| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Regarding a ray of light being bent by the gravitation
of a star past which the light makes a near pass , that predicted effect has been confirmed by a
very famous experiment done on an island during an eclipse , where the light from a distant star passing
along a line near to the sun , was refracted sufficiently
to give an illusion that the stars location had shifted .
The predicted observation was based on Einsteins understanding that " empty space " is not just " nothing "
even though it is a vacuum devoid of matter for the most part ....it is a " space time continuum " which is an abstract " thing " having properties
itself that are influenced by the regions where matter is located ......
so a " straight line " through " space time " does not
necessarily follow a straight path when viewed by an
observer in a different region of space , even though if the observer was on the object which is supposed to be travelling a straight line , its
course would appear to be a perfectly straight path through space time . So what is
a straight line depends on the point from where the course is being observed and what is a straight line is
therefore relative to space time whose property is not
constant but is modified in different regions of space .
If I understand correctly what Einstein has said , space
time itself is distorted by the gravitational field of objects .
It is this theory which accounts for the wording of definitions concerning magnetic and gravitational fields
as being " a property of space " in the vicinity of an object , rather than defining a field as being " something "
which is emanating from the object .
To understand and visualize this is something difficult for most people , and even Einstein himself was likely able only in part to visualize a
picture of the universe defined
by relativity , a visualization which contradicts the more simplistic view of our practiced senses ....which in terms
of the absolute of relativity , the view we accept more
easily deceives .....so to think and visualize in relativistic
terms is a mental discipline which produces a headache .
It hurts to think correctly and it is tiring . Machine intelligence is more likely to " understand " the secrets of the " relative " universe , than
is the human mind at its present state of evolution , as we are not yet there where a few like Einstein barely were to even glimpse such things
themselves .
http://www.danceage.com/media_player/?aid=2180&q=hi&...
[Edited on 19-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I really have a hard time (no pun) with the term "spacetime". You really do have to look deeper into what space and time are to realize that space has
no "time". Most people get stuck on this point. Once I sat among various doctorates having just this conversation. Most of them were from Cornell, one
of them was Arden Sher of SRI. After much time I finally managed using my book written by Einstein to show that when He said x,y,z=i,c,t He was not
talking about the number 1! You would not believe how firmly people who have merely studied books written about relativity rather than actually
reading it from the source have the wrong concept of dimensionality. I did much work in this for over 40 years, and what Einstein meant was "i" stood
for a single Planck length, and "t" stood for the time it took light at "c" to go this distance.
Furthermore people fail to understand that c is set by Eo and Uo in such a way that clearly space (empty) has both inductance and capacitance per unit
length. Everyone uses these formulas and knows them quite well but I have noticed they never really (at least many of them I meet) understand that
empty space has all the characteristics of a resonant transmission line. Probably because the frequency is so damn high? I mean, this resonance is
established for x,y,z=i,c,t. So we have in effect a cavity resonator in space itself which has the dimensions x,y,z=planck,planck,planck. You can see
why the frequency is therefore so high we cannot see the trees for the forest.
However, time is not a property of space and anyone so believing will never uncover the fundamental truths of creation. If time had any real physical
dimensionality it would be a fundamental unit based upon i,c,t. So we must seperate space from time, and no time is not the 4th dimension either. We
may measure "time" while sitting in space, but your ruler is only capable of measuring x,y, and z. In effect if we could move outside of the three
dimensions we all know and love so well we would find that time no longer exists.
Gravity is not a static field. Blow on a bubble and you will see a deformation on the wall which is dimensionally the same as what gravity does to
space, and it does so by coupling to the electromagnetic structure of space itself, i.e. the Eo and Uo of the fabric of space. So therefore gravity is
a steady pressure against the electric and magnetic qualities of space even though space is empty. Something I find easy to visualize by moving a
flyswatter very fast, we feel a pressure against the surface even though the air goes through the holes quite easily. Gravity does not couple strongly
to space and this is why it is so weak compared to the EM and Strong forces.
Roscoe, has it ever occured to you that all I just said is wrong and during that famous experiment a UFO was out there which reflected the light? OK,
so I feel better believing my above text but please, stop giving me a headache and using so loosely the term "spacetime"!
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
When you are packing for your journey away from this
universe , find time for space and find space for time ,
as they must be packed away in your bag together ....
you absolutely will not have one without the other 
And that goes for energy and matter also .....the four
stooges are quite inseparable in our present dimension 
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I liked Curly the most.
