Space & Time are non- equiva substances?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Something like to get a splinter in my brain.I don't like 4-D space-time. I will try to explain .... Why are you went to bed, a night for all spatial scales changed in ten time.You are notice anything? Absolutely sure that no, but now the usual time period when you sleep, increase or decrease by 10 times. Did you notice this?

Edited September 12, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
error: non- equivalent

[DrP]

.. Why are you went to bed, a night for all spatial scales changed in ten time.You are notice anything? Absolutely sure that no, but now the usual time period when you sleep, increase or decrease by 10 times. Did you notice this?

 

Yea I did! But I put it down to the experiments at the LHC.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Yea I did! But I put it down to the experiments at the LHC.

 

 

I must think about this...

[iNow]

Did you notice this?

No.

 

 

Also, I am struggling a bit deciding whether I want some of what you're on, or if I truly would be better off just to avoid it altogether. I must think about this...

[traveler]

Something like to get a splinter in my brain.I don't like 4-D space-time. I will try to explain .... Why are you went to bed, a night for all spatial scales changed in ten time.You are notice anything? Absolutely sure that no, but now the usual time period when you sleep, increase or decrease by 10 times. Did you notice this?

 

 

How old does that make me?

[insane_alien]

How old does that make me?

 

3 banana monsters minus a small shrew.

 

makes about as much sense as the rest of this thread.

[Yuri Danoyan]

If the space and time non-equivalent substances, it is not prevents confirm or deny whether the change in time c, G, h? Their dimensions contain both...

[npts2020]

Yuri, it seems obvious to me that English is not your native tongue. I am usually pretty good at interpreting but cannot understand what you are talking about. If you could find someone to help you put your ideas and questions in coherant English or even mathematics, I think you will get better responses. Dont feel badly, though, your command of English is better than my command of any language other than English.

[Yuri Danoyan]

I try used google translator

[npts2020]

That is unfortunate, because much is lost in translation, to the point of anybody responding trying to imagine what the real question you are asking is.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Who should be, he will certainly understand ..

[Yuri Danoyan]

New edition:

If the space and time non-equivalent substances, it is prevents to understand c,G,h, changed in time or not? Their dimensions contain both...

[Yuri Danoyan]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space

[Severian]

I think he is saying that if you changed all space-length scales by a factor of 10, you would not notice (since everything you would compare to would also be rescaled) but you would notice if you rescaled time by a factor of 10. Therefore, space and time are not equivalent.

 

I would counter this by saying that you would not notice the rescaling of time either, since all of your thought processes would now be working at the new scale.

[Mr Skeptic]

Of course space and time are not equivalent. We measure velocities via change in spatial distance over change in time.

[Severian]

Of course space and time are not equivalent. We measure velocities via change in spatial distance over change in time.

 

And we measure gradients via change in one spatial dimension with respect to another. Does that make different space dimensions inequivalent too?

[michel123456]

Severian is right.

 

I think time & space are more complicated.

We use to think that space is understood, & that time is not.

The basic unit of space is distance.

Q: Is distance independent of time?

We know that we cannot travel distance without spending time.

Just like time was "inside" the distance.

 

Q: Do we really know what the word "distance" means?

[Christian Feldm]

Special relativty theory says, how to transform the mesurments from one inertial systhem into another, or more explecit , what an observer in the outher inertial systhem would messure for time and room distances comperte with jour mesurments .

 

When your systhem, observed from the other,has nearly the velocity of light, the other observer for example will mesure, that your hour, has only 6 minutes , since you are in your systhem in rest , for youself there will be no effect !

 

The analoge effect works for things like length contradiction.

 

Unefected of this , there is (at least in special relativity theory) an great difference between the 3 room dimensions and the forth dimension the time , this is , that you can move in space in every direction you wan`t, but in time only foreward never backwards.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If there would be a third inertialsysthem with another velocity then the two others ,an observer in it will measure also another "tempo" of time for the inertialsysthem were you are in rest ("or where you go to bed" ) then the other two , but that`s exactly what Albert Einstein told the world : in nature there is no room for Newtons absolute time (for his absolute room also not ) each observer has his on time .

[michel123456]

Special relativty theory says,(...etc.) (...) ...each observer has his on time .

 

Right. Except spelling.

 

But

 

You said "you can move in space in every direction you wan`t, but in time only foreward never backwards", which is the regular way to think.

Because I am not a "regular thinker", I will dare to ask the question "why aren't there negative distances?"

Space is considered exactly as Time i.e. Space is positive. Negative Space do not exist, exactly as negative Time do not exist.

When a lot of people is actually asking and assembling more or less fallacious theories about negative time, when you can discuss seriously for hours about negative time, discussion about negative space is not even considered.

It is so evident that space is always positive that its definition does not even mention it. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

 

Time is exactly as Space: always positive.

 

(I hope my spelling O.K.)

Edited December 11, 2009 by michel123456

[Christian Feldm]

It`s right that time and space are measured in positive units, the same works for things like mass, it`s always measured for example in kg , if you now have for example a mass of 5 kg you could take 2 kg away and get a new mass of 3 kg without have to define something like "negative mass ".

 

The same thing is with distances , you can fly from New York to Berlin, there take your plane home to the USA, and arrive back in New York also without having the nessesary to define something like negative distances.

 

But if you are born for example in 1990 you could (If you not believe in theorys who say, you just have to jump into an whorm whole) not go back to the day of your birthday, also that should be possible, if you could change your direction in moving in time , if this change of direction would be possible , you would be able to go 19 Years of possitive distance in the backward direction and reach your birthday.

[michel123456]

Woaw.

 

So you agree that positive distance in Space is related to positive time...in Time.

Sorry.

Again.

So you agree that positive distance in Space is related to positive duration in Time.

Edited December 11, 2009 by michel123456

[Christian Feldm]

Ok!

 

I agree that positive distance in space is somehow related to positive duration in time !

 

But : when you regard the mathematical theory of Lorenztransformations in special relativity theory in the Minkowsky space, there you would see that there is a fundamental difference between the two quantitys .

 

Say it shortly :

 

This theory says that for a point in the 4D space : x raise too the power of 2 +y raise two the power of 2 + Y raise to......

minus ! c multiplied with t raise to the power of two is equivalent for every inertialsysthem !

 

So when you obsere something in one inertialsysthem witch there has perhaps had no time duration, the same thing observed from another inertialsysthem had a mixture of time and space components !

 

But the minus in front of the time component (c is the velocity of light ) shows that room and time not exactly the same .

 

 

You will find this in every university book on special relativity theory.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Back to my former argumentation !

 

Say : positive distances in space equal positive durations in time !

 

Then there is still the fact that you could move a possitive distance of space everywhere , also in the exactly opposite direction you had moved before , but you will never be able too move an positive duration of, for example 80 years into history (to do a great job for mankind in killing Adolf Hitler! ).

 

You only could move into the future !

[npts2020]

How would moving into the future work? Afaik time slows down as you accelerate to the speed of light (and possibly goes backwards when you exceed it) but I don't understand how you could go "slower" than your current frame of reference in order to speed up time.

[michel123456]

All that we can observe lie in the past. When we are considering positive time, it is the past. When we are considering (positive) space, it is space in the past.

In order to get an idea of what we are discussing, we need a space-time diagram.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

The past is the low green triangle. It is (as commonly believed) what we can observe, i.e. the observable universe. It is what we are considering as positive.

The future is the upper pink triangle. It is not observable. The negative sign on the diagram is an assumption.

The "real" Universe lies entirely into 3D space and belongs to present time (the horizontal line on the diagram). It is not observable.

[Christian Feldm]

.....interpretation of it .

 

But : from the fact, that we can only observe the past, does not follow, that we can move into the past , we move allways in the jet unknown future !

 

I have thought about our former discussion and would like to bring our opposite opinions to an point ! : from the fact that positive distances in space equal positive durations in time you conclude that this must inplicade that the possibility of movement in every direction must also be given for both (why ??? ) - I don`t agree with that !

 

I think we should end our discusion here !