Customer Discussions > Science forum

Space-Time


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 401-425 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 4:36:19 AM PDT
Mr. Matthew Marsden,
my favorite writer on Amazon
I am being sincere, encouraging your efforts, and not at all critical when I say, I really love how you are able to look at the details and grasp mentally what is right in front of you.

For most people, this kind of simple logic is beyond them, ironically because it is too simple for them to understand.

(No one here should think these comments are about or against them, personally, because this is not the case.)

People can not understand what is staring them in the face, begging them to understand, although these same people are able to understand other processes that are not as obvious or not as basic, which leads me to believe that understandings, like these, become in their minds too simple for people to understand.

And that "too simple to be understood" is actually a problem for people, just as something too large (infinity) can be a similar stumbling stone.
See, if it is "infinity" people are speaking of, the problem in understanding is absolution (infinity is absolutely everything). This same "absolution", comes into play when speaking about the end of a matter, such as and in this case "time" and it's full and absolute understanding as it relates to a complete and absolute solution.

I am afraid, whenever you are trying to teach people who have the mental block of not understanding things that are too great or too small for them, infinite or nothing, or something that is there or not to the degree of any absolute state, I do not know that you can reach them any more than you could reach your cat or dog, with the same concepts. (Of course the point being the faculty to understand absolution, may not be there, and of course the point is not that humans with this block are as dumb as animals which would be just about everybody, which is not true. We all have our gifts and our weaknesses and in truth nothing is ever equal, save our worth.)

Unfortunately people who have the problem of not understanding absolution, will have a problem with any form of logic, because absolutes are the inputs and outputs of logic. Can you really teach a person how to think logically? I hope you can and believe you partially can, but...

The brilliance of simple logic is that it is a fact that is a fact no matter what, without any proper excuse available, it must be so...
...(paraphrasing the fictional, but wise Sherlock Holmes).

Simple logic is the only real logic that exists. For everything is simple; even if it is made of many simple parts.

It is like you have the super power to reach your hand through a closed window, and grasp what others can only stare at and wonder about.

Again I agree with just about everything you have said.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 8:23:59 AM PDT
Wow, that's so "subtle"!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 1:32:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 23, 2012 10:06:52 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 7:59:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2012 8:00:11 PM PDT
Mr. Matthew Marsden wrote:
{
Wiki for example describes TIME as **Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from "the past" through the present to "the future".**
}
===================
Existence --> matter or energy are the only signs of existence.

Events ---> must be performed by matter or energy only.

Therefore, time (past, present, and future) relates to behavior of matter or energy, and no more.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 4:03:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 4:28:49 AM PDT
Hey Royce,
Hey thanks, that's very nice of you, +thanks for the encouragement. (next you`ll actually be risking $3 on the eBook :) I have taken on a very tricky task, trying to explain something that -seems- very complicated, unnecessary, and wrong - And I`m doing this right in the face of a great deal of ingrained, established, seemingly 'working' and widely accepted ideas. (which makes my task very hard, but then makes my work equally worthwhile if it turns out to be essentially correct :)

(I should point out, I think what I am saying is very, very simple. The areas where it may seem complicated are the areas where I am untangling the -complicated mess- of self supporting 'time' based terms)

So I don't blame anyone for being very resistant to it. Even some of my close friends still cant even see, let alone 'consider' the basic starting assumptions. But then I chose to try and prove this point, and I`m kind of imposing the conversation on people.

And the problem is, if time is as Einstein suspected, a 'persistent illusion', then it is persistent -because- it works so well, - almost perfectly- and the very point is that it is so hard to see through. It is hidden right in plain sight as they say. I know what you mean about logic, the more precisely I explain certain points the less it can seem I am saying to someone who is listening with closed ears. Thanks again for your comments, it can be a bit tiring trying to explain the same thing over and over in writing in forums etc, but then that is the process of the 'theory' being tested, and I appreciate people bothering to read and reply. I sometimes say there are 2 kinds of people who think they are right, those that are right, and those that are wrong =)
mm

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 5:33:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 6:36:45 AM PDT
Hi Mohamed,

I think it may be even simpler than that (though also amazing).