As space curves, what we call time seperates from it. As the curvature becomes complete the time becomes nonexistent. The only two places I can
imagine this occuring 100 percent is either outside the universe or inside of a black hole.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
When you survey and quantify the height , beadth , and depth of things which are
* changing * in relationship to each other , time is the arbitrary quantity applied to reference the progression of those changes in relative position
, distance , size or whatever other quantity is in flux . For a static , stable system time is a meaningless quantity . Time is an abstract
observational convention more than a " solid " reality . But it is a part of the relativity of interrelated quantities which are being observed
.....because everything being observed is in flux relative to something else .
P.S. When speaking of the " fabric of space " let's not forget
what is the warp and what is the woof nor get the two confused . Identifying any lint properly is sure to be a challenge also 
[Edited on 19-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
I think I should give up at this point. Space is a substance (yes, it IS a substance) which has a unit amount of inductance and capacitance per Planck
length. This is the origin of Eo and Uo! Since time depends upon the amount of Eo and Uo per unit distance, if space becomes curved, therefore
"warped", time becomes a varying quantity. Therefore it is forever impossible to use time as a true frame of reference. Good Lord, I think I should
scan my original book by Einstein. However it was his very first english translation and I am not going to risk the binding trying to lay it flat out
page by page on a scanner, as it is very old. A collectors item if you will. I promise you it reads very differently than every single other source of
the theory, seeing as how everyone else merely explained it as they saw or understood it. Time cannot be a reference since it is both velocity and
"space compression" dependant. Give up trying to use time as a reference. The best reference you can find is C in pure vacuum, problem is you need a
"time reference" to measure it. Good luck. In effect I am saying you cannot have a pure reference unless Pi is in your dreams but depending upon how
you measure the diameter and radius of something sitting in curved space even that idea flies out the window.
If science was advanced enough maybe we could measure the modes of zero point oscillation in a cavity of unit Planck dimension. I don't know, but I do
know you still are not truly understanding the subject. No big deal, general relativity is a bitch, stick with special.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
You seem to think I am somehow arguing that time is
a constant , a fixed quantity ....nowhere have I said that but quite the contrary , time is a relative variable which
is used as an abstract parameter describing progression
of change for one thing as compared with another thing .
Since these are generally referenced to a single point
of observation , relativity is the interpreter which must be used to ascribe difference between observed and actual
simultaneity . Just because things are observed to be occurring at the same time does not mean the events are actually simultaneous . Time is
inherently related to velocity .
Space is a non-substance with substantive properties in the regions where it exists near substances .
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"Space is a non-substance with substantive properties in the regions where it exists near substances"
It just appears to be a non substance to us. To have L and C per unit length implies it is something even if it looks to us like nothing, and being
near anything has nothing to do with what it is. Only the symmetry of space varies when a substance is in a given place. Space would exist whether or
not anything else did. So these "substantive properties" are there even when we (or anything) are near it or not near it. As I said, the existence of
anything in space only alters the unit properties of space per unit distance, nothing more.
I was not implying you were stuck on an invariant time reference, only making it very clear that whatever we do decide is a good reference will likely
be a better reference than time itself is.
Actually, the fact that we can evolve this whackbrained thread started by a questionable mind into something of value in terms of good debate and
discussion proves that at the very least we members of SCM have something going for us.
Many of our ducks really are in a row.
|
|
|
Mr_Benito_Mussolini
Harmless
Posts: 47
Registered: 19-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The whole point about Special Relativity is that time is a dimension no different to the spacial dimensions. The model moves from 3 dimensional space
existing in 'time' to 4 dimensional space-time. Just as the line between 2 points in 3 dimensional time can be rotated in space preserving its length,
so can the line between 2 events in 4 dimensional space-time. This rotation in 4 dimensional space-time gives rise to phenomena such as time dilation
and relative change in length: as well as the line rotating between the spacial dimensions, it also moves into and out of the time dimension.
As RB says, space-time is not a substance.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
The entire concept of time is a convention which is based upon the rotational speed of the earth which causes a progression where the sun appears to
travel across the sky and then cross the horizon , when the " day " ends
and another event called " night " begins .....with a cyclical regularity about that change which is observed
then being the basis for how we earthlings reckon
" time " . And then that observed natural cycle becomes
the basis for our convention for defining the increments
of the " standard day " as hours , minutes , seconds .
