Re: time
- From: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Aug 2006 09:29:03 -0700
Sorcerer wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154458730.878108.267150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:1154444454.079435.250030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | vyrtbg889y8bt6@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > | > i am just a normal guy trying to understand a few things. i admit
that
| > | > im not a professional scientist and not really interested in
squabling
| > | > with any over this matter. i do however has some education and
| > | > knowledge gained from personal studies. while i understand that the
| > | > time dimension works when making calculations in physics--i just
DONT
| > | > think that a TIME dimension that we are all moving through exists.
it
| > | > seems most reasonable that all exists are space and matter(in all
its
| > | > various manifestations) with space simply being emptiness betwwen
| > | > matter. probably goes on like this forever. no extra space
dimensions
| > | > or god either. its just probably always been here. what do you guys
| > | > think. by the way i more or less hate theoretical physics and
popular
| > | > science but love hard science--the behavior of particles, the
| > | > atmosphere ionosphere magetosphere, stars and planets-- you know the
| > | > real stuff so if you identify with me please chip in and say
something.
| > |
| > | The question that you ask is highly theoretical so I think you will
| > | have to flex over to pure mathematics which can only be theoretical. I
| > | sympathize with the experimental leaning; they seem to have the upper
| > | hand in modern physics with the theoretical lagging far behind.
| > |
| > | I have also come to reject the 4D notion of spacetime but do still
| > | believe the term 'spacetime' is valid. Without dynamic motion the
| > | notion of space would not exist; the constancy would deny it. That can
| > | also be used as a refutation of the 4D model since that model suggests
| > | a constant structure. I think time is real, just not real valued. I
| > | think it is integrated with three well behsaved spatial dimensions and
| > | possibly more ill-behaved dimensions. Here is why:
| > |
| > | The real numbers allow traversal in two directions and this is a
| > | paradoxical misuse of the real numbers as time.
| >
| >
| > A mathematician would state that as "time is not a vector".
| > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
| >
| > If you are going to hold on to "space-time" then you'll also need
| > "mass-space" and "time-mass". Time is real enough, and so is mass.
| > That does not mean you can rotate space into time, they are independent,
| > and Einstein's nonsense is just that. He treated time as if it were a
vector
| > and produced a thoughtless experiment.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
|
| What about charge? Do we also need charge-spacetime?
I guess so, since that too is independent of the other three :-)
While you are about it, we need a word for the magnetic equivalent
of charge. "Marge", perhaps, or "chass", with a flux of magnetic
monopoles being drawn from North pole to South pole
with a "gaussage" applied. Physics can never proceed unless
we have the words to describe what we mean.
Then we'll be able to figure out the "mass" of a magnetic monopole
the way Millikan did with an electron.
So, suspend a magnetised iron filing in a magnetic field against gravity
and work out the mass of the monopoles it contains when it was
magnetized, because a monopole has a marge of 1 monopolegauss
(mG) just as an electron has a charge of 1 electronvolt (eV).
| I'm really not clear on how all of this will wash in a pure theory.
| Mass as one-signed charge makes some sense, but all of the varied
| masses of the particles won't let it look much like quantized charge
| will it?
| It is easy to get complicated quickly in all of this.
| I'm hoping to find some simple construct whose correspondence will have
| these details fall out. A bit more material is needed, but I'm not
| ready to just jump up to a mass assumption.
| If anything mass is the last thing you'd want to put in at the base of
| a theory isn't it? It has proven elusive and so it is more like a
| remnant than a basis isn't it?
|
| What do you make of a
| 0D + 1D + 2D
| basis?
The "dimensions" of physics are mass, length, charge, marge and time.
Space is further subdivided into three orthogonal lengths
which are also referred to as dimensions, hence 3D, but the universe
is really 5D. If you want to call a unidirectional scalar quantity a
"dimension" that seems to me to complicate the jargon. As I see it,
charge, marge and length have negative quantities whereas time
and mass do not. If we are to describe Nature mathematically,
we need the language also and must abandon conventional terms
such as 3-dimensional space or 4-dimensional spacetime.
"Spacetime" is really nothing more than a buzzword for children
wanting to become time-travelling astronauts/cosmonauts, pure
sci-fi. It sounds exotic and glamorous, but it is really not mathematics
or physics.
The word "quark" came from a children's story, "The Hunting
of the Snark" - Lewis Carroll, because it rhymed.
"In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---
For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see. "
| -Tim
If you wish to debate the nature of mass, that's fine too, I'd welcome
it from a logical individual. I am not interested in debating whether mass
exists or not, I accept that it does but I do not know what it is
and neither do you or anyone else.
Bodies are attracted to each other gravitationally, repel and attract each
other both electrostatically and magnetically. That can be observed,
a magnet will "lift" iron and a comb will "lift" a pith ball.
Marge (or chass) is the magnetic equivalent to electrical charge because
I have so named it as its discoverer, although it was always there.
The five usual dimensions are time, length, charge, mass and marge; we'll
make no progress in physics without marge. No force exists between one body.
The measurement of mass is done by the measurement of force.
Hence we can ASSUME electrons and monopoles are, they being
the carriers of charge and chass, and calculate their mass (if they have
any).
But if you are willing to grant a 'marge' then charge should go away.
You just replaced it.
This is a more proper unification than the Maxwellian style which
really is just a tight relation.
We should be seeking a basis that is simple which yields the
complications that are observed. I keep finding geometrical arguments
that line up with some of these behaviors so I'm trying to travel down
that road rather than jump straight up to the observed 'properties'. To
assume that the observation is the basis is not sufficient, no matter
how simple and well behaved that property is. By going below this if
one finds multiple properties emanating from a single principle applied
in different dimensional contexts then that is arguably a more
consistent basis, albeit an unobservable one. Yet its consequences
would be consistent with observation. Down at this lower level which I
sometimes call a substrate we have to do pure theory, not impose the
physical upon it. The physical should be a consequence of it.
Suppose mass, charge, and magnetism are all the same force. At first
glimpse mass is a monopole property. But the monopole has no
complement. This is one-signed math. It's a different class from charge
which is two-signed math. But now charge may be something different
too. The progressive dimensional topology
0D 1D 2D ...
will allow a natural maxwellian form as an operator between 1D and 2D.
This is effectively what we think of as a traditional 3D cross product.
But we have to get from this substrate up to spacetime. In effect the
complications are due to the structure of the substrate.
If this theory exists then it can actually derive spacetime as well as
provide the observed properties of matter in spacetime. This method
goes for the whole kit and kabootle instead of being modest and trying
for replacing just a few pieces. It is a bit outlandish. Certainly it
would be a gamble worth taking since the worst that can happen is being
wrong.
But we can always go back to observation and try to draw from it. What
do you make of the proton versus the electron? Are they two species of
particle or are they complementary by construction; more like a male
and a female of the same species? n-poles get some quick results from
something like a string of magnetism as the interaction for point
particles. There appears to be some room to get mass out of it but I
don't know how. The n-pole has not been tied into the proposed topology
yet.
Y'know, I quite like the idea of electrons being particles, it's an
excellent working model for a TV engineer to design a tube and
calculated how many turns of copper wire he needs to deflect
the beam, but I'm far from convinced an electron has "mass",
whatever that may be. Millikan's oil droplets may fall or rise
according to the charge upon them and the electrostatic field
applied, but that is not evidence of mass, it is a ratio of forces.
Right. A very convincing experiment. Quantization is irrefutable
fromMillikan isn't it?
I suppose we could still go to some continuous property that generates
a discrete consequence, like zero crossings of an oscillator. It's nice
to leave problems open.
But this is such a nice clean experiment. Still what you say is true.
Without the mass concept the experimental conclusion will not work so
the two forces are mixed here and treated as independent entities
allowing a conclusion about charge based on an assumption about mass.
When we null the electric field we get the gravitational acceleration
of the oil droplet. Turn on the field and force the droplet stationary
and we have balanced the force allowing a correspondence to the
strength of the applied field. Q=ma/E. All very fine and consistent
with modern theory.
-Tim
snip
.
- Prev by Date: Re: curses
- Next by Date: Re: time
- Previous by thread: Re: time
- Next by thread: Re: time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