What I am suggesting is we stop, clear our head of -all- presumptions, then look at what we actually directly observe in the word. And from that point be very, very sure we can justify each and every extra word we mention, and think we need to describe what we see.

IF we observe something and give it a name then that's fine. But if we slip in words like time, events, past and future, that we heard from somewhere - and then think they need to be explained, justified, or applied to our observations -(as if they obviously just are 'things'), then we may be making important errors. E.g.

`Events'

Consider the 'idea' of an `event'. If I was to take out a restraining order against, say, arpard (I`m only joking !^) then the judge might state a distance of 20 metres. So if he crossed the edge of an imaginary 20 metre circle around me, that would apparently constitute an `event' - serious enough to result in a fine/jail etc. But without the restraining order, little more than a squiggle on a sheet of paper, in a drawer, miles away, apparently the same thing may not be an event, and if the number to judge happened to squiggle down was a different number, then apparently someone crossing a different imaginary circle would be an 'event'.

If we consider seeing an airliner in the sky, flying past a small distinct little cloud, we might see this as `an event'. But someone in a different location who doesn't see the two things lining up might not. And if we see a car just driving in a straight line from A to B, or making a turn, or parked up at a particular location. we might call those actions 'events' -even though they are just continuously 'happening'.,

It's a subtle point, it seems so obvious that `events' `happen'. But what I am saying is, if we consider that perhaps, there is just a whole lot of matter, all constantly swirling around - doing whatever it is doing - then perhaps that just is what there IS. Every `thing', everywhere, is just `always' doing something. And every object everywhere, just changing direction or getting nearer or further than any other object is an apparently an 'event'. If that is the case, then perhaps the term `event' is kind of meaningless, because no 'event' starts or ends, and everything is always an 'event'.

`Past'

As all this matter swirls around, one of the things that is happening, is the contents of our minds form intricate patterns, as we observe the world around us. We may `call' some of those patterns `the past' - but they are just some of that stuff, which happens to be in what we call a human brain, being affected by other stuff - `now'.

This is similar perhaps to the wake of a boat, or foot prints in mud being formed and left behind a person. We can 'call' it whatever we wish, but it's always, actually, just stuff, here, now. It may be being changed, or it may be holding some kind of a stable pattern, but it's just here now.

And call it what we may, we haven't proved the existence of `the past' or `the temporal past'.

`Future'

In some of this matter, which happens to be in our minds, we can make it form patterns. Incredible as it is we can imagine things. I can imagine a clown, on a unicycle, handing me £1,000 at my front door - if I want. I could also `call' this image `an idea for a story' - or `call' this image ` a prediction' of the `future'. But imo, whatever I call it, it's just some stuff here now, changing. - And this alone does not prove the existence of `the' `future'.

`Time'

Therefore, imo, we can watch someone running down a track, and we can build a machine that rotates a hand around a numbered dial in a steady way. And we can compare these examples of motion. And we can `call' this process `timing' the runner. But we haven't shown the existence of a past or a future or a thing called time.

So when you say

**
Existence --> matter or energy are the only signs of existence.

Events ---> must be performed by matter or energy only.

Therefore, time (past, present, and future) relates to behaviour of matter or energy, and no more.

**

I would say, perhaps we have slipped in some terms (time past future)- just out of habit and familiarity - and these terms don't need to be mentioned, explained or accounted for...

- matter or energy are the only signs of existence.

-we can call certain movements `events' - but really all stuff, is just always, doing something.

-matter just `behaves', (moves changes),

-we use the `words' and `ideas' time, past, future, but they are just, words and ideas.

As you can see I`m being uncompromisingly persistent when I'm suggesting the universe really, really, really is `timeless'. I know it might seem to be counter-intuitive, and it might even seem I am being `impolite' in my persistence and lack of compromise, but please understand I am not, I just think I have a very clearly defined, working, set of reasoning, that fully re-explains, a very significant aspect of science, which is why I think what I am saying has content and importance.

If we apply my `discovery' (or whatever) it to Einstein's first Relativity paper `electrodynamics'

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies

It suggests he is mistaken in his opening assumptions. He does not define `time'. He just shows that a train can move and stop, and that a hand can rotate on a dial.