So time is merely a way of describing observed progression of * change * of one thing in comparison to the amount of
* change * manifested by some standard used for comparison . Time is therefore intinsically relative to the standard being applied to quantify the
observation . A year on Earth is a different interval than a year on Mars . A day on Earth is different from a day on Mars .
Time is related to velocity as a fundamental concept such as for two rotating spheres which are otherwise identical
in size and mass as an example . If the angular velocity
of one sphere is double the angular velocity of the other rotating sphere , then the progression of the one having
turned ten revolutions will have simultaneity with the
completion of twenty revolutions of the other , in the
same * interval * of " time " . But the number of rpms
is an entirely Earthly convention ....based upon an Earth
minute ....so a more scientific standard for describing
angular velocity would be desirable ....and likewise for
other calculations involving time and velocity . Indeed part of the secret of arriving at some better understanding of the universe may be predicated
upon the necessity of defining
" time " in some units that relate more intelligently to some cosmological constant , than the units which are used by Earthers in common practice .
[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"As RB says, space-time is not a substance."
Another time freak. I should upload an mp3 of "freaks come out at night".
Only a "substance can have inductance, i.e. the ability to create a magnetic field when subjected to an accelerated charge, likewise only a
"substance" can produce electric fields when subjected to a varying magnetic field. I might also add that only a "substance" can warp or curve since
nothing can only do nothing. No wonder science is still so far behind the realm of true possibilities if this is the best minds the world can produce
today. Minds who lived and died before you were born understood this. One in particular was writing letters along these lines to fellow researchers
and other brainiacs in general when he came up with the Dirac sea. Oh yeah, name of Dirac. One among many who knew. Texts used to teach this, of all
things in the day of Einstein and Dirac. This is what they learned when they went to school. Because these things are no longer taught, there are no
longer any Einsteins nor any Diracs, nor (a big long list goes here).
Screw it, this song fits right in with this thread!
http://www.theradicalremnant.com/freaks.mp3
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Space time ....wherever you go in it , there you are ,
but where that is depends entirely on what time it is
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
No, where you go has no relation to time. You can be anywhere at any time. I had hoped the point would be easier to understand, but you cannot grasp
the underlying concept from a mechanics point of view. In other words many can fix a car but few can design one. The only reference that is absolute
is C and this is only an absolute when space is perfectly rectilinear, i.e., zero curvature in any dimension. But I quit, go listen to the song I
provided.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Where you are located is most definitely related to time .
The only point in an expanding universe that isn't moving is the point of origin . So it would have to matter what time it is where any other point
is located with respect to its distance from the point of origin and every other point . The spatial coordinates may not change as the entire
coordinate system is expanding in scale also ,
but the actual distances and hence the real location does depend on what time it is .
|
|
|
guy
National Hazard
Posts: 982
Registered: 14-4-2004
Location: California, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic!
|
|
This is why I don't go into physics..LOL
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
No shit. Does Roscoe hear what he is saying or is he just speaking to make noise? For FYI a Planck time before the big bang there was no expanding
universe therefore the point you reference does not exist in our universe. For further FYI the point is not moving, just all the crap we call matter
and energy is. You really need to think more deeply upon these things. A black hole may be moving through our universe but there is no "spacetime" as
you call it INSIDE IT. Inside a black hole is precisely identical to the outside of your "spacetime" unless all the math we use has gone out the
window. The points are going nowhere! Neither is this thread!
Get the point?
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8014
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
IrC, could you please explain HOW space itself can form inductance and capacitance per unit length? (or are you kidding????) I know that between two
objects there always is a certain capacity, which depends on the eps_0 of the vacuum (and of course on the shape, relative orientation and relative
distance of the objects), but I do not see how space itself forms a capacitance. Capacitance between what?
And I do not see at all how there could be inductance per unit length. And also, if I go along two unit lengths, then the inductance also doubles and
the capacitance halves, just like in normal electronic circuits with series connections of inductors and capacitors?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
IrC is never going to cut it as a starship navigator until he can reconcile celestial mechanics and relativity , and get himself a decent star sextant
and an atomic clock .
But not knowing how they work together to plot a course is always going to present some difficulty in navigation ,
for the lost spacefarer who was going to slingshot maneuver getting a little help from a black hole that
turned out to actually be where it shouldn't be , not just in space after all .....but at a location in space time .
