John,

It's beyond me why you insist on not reading relativity, and continue to hold forth on what you merely opine about it. I would find that embarrassing.

"Basically the discipline of physics has come to the conclusion that only measurements are real. What does that require? Something to measure. So we have points of reference and motions to measure."

We NEVER measure...

view entire post

John,

It's beyond me why you insist on not reading relativity, and continue to hold forth on what you merely opine about it. I would find that embarrassing.

"Basically the discipline of physics has come to the conclusion that only measurements are real. What does that require? Something to measure. So we have points of reference and motions to measure."

We NEVER measure motion, and neither do we measure relations among points of space. We measure changes in relative position of mass points, and calculate motion from that relation.

"Relativity takes this one step further and argues motion is built up from points of reference along the fourth dimension. The uniform motion is reduced to a straight line."

NO. Motion is measured as changes in the relative position of mass points. Relativity has no privileged rest frame, so your "points of reference" is just more nonsense born of either miscomprehension or incomprehension.

"So basically time is another dimension of space."

NO. Time is physically real only in the continuum of spacetime.

"So what is space?"

Geometry. Coordinates conveniently chosen.

"Do our measurements create it, or simply define it?"

Who cares? It makes no difference to the physics.

"We have points(locations, singularities, etc.), lines(one dimension, distances, direction, etc.), planes(two dimensions, area, surface, membranes, etc.) and volume(three dimensions, vacuum, void, etc.).

Does space arise from these concepts, or are these concepts aspects of space?"

Who cares? It makes no difference to the physics.

"The argument is that all of reality and space arose from a singularity, a dimensionless point."

NO. The argument is that classical physics ends at the singularity. General relativity is known to be (physically) incomplete. Einstein did not claim it to be complete in any way but mathematically.

"The original reference. The point from which all measurement and thus reality arises. Yet we can't really say that, because motion has been dismissed as an illusion of the fourth dimension, along which everything that could/can/will ever happen already exists."

NO. All motion is relative, and no reference frame is privileged.

"So the argument is that our measurements of reality are reality and even one of the primary components being measured, motion, is an illusion because it cannot be measured with deterministic precision, as measurements are static and motion is dynamic and since our theory of time is deterministic, then motion must not be fundamental."

NO. We do not measure "reality" and we do not measure "motion." We measure changes in relative position among mass points.

"Does it occur to you that maybe sometime in the future, that physics will reject spacetime as not fundamental?"

It occurs to me that the universe may be made of cotton candy. What occurs to me is of no consequence to objective physics or rationalist science.

"I suppose that in a world where debt is the basis of our common currency and that the more debt we incur, the richer we are, would also be a world where spacetime, with all its wormholes, blocktime, expanding universes, dark energy, inflation, etc, is considered real, but that the dynamic present, motion and space are considered illusions."

Actually, it is quite possible that the cost of increased energy is increased debt. This is certainly true at the level of quantum vaccum (the more massive the particle, the higher the debt). Which has nothing to do with your confused rhetoric about things you haven't bothered to study.

"Alice in Wonderland has nothing on us."

Speak for yourself.

Tom

view post as summary

Tom,

I could use more everyday examples that might clarify the process a little better than epicycles. Consider writing computer programs, or frankly any sort of design process. You start out with an idea of what you want, then start building models that might fulfill it. Eventually consensus settles on one over the others. Usually because it is best, but often there is some degree of...

view entire post

Tom,

I could use more everyday examples that might clarify the process a little better than epicycles. Consider writing computer programs, or frankly any sort of design process. You start out with an idea of what you want, then start building models that might fulfill it. Eventually consensus settles on one over the others. Usually because it is best, but often there is some degree of circumstance and politics involved. Generally science likes to think it is free of these influences and is usually more free of them than some other areas. Over time though, problems arise with how this model works, so it is constantly being adjusted to new circumstances. This is what you would call, "correct(ing) errors in all perturbative phenomena." This is not always a very neat process though, as sometimes the problems to correct for require adjustments to the model which would disturb other aspects of it, or simply cannot be made to fit. This is what is known as an existential crisis. Does the old model and all it has accomplished, get dropped or broken up, or do the new issues just get papered over as best as possible. Usually there are adherents to both courses of action and a schism forms. Sometimes there is room for both views to co-exist and the situation just reflects increasing complexity. Often these differences will generate conflict until one or the other position prevails. If the conflicts are not fundamental, generally the older model prevails, due to institutional advantages. Occasionally though, the problems with the older model are fundamental and it gets dismissed and then the new models have to compete and grow to fill the space. Nature deals with both sides of this process by having organisms grow to fill their space, then die off, to be replaced by new models, that while they are less informed, are consequently more flexible. Energy expands, while form consolidates.