More importantly he does not prove that there are distinct `events', that happen at `times', or that there are `different' `times'. He only shows that anything can be moving in various ways, and that we can `choose to compare' `examples of motion' in our minds if we wish.

This leads to quite a startling conclusion if it is correct, which is that `everything is always just happening' - which means all `events' are always `simultaneous'. Or other words, nothing can ever be non-simultaneous. Or , in other, other words, even the idea `simultaneous' is meaningless (nothing can ever not be simultaneous, so the word simultaneous is redundant/meaningless).
(this suggests a very different way of looking at the 'relativity of simultaneity').

This is a very tricky point to explain, but as you can see, by timeless, I really do mean timeless in every way.

mm

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 9:13:38 AM PDT
roundaboutte says:
Future Event is your 2weeks in london coming up . I call that the Future.Am I right or wrong.If I want to go to this Future Event I'd better start planning Now.Right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 10:36:46 AM PDT
In relativity, there is a well-defined technical definition for the term 'event'. Perhaps it would be less confusing if you found another term for your concept?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 10:58:56 AM PDT
Hi Randall

I think i know what you mean. But could post a link. Or cut+paste the definition u mean, then i'll see if i can incorporate it , or if i need to rework my point.

Eg do u mean as in point 4 here?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=event

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 10:59:33 AM PDT
Hi Randall

I think i know what you mean. But could post a link. Or cut+paste the definition u mean, then i'll see if i can incorporate it , or if i need to rework my point.

Eg do u mean as in point 4 here?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=event

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 11:23:48 AM PDT
barbW says:
uh oh, now you've messed up the thread

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 12:30:12 PM PDT
Correct. Simply put, it's a single point in a Minkowski space-time manifold, having coordinates [ict, x, y, z].

(Did I say 'simply'? I retract that characterization!)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 12:35:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 12:47:44 PM PDT
Thanks, 'ict' ? typo , ie just t, or special term ?
no worries, got it root -1 , speed of light , time*

(* which does not exist :) will send answer, its already formulating in my mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2012 4:19:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2012 4:20:07 PM PDT
The point is when you define the 4-vector in special relativity (the vector with one time component t and 3 space components x,y,z) you want the inner product or dot product, also called the interval, to equal -t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2. This is called hyperbolic geometry or Minkowski spacetime. You can either define the 4-vector as <t,x,y,z> and then specify taking the negative of t^2 in the dot product, or you can define it as < it,x,y,z> and just take the squares of all 4. Putting in the i before the t makes the square of the t component -t^2. (I made c=1 which is why it disappeared).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 2:32:43 AM PDT
Re technical definition for the term 'event'- in Relativity,

Thanks Randall and Arpard for the clarification,

Very loosely (i.e I haven't carefully checked this precisely) If I recall correctly, Einstein wrote Special Relativity (electrodynamics of moving bodies) , then having read SR Minkowski famously said...

**... Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.***

So Minkowski strengthened the space-time concept - then Einstein incorporated this in General relativity. But i think minkowski 'assumed' time might exist, and that SR (because it mentions 'time' so much) proved or confirmed times 'real existence' - but Einstein seems to just assume the existence of time (as more than just an idea) was real or obvious or proved elsewhere.

BUT - if you check electrodynamics, it is written as if time exists, but the real existence of time is not proven - at all - (Einstein makes about 70 references to `time' but not a single reference to `the past' or `the future'). Thus in SR `time', and the mathematics surrounding it, is only proven to be a useful `idea' - not a real thing.

If you are trying to understand some complex motion, say how an object accelerates if falling, or how to fly from the moving earth to the moving moon - then it makes tremendous sense to compare the complex motion to some example of simple steady motion

- eg as provided by the steadily rotating hands on some mechanical device - (and the idea of this in mathematics) - but in actual fact - we have not proven that this `time' thing actually exists - and we should be very careful of confusing the fact the maths works very well and is very useful - with relating to a proof that the thing `time' exists as a real thing.

but all we have proven is that hands can rotate on a dial, and other objects can move, and we can compare their motion - this is in no way the same as proving 'the past' REALLY ACTUALLY exists, or the future REALLY exists, or that 'time' REALLY exists and passes between these places.

Thus re events being defined as x,y,z, ict , and using variations of Pythagoras to work out space-time intervals - I understand the idea, its usefulness etc - but this definition of and `event' still doesn't prove (to me) that there is time, nor that there are different times, nor that there are distinct events , separated by intervals of time.

I know how odd that can sound, but it comes down to `can you actually prove that `THE PAST', actually exists, or not' - because if we cannot prove `THE PAST' exists - then we cannot just move on and say `time exists, and flows into `the past' - or that distinct `moments' or events in time exist and are continuously `passing' etc.

if this idea of events existing, and passing, at points `in time' is real , and not just empty semantics - then what is passing what , and where are these `past' events going? etc

Can't rewrite the detail here at the mo, busy with other stuff, but here's my existing thoughts.

**I addressed the topic of space-time intervals - and their real world equivalents here,

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/space-time-intervals

**And the (possible/probable) problem with Minkowski assuming SR proves the existence of time, and Einstein assuming Minkowski's comments proved it.

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/general-relativity/the-foundation-of-general-relativity

mm

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 7:36:23 AM PDT
The quote about spacetime belongs to Minkowski, not Einstein. Both Einstein and Minkowski included time in their formulations because time or its surrogate is necessary for any model of the physical world, contrary to what you're trying to assert.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 10:57:49 AM PDT
-yes, thats why I put 'Minkowski famously said...'

Arpard would you please post,

your definition of 'time'
Your definition of 'exists'

And whether you think time exists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:09:29 AM PDT
Time is what clocks measure.

There is no uniformly accepted definition of "exists". In the context of physics something exists if it has physical reality, meaning it has measurable physical properties like length, surface area, volume, density, mass, electrical charge, thermal conductivity, etc. etc. etc.

Of course time exists. It is a measurable physical quantity.

You would like to wish away time by saying things "just" change, as though that has any meaning.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 11:32:22 AM PDT
roundaboutte says:
I think to say time exists is to say a foot or a yard or a meter exists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:49:22 AM PDT
Ok, got it,

Energy can flow from one physical location, say an electrical cell, through a motor, to another physical location (it's surroundings), causing hands to rotate on a dial.

And we can use the rotating hands as a measure of the energy as it passes from one place to another. And we can compare the rotation of the hands to other motion, and 'call' their rotation whatever else we what. But there is only ever 'now', and things just move now.

But - some people may 'call' this exact same, simple local flow of energy, by another name, e.g time. And -mistakenly- think this other name for energy, is a valid reason to suspect some kind of mysterious 'thing' flows through a '4th dimension', that really exists. Instead of it just, and only, being another name for that which flows from a battery through a motor.

m

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 11:59:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2012 11:59:24 AM PDT
Things move. In order to make this a mathematically meaningful concept, we introduce a parameter, and express the position of an object as it moves as a function of this parameter. This function then becomes the path of the object through space. The parameter, t, is called time.

Things do not require energy input to move, if they're moving along an inertial path. So one has a path parameterized by t, for which the energy does not change. One still needs t to specify the path.

Even if we accept your argument that "simple local flow of energy" is real, how can you define "flow" without using the parameter t? To make the concept "local energy flow" mathematically meaningful means we have to specify a function relating energy at each point in space to a parameter t.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 12:16:48 PM PDT
roundaboutte says:
If we were to drain a lake that contained 1 million gallons of water .We drain it using a flow of 2000 gallons per hour.At some point we can tell the past (how many gallons have drained) present 2000 gallons per hour Future how long it will take to drain completly.Plus what time of day we started and what time of day we will finish.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 12:28:45 PM PDT
No, it "just" drains!

:)

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 12:33:46 PM PDT
roundaboutte says:
And the earth "just" spins.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 1:16:49 PM PDT
yep,

unless we can show the real existence of the past, and of the future, or explain why time is more than just an idea if these things don't exist, then we are just comparing the flow rate of the water to the the rate the Earth 'just' spins, roundaboutte its axis =)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  54
Total posts:  1018
Initial post:  Aug 27, 2011
Latest post:  Aug 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions