Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: 24 Mar 2005 17:59:11 -0800

PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 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
>
> No comment?
>
>
No.
> > >
> > > > >
SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
>
You are confusing the unreal with reality. Stop it. Why do you put
that word in asterisks? Is it because you know it does not mean that
it is the same or equivalent to reality? Although your definition is
very close to being the same as mine, mine is better than yours because
mine tells you directly what an event is while yours only tells where
it exists and does not answer what an event is. Also, your events only
occur when someone is making the s-t diagram or chart. Nice try, but
it failed miserably. See mine again:

5. physics single point in space-time: an occurrence defined in the
theory of relativity as a single point in space-time
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

Now, where did you get your definition?
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
>
Your saying that a paperclip hit the floor does not make it so, and
neither does your writing that it does make it so. It is only real
when it actually happens that a paperclip hits the floor.
> > >
> > >
> > You mean "in reality", doncha? You do not measure a real body
moving
> > in time; you only imagine a real body moving in time just like you
> can
> > imagine a bus moving at a certain time without you having to have a
> > physical bus around. All of s-t is imaginary no less than
> mathematics
> > is imaginary. Dintcha learn that in hs?
>
> On the contrary, it is very much real. How would you determine the
> reality of it? We need a test, so we don't go around in circles, you
> saying that a giraffe is purely imaginary and me saying it's a real
> thing.
>
>
That is precisely the opposite of what is happening here. I claim a
giraffe exists on Earth while a giraffe in s-t is imaginary. We cannot
determine the reality of a theory which is unfalsifiable. How would
you falsify your claim that s-t is a real place?
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> No answer?
>
> > >
You failed to substantiate your claim. Why should I waste my time?
>
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > I can, but first you tell us why you think that is not so.
>
> Nope, I've done that in the past. Your turn to go first. Put up or
shut
> up.
>
>
Every particle or object in the universe is described by a so-called
world line that describes its position in time and space. If two or
more world lines intersect, an event or occurrence takes place; if the
world line of a particle does not intersect any other world line,
nothing has happened to it, and it is neither important nor meaningful
to determine the location of the particle at any given instant. The
"distance" or "interval" between any two events can be
accurately described by means of a combination of space and time, but
not by either of these separately. The space-time of four dimensions
(three for space and one for time) in which all events in the universe
occur is called the space-time continuum.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
>
Yes, it does, as I have explained. My conclusion follows from SR's
conclusion as a logical consequence. You must show my conclusion is
not logically supported by SR's conclusion.
> > >
> > > > >
> > It does in the TP experiment, since the aging process occurs only
to
> > the twins and all matter around them. How could space age?
>
> Huh? No logical progression to your last several exchanges. If you
> can't stun 'em with truth, then baffle 'em with nonsequiters, right?
>
> > >
What part of "How could space age?" did you not understand?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
SNIP
>
> > > > > > So give us your definite meaning and how it conflicts with
> the
> > > way
> > > > I
> > > > > > use it here.
>
>
SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > According to your beloved SR, yes they do.
>
> No, sir, they do not.
>
>
Yes, sir, they do. Your saying they don't just don't make it so since
yours is not the word from on high (fortunately for us).
> > >
> > >
> > > If the velocity doubles, for example, the time dilation
> > > neither doubles nor halves. Experimentally.
> > > It therefore does not have an inverse proportionality
relationship.
> > >
> > >
> > Experimentally it does, according to SR. Cite where you got that
> > belief since it contradicts the TP.
>
> No it does not. Given an increase of velocity from 0.4c to 0.8c (a
> factor of 2 increase, note), the time dilation factor gamma goes from
> 1.09 to 1.67.
> This is not a factor of 2 increase or decrease in time
> dilation. It is not an inverse proportionality.
>
> Likewise, an increase in the time dilation factor from 4 to 8 (a
factor
> of 2 increase) corresponds to an increase of velocity from 0.968c to
> 0.992c. This is not a factor of 2 increase or decrease in velocity.
It
> is not an inverse proportionality.
>
> Reference: Fishbane, Gasioriowicz, Thornton, Physics for Scientists
and
> Engineers, 3rd edition, page 1080.
>
> By the way, the twin paradox is described on pg 1082 of the same
> reference.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>
So, you finally read something! Feel the power, eh!
>
>
I can give you half a point for your effort, but not a whole point,
since the gamma increases with increasing velocity but then it is
reduced as the ship slows to match the Earth's speed in order to land
upon it. The ship's size is the same when it lands as when it took
off. For our intents and purposes, I think we can legitimately use the
phrase "inversely proportional" in this case.

Your second argument about velocity is not clear as you talk about "the
time dilation factor" but you don't specify it.

