Feedback on Farsight's RELATIVITY+ "scientific paper"

[Farsight]

Help me out here. Imagine the hairball where every hair follows the same curved path where the curvature decreases with increasing distance from the centre. A logarithmic spiral isn't what I had in mind. I've been having a browse, and none of the spirals look right. This exponential curve looks more promising:

 

http://www.2dcurves.com/exponential/exponentiale.html

 

I'll look at it some more but I've got to go now.

[Mr Skeptic]

Help me out here. Imagine the hairball where every hair follows the same curved path where the curvature decreases with increasing distance from the centre. A logarithmic spiral isn't what I had in mind. I've been having a browse, and none of the spirals look right. This exponential curve looks more promising:

 

http://www.2dcurves.com/exponential/exponentiale.html

 

I'll look at it some more but I've got to go now.

 

One thing I did was draw "spokes" on a balloon spread over the mouth of a jar, then twist the center. To a crude approximation, the spirals looked like hyperbolic spirals, which is why I suggested that. However, the edges of the jar were too close and interfering. I also can't get a good 3D version of such spirals by playing and I'm not sure if I know enough maths or have enough time.

 

How about a bunch of 2D spirals radiating from the center instead?

[Fred56]

Ahem. Sorry to detract from the spiral discussion, but:

 

Motion happens. We see it. Things move through space. We have evidence of this every day of our lives.

"Happens", "see", "move", "evidence" are all semantics that describe human experience. This is due to our brains not some fundamental principle.

What I said is you don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

This sounds like semantic hair-splitting, sorry.

[bascule]

If you don't want to be viewed as a crackpot, take a few steps to lower your score on Baez' crackpot index.

 

Someone should really make an automatic calculator for that

[ydoaPs]

The vector field is the effect, not the cause.

I was actually thinking the vector field would be spacetime(or space+time, or maybe even just space depending on the dimensions of your model) and the twist field would just be a twisted region of the vector field.

 

 

Ditto for the force. There's no fluid flow. It's just geometry. I have the same issue with "curved spacetime". Gravity is a radial gradient, not curved spacetime. Yes, one could perhaps employ curl and divergence, but when I look things up, the concepts just don't fit with those I've developed here. And with my weak maths, it causes me difficulties.

I'm not seeing your problem. In order for the maths to describe how the cause causes the effect, the maths must describe the effect!

[Farsight]

One thing I did was draw "spokes" on a balloon spread over the mouth of a jar, then twist the center. To a crude approximation, the spirals looked like hyperbolic spirals, which is why I suggested that. However, the edges of the jar were too close and interfering. I also can't get a good 3D version of such spirals by playing and I'm not sure if I know enough maths or have enough time. How about a bunch of 2D spirals radiating from the center instead?

 

That's the sort of hands on "experiment" I get up to. These "spirals" are certainly 3D, and there's an inverse square rule in there describing the curve. Plot x² with the origin at the centre where the charged particle is. It doesn't rotate round the origin, so maybe spiral is the wrong word.

 

fred: I'll get back to you.

 

YourDadOnaPogoStick: Yes, agreed, but we want to know what's it is, not just what it does.

[lakmilis]

farsight, I also work in my philosophy with the same postulate as yourself:

 

Time is the perception of movement (is one of my postulates).

 

I can see a lot from some of the introductory text, that we might think more alike in some fundamental concepts of space, energy than I would of previously thought. Perhaps it will make some more sense to you why I asked in a post if pure space had 0 K or not.

 

If I get the time I will try and read your notes and see if I agree or disagree and if not, why not, and if so, why so.

 

 

for the record, I used to approach relativity and/or space in some similar manner (sorry I only browsed some few of the concepts from your file so I might take it back), but with perhaps principally agreeing with Kaluza-Klein ideas, I was* trying to combine relativity (conceptually at first) with epistomology, thus soem other posters notes earlier in this thread said a few things about concepts vs mathematics which I wished ot comment upon. I agree both with the necessity for the mathematical expression of something physical as its the general language of our exterior reality, yet concepts non-mathematical are also important as these two really go hand in hand.

 

but for a little less positive note perhaps, your ideas or more specifically your rhetoric arguments which follow them tend to be argumentative without the necessary merit. You sound like you wish to create a paradigm in scientific society on a scale like Einstein did for example. After all, don't forget, what you have provided is just interpretations of relativity and space at a hypothetical level; conceptual examples which haven't really shown a disproof or proof for relativity's validity even if you claim things are wrong in relativity.

 

I think from the little I browsed through I might agree with you in some things but stating gravity is stress was it? or space is stress? You have to be consistent, so what are the units of space and gravity? You say we : We call the stress energy, and we call the tension gravity. ..

 

since when did 'we' say this. Energy and stress do not have same units so why do you say we? very demagogical.

 

Ideas though are good and nothign wrong with working out ideas , indeed on this site this approach is often fretted upon but its for healthy reasons.

[Farsight]

Thanks lakmilis. I perhaps think that "pure" space at 0k is no space at all. Do please print the paper out and read it. It involves only 3+1 dimensions, wherein light in a propagating variation in local distance, not in some hidden 4th dimension. It's rather simplistic and lacking rigor, but one has to start somewhere, and so much seems to work out nicely. You'll see that I say energy = stress x volume, and yes, sorry, there are some figures of speech in there such as "we call this stress energy". There will also be some errors, problems, and issues, which is what I'm trying to chase out by being here. I'll be grateful for any feedback you can give. Note that I think relativity is basically correct but is imperfect, or perhaps unfinished is a better word.

 

Fred: guilty your honour. The figures of speech we grow up with colour our thinking. So much so that we find it very difficult to use alternative constructions, or break out of deeply-held concepts and conviction.

[swansont]

YourDadOnaPogoStick: Yes, agreed, but we want to know what's it is, not just what it does.

 

Who is "we?"

[Edtharan]

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ therefore

1 / T = v / λ, flipping both sides over

T / 1 = λ / v, now lose the division by 1

T = λ / v

Does T/1=1/T?

 

As someone who is not familiar with the maths could you help me out here. Thanks.

 

Hold it right there. This "separated by time" is your problem.

What we are discussing here is the nature of Time. What is it? I am attempting to show that your proof against the current concept of Time is incorrect.

 

You are thinking that our concept of Time is based on our concept of a Second. Because you see it this way you end up with a circular loop.

 

A Second is a measure of Time -> A second is defined by a period of Time -> A Second measures that period of Time.

 

That is the circular argument you have put forward. However if you see a Second as only a measure of Time and not in any way a definition of Time (the current concepts), then this circular argument does not exist.

 

Time is what exists between two events -> A second is a measure of that period.

 

No circular argument.

 

If there exists any non spatial "gap" between two events (or you also take into account spatial distances), then what is left between two events is Time.

 

If there is not gap between two events, then they occur simultaneously.

 

It is this Non-Spatial gap that is the important thing.

 

Do you agree: that there can be two events (things that happen) that are not separated by distance (or distance is factored out of it), and that these two events are not simultaneous?

 

If they are not Simultaneous, then there exists some form of separation that is not spatial. But, what is this separation? It is not Movement. What then is it? It is Time.

 

Hold it again. A second has no "length". The only real length associated with a second is how far light would travel during this unit of measurement. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same.

Length/Period can be used interchangeably. What you are doing here is assuming your theory is correct and then applying it as Proof that your theory is correct. This is another Logical Fallacy.

 

Simply put, if you theory is wrong, then my statement is correct. But if your theory is right, then I am incorrect. So presenting this as evidence does not resolve the problem. You must show that a Second has no length, not just claim that it has no length.

 

And the 64,000$ dollar question is: what is a second? What actually is it? You can't show me one.

This question is very easy to answer: A Second is a unit of Measurement.

 

Oh, and next time you at the post office, mail me a Metre. You can't can you. You might be able to mail me a length of wood that is 1 Metre long, but that is a ruler, not a metre.

 

One of my continuing points is that whatever you have tried to do to Time, it can equally be applied to distance. So if Time is a product of Motion, then so to is Distance.

 

But: Without distance, you can not have Displacement, let alone Movement. So, if You can get rid of Time like this then so to you get rid if Distance and there fore Motion.

 

To make an arbitrary decision, based on human perceptions does not prove your claims. As you even pointed out, human perceptions could be an illusion. So any decision to separate Time and Space based solely on the fact that we can't "see" Time is therefore a Logical Fallacy, one that you claimed that we were falling into.

 

The thing we are actually measuring is motion. Not time. That's why I say time is a derived effect of motion.

By this argument: If we Measure Temperature, then it is atomic motion that is the derived effect. But hang on, didn't you say that Temperature was a derived effect of the atomic motions?

 

So if we are measuring Motion, might not then might not Motion therefore be the derived effect of Time as that is the sequence with Temperature that you were using to explain what you meant by "derived from"?

 

What matters is your conviction that time is some kind of dimension that offers freedom of movement.

I have never claimed that Time is a dimension that offers Freedom of Movement. I have claimed that it is a dimension. I have even explained why we can't have freedom of movement in Time. It is You that is making the claim that the current definition of Time is supposed to allow us freedom of Movement like space does.

 

I have shown how you can have a 4th spatial dimension, that under situations where freedom of movement is restricted, it would act like Time.

 

I'll reiterate this here:

 

Imagine a Space Ship travelling through Space. However, this ship is damaged. It's main engines are out so are it's forward and reverse thrusters. However, the Up/Down and Left/Right thrusters are working perfectly.

 

No this ship can't change it's forward speed at all. It has no freedom of movement within that "Dimension".

 

This shows that not having Freedom of Movement, is not dependent on the non-existence of a dimension. A Dimension can exist and you can have no freedom of movement.

 

Now, imagine a sheet of very thin paper (in fact 1 Planck distance thick). Because there is nothing smaller than a Planck Distance, then there is no way for that sheet of paper to apply a forwards or backwards force and therefore change it's velocity.

 

Think of us as living on a 3D membrane that is moving through a 4th dimension, then you will understand how you can have no freedom of movement in the 4th dimension, and still have motion through it.

 

You're not alone in thinking this. Most people do. But it isn't. It's space up there, and down here too. And light and other things move through it. We infer a time dimension from this, but we cant move through it. The moving is only through space.

We can't change our motion through Time because we have no extent in it (that also explains the sense of now - but that is human perception and not part of my argument). But, as I have pointed out, just because we don't have freedom of movement in a dimension, doesn't mean that dimension doesn't exist. Therefore using the fact that we don't (seem) to have freedom of movement in Time, does not prove that it doesn't exist, or that we aren't moving through it.

 

You have made an arbitrary separation between Space and Time, based on the human perception of Space and Not Time. As this is based on perception, and you have argued against using perception as evidence, we can not accept this evidence that you are presenting for this line of argument.

 

What dilemma? Motion happens. We see it.

But how do we know that it is motion as compared to displacement? Easy, there exists a non spatial separation of the events (start and end spatial points).

 

If the two events have no extra, non spatial, separation, then it is displacement, if there is an extra, non spatial separation, then what is it? Time.

 

What I said is you don't need time to have motion.

Yes you do or it is called Displacement. Motion and Displacement are different. Motion requires Time to exist, Displacement can exist even if there is no Time.

 

Motion occurs within Time, therefore Motion must be dependant on Time, not the other way around.

 

You can't move through time. There is no evidence, it isn't scientific.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. However, there is scientific proof that Motion is dependant on Time.

 

There is also evidence that there exists an unperceived 4th dimension that has all the properties that is necessary for it to be Time. The curvature that light shows as it passes a gravitating object can only exist if light doesn't move in straight lines, or that there is a 4th dimension.

 

When object enter into this "Gravity Well" they show a distortion in Time. We know that there is a 4th dimension form the way things (mainly Light) move within that gravity well. The distortions in Time match the distortions that Light would have if Time was that 4th Dimension.

 

So there is actual scientific proof that there is a 4th dimension and that it is Time.

 

Time is just our convention for measuring this motion through space

Wrong again. Distance is the convention of Measuring Motion through space. If something move through Space, then it has moved a Distance, not a Time.

 

comparing it against the motion of light, and counting up the total motion of light since the beginning of the universe or some other marker point.

This is a better definition of the unit of Measurement call a Second. This is not a definition of Time. Just as a Metre is a unit of Measurement for Distance.

 

I think we're going round in circles again with this. Why don't we park it for a while? Thereafter please do try to be succinct and raise one topic at once.

It was one Topic. That you were misrepresenting what the current concept of Time is. I was jut pointing out where you have done this and how it impacts your later conclusions.

 

It was one topic.

[iNow]

I applaud you for your continued patience, Edtharan. I appreciate your consistency and clarity.

[Mr Skeptic]

Farsight, you may just want to drop the whole time and change distinction. You can use time to measure change, or change to measure time, and without one you can't measure the other. Why is this one of your major points though? Nobody things that the definition of how to measure a second is an explanation of what time is.

 

Edtharan: The mathematical arithmetic that Farsight did with time is correct (if one assumes that the wavelengths are the same), even if it is meaningless. As to your other question if 1/T = x, then T = 1/x. just multiply both sides by T and divide both sides by x.

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by Farsight

You need motion to have time.

Can I go one step further: You need motion to have space.

Space and time are emergent quality of motion. I hear you say you cannot have motion without space. I tell you look at the expansion of space: you don't have space but you got motion. You have space only after some motion took place.

 

Posted by Edtharan

But how do we know that it is motion as compared to displacement?

I don't understand what you mean by displacement. Let me guesss: Motion is displacement over time.

[Edtharan]

I don't understand what you mean by displacement. Let me guesss: Motion is displacement over time.

Simply put, Displacement is a change in Position. Motion is a change in Position over a period of Time.

 

The mathematical arithmetic that Farsight did with time is correct (if one assumes that the wavelengths are the same), even if it is meaningless. As to your other question if 1/T = x, then T = 1/x. just multiply both sides by T and divide both sides by x.

Ahh, ok thanks.

[Farsight]

Who is "we?"

People, with our innate curiosity and our desire to understand.

 

Can I go one step further: You need motion to have space. Space and time are emergent quality of motion. I hear you say you cannot have motion without space. I tell you look at the expansion of space: you don't have space but you got motion. You have space only after some motion took place.

I know what you mean. But see the paper, where I say: "..if the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. And when you say "after", note that you are employing time in your conceptual thinking. But OK, I take your point. In a way, motion seems to be all there is. A photon has a motion, that's all it seems to be, and it seems that all material objects are configurations of this motion or "action".

 

Edtharan: please can you try to be more succinct? Your large posts are difficult to respond to.

 

Time is what exists between two events -> A second is a measure of that period. No circular argument.

But nothing "exists" between the two events. Time does not "exist" between two events. That's merely your mistaken concept of time exerting itself as proof of its own concept.

 

If there exists any non spatial "gap" between two events (or you also take into account spatial distances), then what is left between two events is Time. If there is not gap between two events, then they occur simultaneously. It is this Non-Spatial gap that is the important thing.

And how do we measure this gap? The second is defined using the hyperfine transition, the electron is a photon configuration, and all we're doing is totting up the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. We are measuring the "gap" only in terms of the spatial distance travelled by light!

 

Do you agree: that there can be two events (things that happen) that are not separated by distance (or distance is factored out of it), and that these two events are not simultaneous?

I agree that there can be two non-simultaneous events at the same location, but I don't agree that you can remove all reference to distance. The time between the events is associated with the distance moved by light in electrons, atoms, brains, clocks, et cetera.

 

If they are not Simultaneous, then there exists some form of separation that is not spatial. But, what is this separation? It is not Movement. What then is it? It is Time. Length/Period can be used interchangeably. What you are doing here is assuming your theory is correct and then applying it as Proof that your theory is correct. This is another Logical Fallacy.

You're doing this, not me. You're using your current concept of time as proof of that concept. Length/Period should not be used interchangeably. Yes, a period of time is associated with a distance travelled by light, and we talk about a light year as a distance, but we should always remember that a length involves metres, not seconds. A duration involves seconds.

 

Simply put, if you theory is wrong, then my statement is correct. But if your theory is right, then I am incorrect. So presenting this as evidence does not resolve the problem. You must show that a Second has no length, not just claim that it has no length.

Show me the length of it! You can't. There is no evidence to support your view that time is a length. It is simply untenable. The only length we can associate with time is the spatial distance light can travel during your "gap". And this travel is through our existing three dimensions of space.

 

(Farsight:And the 64,000$ dollar question is: what is a second?)This question is very easy to answer: A Second is a unit of Measurement. Oh, and next time you at the post office, mail me a Metre. You can't can you. You might be able to mail me a length of wood that is 1 Metre long, but that is a ruler, not a metre.

And I can't mail you a kilo, or a Joule, or an action, or a motion. But I can show you a metre, and but you can't show me a second. All you can do is count the motions in your watch then declare that a second has "passed". Whoosh. There it goes.

 

One of my continuing points is that whatever you have tried to do to Time, it can equally be applied to distance. So if Time is a product of Motion, then so to is Distance. But: Without distance, you can not have Displacement, let alone Movement. So, if You can get rid of Time like this then so to you get rid if Distance and therefore Motion.

Not so. Here you go: If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded. We observe three dimensions of space, plus motion through it.

 

To make an arbitrary decision, based on human perceptions does not prove your claims. As you even pointed out, human perceptions could be an illusion. So any decision to separate Time and Space based solely on the fact that we can't "see" Time is therefore a Logical Fallacy, one that you claimed that we were falling into.

No it isn't. It's quite plain. See above. We can have space without motion, no problem. But not time.

 

By this argument: If we Measure Temperature, then it is atomic motion that is the derived effect. But hang on, didn't you say that Temperature was a derived effect of the atomic motions? So if we are measuring Motion, might not then might not Motion therefore be the derived effect of Time as that is the sequence with Temperature that you were using to explain what you meant by "derived from"?

Look up derived effect. Also look up emergent property.

 

I have never claimed that Time is a dimension that offers Freedom of Movement. I have claimed that it is a dimension. I have even explained why we can't have freedom of movement in Time. It is You that is making the claim that the current definition of Time is supposed to allow us freedom of Movement like space does.

I'll check up on this. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies.

 

I have shown how you can have a 4th spatial dimension, that under situations where freedom of movement is restricted, it would act like Time. I'll reiterate this here: Imagine a Space Ship travelling through Space. However, this ship is damaged. It's main engines are out so are it's forward and reverse thrusters. However, the Up/Down and Left/Right thrusters are working perfectly. Now this ship can't change it's forward speed at all. It has no freedom of movement within that "Dimension". This shows that not having Freedom of Movement, is not dependent on the non-existence of a dimension. A Dimension can exist and you can have no freedom of movement.

 

Now, imagine a sheet of very thin paper (in fact 1 Planck distance thick). Because there is nothing smaller than a Planck Distance, then there is no way for that sheet of paper to apply a forwards or backwards force and therefore change its velocity.

 

Think of us as living on a 3D membrane that is moving through a 4th dimension, then you will understand how you can have no freedom of movement in the 4th dimension, and still have motion through it.

 

But we are not! We live in a three dimensional space, and we can move through it. That's what's there. That's what we see. A fourth dimension is an abstraction, it is a fourth dimension in a mathematical "space", not actual space. It simply isn't there. What's there is 3D space and motion through it.

 

We can't change our motion through Time because we have no extent in it (that also explains the sense of now - but that is human perception and not part of my argument). But, as I have pointed out, just because we don't have freedom of movement in a dimension, doesn't mean that dimension doesn't exist. Therefore using the fact that we don't (seem) to have freedom of movement in Time, does not prove that it doesn't exist, or that we aren't moving through it. You have made an arbitrary separation between Space and Time, based on the human perception of Space and Not Time. As this is based on perception, and you have argued against using perception as evidence, we can not accept this evidence that you are presenting for this line of argument.

But there is no evidence for any fourth dimension that we are "moving" through. It is pure abstraction and convention, with no foundation in fact.

 

But how do we know that it is motion as compared to displacement? Easy, there exists a non spatial separation of the events (start and end spatial points). If the two events have no extra, non spatial, separation, then it is displacement, if there is an extra, non spatial separation, then what is it? Time.

No, it's motion. Motion of light, electrons, atoms, et cetera, see above.

 

Motion occurs within Time, therefore Motion must be dependant on Time, not the other way around.

No it doesn't. There you go again. Using your concept of time to justify your concept of time. Totally circular. Motion occurs through space. The +1 time "dimension" is derived from this.

 

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. However, there is scientific proof that Motion is dependant on Time. There is also evidence that there exists an unperceived 4th dimension that has all the properties that is necessary for it to be Time. The curvature that light shows as it passes a gravitating object can only exist if light doesn't move in straight lines, or that there is a 4th dimension.

No, there is no evidence. The Shapiro Effect is described as being caused by "spacetime curvature". But what actually happens is that light takes a greater duration to skirt the sun. It's as simple as that. The light moves slower!

 

When object enter into this "Gravity Well" they show a distortion in Time. We know that there is a 4th dimension from the way things (mainly Light) move within that gravity well. The distortions in Time match the distortions that Light would have if Time was that 4th Dimension.

