Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??
From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/10/05
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: phase diagrams of rhodium and aluminium ???"
- 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: 10 Mar 2005 06:56:49 -0800
TomGee wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > TomGee wrote:
> > > OmegaX7 wrote:
> > > > I stand corrected on point one. I'm afraid I didn't phrase what
I
> > > ment
> > > > correctly at all. Thank you. One the second point; to think
space
> > and
> > > > time can be seperated seems unacceptable. One governs the
other.
> > > > There may be exceptions near black holes or quasars. Can you
> offer
> > > > any examples of either without the other; space or time, I
mean.
> > > > L8R
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yes, of course. I have posted an extended explanation in this
ng,
> > but
> > > it may be better to start this discussion with this simple claim:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > > 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. Events can be separated
in time, and there exists a region of time in which no events occur. It
therefore makes no sense to say that time exists only in the presence
of matter.
> >
> >
> > > 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 borrow 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.
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.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> >
> >
> 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.
> >
> >
> > 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. 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!
> >
> >
> > 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?
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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 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?
> >
> >
> > 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.
If you stop imagining a cube, do the three space dimensions that are
occupied by that cube disappear?
Define for me "reference frame".
> >
> >
> > 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. 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.
> >
> >
> > Now, tell me where the faults are with this correction to your
> > argument, and please be prepared to back them up.
> >
> >
> I took the liberty of responding to each in turn, PD.
> TomGee
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: phase diagrams of rhodium and aluminium ???"
- 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
|