Since current physics involves some reasonably incompatible ideas, such as relativity, vs. Quantum mechanics, not to mention quite a few patches, from inflation to multiworlds, even string theory, along with its inability to explain quite a few physical constants, the issue does arise as to whether this is just a slow stage in the development of a coherent model, or are there fundamental issues which will require a serious reset, in which there has to be a serious consideration of what we actually know, vs. what we think we know and is there another way to explain that which cannot be dismissed.

" the initial condition is fully defined and the output fully calculated."

On the other hand, if I were to point a telescope toward the sky, there is no way to predict whether I might see a supernova occur, prior to observing it, because the information of its occurrence would have to travel faster than light. There simply is no objective perspective from which all initial conditions can be known. Possibly one might argue the singularity would be this objective position, but since all distinctions are cancelled out, it doesn't seem logical to assume all subsequent form can be deduced within this formlessness. Even inflationary cosmology requires the inflation stage to create differences in a vastly expanded space. So it is only by the occurrence of the event that all input can be fully accounted for.

view post as summary

Georgina

It has nothing to do with definitions, other than if a definition relates to something that is not in accord with known facts.

You said: “Relativity is all about observers and their relative perspectives”. Can you please provide a few quotes from the original papers which substantiate this assertion.

You said: “dimension alteration is the result of the affect...

view entire post

Georgina

It has nothing to do with definitions, other than if a definition relates to something that is not in accord with known facts.

You said: “Relativity is all about observers and their relative perspectives”. Can you please provide a few quotes from the original papers which substantiate this assertion.

You said: “dimension alteration is the result of the affect of gravity upon the transmission of light”. Again, can you please provide a few quotes from the original papers which substantiate this assertion. That could include quotes which clearly indicate that he stated that length contraction, as previously explained, did not actually occur, and was now understood to be an illusion consequent on the effect of gravitation on light.

You said: “You [ie me] prefer this to be all about the mystery of squashy rivets, poles and barn objects in the external reality because you want to take the words "rigid rod" and such like, literally, as referring -always- to the object with independent existence”.

Well, actually, I prefer it to be:

a) in accord with the logic of the reality we live in

b) a proper representation of what Einstein et al, actually said. Not what secondary sources think they said, or what people believe they must have meant, based on their incorrect understanding as to how reality works. Whether they were right or not being a different matter.

AND, yet again, to substantiate this, here are some quotes from the original papers:

Lorentz 1892 para 3: Such a change in length of the arms in Michelson’s first experiment, and in the size of the stone plate in the second, is really not inconceivable as it seems to me.

Lorentz 1892 para 7: We want to transfer this [Heaviside] to the molecular forces, and imagine a solid body as a system of material points, in equilibrium by the influence of their mutual attractions and repulsions…Anyway, it seems undeniable that changes of the molecular forces and consequently of the body's size of order of 1 - p2/2V2 are possible.

Poincaré (July) 1905 Introduction: An explanation was proposed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald, who introduced the hypothesis of a contraction undergone by all bodies into the direction of the motion of earth and proportional to the square of aberration… but if one wants to preserve it and avoid intolerable contradictions, it is necessary to suppose a special force which explains at the same time the contraction and the constancy of two of the axes. I sought to determine this force, I found that it can be compared to a constant external pressure, acting on the deformable and compressible electron, and whose work is proportional to the variations of the volume of the electron.

Einstein 1905 Section 4: A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion, viewed from the stationary system, the form of an ellipsoid of revolution with the axes…..Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: √(1-v2/c2), i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening.

Einstein 1916 Section 12: It therefore follows that the length of a rigid metre-rod moving in the direction of its length with a velocity v is √(1-v2/c2) of a metre.The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod. [And] As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/ √(1-v2/c2) seconds, ie a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.

Einstein 1916 Section 19: In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance for what follows. Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration.

Einstein 1916 Section 28: In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields…For this reason non-rigid reference bodies are used, which are as a whole not only moving in any way whatsoever, but which also suffer alterations in form ad lib. during their motion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time. We have to imagine each of these clocks fixed at a point on the non-rigid reference body. These clocks satisfy only the one condition, that the readings which are observed simultaneously on adjacent clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount. This non-rigid reference body, which might appropriately be termed a reference-mollusc, is in the main equivalent to a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate system chosen arbitrarily.

Einstein 1916 Section 23: This proves that the propositions of Euclidean geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a gravitational field, at least if we attribute the length I to the rod in all positions and in every orientation. Hence the idea of a straight line also loses its meaning.

Einsteiin 1916 Section 24: The method of Cartesian coordinates must then be discarded, and replaced by another which does not assume the validity of Euclidean geometry for rigid bodies.

Einstein 1916 Section 28: The Gauss co-ordinate system has to take the place of the body of reference. The following statement corresponds to the fundamental idea of the general principle of relativity: ‘All Gaussian co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature’.

Einstein 1916 Section 25: We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for the mathematical treatment of continua in general, in which size relations (distances between neighbouring points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are assigned as many numbers (Gaussian coordinates) as the continuum has dimensions. This is done in such a way, that only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and that numbers (Gaussian coordinates) which differ by an indefinitely small amount are assigned to adjacent points. The Gaussian coordinate system is a logical generalisation of the Cartesian co-ordinate system.

Paul

view post as summary

Pentcho (Georgina)

The proper response to Pentcho’s so-called “absurdity” of the 1905 postulate, is as follows:

Einstein said:

a) light always emits at c, ie the speed of the source is irrelevant (this is because light emitting is a reaction, and it is always the same reaction, with the same result)

b) light travels at c in vacuo. Which is precisely what any...

view entire post

Pentcho (Georgina)

The proper response to Pentcho’s so-called “absurdity” of the 1905 postulate, is as follows:

Einstein said:

a) light always emits at c, ie the speed of the source is irrelevant (this is because light emitting is a reaction, and it is always the same reaction, with the same result)

b) light travels at c in vacuo. Which is precisely what any matter does, it continues at its initial speed unless acted upon by a force.

Remember, in 1905 (later re-labelled SR to distinguish it from GR) there was no gravitation. And as far as they were concerned, the ether had no effect on light either. In the ‘real world’ of gravitation, light is affected, and he said so (Section 22).

Einstein explained all this in Section 7 (SR & GR 1916). You will note the words “apparently irreconcilable” liking the two postulates in 1905. However, another important point rests in understanding what the principle of relativity is, then it can be seen that there is no contradiction. To quote Einstein, which is the best way of going about this(!):

Einstein 1916 Section 18

Para 3

If it is simply a question of detecting or of describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be confused with the much more comprehensive statement called “the principle of relativity”.

Para 4

The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows:

If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of [either carriage or embankment] then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can also be expressed as follows: For the physical description of natural processes, neither of the reference bodies K, K' is unique as compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of ‘motion’ and ‘reference-body’ and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or incorrectness.

Para 5

Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws… But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K’ should be given preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity.

Para 1

…the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion.

Para 6

In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion.

Einstein 1916 Section 7 para 6: At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory.

Einstein 1916 Section 28:

We are now in a position to replace the provisional formulation of the general principle of relativity given in Section 18 by an exact formulation. The form there used: ‘All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion’, cannot be maintained, because the use of rigid reference bodies, in the sense of the method followed in the special theory of relativity, is in general not possible in space-time description.

The Gauss co-ordinate system has to take the place of the body of reference. The following statement corresponds to the fundamental idea of the general principle of relativity: ‘All Gaussian co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature’.

We can state this general principle of relativity in still another form, which renders it yet more clearly intelligible than it is when in the form of the natural extension of the special principle of relativity. According to the special theory of relativity, the equations which express the general laws of nature pass over into equations of the same form when, by making use of the Lorentz transformation, we replace the space-time variables x, y, z, t, of a (Galileian) reference body by the space-time variables x', y', z', t', of a new reference body. According to the general theory of relativity, on the other hand, by application of arbitrary substitutions of the Gauss variables x1, x2, x3, x4, the equations must pass over into equations of the same form; for every transformation (not only the Lorentz transformation) corresponds to the transition of one Gauss co-ordinate system into another.

In sum, there is no “absurdity”. He might be wrong, but that is different.

Paul

view post as summary

Georgina

You have a peculiar way of engaging in a dialogue. Constant repetition of your point of view, especially in the face of facts and evidence to the contrary, does not make your view valid. Your explanations are neither being “dissed” or “ignored”. I dread to think of the amount of factual arguments, quoted evidence, etc I have posted in response to your assertions. I spent...

view entire post

Georgina

You have a peculiar way of engaging in a dialogue. Constant repetition of your point of view, especially in the face of facts and evidence to the contrary, does not make your view valid. Your explanations are neither being “dissed” or “ignored”. I dread to think of the amount of factual arguments, quoted evidence, etc I have posted in response to your assertions. I spent some considerable time, for example, going through your diagram and explaining how components of it cannot be correct. It is also a matter of common courtesy to substantiate somewhat personal comments, especially if asked to do so. I have ignored the odd one of late, but see no reason why, when in an open forum I am portrayed as expressing a view that I am actually not, I cannot question the veracity of the assertion, and should expect an answer.

I have commented on the rabbit example before. However, since you seem to think it valid, here is a comment:

The rabbit is concealed from view. In this circumstance, it is, obviously, unmeasureable. Indeed, nobody would assign any level of probability to its existence. Why should they? When we open a kitchen cupboard door we do not expect to find a rabbit inside. Of course, if they are aware of the trick, then they will assign a probability of 100%.

You said: “it -had to be- an actualised rabbit- with existence, to become a manifestation”. This is because your definitions determine this. The next sentence: “the source object had to exist for the data to be produced so that the manifestation can be observed”. This is incorrect. You have defined existence as being a function of observation. The rabbit still exists, whether it is observed or not. Apart from which the rabbit is aware of its own existence, reality is not the sole preserve of humans.

The same applies to your sentence: “If the rabbit can be revealed there was a rabbit, if not there wasn't a rabbit. Only upon observation is the rabbit thought to exist as a rabbit, rather than a probability wave of a rabbit”. Revelation of the rabbit is not the definition of its existence or not, it just confirms a thought about it.

For practical reasons, there is a considerable amount of reality that we are unaware of. Indeed, it cannot be assumed that the sensory capabilities are able to detect everything, or that the media providing that information are capable of representing all aspects of reality accurately. We therefore have to hypothecate the existence of some entities. As far as possible, that should be on the basis of directly experienceable entities and rules. The critical point being whether the inability to achieve an experience of any given entity is a function of the process, or because it has no form of experienceable existence whatsoever. That will become ‘grey’ at times, but so long as the judgement has been reached as best as is possible, and it is always flagged up as being hypothetical, that is OK.

You then say: “Actualizations preceded manifestations. Which seems at odds with the widespread view that it is the past that becomes the present”. This is because of your definitions. The “manifestation” is not reality. Neither is the “actualisation”, but it is closer. The ‘past becomes the present’ in the sense that reality has to exist before we can sense it. Our present awareness of an event is of that event as it existed n points in time previously.

Paul

view post as summary

Peter

I am not all together sure I got the diagram correct, perhaps you could just scan one in and attach it. However, I was left with a 'so what?' feeling. When timing an interaction its nature is changed at each point in time. If it is something to do with how light works and hence maintains a speed, or whatever, then fine. Light being, in its evolutionary functional mode, what presents...

view entire post

Peter

I am not all together sure I got the diagram correct, perhaps you could just scan one in and attach it. However, I was left with a 'so what?' feeling. When timing an interaction its nature is changed at each point in time. If it is something to do with how light works and hence maintains a speed, or whatever, then fine. Light being, in its evolutionary functional mode, what presents us with a representation of reality, for the sense of sight

Motion is the incremental change in spatial position by time units. At any given point in time, reality comprises the last existent state of every entity. But there are two other important time-lines. One is the existent representation of that existent state (in the case of sight, this is light in its functional role as the gatherer and conveyer of information), the other is the point of receipt of this information by any given observer. These must be considered as continua in their own right, and not confused.

Time does not evolve, or any other such concept. Because it does not exist. What does exist is the frequency of change in any, and every, entity which comprises reality. We have a measuring system for this, called time. So anybody talking about time, is either referring to the frequency of change in any given entity, or they are referring to cross comparison of the timing of a variety of frequencies. The latter being, either within any given continua, ie within a given sequence of change, the durations were..... Or across the continua, ie at any given point in time, in respect of any given sequence of change, the existent state is state 6, states 2-5 are still existent as light in spatial positions S(1)2-S(1)5, state 1 is being received by observer 1. Alternatively, for an observer who is nearer, at that same point in time, the existent state is state 6, states 4 & 5 are still existent as light in spatial positions S(2)4 & S(2)5, state 3 is being received by observer 2, while state 2 was received by observer 2 at t-n, state 1 at t-2n (or whatever, the frequency does not have to be uniform).

Whether ‘space-time’ treats timing correctly is something I do not know, because as I said in NPA and here, the Minkowski papers are too mathematical for me to discern whether it is spatial dimension changing, or timing has become somehow reified as some form of dimension.

Length contraction and timing are different, for Einstein, et al.

‘Frames’need to be all inclusive and consistent. The choice of frame is irrelevant, but circumstances cannot be compared from different frames. Frame A, frame B. Comparing A to B automatically invokes a new frame which incorporates both of these. This is the same logical point as wrt. Since everything is relative, then it is difference that is being considered. And these differences are, of themselves, absolute, with the closed system (frame). So long as the reference point remains consistent, which it must do, then the differences will remain the same. All that is happening is that a new reference point entails a complete re-calibration (eg all speeds might increase by (say) 10, but the differences will remain constant).

Paul

view post as summary