childishly introducing time

[michel123456]

I post it as a basic from the basics, as I see it.

This a representation of a point standing still:

Of course "standing still" is something physically frame dependent, it means for an observator named A (Albert, Alfred, Antony, Anastasia, Anyone), no displacement: Alfred sits on his chair doing nothing.

We can represent the situation like this (you must have noticed I like diagrams):

Antony (or was that Andrea?) is standing still. Better say A observes himself standing still.

 

But there is something wrong here. No displacement in space is only one side of the "standing still" phenomena. Time is elapsing, no matter Anastasia is moving or not.

So we have to represent the "standing still" diagramma as follows:

Is this correct?

[DJBruce]

That diagram is correct although the labeling for your x-axis is somewhat unorthodox. The diagram you are seeking to construct is simply a position-time graph, also know as a displacement time graph. They are used quite frequently in basic level physics.

 

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1Dkin/U1L3a.cfm

[ydoaPs]

Graphs like that are how we can graphically find velocities, etc(although time is usually the x-axis).

[michel123456]

I am not interested in velocities...yet. If I were I would have drawn the velocity of light as observed by Allan, in obtaining a kind of Minkowski diagram.

 

Let's stay to the "standing still" situation.

Observer A looks like he was translated in Time. But that may be a bit confusing. Andrea could be Really standing still, and in this case Time is "passing by". It is just a matter of Frame of Reference, not in Space, but in Time.

The only thing we can be sure of is the following: either observer A "moves" through Time, either Time "passes through" him, no matter, there is no energy need. Exactly the same way no force is needed for motion, no force is needed for "displacement in time" (here we have a lack of vocabulary).

[swansont]

Exactly the same way no force is needed for motion, no force is needed for "displacement in time" (here we have a lack of vocabulary).

 

But you can arbitrarily choose to be at rest, spatially. The velocity four-vector is invariant — a constant when you are in flat spacetime, regardless of your coordinate system.

[michel123456]

But you can arbitrarily choose to be at rest, spatially. The velocity four-vector is invariant — a constant when you are in flat spacetime, regardless of your coordinate system.

 

Yes. There is a difference between the horizontal & vertical axis. You cannot choose to be "at rest" in Time.

[ydoaPs]

You cannot choose to be "at rest" in Time.

 

Sure you can(if it were possible to accelerate mass to c in one of the spatial dimensions). The 4-vector velocity is c. Changing your speed in one dimension changes it in all the rest.

[michel123456]

Oops, slept away. talking about velocities. I would like to remain on standing still Anna.

[ydoaPs]

'Standing Still' Alfred is still moving. V=c always. Also, with respect to whom is Albert standing still?

[michel123456]

Not Albert, Anastasia.

She is standing as observed by herself.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anastasia stands still on her chair waiting for time to pass. She needs no force to do that. She is sliding gently in Time without noticing anything. Exactly the same way, she could be sliding gently into space, without spending any energy, without noticing anything. Actually, for many another observers in other FOR, she is moving gently through space.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The word "gently" means "uniform linear motion".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Because if it was not uniform linear motion, but accelerated motion for example, she would observe something: a force. She would know that she is not standing still.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In other words, if Albert felt a force upon him when sitting on his chair, he could assume that he is certainly moving. Either in space, either in time, either in both Space & Time.

Correct?

Edited December 27, 2009 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[ydoaPs]

She is standing as observed by herself.

 

As long as she's not accelerating, Ashley is always at rest in her own reference frame.

[michel123456]

So, Ashley is sitting at rest on her chair, feeling no force.

Everyone agree. Alek, Alfred, Anastasia, All agree.

Except little Albert who says:"Well, actually, my friend Isaac is feeling a force". An apple just bumped upon his head.(Isaac's head, not Albert's)

Silence in the classroom.

Nonsense says the professor, there are in fact 4 forces anyone is subject to, just standing still upon his chair. These are the 4 interactions, which are 1 the Electromagnetic, 2 the Weak force, 3 the Strong force, and 4 Gravity. The force Isaac felt upon his head is Gravity and is an interaction of little particles called gravitons, it has nothing to do with motion.

Little Albert raise his hand. "Actually, gravity is quite the same with the force due to accelerated motion, he says."

Silence in the classroom.

Nonsense says the professor.

 

Amelia is feeling a force due to accelerated motion, we call Gravity. She sits at rest on her chair, doing nothing, sliding gently into Time.

[swansont]

But if Bernice is on a different floor of the building, her clock rate is different from Amelia's.

[michel123456]

Right. Bernard is subjected to earth's gravitation. But Aaron feels gravity from its own body, even if he was in empty space. under no external gravitational field, his whisky will turn into a sphere.

 

Amelia is feeling a force due to accelerated motion, we call Gravity

How is that possible? And why don't you shoot me for having said such a monstruosity?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I hope I let enough time to interact.

 

The assumption "Amelia is feeling a force due to accelerated motion, we call Gravity" is terribly wrong. I wonder how it could pass through without being shutted down.

Because it was posed from the first beginning that Alfonso was standing at rest. The motion we are talking about is not motion, it is "motion through time". We have been the victims of vocabulary.

I should have stated that "Andre is feeling a force due to translation in time, we call Gravity, and this force is the same with the force due to accelerated motion".

In order to make things more clear, you can discard the second part of the sentence and put simply that:

_Anyone is feeling a force due to translation in Time, we call Gravity.

 

Michel.

Edited December 28, 2009 by michel123456

[forufes]

up till #11 was exhilirating, then when the fantastic four appeared in #12 i started to lose it..

[michel123456]

exhilarating

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anyone is feeling a force due to translation in Time, we call Gravity.

 

Wrong. It is a crap.

Gravity is due to mass, not to time.

Michel is linking Gravity to Time in a misleading way.

Time is one thing, Gravity another. The one is duration, the other is a force.

Michel is a step away of saying that Time & Gravity are the one and same thing. I hope he will not dare making such an absurd assumption.

 

The Einstein's equivalence principle is not enough to equalize acceleration in space with "traveling in time". Gravity is defenitely an attractive force due to mass. Traveling. No, at rest. Traveling into time. Okay.

 

There is a fundamental difference between Time and Gravity. Time is a one-way concept. Time flows in only one direction, unlike Gravity which is both attractive & repulsive. Hum, not really. Only attractive actually.

Anyway. If Time was the same thing with Gravity we would encounter paradoxal situations, in which for example an object that has no mass would experience no time. And that is completely contrary to observation. except for photons, of course. Hm.

Well, how could he talk in the first place and introduce the concept of force in a diagram that has only Time & Space? Where is mass in this diagram?

 

(words from the right side of my brain)

 

Let's introduce mass. Here we are:

[jajrussel]

Time measures the effect of energy. I have forgotten who is or is not at rest, and exactly where they are in respect to each other, but so long as they reside where there is energy the effect can be measured with apparent differences should any of them choose to do so.

I do like your style michel123456, so please do lead on, and I will try to keep up. Even if it does mean that I have to figure out where you have put everyone, and why you have put them there.

[michel123456]

Time measures the effect of energy. I have forgotten who is or is not at rest, and exactly where they are in respect to each other, but so long as they reside where there is energy the effect can be measured with apparent differences should any of them choose to do so.

I do like your style michel123456, so please do lead on, and I will try to keep up. Even if it does mean that I have to figure out where you have put everyone, and why you have put them there.

 

All are at rest.

Figure yourself in the workshop of Galileo Galilei 500 years ago. You are not alone. Galileo is there, Isaac is there too, and Albert. You are discussing the spheres of different masses Galileo has prepared for his experiment on an inclined plane.

You are discussing the spheres at rest, before they go into motion.

 

The last diagram I presented has five dimensions. Time is the one, Space has 3 dimensions (reduced to one on the diagram). That makes four. The 5th dimension is given by Mass. (is Mass a dimension, I don't know, maybe it is completely wrong and abusive, be careful with what I say). Here below the diagram again (bis repetita placent):

It is dedicated to Mooyepoo who wanted to know where MT came from (see thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46963)

[jajrussel]

MT = The Universe. I haven't checked out your other thread close enough to know if it has a logical reason for being where it is. The assumption here being space/time.

 

To this thread.

You imply that all are at rest. Where am I to see this in your diagrams?

You start off by saying, this is an example of A point standing still. That would make it a time coordinate, nothing else stands still. Any of your people can reach point A, but none of them can remain there, and point A will have a different meaning for each person because point A is a lot bigger than it looks. Each person can only see a portion of point A, thus they see it as a point in the past, then as memory. The only way they can begin to describe it is by saying this is an example of A point standing still.

All of which assumes movement, so how can any of them be at rest?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I forgot for a moment that you have a right to claim them at rest. At least your claim is logical. If one is at rest they all have to be at rest. It is like taking a photograph, nothing in the picture moves.

[michel123456]

The "at rest" situation is the most bizarre. All you physics books, from the right beginning, are interested in motion. When you ask someone what happens at rest, he will answer you that to be at rest or to be in motion is just a matter of Frame Of Reference. So, instead of postulating that A is moving, I can postulate that A is at rest. In this case, I know what FOR to choose, it is the FOR of point A itself. Examining what happens in this specific situation (a examing himself), we can see that "something" is happening. That "something" is what we call "time". And if we exclude all the metaphysical and philosophical blah blah, we can see that the situation of being "at rest" is simply a translation in time. Exactly similar to motion. Except that in this case, it is not motion in space, but "motion in time", a concept that has IMO no specific name in physics.

 

Wow, that was a long disgression.

You are in Galileo's workshop, with Isaac and Albert. What an opportunity. Let's see what they are discussing. They are examining Galileo's balls. Spheres. He has fabricated three spheres of exactly same radius, but of different mass. The one is in wood, the second in bronze, the third in polypropylene. You are presenting the above diagram you borrowed from this forum, and ask Galileo to represent one of his sphere. The greatest mind of all times (Galileo), draws the following diagram:

 

fig.01

 

Isaac ,the greatest mind of all times, takes a look and understand immediately that Galileo is not used to this kind of representation. He says, sorry Master, I think I can make some improvement to this representation. The sphere you know as a 3 dimensionnal object cannot simply be drawn this way, because the 3d space has been reduced to a single line. So the entire volume of the sphere must be reduced to a segment. And, as I have shown in my Theory (have you read it?) the entire mass of the sphere can be represented as if it where concentrated into its center of mass. As a matter of consequence, the sphere must be represented as follows:

fig.02

 

Albert, the greatest mind of all times, takes a look at Isaac's drawing. Well, this is surely an improvement, my dear Isaac, but you forgot Time. In my Theory (have you read it?) nothing can travel faster than C. In order to be accurate, independently of the size of the sphere, be it a small wooden sphere in a laboratory, or a huge planet, the principle is the same. In regard with an observator standing at point A of the diagram, the existence of the sphere takes place both in space & in time, because time & space are a continuum. So that the sphere should be represented extending in the past as follows:

fig.03

 

Galileo is surprised, but the greatest mind of all times understands everything. Something bothers him.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To be continued.

Edited January 2, 2010 by michel123456

[michel123456]

Galileo don't know anything about Relativity, but he knows about Euclidian geometry.

Dear Isaac, he says, I have not read your papers, but I believe in your mathematical capacities. Following your calculations, you just said that we can put all the mass of the sphere at its center. You may be right, but let me represent the sphere's mass as I know, as a man of my epoch.

Galileo takes a pencil and presents the following graph:

fig.04

 

As I know, a sphere has much mass at its surface than at its center.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The Mass of a sphere of unitary mass density is given by

[math]

{M}= \frac{4\pi R^3}{3}

[/math]

 

_I know that, says Isaac abruptly. Let me continue, Leo. Can I call you Leo?

_You're welcome, Isaac, answers Galileo.

_Please call me "Sir" says Isaac.

The greatest mind off Humanity (Isaac) picks his pocket calculator and goes on:

Radius-----Mass

1----------4.1888

2---------33.51

3--------113.10

4--------268.08

5--------523.60

6--------904.78

7-------1436.8

8-------2144.7

9-------3053.6

10------4188.8

_You can see that the increase of mass becomes rapidly huge. The first unit of radius corresponds to a mass 4.18, the last unit of radius corresponds to a mass increase of 1135.2. Elementary calculation, Leo. But in my work (have you read it?) I showed that all this calculation is unnecessary. You can assume the entire mass is exactly at the center of gravity, The result is exactly the same. And how convenient.

 

_Hm, Sir, if you permit, I didn't want actually to interfere with your work (no I did not read it). I wanted to ask Albert a question.

_Al, can I call you Al?

_You're welcome Leo.

The greatest mind of humanity (Galileo) picks his pencil again and makes the following sketch:

 

fig.05

 

The greatest mind of humanity (Albert) looks at the graph. Something strange happens there. Surely an error: mass is null at present time.

Edited January 10, 2010 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[ponderer]

I post it as a basic from the basics, as I see it.

This a representation of a point standing still:

Of course "standing still" is something physically frame dependent, it means for an observator named A (Albert, Alfred, Antony, Anastasia, Anyone), no displacement: Alfred sits on his chair doing nothing.

We can represent the situation like this (you must have noticed I like diagrams):

Antony (or was that Andrea?) is standing still. Better say A observes himself standing still.

 

But there is something wrong here. No displacement in space is only one side of the "standing still" phenomena. Time is elapsing, no matter Anastasia is moving or not.

So we have to represent the "standing still" diagramma as follows:

Is this correct?

 

On a basic philosophical level, no the diagram is incorrect.

 

Your first problem is Alfred. Alfred consists a host of moving parts. Time passage is marked by the movement of Alfred's parts.

 

Let us consider a 3D Euclidean space.

 

Nothing exist in the whole universe.

 

Now we introduce one thing into this universe that has no moving parts, but is some homogenous thing fundamentally different in some way from its surroundings.

 

Time does not pass in this universe.

 

Time can only pass if there is change. Change is brought about by motion. Time cannot pass without relative motion of some sort.

 

Motion and time are fundamentally entwined, with space, since you cannot have motion without displacement.

[michel123456]

Let us consider a 3D Euclidean space.

 

Nothing exist in the whole universe.

 

Now we introduce one thing into this universe that has no moving parts, but is some homogenous thing fundamentally different in some way from its surroundings.

 

Time does not pass in this universe.

 

 

I know that your presentation is the regular common and accepted one.

I think it is wrong.

What I believe is you can't have Euclidian space without time.

For me (I am trying to spread my thoughts here), time is sooooo fundamental that you can't have a single line (a 1d space) without time.

[Rumfrd]

All dimensions are at right angles, so time is at right angles to all the space dimensions. Your original diagram is valid. Now if you draw the same diagram for an observer B who is moving with respect to A, B's diagram will be tilted with respect to A. Because of this tilt, an interval in time for A when projected spacewise to B's time axis will subtend a longer length on the time axis. When B looks out spacewise to A's time axis he sees his interval projected on B's time axis subtends a shorter length of time. If you look at the same relationship for the spatial directions, it is apparent that A sees a smaller space interval projected timewise on B's space axis. This is the Lorentz contraction (so called "compression of space"), which shortens the moving body of B in the direction of its motion with respect to A. The higher the relative velocity, the greater the tilt of their frames. Neither A or B are moving in space with respect to themselves, and both are moving in time with respect to themselves. If B starts his journey at A's position, because of the tilt of their frames, you can readily see the distance between A and B increase with increasing time. This sort of geometric way of visualizing relativity has always seemed clear to me. I'm pretty sure it's more right than wrong.

[ajb]

All dimensions are at right angles, so time is at right angles to all the space dimensions.

This does not quite make sense...

 

I think what you mean is that it is always possible to pick (locally in general) a Cartesian (or rectangular) coordinate system on space-time? This is a choice, it is a natural one in special relativity.