| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Anders" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2005 03:35:09 AM |
| Object: |
Curved space |
We tend to look at objects in space as separate entities. But no object
can be truly separate from everything else. All objects must have
_some_ relation to the rest of existence or it would not be a part of
that same existence.
If something cannot be truly separate, can then something be truly
separate from space? Gravity can be seen as being nothing but curved
space. How about physical matter? Can matter be truly separate from
space?
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is nothing
but curved space?
/AL
.
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
19 Feb 2005 07:27:10 AM |
|
|
Anders wrote:
We tend to look at objects in space as separate entities.
who says so?
But no object
can be truly separate from everything else. All objects must have
_some_ relation to the rest of existence or it would not be a part of
that same existence.
Slap your face hard. I do not feel your pain, neither does anyone else.
If something cannot be truly separate, can then something be truly
separate from space? Gravity can be seen as being nothing but curved
space. How about physical matter? Can matter be truly separate from
space?
Learn the difference between curved space and curved space-time.
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
Mike
/AL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
19 Feb 2005 06:25:49 PM |
|
|
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 04:37:45 AM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:-qudnf8yQ713IIrfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
Phenomenon
--
Franz
"As we grow older we understand more and more and we do less and less"
Puppi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
19 Feb 2005 06:27:51 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
19 Feb 2005 09:33:00 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4217D987.D32F72D7@hate.spam.net...
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
C'mon Al, what else is there besides waves ? It's not such a radical idea.
In fact, I dont think it's new at all.
Honestly.
Particles are standing waves. The 4 fundemental forces are simply the
footprints of waves. Gravity is a standing wave. Etc.
And why do you use the word "idiot" in your sig ? Is that how you greet
everyone you meet ? All you really need to do is say hello, and "wave".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
19 Feb 2005 08:46:01 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4217D987.D32F72D7@hate.spam.net...
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
C'mon Al, what else is there besides waves ? It's not such a radical idea.
In fact, I dont think it's new at all.
Honestly.
Particles are standing waves. The 4 fundemental forces are simply the
footprints of waves. Gravity is a standing wave. Etc.
Idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
And why do you use the word "idiot" in your sig ? Is that how you greet
everyone you meet ? All you really need to do is say hello, and "wave".
You still don't see it do you - my original outrage you even quoted?
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
Hence "idiot." Ignorance is educable. Idiocy is god-given.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
19 Feb 2005 11:00:53 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
C'mon Al, what else is there besides waves ? It's not such a radical
idea.
In fact, I dont think it's new at all.
Honestly.
Particles are standing waves. The 4 fundemental forces are simply the
footprints of waves. Gravity is a standing wave. Etc.
Idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
You confuse mathematics of gravitation with philosophy of gravitation.
Gravity is not caused by algebra.
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 07:09:44 AM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:cpydnXcyVbv4Y4rfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
[snip crap]
You confuse mathematics of gravitation with philosophy of gravitation.
Gravity is not caused by algebra.
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
There is only one thing the psychotic empirical imbecile Schwartz is
100% right on.
"Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count."
That goes for his vote as well. It doesn't count.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 06:00:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Lefty
<Ye@h.Right>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:00:53 -0800
<cpydnXcyVbv4Y4rfRVn-qw@comcast.com>:
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy,
like gravity, also is nothing but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is
only one substance, spacetime. There is only
one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
C'mon Al, what else is there besides waves ?
It's not such a radical idea.
In fact, I dont think it's new at all.
I think Al was quibbling about the fact that you were
using "phenomena", which was plural (the singular,
of course, being "phenomenon".)
Honestly.
Particles are standing waves. The 4 fundemental
forces are simply the footprints of waves.
Gravity is a standing wave. Etc.
Idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
You confuse mathematics of gravitation with philosophy of gravitation.
Gravity is not caused by algebra.
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
One could get very weird here, as the rock one drops on one's
foot (thereby proving the rock's existence) is mostly empty space,
as is one's foot. The sensation one feels is real enough,
especially if the rock is large enough to cause pain; of course
the nervous system is mostly empty space as well.
