Re: Can time be separated from space?

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: 24 Mar 2005 12:57:37 -0800

PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > TomGee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Space is the medium for matter and light,
> > >
> > > Correction: spacetime is the medium for matter and light. Show
that
> > > light can exist in space without any extent in time.
> > >
> > >
> > That could be true if there were such a place as s-t, but there
> isn't.
>
> So you say, but that's all you do, repeating it endlessly.
>
>
And you disagree endlessly without any support for your disagreement.
>
>
> > It is just a math construct used by us in tracking the movement of
> > objects through time. Neither matter nor light really exist in
your
> > imaginary s-t.
>
> Really, I've said that? Or is this something else you're making up.
>
>
No, you haven't said that. I have tried to explain that to you but
you're so reactionary to new ideas that your widdle brain won't let you
understand what I say.
>
>
> > I have shown that the interdependent relationship
> > between space and time as required by the s-t continuum
>
> No, you've shown the interdependency that YOU imagine space and time
> must have does not exist, and I don't think you've done that at all
> well, either. All that shows is that your idea of the interdependency
> of space and time is likely incorrect.
>
>
If you don't agree, just show where space depends on time, and saying
so don't make it so, remember?
>
>
> > does not exist,
> > therefore s-t can only exist as an imaginary math construct which
> > ignores reality.
>
> No, all it shows is that spacetime as YOU understand it does not
> correspond to reality. But then again, you've never read anything
more
> than Scientific American and a computer encyclopedia about spacetime,
> so I'm not surprised.
>
>
Hey, there you go off again. Like shooting monkeys in a barrel. You
have only read comic books, remember? You have admitted as such.
> > >
> > >
> > > > which means that there can be
> > > > no light nor matter without space, and thus, no physical events
> can
> > > > occur in our universe without the existence of space. But if
you
> > are
> > > > referring to my recent postings regarding the same subject, the
> > point
> > > > was that AE claimed that space and time were interdependent,
> > >
> > > Yes, that's a fair statement.
> > >
> > > > which
> > > > means that one cannot exist without the other.
> > >
> > > No, that's an improper interpretation.
> > >
> > >
> > Well then, PD, give us your "proper" interpretation of
> "interdependent"
> > for all the world to see how your mind works.
>
> Sure. A physical event occurs at a location in each of the three
> spatial and one time dimension, or collectively at a location in
space
> and time. How *much* space and how *much* time is completely
dependent
> on the choice of coordinate system, but there is a well-determined
> relationship between the spacetime coordinates of an event as
measured
> by two different inertial observers. There is nothing more and
nothing
> less to the interdependence of space and time in spacetime than this.
>
>
Your answer would be so funny if you were not so tragic. Your
definition flies in the face of reality as such has never been written
to define the term. You have made it all up just to try to win this
argument. Clearly, that is how your mind works. Tsk! Tsk! And all
that from a self-called "professional physicist"! Your definition
fails as a refusal to acknowledge the most simple terms as accepted by
any simpleton to the most authoritative sources.
>
>
> Now that the world has seen how my mind works, why don't you ask them
> what they think of it? If you think interdependence means otherwise
in
> this context -- especially if you think Einstein claimed more -- then
> you need to document that.
>
>
Well, you beat me to it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, he did not say
> > > > they are interdependent in our universe - only in his s-t
> > continuum!
> > >
> > > AFAIK, you've never read anything by Einstein, only brief
articles
> > > about him.
> > >
> > > >
> > Pot. Kettle. Black. Personal attacks
>
> Is it true or false? If it's false, it's an attack. If it's true,
it's
> an assessment.
>
>
If it were true, no one would be able to make such claims as I do and
support them with logic which you have failed to overthrow.
>
>
> > only show that you have no ammo
> > with which to rebut my claims, so you lose again.
>
> I'm not engaged in a fight with you, Tom. You don't seem to get that.
>
>
What I meant was that you have lost this argument.
>
>
> When you state something incorrect in an open forum, I'll likely
> correct it. If you ask me a question, I'll likely answer it.
>
>
No, all you do is respond negatively to whatever claims I make, and all
your posts reveal that.
> > >
> > >
> > > > In our universe, time is a property of matter,
> > >
> > > You have not shown this to be true.
> > >
> > >
Yes, I did. You have not shown that SR is incorrect in its conclusions
regarding time dilation effects, which would overthrow my idea that
time is a property of matter.
>
>
> > Yes, I did, but you did not understand it. Here it is again.
> > According to SR in the Twin Paradox, one twin ages less than the
> other
> > by the end of an experiment in which one twin leaves Earth and then
> > later returns. The import of this finding (and all other time
> dilation
> > effects) is that time passes differently for discrete objects
> > regardless of observers, and that it passes inversely proportional
to
> > their states of motion.
>
> I already showed you that this is not an inverse proportionality. You
> have not shown this to be true. In fact, you never responded to my
> calculations.
>
>
Yes, I did. You must've missed it.
>
>
> > The twin in the spaceship had to move faster
> > than the Earth in order to leave it and he had to speed up in order
> to
> > catch up to it again.
>
> This has also been shown to be incorrect every time you've said it.
>
>
No, it hasn't. Just wishful thinking on your part.
>
>
> You
> have not shown this to be true. In fact, you never responded to the
> arguments that showed you were wrong.
>
>
Yes, I did, you just ignored them.
>
>
> > According to SR, the net speeds between the two
> > twins show that the astronaut twin moved faster than the Earth and
he
> > aged less.
>
> And since this is not at all what SR says, this shows that you have
no
> understanding what SR says about the twin paradox.
>
>
Well, ok, then, if SR doesn't say it, I say it. Take a triangle and
let the base A stand as the distance the Earth travels during the
experiment. Consider B as the side which connects to A where the Earth
is located at the beginning of the trip. At the point Where the ship
leaves Earth, we begin to measure the distance the Earth moves until
the ship returns to land on it. Now then, in order for the ship to
return, it must turn back toward the Earth base A at some point.
Consider that point to be where side B connects to side C which is the
side that ends at the end of base A when the ship lands on Earth once
again.