No. We have 3+1 dimensions. And sometimes the light propagates through space at a different rate because the properties of space are not uniform. It's that simple.

 

So there is actual scientific proof that there is a 4th dimension and that it is Time.

No there isn't! You cling to an interpretation that justifies your concept, claim evidence for this interpretation when there is none, and dismiss the simpler explanation that tells it how it is.

 

Wrong again. Distance is the convention of Measuring Motion through space. If something move through Space, then it has moved a Distance, not a Time.

When measuring motion we customarily employ distance and time together as speed. Distance does not necessarily involve motion through that distance.

 

No more big posts please Edtharan. They disrupt the thread.

[Edtharan]

I'll keep this quite short:

 

f the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded. We observe three dimensions of space, plus motion through it.

If there exist a single object in space and no other, then according to your opinion we can't have motion. Without the ability to have motion, then we can't have Time.

 

Ok, how about change?

 

If we have a single particle in the universe, and it undergoes an internal state change (no motion at all), we can still determine Time .

 

So, does this mean that Time is more fundamental than space and that we then derive space from Time?

 

(please note I have don't know if Time is more fundamental than space, but using your thought experiment it seems to indicate that it is, rather that Time being dependant on motion through space).

 

But nothing "exists" between the two events. Time does not "exist" between two events. That's merely your mistaken concept of time exerting itself as proof of its own concept.

It is your claim that Time doesn't "exist" between events. The current definition of Time is that it does. You have to disprove that before you can make that claim.

 

It is your claim that Time doesn't exist between events and then using that as disproof against the current theories, is a logical fallacy.

 

To show you why, I'll do exactly the same to your theory: Space doesn't exist, therefore you can not have any gap between object, if there is no gap between objects then you can not have movement and so that disproves your theory.

 

I wouldn't accept that argument I posted above against space existing, but that is the exact same argument that you are using against Time existing. If you can't accept that augment against space, then you can't accept your arguments against Time existing.

[swansont]

Edtharan: please can you try to be more succinct? Your large posts are difficult to respond to.

 

No more big posts please Edtharan.

 

As an aside, I'm getting tired of reading this. You have a forty frikkin' page pdf file, and nobody has told you to boil it down to a few lines.

 

But the larger issue is that it wouldn't do any good. Even if he did respond in smaller posts, the board software would stitch them together. Perhaps you've noticed the addenda like

"Last edited by Farsight : 10-09-2007 at 09:14 AM. Reason: multiple post merged" (in post 24)

Chances are you didn't merge the posts yourself. You responded to two separate posts in a short time frame, and the board software merged them automatically, to cut down on the number of posts.

[Fred56]

My biggest question about his conjecture:

But the only measure of this separation that we actually have is in terms of the motion of light.

is: what the hell did people do to tell the time before we developed the technology to "measure" the motion of light?

[Farsight]

I'll keep this quite short: If there exist a single object in space and no other, then according to your opinion we can't have motion. Without the ability to have motion, then we can't have Time. Ok, how about change? If we have a single particle in the universe, and it undergoes an internal state change (no motion at all), we can still determine Time.

You can't have an internal state change without some motion. Consider a nice simple particle like an electron. It exhibits jitter or "zitterbewegung". You can create one along with a positron from a gamma photon using pair production, and destroy it via annihilation with the positron, yielding two half-sized gamma photons. All the electron ever really was, was a photon "tied in a knot". The photon is moving, whizzing around inside. The electorn is chock full of motion. In a way, that's all it is. You can't have a particle without motion, never mind a "state change".

 

So, does this mean that Time is more fundamental than space and that we then derive space from Time? (please note I have don't know if Time is more fundamental than space, but using your thought experiment it seems to indicate that it is, rather that Time being dependant on motion through space).

No.

 

It is your claim that Time doesn't "exist" between events. The current definition of Time is that it does. You have to disprove that before you can make that claim. It is your claim that Time doesn't exist between events and then using that as disproof against the current theories, is a logical fallacy.

Note that I say time exists like heat exists. When you look beyond heat you see the underlying motion. Ditto for time. Your concept of time is that it "exists" as a fourth dimension between events, and you're overlooking the underlying motion in the three dimensions that are there.

 

To show you why, I'll do exactly the same to your theory: Space doesn't exist, therefore you can not have any gap between object, if there is no gap between objects then you can not have movement and so that disproves your theory.

No it doesn't. Come on Ed. I can show you space. We can stretch our arms out across the width of that gap. It's there.

 

I wouldn't accept that argument I posted above against space existing, but that is the exact same argument that you are using against Time existing. If you can't accept that augment against space, then you can't accept your arguments against Time existing.

Like I said, time exists like heat exists. It just isn't what you think it is. Thanks for the shorter post.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Swanson: so sorry. But Edtharan and I have been discussing this for quite some time, and IMHO his long posts make life somewhat confusing. Yes, I know it merges posts. That's why I put in the separator asterisks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fred: they used the motion of the earth. Sundials. Or pendulums. Or water. Motion motion motion. Read the paper. Time is just the start of it. IMHO understanding time really is the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If anybody wants a summary of my 40-page pdf file, see the conclusion on page 35.

[Klaynos]

I have asked you this before and you have never replied. How come if time is not a dimention, it appears in the 4-vector, and there is a lorentz invariant function [math]s^2 = \sum dimention^2 = t^2c^2+x^2+y^2+z^2[/math]

 

Surly if it was not a dimention then the invariant would be s²=x²+y²+z²

 

You can't have an internal state change without some motion. Consider a nice simple particle like an electron. It exhibits jitter or "zitterbewegung". You can create one along with a positron from a gamma photon using pair production, and destroy it via annihilation with the positron, yielding two half-sized gamma photons. All the electron ever really was, was a photon "tied in a knot". The photon is moving, whizzing around inside. The electorn is chock full of motion. In a way, that's all it is. You can't have a particle without motion, never mind a "state change".

 

Replying similarly to how you have on several points...

 

No it doesn't. The electron is not a knotted photon, you have not shown this in any way.

 

Also, how would you measure a distance without any form of motion?

[Farsight]

Sorry if I didn't reply prevoiusly. It wasn't intentional. Time is a dimension in that you can measure it. But you can't move through it like you can move through the three dimensions of space. And what you're really measuring isn't time, it's motion through the three dimensions of space. Where there's no apparent motion and you're merely sitting there looking at your watch, there is motion. It's going on all the time, in your electrons and atoms, and in your watch and in your brain.

 

Re the photon, see paper pages 10, 11, 26, 27 and references 9 and 19.

 

How would you measure a distance without any form of motion? Observe a ruler. But see Jacques' post and my response - in a way, motion is all. You couldn't even observe the ruler if light didn't move to your eye and signals didn't move through your brain.

[Klaynos]

How would you measure a distance without any form of motion? Observe a ruler. But see Jacques' post and my response - in a way, motion is all. You couldn't even observe the ruler if light didn't move to your eye and signals didn't move through your brain.

 

I'm on my way to a lecture....

 

But how is that any different from time then?

[Jacques]

Simply put, Displacement is a change in Position. Motion is a change in Position over a period of Time.

The word "change" imply time. Maybe you mean distance instead of displacement... ?

[timo]

Off-topic:

Dunno if it was just a typo or if you really got some fundamental point of relativity wrong. Either way, some others in here will not know, so I think I should comment on it:

[Time] appears in the 4-vector, and there is a lorentz invariant function [math]s^2 = \sum dimention^2 = t^2c^2+x^2+y^2+z^2[/math]

That is not a lorentz invariant function, you got some (important) signs wrong. The (tc)² term and the x²...z² terms must have different signs, i.e.

[math] s^2 = \pm \left( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2c^2 \right) [/math], with the chosen sign for [math]\pm[/math] (plus or minus) being a sign convention (an arbitrary choice at some point).

[D H]

As an aside, I'm getting tired of reading this. You have a forty frikkin' page pdf file, and nobody has told you to boil it down to a few lines.

 

I said off the bat that it is too doggone long.

 

Farsight, besides being too long, wrong about time, and utterly lacking in math, your paper addresses too many topics.

 

Your paper does contain one topic worthy of note, twist, but its not new. Others have beat you to it:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510052, Geometry from quantum particles, David W. Kribs and Fotini Markopoulou

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1312, On Braid Excitations in Quantum Gravity, Yidun Wan

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1548, Propagation and interaction of chiral states in quantum gravity, Lee Smolin and Yidun Wan