Romeo22 Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 On 1/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, studiot said: Energy is a property not a thing. The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago. I hope you realize that time is a form of energy. Matter is a form of energy. Momentum is a form of energy. Temperature is a form of energy. In fact everything you can ever think off besides space is just another form of energy.
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 55 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, Science isn’t about describing reality, if such a thing exists. 19 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: hope you realize that time is a form of energy. Matter is a form of energy. Momentum is a form of energy. Temperature is a form of energy. Nope. Citation needed. Especially for the first one.
studiot Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: 5 hours ago, studiot said: Energy is a property not a thing. The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago. I hope you realize that time is a form of energy. Matter is a form of energy. Momentum is a form of energy. Temperature is a form of energy. In fact everything you can ever think off besides space is just another form of energy. Without wishing to be rude, I think you have some serious catching up to do on basic Physics. Did you understand my comment about vector spaces? That was meant to be helpful. Edited January 1, 2019 by studiot
koti Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 44 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: I hope you realize that time is a form of energy. There is no model I know of in which time is a form of energy, please share your insights on this.
Romeo22 Posted January 1, 2019 Author Posted January 1, 2019 38 minutes ago, studiot said: Without wishing to be rude, I think you have some serious catching up to do on basic Physics. Did you understand my comment about vector spaces? That was meant to be helpful. I hope u realize I did not comment on that. But on what was quoted. 26 minutes ago, koti said: There is no model I know of in which time is a form of energy, please share your insights on this. It is implied by gravitational time dilation... but we should not get caught up on that, a topic for another day. -3
studiot Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: I hope u realize I did not comment on that. But on what was quoted. If that is the case then that is not my idea of how discussion works so I am out of here. Good Day and Happy New Year.
Romeo22 Posted January 1, 2019 Author Posted January 1, 2019 6 hours ago, studiot said: Energy is a property not a thing. The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago. Exactly so. Space on its own is a general term for the stage where stuff happens. We need to tie it down with qualifiers to properly identify which stage we are talking about. This is why, for instance, my comment used the term free space. But 'Space' could be limited to area or even a linear measurement, rather than volume. Which brings in measure. Many useful spaces (including all geometric spaces) possess a measure or distance property as mathematically defined and called a metric. Unfortunately Physics has (once again) a different definition of the word metric, but it is equally important, especially when considering Relativity questions. Back to the mathematical definiton leads us to consider those spaces without a metric. These are topological spaces and non metric topological spaces lead us directly to wormholes with the 'gluing' rules of topology. Computer programmers use another such space with packman type games on screen. To understand Space and its qualifiers we need to look into set theory, functions, mappings and containers. A good simple example of this would be to explore this view of 'vectors'; this readily shows how you need a 'container' filled with several different sets to develop useful a useful theory - that of vector spaces. @studiot you are misunderstanding me. I only reffered to your first comment "Energy is a property not a thing.The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago." Which is what I quoted I said absolutely nothing about what followed.
studiot Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: @studiot I only reffered to your first comment "Energy is a property not a thing.The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago." Which is what I quoted I said absolutely nothing about what followed. Exactly. Case proved. Edited January 1, 2019 by studiot
Romeo22 Posted January 1, 2019 Author Posted January 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, studiot said: Exactly. Case proved. @studiot return to what I said concerning your comment
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 46 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: It is implied by gravitational time dilation... No it isn't. Stop making stuff up.
Romeo22 Posted January 1, 2019 Author Posted January 1, 2019 23 minutes ago, Strange said: No it isn't. Stop making stuff up. Mass/a form of energy affects the flow of time (gravitational time dilation). In simple terms. Hence implied.
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 14 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Mass/a form of energy affects the flow of time (gravitational time dilation). In simple terms. Hence implied. Nonsense.
beecee Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Mass/a form of energy affects the flow of time (gravitational time dilation). In simple terms. Hence implied. Gravitational time dilation is caused by gravity and curved spacetime: it is not a form of energy. 1
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 33 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Mass/a form of energy affects the flow of time (gravitational time dilation). In simple terms. Hence implied. As the space and time dimensions have the same status in GR, presumably you think that distance is also a form of energy.
koti Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Strange said: As the space and time dimensions have the same status in GR, presumably you think that distance is also a form of energy. As is volume. Presumably.
studiot Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) Quote Romeo22 I hope you don't think posting as an image file let's you off accounting for what you post. I find the above quote by yourself arrogant at best and insulting at worst. That is, of course, apart from it just being plain old fashioned wrong. The theory of physical dimensions and dimensional analysis identifies a handful of fundamental quantities you need to cover the all of the equations of Physics. Mostly the triumvirate of mass, length and time are taught along with an electrical a thermal and an optical one. However it is also possible to transpose these into other sytems based on force or energy for instance. Unfortunately there is one they used to miss out and are only just beginning to teach as standard. This one cannot be substituted, but usually goes by the symbol N or n. Do you know what that is? I can certainly think of it and I am absolutely certain it cannot be transposed into any form of energy. I cannot see how you can hope to discuss more advanced Physics when you are quite wrong about some of the basics. Temperature cannot be a form of energy It is neither a measure of energy quantity nor is it energy itself. It can be defined as that which bestows direction in appropriate circumstances. The original poster here is an outstandingly knowledgeable and capable PhD candidate who has contributed much to this forum and who started this thread specifically to generate help for others in what is a very difficult subject to tie down. I find this unseemly nonsense about basics sullying and degrading for all concerned. Edited January 1, 2019 by studiot
MigL Posted January 1, 2019 Posted January 1, 2019 I couldn't let this go unchallenged... Romeo22 said "Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong." I'm sure Romeo22 is familiar with wave/particle duality in our models of light. Both work well in their INTENDED applications, but Romeo says we must discard one of the models as only one can be right. So what is light, a particle or a wave ? ( or is it both, or maybe, it is actually neither ) 1
Romeo22 Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, beecee said: Gravitational time dilation is caused by gravity and curved spacetime: it is not a form of energy. 12 hours ago, Strange said: As the space and time dimensions have the same status in GR, presumably you think that distance is also a form of energy. @strange I thought about this at length, if energy affects time it will also affect length as the two are entertwined. +1 for that (instead of your usual its nonsense attitude) If you have been following my disscussions of space and as @MigL has pointed out I do not favor the GR view of space-time. So in a flat Minkowski space gravity or a form of quantum gravity based on flat space. This is why I added the implied and why I did not want to discuss it in the first place cause it assumes a model of gravity that assumes a flat Euclidean space. Under this assumption, mass or energy will affect time but not distance and hence the two will be interchangeable. Mass distorts gravity (time) but not space I thought the whole idea of this forum is to discuss phyics -- or better yet the possibilities of physics. I have an MsC physics and have been published. I have no interest in reciting the standard model just to look right and I use a language here that allthe can understand cause of our different disciplines. @studiot I believe you have read widely I see this in many of your responses but some of your posts are wrong like saying temperature is not a form of energy. 13 hours ago, beecee said: Gravitational time dilation is caused by gravity and curved spacetime: it is not a form of energy. Gravity is space-time curvature. Beece what causes gravity, can't you see a bit further than that, and see that this is energy converting from one form to another 10 hours ago, MigL said: I couldn't let this go unchallenged... Romeo22 said "Understand that two models cannot use opposing postulates about space and both describe reality, especially about space. Thus it is an inevitable truth that the other is wrong." I'm sure Romeo22 is familiar with wave/particle duality in our models of light. Both work well in their INTENDED applications, but Romeo says we must discard one of the models as only one can be right. So what is light, a particle or a wave ? ( or is it both, or maybe, it is actually neither ) @migl do you believe that hopefully in the near future a consistent GUT will exist and that in this theory either space will be deformable as in GR or non-deformable as in QT? Although they work well now in their INTENDED disciplines one of them (and many researchers believe this will be GR -- myself included). Will eventually be superseded by a more all encompassing theory, that postulates that space is flat or curved but not both. Where we will understand semi-quantum effects such as Hawking and Unruh radiation. Edited January 2, 2019 by Romeo22
