilation
neither doubles nor halves. Experimentally.
It therefore does not have an inverse proportionality relationship.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > to their states of
> > > > > motion.
> > > > > C 1. Therefore, without space, matter cannot exist and
without
> > > > matter,
> > > > > the dimension of time cannot exist.
> > > >
> > > > The last statement is disputed. Back it up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sure, soon as you note the basis of your dispute so that we can
> know
> > > what it is you dispute.
> >
> > I did, above and below.
> >
> > > >
> I responded to that above in this post and to that below in my
previous
> post.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > P 3. However, space can exist without matter and matter's
> > property
> > > of
> > > > > time, as evidenced by areas where no matter can be observed.
> > > > > C 2. Therefore, since matter cannot exist without space and
> time
> > > > cannot
> > > > > exist without matter, time is dependent on space.
> > > >
> > > > This is how you maintain that SR says that time is dependent on
> > > space?
> > > > Deep, deep misunderstanding here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Obviously, but only on your part. The above is NOT what SR says,
> but
> > > simply my attempt to show how I conclude that the relationship of
> > time
> > > to space is one of dependency and not one of interdependence,
since
> > > space has no dependence on time.
> >
> > You misunderstand SR's statement about interdependence. According
to
> > your approach, two things could never be interdependent, because A
> > being dependent on B would rule out B being dependent on A.
> >
> >
> It is you who does not understand the meaning of "interdependence",
> obviously. A being dependent on B does not rule out B being
dependent
> on A. That is in fact what constitutes interdendency - the fact that
> each depends on the other for its existence. A can depend on B, but
if
> it is so that B does not depend on A, there is no interdependent
> relationship because there is no mutual dependency.
Alright, then.
> >
> >
> > What is the proper statement is that space and time *coordinates*
of
> an
> > event depend on the inertial frame of reference. Both are
*connected*
> > quantities in spacetime.
> >
> >
> Yes, but quantities are not physical things, they only refer to
> physical things but they themselves are not such. Quantities are
math
> constructs used in s-t diagrams to plot world lines and such. They
> cannot prove that s-t is a real place.
What would you use to determine that space is a real place that
spacetime cannot be tested in the same way?
> >
> >
> > An analogous statement is the location of something in a plane. The
> > values of the x and y coordinates depend on the origin and
> orientation
> > of the axes chosen. It is improper to say that x depends on y or
that
> y
> > depends on x, but the values of x and y depend on the choice of
> > coordinate axes. As well, if that choice should be, say, rotated,
> then
> > both the values of x and y coordinates of that something will
> change.
> >
> >
> No one has said that, AFAIK.
You claim that this is NOT what is said in SR?
Read "Spacetime Physics", Taylor and Wheeler, Chapters 1-3.
> AE made or propounded the claim that
> space and time are interdependent in our universe or in his
fictitious
> universe of s-t, and in either universe his claim is patently untrue.
> Sorry.
> >
> >
> > > My model explains space as filled
> > > with particles having negative matter and energy which makes them
> > > invisible to us and we see through them. Since time is a
property
> of
> > > visible matter, being matter having positive matter and energy,
and
> > the
> > > rate of its passage depends on motion, time is not a property of
> > > negative matter and energy since such matter has not the property
> of
> > > motion. Thus, time does not pass for invisible matter, or more
> > > probable, not so we can discern it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > C 3. Therefore, since space exists empty of matter, space
does
> > not
> > > > > depend on matter and thus, not on time either, which shows
that
> > the
> > > > > two, space and time, are not related in an interdependent
> > > > relationship.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tom, note the following.
> > > > 1a. It is not solely true that time is the only thing that
> changes
> > in
> > > > viewing from a relatively moving frame of reference.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> I have said nothing about viewing time changes, in any ref. frame.
> >
> >
> > > No one I know has made such a statement. What relevance has it?
> >
> > Look up length contraction. Distance (space) changes in viewing
from
> a
> > relatively moving frame of reference.
> >
> > > >
> Oh? And how do you know it is space that changes and not just the
> distance.
Define space without distance.
> That is what SR claims happens in the TP, that because space
> and time are interdependent, when time dilates, so must space.
Length contraction is predicted on its own from SR. It does *not*
follow as a consequence required by time dilation. The two of them are
*both* predicted, at the same logical level of inference, and the two
of them are connected.
> my
> model claims that time dilation is our term for an effect which gives
> us the impression that time and space warp in order to account for
some
> counter-intuitive events. My model shows that there really is no
> actual warping of time or space; it only appears that way to us.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 1b. SR also maintains that distance (length) ALSO changes in
> > viewing
> > > > from a relatively moving frame of reference.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > OK, so what?
> >
> > You said that time must depend on matter because its magnitude
> depends
> > on the state of motion of the matter.
> >
> >
> No, I said that time rates must depend on that, not on the magnitude
of
> time, whatever that means.
>>From Wikipedia:
"In science, magnitude refers to the numerical size of something: see
orders of magnitude."
For you, then, change "its magnitude" in my sentence to "the magnitude
of the rate of time". Does that sit better?
> >
> >
> > Well, space must then also depend
> > on matter (or neither time nor space depends on matter) by the same
> > argument, because its magnitude depends on the state of motion of
the
> > matter. There is no asymmetry between time and space in this
respect!
> >
> >
> No, not so. If space depended on matter for it to exist, we could
have
> no space where there is no matter. You are using the term wrongly in
> calling time rates a magnitude. Time is different than time rates.
> Time is a dimension of the universe.
OK, I agree with the last sentence.
> It is a property of discrete
> objects/systems which accrues to them dependent upon their states of
> motion, meaning that the rate of the passage of time or, the time
rate,
> for each discrete object/system varies in relation to their own
> particluar and current state of motion.
That part is fine, too.
> Your premise above also
> assumes, wrongly, that time and space are interdependent wrt each
> other.
That part is wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Neither of these statements require the presence of matter
to
> be
> > > > true, though the *events* used to mark time and space positions
> > often
> > > > happen to include some tangible object.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Um...How can you have an event without visible matter involved?
> Oh,
> > I
> > > forgot - you can imagine such a thing. Is that why you marked
> > "events"
> > > with asterisks? You are talking theoretical physics; when you're
> > ready
> > > to discuss real physics, let us know.
> >
> > You know, I find that last remark funny, since you are the one that
> > says that theorists deal in abstract ideas only, and pay no heed to
> > empirical results. Perhaps you're having a change of heart?
> >
> >
> Those terms do not depend on a change of heart. My views of
> theoretical physics are the views of authorities in the field. There
> is a part of science called theoretical physics and I am sure it is
> there to make a significant distinction between those ideas and those
> of physics. It should be plain to see that there is hardly any
> distinction between the men who toil in both disciplines, as all are
> either one at some time and even both at other times. The only way
to
> distinguish the difference between the two disciplines is to review
the
> work proposed for it relative descriptions of reality, or lack of
them.
> Anyone who proposes a theory being on math constructs and lacking
any
> relations to reality is a theoretical scientist, while the same
person
> can relate it to empirical research as a physicist. Until Relativity
> underwent confirmations of its theories, AE was a theoretical
> physicist.
> >
> >
> > Fine, then, let's suppose that all events (like a firecracker going
> > off, my birthday party, you sneezing in the hallway) are associated
> > with tangible things. This does not mean that time *depends* on
those
> > tangible things or resides in them, for the same reason that space
> does
> > not. There can be empty space (or, said a different way, two
tangible
> > things can exist at finitely separated distances) between things,
and
> > there can be empty time between events.
> >
> >
> Yes, but you see, you are still talking about the time dimension and
> not the different time rates ascribed to the twins by SR.
Ah, but to two different observers, the *difference in time location*
between events A and B are different. Explain to me how if one observer
says there is 2.5 seconds between A and B, and another observer says
there are 3.2 seconds between A and B, that this is semantically
different than saying there are different time rates between the two
observers.
(However, it is simpler to understand and more true to SR's basis to
stick to stating the time location of two events according to different
observers, than it is to talk about time rates. Perhaps this is what's
causing your conceptual disbelief.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Therefore, SR (note SR, not GR) declares that both space and
> > time
> > > > are affected by the state of motion of the reference frame, and
> > that
> > > > neither of these depend on the presence of mass.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So you agree that SR claims space and time are interdependent
even
> in
> > > an imaginary ref. frame, right?
> >
> > In the sense that I described above, yes. And not just in imaginary
> > reference frames --- real reference frames.
> >
> >
> Ref. frames are made up by observers in our heads, they do not exist
as
> physical entities.
Uh-huh. Define a velocity without inclusion of a reference frame.
I'll give you an example. I'm in a car headed east, moving with respect
to telephone poles at 60 mph. On oncoming train is moving west with
respect to the telephone poles at 125 mph. Define the velocity of the
train without respect to ANY reference frame.
> >
> >
> > > Things you make up in your mind never
> > > require anything you don't want them to require; did you not know
> > that?
> >
> > I see, and yet your test of a valid theory is whether it makes
> logical
> > sense. Your model that you made up in your mind never required
> anything
> > you didn't want it to require; did you not know that?
> >
> > > >
> I just said that was so and you agree.
I just said that your model and the idea of reference frames have the
same level of reality. You still agree?
> >
> > > >
> > > > 4. Therefore, both space and time are dependent on the state of
> > > motion
> > > > of the reference frame.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > And so when you are no longer imagining the empty ref. frame,
does
> > time
> > > and space disappear from reality and us with it, since they
cannot
> > > exist without the ref. frame to which they depend upon?
> >
> > I don't know where you get the idea that reference frames are
> > imaginary.
> >
> >
> Yes, I understand that is the basis of your confusion. You have not
> learned to distinguish the real from the fantasy.
See the above car/train example. Define the velocity in that case
without reference to any reference frame.
> >
> >
> > If you stop imagining a cube, do the three space dimensions that
are
> > occupied by that cube disappear?
> >
> >
> Yes, of course, because the 3 dimensions were imaginary in the first
> place.
> >
> >
> > Define for me "reference frame".
> >
> > > >
> Why? So you can argue interminably about its definition? Sorry, not
> relevant.
It's completely relevant if you maintain that a reference frame is
completely imaginary, and I say that it is not. We clearly differ on a
definition.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 5. Therefore space and time can be seen to be connected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yes, just like I said, in your imagination.
> >
> > Indeed, space and time are merely separate dimensions in the real
> > entity, spacetime.
> >
> >
> Yes, they are, but s-t is imaginary while our universe is not. In
our
> universe we have space and time dimensions but they are not
> interdependent. Wishing your s-t was real cannot make it so.
If experiment is consistent with predictions of a theory that says they
ARE interdependent, and ONLY consistent with a theory that says they
are interdependent, do you STILL reject that they are interdependent?
> >
> >
> > You decide how imaginary that makes them. If I take
> > two events and I determine *experimentally* that the spatial
distance
> > between them is not independent of the state of motion of the
> observer,
> > and *experimentally* that the time duration between them is not
> > independent of the state of motion of the observer, and
> > *experimentally* the ONLY quantity that is independent of the
motion
> of
> > the observer is the spacetime interval, then you tell me which one
> > should be taken to have more reality.
> >
> >
> Which one of what? I agree with the first two posits, and the third
> one is about quantity, not a real thing, and the s-t interval, a math
> construct,
All three, distance, duration, and spacetime interval are logically at
the same level of reality. If you think otherwise, define distance and
define duration.
> neither of which have much to do with reality.
>
> TomGee
- Next message: aleksandar.vukelja_at_gmail.com: "Re: origin of inertia"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