It is true that gravity is not a force (although it sure feels
like one), but a warpage of space, with some slightly odd
properties -- at least, from the standpoint of Newtonian
gravitation, which among other things cannot predict at least
one phenomenon that Gravity Probe B is trying to measure, namely,
the twisting of spacetime itself from the Earth's rotation.
(It's a very tiny effect for the Earth; black holes would show
the effect far more readily, were there any in the immediate
vicinity that we could orbit space probes around. We wouldn't
want to have one too near... :-) )
I don't see how gravitation can be standing waves unless
the waves somehow change size as one nears the mass,
in accordance with the formula GmM/d^2 or some variant thereof.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 06:58:51 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
C'mon Al, what else is there besides waves ? It's not such a radical
idea.
In fact, I dont think it's new at all.
Honestly.
Particles are standing waves. The 4 fundemental forces are simply the
footprints of waves. Gravity is a standing wave. Etc.
Idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
You confuse mathematics of gravitation with philosophy of gravitation.
Gravity is not caused by algebra.
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 12:12:13 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Lefty wrote:
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity,
also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
It is the only reasonable explanation. There is only one
substance,
spacetime. There is only one phenomena, the wave.
"one phenomena" says it all. Idiot.
C'mon Al, what else is there besides waves ? It's not such a
radical
idea.
In fact, I dont think it's new at all.
Honestly.
Particles are standing waves. The 4 fundemental forces are simply
the
footprints of waves. Gravity is a standing wave. Etc.
Idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
You confuse mathematics of gravitation with philosophy of
gravitation.
Obviously you claim he is doing mathematics and you are doing
philosophy.
Gravity is not caused by algebra.
But again, if you had any freaken idead about philosophy of science you
would have used the word "caused" in tha context above.
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
Then explain how centrifuges work using a wave theory. You know these
things chemists use. Explain what a centrifugal force does to waves so
they seperate in a way that dinstinct substances are can be collected.
Let's go philosopher. Let's see is you're just a crackpot or you really
have some points to make.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 03:34:18 PM |
|
|
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
Then explain how centrifuges work using a wave theory. You know these
things chemists use. Explain what a centrifugal force does to waves so
they seperate in a way that dinstinct substances are can be collected.
Let's go philosopher. Let's see is you're just a crackpot or you really
have some points to make.
Mike
You've raised a good question and I like your style. My ideas are fairly
radical, so I appreciate the criticism. That said - There are a number of
things which come to mind.
First, the kinetic energy in a centrifuge starts at zero, then increases,
and then decreases back to zero. You could consider this as an impulse, or
wave, of kinetic energy which is being imparted on the molecules in your
sample.
You could consider the difference between faster and slower migrating
molecules, and you could probably come up with the notion of relative
"resistance to kinetic impulse" or something like that - pretty sure
Newtonian mechanics applies here. But the main question here would be why
there is such a thing as differential "resistance to kinetic impulse" among
molecules. The answer is partly due to geometry of molecules, molecular
harmonics probably also affects this, and of course mass.
Now, mass is probably the predominant factor influencing this molecular
migration in your sample, so lets look at mass. Atoms and other elementary
particles are known to be waves, and nobody would argue with that. Are you
asking me to believe that a wave such as an atom will interact with a
"force" such a gravity ? It is much easier for me to believe that the wave
which looks like an atom is interacting with the wave which looks like
gravity.
Lets talk non-locality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
21 Feb 2005 04:06:37 AM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:HbmdnTjvzeGmeoXfRVn-gA@comcast.com...
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
Then explain how centrifuges work using a wave theory. You know
these
things chemists use. Explain what a centrifugal force does to
waves so
they seperate in a way that dinstinct substances are can be
collected.
Let's go philosopher. Let's see is you're just a crackpot or you
really
have some points to make.
Mike
You've raised a good question and I like your style. My ideas are
fairly
radical, so I appreciate the criticism. That said - There are a
number of
things which come to mind.
First, the kinetic energy in a centrifuge starts at zero, then
increases,
and then decreases back to zero. You could consider this as an
impulse, or
wave, of kinetic energy which is being imparted on the molecules in
your
sample.
You could consider the difference between faster and slower
migrating
molecules, and you could probably come up with the notion of
relative
"resistance to kinetic impulse" or something like that - pretty sure
Newtonian mechanics applies here. But the main question here would
be why
there is such a thing as differential "resistance to kinetic
impulse" among
molecules. The answer is partly due to geometry of molecules,
molecular
harmonics probably also affects this, and of course mass.
Now, mass is probably the predominant factor influencing this
molecular
migration in your sample, so lets look at mass. Atoms and other
elementary
particles are known to be waves, and nobody would argue with that.
Are you
asking me to believe that a wave such as an atom will interact with
a
"force" such a gravity ? It is much easier for me to believe that
the wave
which looks like an atom is interacting with the wave which looks
like
gravity.
You're waffling about things you know next to nothing about, and it
shows.
Lets talk non-locality.
Let's rather not.
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 01:55:47 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Forces schmorces. Nothing exists but waves.
Then explain how centrifuges work using a wave theory. You know
these
things chemists use. Explain what a centrifugal force does to waves
so
they seperate in a way that dinstinct substances are can be
collected.
Let's go philosopher. Let's see is you're just a crackpot or you
really
have some points to make.
Mike
You've raised a good question and I like your style. My ideas are
fairly
radical, so I appreciate the criticism. That said - There are a
number of
things which come to mind.
You have not expressed any ideas in a way that can be used in
predicting anything, other than the claim that everything is a wave,
without even explaining what you mean by that.
First, the kinetic energy in a centrifuge starts at zero, then
increases,
and then decreases back to zero. You could consider this as an
impulse, or
wave, of kinetic energy which is being imparted on the molecules in
your
sample.
Kinetic energy is a scalar. Impulse is a vector. So you started wrong
already.
You could consider the difference between faster and slower migrating
molecules, and you could probably come up with the notion of relative
"resistance to kinetic impulse"
Is this new terminology in mechanics. If it is, can you show its
observational consequences?
or something like that - pretty sure
Newtonian mechanics applies here. But the main question here would be
why
there is such a thing as differential "resistance to kinetic impulse"
among
molecules. The answer is partly due to geometry of molecules,
molecular
harmonics probably also affects this, and of course mass.
Up to now, not only you did not explain why waves seperate in a
centrifuge, but you simple alluded to standard mechanics bastardized by
you so called "kinetic impulse".
Now, mass is probably the predominant factor influencing this
molecular
migration in your sample, so lets look at mass. Atoms and other
elementary
particles are known to be waves, and nobody would argue with that.
Are you
asking me to believe that a wave such as an atom will interact with a
"force" such a gravity ?
I'm just asking you to explain how centrifuges work using you "wave
theory".
It is much easier for me to believe that the wave
which looks like an atom is interacting with the wave which looks
like
gravity.
But you failed to explain how this interaction takes place. That is,
you have just stated your belief without justifying it. In an
epistemological sense you know nothing. You are just a believer. So is
your local priest. The two of you will make good company.
Lets talk non-locality.
How can we talk about non-locality when you mix scalars and vectors?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 05:42:19 PM |
|
|
First, the kinetic energy in a centrifuge starts at zero, then
increases,
and then decreases back to zero. You could consider this as an
impulse, or
wave, of kinetic energy which is being imparted on the molecules in
your
sample.
Kinetic energy is a scalar. Impulse is a vector. So you started wrong
already.
Semantics aside. You have a sample and you subject it to a wave of kinetic
energy. This "kinetic energy wave" has an effect on your sample. It creates
a gradient of molecules based on mass and some other things.
Was this the answer you were after ?
You have a sample of molecules which are made from atoms, which are known to
be waves. You subject this sample to a kinetic energy wave, and you get a
gradient of molecules based on "mass" which is quite simply a wave
interaction. The "atom waves" responded to the "kinetic energy wave".
You could consider the difference between faster and slower migrating
molecules, and you could probably come up with the notion of relative
"resistance to kinetic impulse"
Is this new terminology in mechanics. If it is, can you show its
observational consequences?
Well - in fact I just made it up for purposes of this conversation. But I'm
quite sure you'll find the concept expressed formally if you really look for
it.
or something like that - pretty sure
Newtonian mechanics applies here. But the main question here would be
why
there is such a thing as differential "resistance to kinetic impulse"
among
molecules. The answer is partly due to geometry of molecules,
molecular
harmonics probably also affects this, and of course mass.
Up to now, not only you did not explain why waves seperate in a
centrifuge, but you simple alluded to standard mechanics bastardized by
you so called "kinetic impulse".
Well that's a good question. Atoms _are_ waves. We know this. Your
centrifuge imparts kinetic energy in the form of a wave, or pulse. There is
an interaction, and the result is a gradient of molecules.
Admittedly, I did not solve the wave equation. But I dont see any reason why
your semantics are any better than mine.
It is much easier for me to believe that the wave
which looks like an atom is interacting with the wave which looks
like
gravity.
But you failed to explain how this interaction takes place. That is,
you have just stated your belief without justifying it. In an
epistemological sense you know nothing. You are just a believer. So is
your local priest. The two of you will make good company.
Modern physics dosent explain it either. Your position is that
forces(kinetic) are acting upon waves(atoms) in the centrifuge.
My position is that this "force" is more appropriately viewed as a "wave",
and it just might make sense because it is very logical for waves to
interact with other waves.
Lets talk non-locality.
How can we talk about non-locality when you mix scalars and vectors?
I'd rather mix scalars and vectors than mistake a wave for a force (whatever
that is).
I can explain non-locality in classical terms - but you dont seem very
objective to listen to it.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 06:05:33 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
[snip]
I'd rather mix scalars and vectors than mistake a wave for a force
(whatever
that is).
If you do the first you fail the course (which it seems you never
took). If you do the second, you are a crank (which its seems you are).
I can explain non-locality in classical terms - but you dont seem
very
objective to listen to it.
Non-locality is an essential concept of classical mechanics. Thus, you
do not have to explain anything. What needs to be explained is how the
repeatedly demonstrated non-locality of QM blend the with repeatedly
demonstrated local effects of GR that preclude non-locality. Try that
smart a** and come back in 20 years to tell us what you got.
Bye,
Mike
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 09:12:59 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
[snip]
I'd rather mix scalars and vectors than mistake a wave for a force
(whatever
that is).
If you do the first you fail the course (which it seems you never
took). If you do the second, you are a crank (which its seems you are).
I'm not going to quibble about that. See below.
I can explain non-locality in classical terms - but you dont seem
very
objective to listen to it.
Non-locality is an essential concept of classical mechanics. Thus, you
do not have to explain anything. What needs to be explained is how the
repeatedly demonstrated non-locality of QM blend the with repeatedly
demonstrated local effects of GR that preclude non-locality. Try that
smart a** and come back in 20 years to tell us what you got.
I'm not being a smart *****.
I told you that I could explain it, and now I will.
I have my own reasons to believe that there is something like Planck Time,
but I'll skip that and jump right to the chase.
The universe is 4-dimensional. On some small scale, time becomes
meaningless - (here I am invoking Planck Time). If this is true, then
4-dimensional spacetime loses one of it's dimensions to become some type of
3-dimensional entity (by hypothesis).
Now - consider the beam splitter experiment where a single photon is split
into two separate paths. In these experiments, it is observed that
information seems to travel faster than the speed of light. Yet, we know
that this is impossible.
The solution is simple. The information is travelling through the
3rd-dimension. There is no time component to the 3rd dimension, and so the
information "must" be communicated instantaneously. It is very obvious. The
information does NOT traverse the 4th dimension because this would require
time > 0 to get from point A to point B. Instead, for some reason in this
case, the information is travelling across the 3rd dimension - a place where
time is simply not defined, a place where time does not exist, and so the
communication of information MUST be instantaneous.
This problem is solved. We live in the 4th dimension, and on some very small
scale, time ceases to have any meaning, and there is a boundary which blends
somehow into the 3-rd dimension.
I can also show that this is a relativistic phenomena. This stuff is very
simple, and I have a very hard time believing that nobody ever thought of
this before. Perhaps, they are stuck thinking about time a certain way.
And - I have been thinking about this for 20 years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anders" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 05:36:14 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Anders wrote:
We tend to look at objects in space as separate entities.
who says so?
You just wrote it yourself below about the fact that only one person
feels his or her pain and not someone else.
But no object
can be truly separate from everything else. All objects must have
_some_ relation to the rest of existence or it would not be a part
of
that same existence.
Slap your face hard. I do not feel your pain, neither does anyone
else.
If something cannot be truly separate, can then something be truly
separate from space? Gravity can be seen as being nothing but
curved
space. How about physical matter? Can matter be truly separate from
space?
Learn the difference between curved space and curved space-time.
Science has gone from seeing space as separate from time to see space
and time as related: space-time. Maybe the next step is to see matter
related to space-time: space-time-matter. Even an electromagnetic field
cannot be truly separate from space. Empty space is not nothing.
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
Then I would say that everything is consciousness. :)
/AL
Mike
/AL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 01:55:42 PM |
|
|
Science has gone from seeing space as separate from time to see space
and time as related: space-time. Maybe the next step is to see matter
related to space-time: space-time-matter. Even an electromagnetic field
cannot be truly separate from space. Empty space is not nothing.
Well, if you consider a sample of perfectly empty space with no light, no
EMF, no gravity, no energy of any kind - you still have a sample of
spacetime. It is a sample of the 4th dimension.
I do not believe that this spacetime material is anything like R4. For
instance, you typically cannot take points in R4 and simply shift them
around like squeezing a ball of clay. Algebra does not neccesarily
"translocate" points contained in R, R2, R3, etc. Mathematical
representations can move around alot - but are you really pushing points to
and fro ? Not really. You graphs may evolve, but this does _not_ neccesarily
mean that points in R3 or R4 have been uprooted and relocated. Algebra dose
not neccesarily do that.
In spacetime, I believe that the dimensional fabric can actually be
twisted, folded, maybe even knotted, stretched, compressed, etc. This is my
own personal belief which is probably _not_ mainstream physics, I do not
know, and I really dont care. I think that points in spacetime really do
become translocated as waves pass through this medium. It is different than
doing algebra in R3 or R4.
In R2 or R3, you always have a frame of reference. You always know where
the origin is. In spacetime you do not have these things. All you have for
reference is other objects.
I don't see how gravitation can be standing waves unless
the waves somehow change size as one nears the mass,
in accordance with the formula GmM/d^2 or some variant thereof.
I think that spacetime exhibits superfluidity, and so you can have these
standing waves which seem to exist forever. I think that gravity is an
example of this.
So - why dose'nt superfluidity exist everywhere ? Why do we have resistance
and friction ? Because we are seenig interactions of various waveforms, and
this is where you will see friction, resistance, turbulence, etc. The wave
itself has no problem existing in spacetime, but will exhibit friction etc
when interacting with other waveforms. To me, this is the most interesting
part of physics - understanding how different forms of energy interact when
they come together.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 07:00:28 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Science has gone from seeing space as separate from time to see space
and time as related: space-time. Maybe the next step is to see matter
related to space-time: space-time-matter. Even an electromagnetic field
cannot be truly separate from space. Empty space is not nothing.
Well, if you consider a sample of perfectly empty space with no light, no
EMF, no gravity, no energy of any kind - you still have a sample of
spacetime. It is a sample of the 4th dimension.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 02:03:57 PM |
|
|
Anders wrote:
Mike wrote:
Anders wrote:
We tend to look at objects in space as separate entities.
who says so?
You just wrote it yourself below about the fact that only one person
feels his or her pain and not someone else.
But no object
can be truly separate from everything else. All objects must have
_some_ relation to the rest of existence or it would not be a
part
of
that same existence.
Slap your face hard. I do not feel your pain, neither does anyone
else.
If something cannot be truly separate, can then something be
truly
separate from space? Gravity can be seen as being nothing but
curved
space. How about physical matter? Can matter be truly separate
from
space?
Learn the difference between curved space and curved space-time.
Science has gone from seeing space as separate from time to see space
and time as related: space-time. Maybe the next step is to see matter
related to space-time: space-time-matter. Even an electromagnetic
field
cannot be truly separate from space. Empty space is not nothing.
Could it be that all matter and energy, like gravity, also is
nothing
but curved space?
You are the only one who can answer this kind of question:)
Then I would say that everything is consciousness. :)
/AL
Mike
All cranks have something in common. They believe that the mathematical
models used in making predictions by physicists relate to some specific
ontology of thr world. Thus, to make it simple for you to understand,
cranks think that things like energy, curved-space time, momentum,
power, etc., have a real existence. Then their suffering starts.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 06:09:09 PM |
|
|
All cranks have something in common. They believe that the mathematical
models used in making predictions by physicists relate to some specific
ontology of thr world.
Mike
I did'nt say that.
What I did say was that "I do not believe that this spacetime material is
anything like R4."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 09:01:02 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:gYudnTSZwYMYloTfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
All cranks have something in common. They believe that the
mathematical
models used in making predictions by physicists relate to some
specific
ontology of thr world.
Mike
I did'nt say that.
What I did say was that "I do not believe that this spacetime material
is
anything like R4."
Can't be, can it? The subset R1 contains negative numbers, and time
doesn't go backwards.
Whatever spacetime might be, it isn't described by mathematics. Sci-fi,
perhaps.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 11:36:55 PM |
|
|
What I did say was that "I do not believe that this spacetime material
is
anything like R4."
Can't be, can it? The subset R1 contains negative numbers, and time
doesn't go backwards.
Whatever spacetime might be, it isn't described by mathematics. Sci-fi,
perhaps.
Androcles
It has no origin(x,y,z axis), and there are reasons to believe that it is
closed. Certainly nothing like R4.
I think that relativity is functioning as a substitute for the origin(x,y,z
axis) somehow. This makes relativity very, very interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
21 Feb 2005 10:46:46 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the moving
frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary frame
(with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as measured
in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured in
the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as measured
in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1) L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2) L_1/T_1 = c
3) L_1' = L'
4) L_1'/T_1' = c
5) L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6) L_2/T_2 = c
7) L_2' = L'
8) L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2
L_1 is *not* equal to L
L_1 is *not* equal to L'
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'
L_2 is *not* equal to L
L_2 is *not* equal to L'
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'
L_1' is equal to L'
L_2' is equal to L'
T_1' is equal to T_2'
T_1' is equal to L'/c
T_2' is equal to L'/c
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Einstein:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking a = x, b = t + x'/(c-v), the functional equation above becomes:
tau(0,0,0,b-a/(c-v)) + tau(0,0,0,b+a/(c+v)) = 2 tau(a,0,0,b).
Defining the function F(k) = 2 tau(0,0,0,k), it then follows that
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v)).
Conversely, taking a = 0 in the equation above, it follows that
tau(0,0,0,b) = F(b) + F(b) = 2F(b).
Therefore, the general solution to the functional equation above is:
tau(a,0,0,b) = F(b-a/(c-v)) + F(b+a/(c+v))
where F is otherwise arbitrary.
(Further restrictions cited in the paper then narrow down the function
F(x); this also shows that the assumption in the paper of
differentiability is entirely superfluous. The derivation above
proceeds without any assumption about tau being differentiable or even
continuous.)
Thus, going back to Einstein's notation with x' = x - vt, it follows
that
tau(x-vt,0,0,t) = F((ct-x)/(c-v)) + F((ct+x)/(c-v))
which shows that the natural coordinates that enter into play are ct-x
and ct+x.
In terms of these the Lorentz transformation simplifies substantially:
ct-x -> sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) (ct-x)
ct+x -> sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) (ct+x)
involving, respectively, a blue shift and red shift factor and
directly representing the Relativistic Doppler effect.
If two Lorentz transformation are done along the x axis at velocities
v1 and v2 respectively, then the factors would multiple:
sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
which reduces to a Lorentz transform with a velocity v given by:
sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = sqrt((c+v1)/(c-v1)) sqrt((c+v2)/(c-v2))
Solving this for v, you get:
v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1 v2/c^2)
So the velocity addition rule becomes the addition rule for the
"rapidity":
u = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
with
u = u1 + u2.
Rapidity and velocity are virtually identical. For a vessel going at
v= 3km/second,
|v - u| ~~ 6 microns/second.
Therefore, velocities (redefined as rapidities) add as usual in
Relativity, as well as in Newtonian physics.
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf>
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Curved space |
20 Feb 2005 10:18:13 PM |
|
|
Yup.
Ill agree.
Gravity is the gain in mass pushing te atoms wieght down the energy
slope.
Mass is energy im motion.
space is energy under presure.
iesnstien's universe is a wavical universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