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Woelen, so far no one can explain why. I suggest you go look up the definitions of Eo and Uo for free space. Especially study the concept of
dimensionality for these items. That is, their quantification in "free space". At the turn of the century universities all taught this subject exactly
as I am describing it here and now. Perhaps you can explain to me and the rest of the world why "free space" has an impedance of 377 ohms. Or why C is
governed by the square root of the divisor of Eo and Uo. Especially if the space is "empty, nothing". Why does space have properties at all?
Most importantly explain to me why the world has failed to produce another great mind since they started teaching all children the things you all
believe? Study the old texbooks used by Einstein, Dirac, Fermi, (add to the list as you see fit). It was this inability to believe the very question
you just asked that prompted book writers to remove such items of study.
Why you may ask? Because you all started believing the aether does not exist. Ask yourselves this question: what is it that gravity bends which light
travels through in a curved path as Roscoe pointed out previously. Nothing? Or, something?
[Edited on 20-7-2006 by IrC]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by IrC
Why does space have properties at all?
|
That is the smartest thing said in this whole thread .
We all await your enlightened answer ,
beyond of course the obvious that " space " is more
than we think it is .
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
No, you go ahead, I give up. You yourself stated in this thread that gravity curves space. If so, then how is "nothing, no properties, etc." curved?
You are asking me to answer a question that has never been answered by any mind no matter how great, and implying that if I cannot answer then somehow
you are right and I am wrong. Why don't you go dig up Einstein and ask him? Of course his answer will be "gee, I don't know either".
Yet space has properties and therefore anyone with intelligence could see that that which is nonexistent, cannot have "properties".
Have fun with this thread I guess but I for one give up. I must go in search of minds with deeper understanding, as this conversation is pointless.
This much I will add. If space is "nothing" how can space curve? How can there exist a free space impedance, a Eo, a Uo, for a vacuum? How can these
quantities which I know you all know of exist unless space, a vacuum, nada, a void, emptyness, etc., does indeed have "properties" and "structure"?
I suggest that since you clearly have an internet connection you go in search of a deeper understanding of Eo, Uo, Zo with all the dimensionalities
implied instead of trying to prove me wrong by implying that since I cannot answer that which has yet to be answered somehow you are right?
Furthermore how can you be right when you don't even know the answer to these questions themselves? How can I be right? Who knows, I am just going on
the fact that science clearly believes in Eo and Uo, and the impedance of free space, and the curvature due to gravity, yet continues to produce a
mindless sea of lemmings which march into the sea never once believeing in the things which they daily use in their calculations. Go figure.
[Edited on 20-7-2006 by IrC]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Here's a thought . Space itself is a dimension which only in part overlaps and interacts with matter , but it is an attribute of matter , a
coexistent partner with matter , that which is neither matter nor antimatter and separates the two . Space is a " thing " but it is not a
" substance " having any solid nature , more like a vacuum dielectric insulating
" distance " between a matter universe and a mirror image antimatter anti-universe . It is a field .
[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Possible. Myself, I believe in the theory of "shit happens".
While we all contemplate the theory of everything I find it helpful to listen to music. Ah yes, music.
http://www.theradicalremnant.com/casbah.mp3
http://www.theradicalremnant.com/underground.mp3
http://www.theradicalremnant.com/lay.mp3
http://www.theradicalremnant.com/together.mp3
http://www.theradicalremnant.com/yesterday.mp3
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Nice , especially the third and fourth ones .
Not all of it , but some of that site could have been written by me .....
took the words right out of my mind
Got a link to the site playlist ?
Anyway , the more I have contemplated the
" secrets of the universe " and seen more and more
evidence that everything seems to involve properties
that relate to what is inescapably electromagnetics theory
in some variation , I am forced again and again to consider
the possibility that the entire reality which we believe we see
is a sort of very fancy " projection " , a virtual reality of even more vast proportions than is the idea in the " Matrix " movies ......of course to
us it is all real enough and governs us by its rules , but it does seem like in the Emerald City of the universe , science would often have us keep
our attention on the wizard of science , and not notice the LORD behind the curtain working the levers and pushing the buttons which govern all that
we think we know .
[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
No playlist, just my site which I use to host files for other reasons from time to time. I like having my own server space for use when I need to post
a file or image somewhere or another. When I think of a song worthy of posting I put it up there.
As of this time I am looking into theory which in effect would be along the lines of the reality we exist in is a hologram.
"Not all of it , but some of that site could have been written by me ....."
I keep the book up in memory of my brother. My writings are under the name Dr Vel in Science Links.
[Edited on 21-7-2006 by IrC]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