Now, pay attention. In order for the ship and the Earth to be
reunited, the ship had to move farther than the Earth moved in turning
back, and so it had to move faster in order to catch up with the Earth.
 All that is shown by the sum of sides B and C which show the ship must
travel a distance farther than the Earth and so in order to catch up
with it again at the end of the experiment, it must also travel faster.
 That is the argument SR makes to show the time dilation effect. My
model claims that SR's conclusion shows that time is a property of
matter since the passage of time varies for the two objects in the
experiment, the ship and the planet. If SR is correct, then so am I,
simply because nothing else but the speeds of the two objects varied
during the experiment.

This is of great import as it separates time from an interdependent
relationship with space because the passage of time is now dependent on
the state of motion of discrete objects.
>
>
> > My model of the universe accepts SR's conclusion and claims
> > that it shows that time is a property of matter and that it passes
at
> > time rates set inversely proportional to an object's state of
motion.
>
> And you have not shown this to be true. In fact, you have not
> calculated a single example of your model of the universe to show a
> predicted, measurable effect of your model -- aside from saying that
> what SR predicts the two twins is indeed what will happen.
>
>
Yes, I have. You just failed to see it. The example above was shown
to you long ago but evidently it did not register in your brain. Read
it again, slowly, and breathe a few times while doing that. Mebbe your
brain is deprived of oxygen and that is why you don't know examples
when you read them.
> > >
> > >
> > > > so it cannot have an
> > > > interdependent relationship with space.
> > >
> > > Depends on how you define "interdependent", doesn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > 1. depending on each other: unable to exist or survive without
each
> > other
> > interdependent organisms
> >
> > 2. with mutually dependent elements: relying on mutual assistance,
> > support, cooperation, or interaction among constituent elements or
> > members
> >
> > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft
> > Corporation. All rights reserved.
>
> Which shows the limitations of Encarta's dictionary when talking
about
> physics. Tell me, what does Encarta say about "gradient"? What does
> Encarta say about "parity"? I'm looking for particular meanings these
> words have in physics.
>
>
NO, it does not, it only shows your limitations about what you have
learned and are capable of learning. How unfortunate.
> > >
> > >
> > I've shown you mine, now let's see yours, Pd.
>
> See above. Suppose you invite the community to decide between my
> definition and yours (er... Encarta's)?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Both space and time are
> > > > considered dimensions of our universe, and dimensions define
> > physical
> > > > quantities, which are in turn defined as numerical values or
> > > > magnitudes.
> > > >
> > > > As dimensions, then, they are quantities;
> > >
> > > This is not necessarily so. Note a similar distinction between a
> > > variable and a value of a variable. For example, take a
> relationship
> > y
> > > = 2x + 5. (x,y)=(1,7) satisfies this relationship, but that does
> not
> > > mean that the relationship implies x = 1 and y = 7. Watch your
> logic.
> > >
> > > PD
> > >
> > >
> > Whatever does that have to do with what I said above and with what
I
> > said below?
>
> Because you are implying that dimensions are defined as numerical
> values or magnitudes. This is not the case.
>
>
Now I am sure you are not a real physicist but a pimply faced teenager
lying about what s/he knows, wanting to play with the big boys. Well,
PD, no big boy is going to ignore or refuse to accept the definitions
of the terms I have used.

TomGee
> > >
> > >
> > > > however, space and time exist
> > > > as physical phenomena as well. As physical phenomena, space
does
> > not
> > > > depend on time for its existence, although time is dependent on
> the
> > > > existence of space since it is a property of matter and matter
> > cannot
> > > > exist without space.
> >
> > TomGee

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... >Well, I am not well versed in experimental physics, so I don't think ... >> relativity which it suggests has been universally misunderstood. ... It all comes back to the twin paradox. ... The problem is that the surface of the earth is not inertial because it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... >Well, I am not well versed in experimental physics, so I don't think ... >> relativity which it suggests has been universally misunderstood. ... It all comes back to the twin paradox. ... The problem is that the surface of the earth is not inertial because it ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: I Still Believe In Aether
    ... Physics is not axiomatic mathematics. ... Let u be the speed of a ship going west w.r.t. the earth, ... Suppose all the speeds are constant and we start from x=x'=0. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Greening of Pseudoscience
    ... river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in ... of God shall cover the whole earth. ... (Shared the 1965 Nobel Physics Prize with Feynman and Tomonaga) ... usefulness of quantum mechanics; this was one of the few limitations of this ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A relativity time dilation information paradox?
    ... of time' has elapsed according to the spaceships clock, ... passed on an identical clock left on earth that was originally ... I'm obviously not an expert in relativity, ... with one on earth and one on the ship. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading