space-time, is it possible or not?

[north]

since neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all, (neither space or time has any form of substance or fabric innate unto themselves that gives them a sense of physical reality) then how do you interweave the two, so that space and time become space-time, one?

[Celestial Mechanic]

If, as you say, "neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all", then what is to prevent their interweaving? And what justification is there for starting this thread when you are already saying pretty much the same thing in the other thread? ;)

[01101001]

then how do you interweave the two, so that space and time become space-time, one?
No... How do you unravel the one space-time so that space and time become two?

[north]

If, as you say, "neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all", then what is to prevent their interweaving? And what justification is there for starting this thread when you are already saying pretty much the same thing in the other thread? ;)

because I'm always looking for a pespective by somone that can show me, that I'm wrong. its easy to promote one's self and think that you are right. but its the discussion amoung many people that shows the strength or weakness in your thinking.

[hhEb09'1]

No... How do you unravel the one space-time so that space and time become two?Yeah, the interweaving has been done, and documented. :)

How do you call it nonsense, when it's been so successful, that's what I want to know.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
then how do you interweave the two, so that space and time become space-time, one?

No... How do you unravel the one space-time so that space and time become two?

because neither have a physical influence on an object. so space is space, room, it has NO physical hold on an object. and time is a resultant of movement of an object in space, time also has NO physical hold on an object.

hence their seperation.

[hhEb09'1]

because neither have a physical influence on an object. so space is space, room, it has NO physical hold on an object. and time is a resultant of movement of an object in space, time also has NO physical hold on an object.So, they act a lot alike? :)hence their seperation.How does that follow then?

[north]

Yeah, the interweaving has been done, and documented. :)

How do you call it nonsense, when it's been so successful, that's what I want to know.

because space-time is really about the physical dynamics of objects in space. and time is used to understand this physical dynamics of an object in space. an objects movements.

space and time have no bearing, at all, on the out come, of the physical dynamics of objects.

[north]

So, they act a lot alike? :)


NO. obviously



hence their seperation.


How does that follow then?

space is essential for any existence of any object.

and time is simply a measurement of an objects movement.

they are entirely different aspects. hence seperation

[hhEb09'1]

because space-time is really about the physical dynamics of objects in space.OKspace and time have no bearing, at all, on the out come, of the physical dynamics of objects.That seems to contradict what you just said. How can they be about the dynamics of objects in space, but have no bearing on the outcome of the dynamics of objects?NO. obviouslyIt's not obvious to me. You can't just say it's obvious. And I have no idea why you think it is nonsense.

[hhEb09'1]

because I'm always looking for a pespective by somone that can show me, that I'm wrong. its easy to promote one's self and think that you are right. but its the discussion amoung many people that shows the strength or weakness in your thinking.I'll give it a shot. This is an argument that I've presented a few times before--check out "supersupersymmetry" in search.

For light, traveling at light speed, the path is along what is known as null geodesics. Whatever your feelings about it, that treatment of spacetime has been fairly successful, and produced a lot of fruitful science. What we call time is related, in this case of light, by the equation for the null geodesics, which says that zero is equal to the spacetime norm along the light path.

However, the time coordinate is treated differently, its square is subtracted out whereas the space coordinates are added (or vice versa depending upon the convention). However, you could move the subtracted term to the other side of the equation. Then, you would have a positive time equal to a positive space. In other words, it might not be just that space and time are interwoven into spacetime, it could go beyond that to the point where time is equal to space.

Actually, that sorta fits your notion too, when I think about it.

But please let's not call it nonsense :)

[north]

Originally Posted by north
because space-time is really about the physical dynamics of objects in space

OK


space and time have no bearing, at all, on the out come, of the physical dynamics of objects.

That seems to contradict what you just said. How can they be about the dynamics of objects in space, but have no bearing on the outcome of the dynamics of objects?

post #6



It's not obvious to me. You can't just say it's obvious. And I have no idea why you think it is nonsense.

it would be better if the full context was presented. it just makes what your referring to clearer. and we want to be clear do we not hhEb09'1?

non-sense is a little strong. and I regret my wording. but I still disagree with the concept of space-time.

[north]

if I could go back and change the title of this thread I would. I tried but could not.

if I could, I would change the title of this thread to "space-time, is it possible or not?

perhaps someone who knows how would?

[Celestial Mechanic]

because I'm always looking for a pespective by somone that can show me, that I'm wrong. its easy to promote one's self and think that you are right. but its the discussion amoung many people that shows the strength or weakness in your thinking.
Well, we have shown you that you are quite wrong about this but you still do not "get it". Over a century of relativistic physics with countless applications (quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, GPS) and yet no impression is made upon you because it is not "obvious" enough to you. You are lost in a maze of fruitless philosophizing about what is/is not necessary for an object to exist. Your "definitions" of space and time are tautological and lead nowhere.

Space and time are most definitely interleaved (Lorentz transformations anyone?), and I suspect that soon this thread will be interleaved with the "time, is it a true dimension ..." thread. :)

[Kesh]

if I could, I would change the title of this thread to "space-time, is it possible or not?

I believe you already have a thread about that (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47272).

[north]

Well, we have shown you that you are quite wrong about this but you still do not "get it".

where have "we" shown me to "quite wrong".




Over a century of relativistic physics with countless applications (quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, GPS) and yet no impression is made upon you because it is not "obvious" enough to you. You are lost in a maze of fruitless philosophizing about what is/is not necessary for an object to exist. Your "definitions" of space and time are tautological and lead nowhere.

so give an example where "time" its self has the ability to extend an object, physically.




Space and time are most definitely interleaved (Lorentz transformations anyone?), and I suspect that soon this thread will be interleaved with the "time, is it a true dimension ..." thread. :)

all based on movement.

[grav]

if I could go back and change the title of this thread I would. I tried but could not.

if I could, I would change the title of this thread to "space-time, is it possible or not?

perhaps someone who knows how would?Space-time is not a thing, as far as I can tell. It has no substance. The "fabric" of space-time might, but that is another issue. Space-time itself is like a map. It presents a simple graph that demonstrates motion. Space itself is not real. It is nothingness. But if we have something to compare to, a landmark, an origin, then we can measure the distance from it in three dimensions. If the landmark is moving, it doesn't matter. It is all relative. So our origin moves with it. But if something moves relative to the origin, then we can compare this too, as a measurement, as time. So space-time is really just a blueprint of motion (or position, with zero motion). But in each case, they are merely measurements or a comparison between the position of an object to the landmark or origin as counted out by some standard length, and its motion as measured by its change in distance from the origin as compared to an "origin" of perpetual repetition by which to compare, such as a clock.

[north]

Space-time is not a thing, as far as I can tell. It has no substance. The "fabric" of space-time might, but that is another issue. Space-time itself is like a map. It presents a simple graph that demonstrates motion. Space itself is not real.It is nothingness.

I disagree

space is real. without space, manifestation of objects is not possible. space gives a place in which objects can manifest.

But if we have something to compare to, a landmark, an origin, then we can measure the distance from it in three dimensions.

I disagree again

three dimensions, length,breadth and depth have No bearing on distance. time, which is the change of position of an object does.



If the landmark is moving, it doesn't matter.

actually it does matter.



It is all relative. So our origin moves with it.

yes and no. our origin to "it" may change but that does not mean that our actual origin has, in and of its self has changed.


But if something moves relative to the origin, then we can compare this too, as a measurement, as time. So space-time is really just a blueprint of motion (or position, with zero motion). But in each case, they are merely measurements or a comparison between the position of an object to the landmark or origin as counted out by some standard length, and its motion as measured by its change in distance from the origin as compared to an "origin" of perpetual repetition by which to compare, such as a clock.

can't quite grasp what your saying here.

explain further.

[grav]

Imagine an empty universe. This means that nothing exists. Space exists, but it has no dimensions, it is nothingness. That is difficult to imagine, I know. But now let's introduce an object. Can you tell me the position of that object? Can you tell me that it moves or if it is stationary? By projecting your mental self into the picture, you could, but only by using yourself as a landmark and observing the motion in comparison to what you observe as if you were stationary. To eliminate this factor, let's place ourselves on the object. Now what can you say about the position or direction of motion? Nothing. It is only by comparing position and motion to another object that we can measure these, by considering one or the other as the origin. So time and spatial dimensions only exist as long as there is something to compare them to.

[north]

Imagine an empty universe. This means that nothing exists. Space exists, but it has no dimensions, it is nothingness. That is difficult to imagine, I know. But now let's introduce an object. Can you tell me the position of that object? Can you tell me that it moves or if it is stationary?

1) no

2) yes. a stationary object will be consistent in size,to me. but if the object moves further away, the object will seem smaller. if the object moves closer, it will become larger.





By projecting your mental self into the picture, you could, but only by using yourself as a landmark and observing the motion in comparison to what you observe as if you were stationary. To eliminate this factor, let's place ourselves on the object. Now what can you say about the position or direction of motion? Nothing.

to your last statement, I disgree.

being ON the object, I would know whether the object is moving and in which direction. because even though I have nothing to compare my original position, in space. I will still know that I'm in a different position than I was originally. senses.


It is only by comparing position and motion to another object that we can measure these, by considering one or the other as the origin. So time and spatial dimensions only exist as long as there is something to compare them to.

time dimensions yes. but spatial dimensions are used because time is based on movement of spatial objects, in space. spatial dimensions which are integral to an objects existence are NOT based on any sort of comparision. spatial dimensions are the essence of the objects existence in the first place.

[grav]

Originally Posted by grav
By projecting your mental self into the picture, you could, but only by using yourself as a landmark and observing the motion in comparison to what you observe as if you were stationary. To eliminate this factor, let's place ourselves on the object. Now what can you say about the position or direction of motion? Nothing.

to your last statement, I disgree.

being ON the object, I would know whether the object is moving and in which direction. because even though I have nothing to compare my original position, in space. I will still know that I'm in a different position than I was originally. senses. But what would your senses tell you? The only way you could tell you are moving is by a comparison, like with air. If you feel the air going by faster, you know you are moving. Or is that just the wind? It's all relative. Even acceleration is relative. If the object is rotating, and you with it, you could not tell. If it were accelerated and you weren't, you could, but only by comparison. If a force acted on your body, you could feel it as a surface pressure, but only in comparison to the difference on your internal organs. If the force acted on your entire body equally, inside and out, as with gravity, and you accelerated as in freefall, you wouldn't know it, except by comparison to a landmark, or if the ground stops you, which is all also relative.




Originally Posted by grav
It is only by comparing position and motion to another object that we can measure these, by considering one or the other as the origin. So time and spatial dimensions only exist as long as there is something to compare them to.

time dimensions yes. but spatial dimensions are used because time is based on movement of spatial objects, in space. spatial dimensions which are integral to an objects existence are NOT based on any sort of comparision. spatial dimensions are the essence of the objects existence in the first place.Somehow I knew you were going to say this. Even the physical dimensions of an object are relative, as from the distance to its center, as a point of origin, or from one side to the other. To simplify things, I guess instead of an object, you could visualize just a point in space, all alone. Could you then, without using yourself as a comparison, tell me its position or how it moves?

[DaveC426913]

The more I move in space, the less I move in time. If I move through space at the theoretical limit of the speed of light, I stop moving in time.

Objects that take up no space (have zero mass), experience no time.



More than "closely related", they are two sides of the same coin!

[Kebsis]

when you folks say 'time', do you mean it in the same way that the word time is usually used? Or is it something different?

[Nereid]

if I could go back and change the title of this thread I would. I tried but could not.

if I could, I would change the title of this thread to "space-time, is it possible or not?

perhaps someone who knows how would?Done.

[Cougar]

since neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all, (neither space or time has any form of substance or fabric innate unto themselves that gives them a sense of physical reality)....
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion, but regardless, it is wrong. Space in our universe is not just some "empty nothing" like an idealized Cartesian 3-space. Space is teeming with vacuum energy, energy that is intimately "interwoven" with its conjugate variable, time, via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy.2C_time_and_further_g eneralizations)

In other words, this topic is a bit more complicated than you are allowing.

[Dragon Star]

No... How do you unravel the one space-time so that space and time become two?

Pull the zipper.

[north]

Done.

Thanks, appreciated.

[north]

Quote:
Originally Posted by north



Originally Posted by grav
By projecting your mental self into the picture, you could, but only by using yourself as a landmark and observing the motion in comparison to what you observe as if you were stationary. To eliminate this factor, let's place ourselves on the object. Now what can you say about the position or direction of motion? Nothing.

to your last statement, I disgree.

being ON the object, I would know whether the object is moving and in which direction. because even though I have nothing to compare my original position, in space. I will still know that I'm in a different position than I was originally. senses.


But what would your senses tell you? The only way you could tell you are moving is by a comparison, like with air. If you feel the air going by faster, you know you are moving. Or is that just the wind? It's all relative. Even acceleration is relative. If the object is rotating, and you with it, you could not tell. If it were accelerated and you weren't, you could, but only by comparison. If a force acted on your body, you could feel it as a surface pressure, but only in comparison to the difference on your internal organs. If the force acted on your entire body equally, inside and out, as with gravity, and you accelerated as in freefall, you wouldn't know it, except by comparison to a landmark, or if the ground stops you, which is all also relative.

true senses are not a good bases for discussion.



Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by grav
It is only by comparing position and motion to another object that we can measure these, by considering one or the other as the origin. So time and spatial dimensions only exist as long as there is something to compare them to.

time dimensions yes. but spatial dimensions are used because time is based on movement of spatial objects, in space. spatial dimensions which are integral to an objects existence are NOT based on any sort of comparision. spatial dimensions are the essence of the objects existence in the first place.

Somehow I knew you were going to say this. Even the physical dimensions of an object are relative, as from the distance to its center, as a point of origin, or from one side to the other.

the physical dimensions are only relative by our perspective. but to the object its self, the dimensions are consistent.




To simplify things, I guess instead of an object, you could visualize just a point in space, all alone. Could you then, without using yourself as a comparison, tell me its position or how it moves?

no

[north]

The more I move in space, the less I move in time. If I move through space at the theoretical limit of the speed of light, I stop moving in time.

only from a mechical point of veiw.

Objects that take up no space (have zero mass), experience no time.

what objects?



More than "closely related", they are two sides of the same coin!

not really, space is space(room) and time is the measurement of movement.

[north]

when you folks say 'time', do you mean it in the same way that the word time is usually used? Or is it something different?

"time" as in "time" it takes to do.......

[north]

Originally Posted by north
since neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all, (neither space or time has any form of substance or fabric innate unto themselves that gives them a sense of physical reality)....

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion, but regardless, it is wrong. Space in our universe is not just some "empty nothing" like an idealized Cartesian 3-space. Space is teeming with vacuum energy, energy that is intimately "interwoven" with its conjugate variable, time, via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy.2C_time_and_further_g eneralizations)

In other words, this topic is a bit more complicated than you are allowing.

what I'm trying point out is that this "vacuum energy" is not "PHYSICALLY ATTACHED" to space in and of its self. but that this vacuum energy is INSIDE space.( movement, inotherwords) and therefore so is movement and therefore time.

[Gillianren]

not really, space is space(room) and time is the measurement of movement.

No, that's how you define time. I've given you a better definition elsewhere. I explained how you were misunderstanding it (it's not like the comma wasn't right there!). If you choose to continue using your incorrect definition, you can't expect the rest of the world to conform to it.

[skrap1r0n]

because space-time is really about the physical dynamics of objects in space. and time is used to understand this physical dynamics of an object in space. an objects movements.

space and time have no bearing, at all, on the out come, of the physical dynamics of objects.


space and time to in fact affect objects. Riddle me this batman, explain doppler shifting? It is directly related to and object traveing through space over a period of time.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
because space-time is really about the physical dynamics of objects in space. and time is used to understand this physical dynamics of an object in space. an objects movements.

space and time have no bearing, at all, on the out come, of the physical dynamics of objects.

space and time do in fact affect objects.

NO, they don't. because neither are substance based, so that they cann't in fact affect anything at all.

Riddle me this batman, explain doppler shifting? It is directly related to and object traveing through space over a period of time.

exactly. and where does the light essentially come from? an object. and why? because of the movement and/or energy of the object. and doppler shifting is because of the enviroment that the object ejects light in and because of the energy state that the object is in. ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time. both are a consequence or a resultant of the objects physical dynamics, and in some instances, coupled with enviromental physical dynamics complications as well.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
not really, space is space(room) and time is the measurement of movement.


No, that's how you define time. I've given you a better definition elsewhere. I explained how you were misunderstanding it (it's not like the comma wasn't right there!). If you choose to continue using your incorrect definition, you can't expect the rest of the world to conform to it.

well go back and present your "better definition" of time again. so you can correct me.

[Gillianren]

well go back and present your "better definition" of time again. so you can correct me.

Why? You didn't pay attention to it the first time.

[skrap1r0n]

ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time.


umm isn't movement measured by observing it's location in space over a period of time?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
well go back and present your "better definition" of time again. so you can correct me.


Why? You didn't pay attention to it the first time.

why? because its your point. did I not answer your point in the first place?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time.

umm isn't movement measured by observing it's location in space over a period of time?

your point is?

[skrap1r0n]

exactly. and where does the light essentially come from? an object. and why? because of the movement and/or energy of the object. and doppler shifting is because of the enviroment that the object ejects light in and because of the energy state that the object is in. ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time. both are a consequence or a resultant of the objects physical dynamics, and in some instances, coupled with enviromental physical dynamics complications as well.

umm isn't movement measured by observing it's location in space over a period of time?

your point is?

My point is that Doppler shifting is directly related to movement, which is a measurable, predictable change in an object in space/time. Therefore movement (through space/time) DOES affect energy waves.

[Cougar]

...doppler shifting is because of the enviroment that the object ejects light in and because of the energy state that the object is in. ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time. both are a consequence or a resultant of the objects physical dynamics, and in some instances, coupled with enviromental physical dynamics complications as well.
Incorrect. The spectral lines of an object at z=1 are shifted NOT because the object is moving through space away from us. It's because the light has been "stretched" during its long journey through the space between here and there, which is slowly expanding. Space itself (due to its expansion) is causing this effect.

Plus, the Standard Model of particle physics requires space to be chock full of Higgs bosons -- the Higgs ocean. This should be verified in the next week or two.

[Gillianren]

According to Merriam-Webster, the first definition of "time" is "1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future c : LEISURE <time for reading>."

You will note that those definitions state that time can be measured, not that being measured is a definition of time any more than it is of space. Also note that the change itself is not important. If it were, time would not exist through quite a lot of space quite a lot of the time. It just keeps on being near-vacuum.

This is word-for-word what I posted last time. You argued a nitpick based on a comma error on your part--you didn't seem to realize that commas separate words--but ignored the thrust of my argument.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
exactly. and where does the light essentially come from? an object. and why? because of the movement and/or energy of the object. and doppler shifting is because of the enviroment that the object ejects light in and because of the energy state that the object is in. ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time. both are a consequence or a resultant of the objects physical dynamics, and in some instances, coupled with enviromental physical dynamics complications as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
umm isn't movement measured by observing it's location in space over a period of time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
your point is?


My point is that Doppler shifting is directly related to movement, which is a measurable, predictable change in an object in space/time. Therefore movement (through space/time) DOES affect energy waves.

yes. but it is NOT space/time that "causes" movement "change" in an object. but rather the interactions and/or actions, and as well the Nature of the object its self, coupled with other objects and there Nature,in a particular enviroment, that causes a movement in space, that is the essence of time.

[AtemZeit]

since neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all, (neither space or time has any form of substance or fabric innate unto themselves that gives them a sense of physical reality) then how do you interweave the two, so that space and time become space-time, one?

It's obviously very useful to interweave the two, but that's only a mental abstraction. You can mathematically construct any coordinate system you want, it doesn't make it a new physical entity. I hereby claim that there is 5-dimensional continuum: I take the 3 dimensions of space, the 1 dimensional time, and the 1 dimensional price, so to get a price-space-time. The points (x,y,z,t,p) are the events with prices. You want to analyze the cost of producing events in space and time? Then I claim that this new price-space-time continuum is the right arena for you. There's no big mystery about these artificial continuum constructs.

Einstein managed to develop his SR theory without using this continuum. This really shows that it's only a useful mathematical construct. In other words, it's not a necessary notion of physics.

[RussT]

Plus, the Standard Model of particle physics requires space to be chock full of Higgs bosons -- the Higgs ocean. This should be verified in the next week or two.

And how fast is this Higgs Ocean moving, traveling, propagating???

[north]

Originally Posted by north
since neither space or time has any ability to affect anything at all, (neither space or time has any form of substance or fabric innate unto themselves that gives them a sense of physical reality) then how do you interweave the two, so that space and time become space-time, one?




It's obviously very useful to interweave the two, but that's only a mental abstraction. You can mathematically construct any coordinate system you want, it doesn't make it a new physical entity. I hereby claim that there is 5-dimensional continuum: I take the 3 dimensions of space, the 1 dimensional time, and the 1 dimensional price, so to get a price-space-time. The points (x,y,z,t,p) are the events with prices. You want to analyze the cost of producing events in space and time? Then I claim that this new price-space-time continuum is the right arena for you. There's no big mystery about these artificial continuum constructs.

Einstein managed to develop his SR theory without using this continuum. This really shows that it's only a useful mathematical construct. In other words, it's not a necessary notion of physics.

explain further. I'm not getting what your driving at.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
...doppler shifting is because of the enviroment that the object ejects light in and because of the energy state that the object is in. ALL based on movement. NOT because of space or time. both are a consequence or a resultant of the objects physical dynamics, and in some instances, coupled with enviromental physical dynamics complications as well.

Incorrect. The spectral lines of an object at z=1 are shifted NOT because the object is moving through space away from us. It's because the light has been "stretched" during its long journey through the space between here and there, which is slowly expanding. Space itself (due to its expansion) is causing this effect.

I disagree

HOW does space do this though?

as I have mentioned before, if space is its self expanding and is the "cause" of this expansion. then when looked at three dimensionally, of spatial expandsion, lets take a sphere for example, then every point of expansion by space has an opposite point of expansion. which leads to a null expansion.

take for instance, a simple example, you start with an object at "x" equals 0. space now tries to draw this object to the right, but at the same time space tries to draw the object to the left. a null. now take this scenario to every point within a sphere, three dimensionally. you get a three dimensional null.

my conclusion is that space, in and of its self has NO bearing on expansion at all. and therefore leads also to the point that redshifts, of light are NOTcaused by an expanding space, but are in fact caused by something else, entirely.



Plus, the Standard Model of particle physics requires space to be chock full of Higgs bosons -- the Higgs ocean. This should be verified in the next week or two.

chiral condensate. or perhaps Cosmic Plasmas.

[Kebsis]

I'm not sure I understand you North. You're saying that time is a measure of movement, but isn't movement a measure of an objects positional changes over a course of time? How can it be a measure of movement if movement uses time to calculate what it measures? Also, does that mean that without movement, time would stop?