Be sure you return the book back to the library timely so that others
can read it too.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > SNIP
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > > >
Thank you.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > >
> > >
> > Simply show me where AE said s-t is our own 4d universe and not an
> > imaginary place.
>
> Einstein, A.: Ueber den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
> des Lichtes, Annalen der Physik 35, 1911, 898-908.
>
> It's in German. Want me to quote it here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
Yes, by all means, do.
>
>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
Well, quote from there then.
>
>
> > No, I meant no one has said that is an analogy to s-t, except you.
> If
> > I am wrong, cite a reference - not a website.
>
> I didn't quote you a website. I gave you a reference.
> "Spacetime Physics", Taylor and Wheeler, Chapters 1-3.
> Up to you to look it up. I'm not going to type it in here -- that
would
> be a copyright infringement.
>
>
You are, sadly, misinformed as to what constitutes copyright
infringement. Or else you're using that excuse to avoid revealing
there is nothing in there which is an analogy to s-t.
> > >
> > >
SNIP
> > >
> > >
> > Why? You assume that space decreases along with time in the TP
time
> > dilation effect, so you tell me how space can do that. Just
assuming
> > it does not mean it's true. Objects are immersed in space and they
> > move through it, not with it.
>
> That's not true. See Scientific American, current issue. Article
titled
> "Misconceptions about the Big Bang" by Charles Lineweaver and Tamara
> Davis. You can read it online if you want to (www.sciam.com), or go
to
> the store and buy a copy.
> In that article, it explicitly states that objects DO move WITH
space,
> not just through it. If they did not, we would not observe some of
the
> things we do.
>
>
I have responded to that rag's article in some other post. Basically,
it shows the depths to which SA has sunk. It is really desperate, as
shown by its latest post on its website about what it should stand for.
 The writers do not seem to me to have a grasp of the problems which
Relativity has had to face, and they do not offer anything new as far
as their opinions go. I have heard them before as typical Relativity
dogma. Needless to say, I was not impressed with that article, and you
should not be either, as almost all of their responses to the issues
they bring up require acceptance based on faith.
>
>
> > The distance between them increases or
> > decreases, but there is no change in the space between them, only
in
> > the amount of space between them.
>
>
> Not so, and this reveals your profound lack of understanding and/or
> your deep prejudices. See the same article cited above.
>
>
Do you think they can see space expanding? It is only one theory which
again is unfalsifiable and which they fail to explain logically or with
empirical evidence. It is nonsense which they use to support the idea
that space came out with the BB.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
Don't you know what the time dilation effect entails? The paradox of
the time dilation effect necessarily includes time and length dilation
since, as you put it, "...the two of them are connected".
>
>
> > Length contraction of what, space? No, matter, not space.
>
> No, space, not matter. See path length of decaying muons in vacuum,
> foreshortened by length contraction *of the vacuum*. How can the
vacuum
> contract if space does not contract.
>
>
It can easily do that if, according to my model, space is filled with
Dark Matter from which particles emerge through natural processes and
not randomly or arbitrarily as some believe. It is the Dark Matter
which can contract or expand, but not not empty space.
>
>
> You have no idea what SR says, do you?
>
>
You have no idea what SR says, do you?
>
>
> > Space
> > contraction follows as a consequence of SR's claim that space and
> time
> > exist in an interdependent relationship.
>
> No, it does not. It follows as a result of the requirement that all
> laws of physics are identical in any inertial frame.
>
> I don't know where you developed your understanding of SR, but it is
> NOT a good rendering.
>
>
I don't know where you developed your understanding of SR, but it is
NOT a good rendering.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
>
No. You still show a lack of understanding. I just told you time
rates depend on that, not on the magnitude of time, whatever that
means. What part of that did you not understand?
>
> > >
> > No, because the "amount of time", or the magnitude of time, as you
> put
> > it, has nothing to do with time rates. An hour of time does not
> refer
> > to time rates, it is only a quantity and not a time rate.
>
> See below.
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > How, wrong? That the premise is correct, or that time and space
are
> > not interdependent upon each other.
>
> No, that the assumption is required. It is not.
>
>
I will cut off this post here and continue with it in another post.
You say it is not required that space and time be interdependent in
s-t. Here is a repeat of what I quoted above about that:

The "distance" or "interval" between any two events can be
accurately described by means of a combination of space and time, but
not by either of these separately.

TomGee

Relevant Pages

  • Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??
    ... time dilation factor" but you don't specify it. ... No, matter, not space. ... > contract if space does not contract. ... >> to time rates, it is only a quantity and not a time rate. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Flow of Time.
    ... It's right up there with length contract. ... Everyone knows that none of us ever grows younger, no matter what anyone ... the concept of time dilation is illogical and ridiculous. ... my sanity is not for sale at any price. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • some floods review, hear, and own. Others superbly construct
    ... Satam bites the rise over hers and terribly enables. ... Let's contract unlike the rare ... unless Merl generates brains no matter how Courtney's ...
    (rec.audio.car)
  • Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... Matter recoils, compresses. ... if the time dilation becomes greater and greater. ... The density of black holes of different size is ... granularity is affected by "universal expansion", ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a lot of fucking brief orange bites ads opposite Talals supposed beast
    ... unless Iman applys familys underneath Murray's ... offset them no matter how. ... He should anxiously contract in accordance with pretty ... Brahimi ranges, then Toni worldwide markets a polish ...
    (sci.crypt)