beecee Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Romeo22 said: If you have been following my disscussions of space and as @MigL has pointed out I do not favor the GR view of space-time. Even though it is observationally verified and continues to make successful predictions? In that case I say you are wrong. Quote So in a flat Minkowski space gravity or a form of quantum gravity based on flat space. This is why I added the implied and why I did not want to discuss it in the first place cause it assumes a model of gravity that assumes a flat Euclidean space. Minkowski space and GR do not contradict, other then we don't feel gravity in flat spacetime. Quote Under this assumption, mass or energy will affect time but not distance and hence the two will be interchangeable. Mass distorts gravity (time) but not space Wrong. Mass/energy affect flat spacetime, causing it to curve/warp, the effect that we recognise as gravity. Quote I thought the whole idea of this forum is to discuss phyics -- or better yet the possibilities of physics. I have an MsC physics and have been published. I have no interest in reciting the standard model just to look right and I use a language here that allthe can understand cause of our different disciplines. I have no such degrees but I still say you are wrong. Discuss physics as you will, but this is the mainstream section, not speculation. Quote @studiot I believe you have read widely I see this in many of your responses but some of your posts are wrong like saying temperature is not a form of energy. I agree with studiot. Temperature is simply a measure of heat or energy.. Quote Gravity is space-time curvature. Yes, I didn't say it wasn't. Gravity is spacetime geometry. Quote Beece what causes gravity, can't you see a bit further than that, and see that this is energy converting from one form to another mass/energy causing spacetime curvature or warping resulting in gravity. Time in a great gravity potential will simply appeared to be slowed as we have longer [curved spacetime] paths to travel.
Romeo22 Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 23 minutes ago, beecee said: Even though it is observationally verified and continues to make successful predictions? In that case I say you are wrong. I was going to wait till you have read and understood what I said before I respond you. But... I am talking about its view on SPACE and nothing else. How long did Newton's action at a distance make successful predictions? 26 minutes ago, beecee said: Minkowski space and GR do not contradict, other then we don't feel gravity in flat spacetime. Did I say they contradict? 27 minutes ago, beecee said: I agree with studiot. Temperature is simply a measure of heat or energy.. Wow. Energy= kT. E= mc.c 29 minutes ago, beecee said: Wrong. Mass/energy affect flat spacetime, causing it to curve/warp, the effect that we recognise as gravity. mass/energy causing spacetime curvature or warping resulting in gravity. Time in a great gravity potential will simply appeared to be slowed as we have longer [curved spacetime] paths to travel. Did you actually read where I said a model of gravity that assumes a fixed flat background? Cause u r confusing that with GR LET ME RECAP energy causes gravity causes and gravity causes time (all this is conversion of one form of energy to another). The only reasonable contradiction is the one posed by @strange which I already answered.
studiot Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, beecee said: Quote @studiot I believe you have read widely I see this in many of your responses but some of your posts are wrong like saying temperature is not a form of energy. I agree with studiot. Temperature is simply a measure of heat or energy.. Careful don't get subverted. There is more (heat) energy in the Arctic Ocean than in my little finger yet The Arctic Ocean has a considerably lower temperature (I hope perhaps I died long a go) than my little finger. Edited January 2, 2019 by studiot
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Did you actually read where I said a model of gravity that assumes a fixed flat background? Is there such a model? 3 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: energy causes gravity causes and gravity causes time (all this is conversion of one form of energy to another). The only reasonable contradiction is the one posed by @strange which I already answered. The other reasonable contradiction is that you have no model and no evidence to support this bizarre claim.
studiot Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 Hopefully a moderator will soon split off all the off topic material to where it belongs. This topic is about space.
Romeo22 Posted January 2, 2019 Author Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Strange said: Is there such a model? The other reasonable contradiction is that you have no model and no evidence to support this bizarre claim. Exactly Strange this is why I was resistant to delve too deep on how time is a form of energy in the first place. Because my assumption is only valid in a gravitational time dilation that assumes a fixed background. A fully fledged QT of gravity in Euclidean space. Edited January 2, 2019 by Romeo22
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 19 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Because my assumption is only valid in a gravitational time dilation that assumes a fixed background. A fully fledged QT of gravity in Euclidean space. To be more accurate, you guess that your guess might be valid if anyone ever develops a model where it is valid. Not much of a basis for scientific discussion. 20 minutes ago, Romeo22 said: Exactly Strange this is why I was resistant to delve too deep on how energy is a form of time in the first place. Because it isn’t in any model. Just in your guesswork.
Recommended Posts