Minkowski Space Time Briefly Revisited

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by danshawen, Nov 24, 2014.

  1. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    There you go again. A metric is an abstract thing, so is a coordinate system. I can take you out into the garden and point up to the clear night sky. I can point to the Moon, and we can agree that the Moon exists. Then I can point to Venus, and we can agree that Venus exists. Then I can point to the gap, the space between them, and we can agree that space exists. And light. And motion. But I can't point to a metric or a coordinate system, because these things are abstractions related to what you measure. Using the motion of light through space. And if it doesn't move through space, you can't measure anything, or see, or think, or anything else. And it gets worse, because spacetime is an abstraction too. It models space at all times. You can draw a worldline in it, but you can't move through it. The map is not the territory.

    What subject? And what was your first degree? Mine was Computer Science, so I'm into cold hard logic and empirical evidence. And I detect a distinct paucity of that in you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    OK right, you make up stuff about gravity emerging from inertia, and you dismiss Einstein and general relativity, which is one of the best-tested theories we've got.

    Are you for real? Einstein wrote a paper about the origin of inertia. Beam me up Scotty!

    He explained it! He said a concentration of energy conditions the surrounding space altering its properties such that light curves because the speed of light varies with position. How many times do I have to point you towards what Einstein said before you're going to believe it?

    Yes I do. Because I understand inertia, and I understand gravity, because I've read what Einstein said.

    Only you can.

    No. So says Einstein. How on Earth can you dismiss what Einstein actually said as cherry picked misinterpretations?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Maybe you need to revise your faulty thinking on what real is.
    Something does not have to be physical to be real.
    Space is real....as is time....henceforth known as spacetime, which is also real and measured...gravity is real, as is matter/energy.

    Your take on reality is rather amateurish to say the least.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    i seriously thought this was hilarious coming from you.
     
  8. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I can hold my hands up a foot apart and show you the gap, the space between them. I can waggle my hands and show you motion. But you can't show me time. And you can't show me spacetime either. Or a world line. Or a light cone. Or the block universe. Because spacetime is an abstract thing. It isn't what space is.
     
  9. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    And that is all the "science" you can do? That "explains" spacetime coordinates and the metric?

    You are a moron - I am out of here
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    While it is probably true that you have a computer science degree, it is a lie that you are "into" hard evidence, as your constant dodging of my direct questions and your constant ignoring of inconvenient facts about your sources indicates.

    You give us fantasy and nothing more.
     
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And you can't show us how to actually do any physics.

    Given your story for the origin of your interest in physics, I suspect that you cling so closely to this fantasy because of your failings as a father; you should look to therapy, not to lying on the internet to make you feel better.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    You can grab hold of whatever you like.
    My claim stands that you have a rather amateurish way of seeing what is real and what isn't.
    Space stops everything from being together, even though I can't grasp it.
    Time stops everything from happening together, even though I can't grasp it.
    Spacetime, the combination of the above, has been measured when distorted in the presence of mass.
     
  13. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I respond to your questions. I give the explanations and the evidence and the references to Einstein et cetera. You can't counter them or point to any errors. All you can do is hide behind abstraction and abuse, and now you're doing a runner because you know it isn't enough. Because I am quite clearly not a moron.
     
  14. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    You can't grasp it, but you can see that gap. You can see that the space is there.

    You can't grasp it, and you can't see it either. Because time is merely a cumulative measure of motion. The finite motion of light stops everything from happening at once.

    Spacetime isn't a physical thing, it's an abstract thing derived from your measurements of distance and time made using the motion of light through space. The map is not the territory. We live in a world of space and motion, not in a block universe that is static.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    A lie. At best you give an evasion or you circle back to a prior position that you were asked about and have not yet responded. Usually you just bring up one of your standard lies.

    A lie. You never give any details to your explanations that are specifically asked for (i.e., any physics). You never produce evidence, because you never show how your ideas relate to observations. You only provide a limited set of references and you never address the science Einstein wrote, which is the real thing that people ask you to address.

    A lie. Like many people, QuarkHead has pointed out many errors you have made.

    A lie. Indeed, this is all that you do, Farsight. You keep things vague, never give exact definitions or descriptions of your ideas and you have been banned from forum after forum because of your abuse.

    I am not surprised that you frustrate people because of your lies.

    However, if anyone is "doing a runner", it if you, since you have decided to not even try to lie in order to answer the questions I raise. You continue to make it clear that you cannot do even basic physics, let alone the physics you claim to understand.
    No, you clearly are smart enough to avoid answering questions. So I believe that your own personal failings have lead you to pursue this fantasy world, where you have the importance and success that you have failed to attain in your family and personal life. I don't think I'm alone in recommending therapy to you, but I doubt you'll take this advice.
     
    QuarkHead likes this.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Time is real, whether you accept it or not.....You certainly are not mainstream, and your often misquoting of reputable people is generally your thing to support your own thoughts.
    We are 13.83 billion years from the BB.....that's real, that's fact, that's time.


    Sure it is, most positively...It's even been measured when distorted in the presence of mass.
     
  17. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I have not dismissed Einstein's contribution(s), GR or space-time, though I have admitted that I don't accept the modern interpretation (not Einstein's) of GR where the curvature of space-time is conceptually the cause of gravity. Which from what I can understand, does not play well with any approach to quantum gravity.

    And I did not make up stuff about gravity emerging from inertia, though I believe there may be some merit in rethinking the relationship, I was pointing out that you have not and in my opinion cannot provide a fundamental explanation, cause or origin for either inertia or gravitation! So you could not know...!

    Even the modern interpretation of GR, asserting that the curvature of space-time is the cause of gravitation falls somewhat short of a conclusive argument, because it does not fully describe space-time, beyond its theoretical foundation...

    And you did not choose to provide a quote or even a link....? Einstein was influenced by Mach's principle, on the issue of inertia.., but was unable to incorporate it into his field equations. Essentially leaving inertia.., a fundamental characteristic of mass. No one has provided an entirely acceptable explanatintion yet.

    What was the question or comment you were responding to? I was pretty sure you cut my post off such that it began with "or gravitation.".., as in reference to a fundamental explanation of it origin. Yes gravitation affects the path of light and Einstein's field equations describe just how the path of light is affected by a graviationnal field.., but it does not say how mass creates the described gravitational field.

    Yes of course you understand everything. We've all heard you say that before.
    ..... AND
    Because you very obviously refuse to consider context, always historical and almost always the words he used just before and after the phrase you choose to misinterpret.
     
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    To be fair, Farsight did provide a link, it's just that the software here makes it difficult to see the link.

    Of course, Farsight is completely wrong about the content of the link he provided. The work cited does not discuss the origin for inertia---that is part of the pure fantasy that Farsight has that everything is made up of photons.
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I know you guys (Farsight and paddoboy) aren't trying very hard to do actual physics for the last few posts, but something paddoboy said deserves a paraphrase here:

    "Time is what prevents every event that has ever occurred from all happening at the same time." and

    "Space is what keeps everything in the universe from being in the same place at the same time."

    Are these statements equivalent?

    The limited speed of light is actually what keeps both possibilities at bay, just as Minkowski suggested with his light cones. The only exception to the rule would be if all of the energy were concentrated at one point at the same instant of time.

    I know it's off topic, but if the Big Bang occurred and there was no one around to observe how big it was, why do we expect that it actually made anything like the sound of a 'bang'? No time. No space. No observers. Sounds like all energy. All that has happened in the 13.83 billion years since seems to be that some of that energy got bound. How's that for the 'briefest history of time' yet? Hawking's assessment of particle physics after the discovery of the Higgs was spot on. It's boring! The universe is no free lunch, or if it is, the buffet eventually ends. After that, it's just another slow 'death by boredom', or worse, by the dark energy brigade.

    Nothing else to see here, folks. Return to texting on your mobile devices unless you are driving.

    I had one more Minkowski thought experiment, but since I can't seem to resolve it myself, I'll just hold the thought for another thread.
     
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Couple of things now that I have picked myself up off the floor... Need a good laugh everyday. Today I guess I have to thank Farsight, for a really good laugh....

    After reading your post I went back and found the link, and that is what got me rolling on the floor. I had thought he might come up with something obscure that could be misinterpreted.... Maybe he did not even actually read the paper?

    That aside, maybe it would be a good idea to just post links out in the open or underlined or something.
     
  21. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    You should read this Dan: http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0100

    Go on, what's your Minkowski thought experiment?
     
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    ViXra.org is an e-print archive set up as an alternative to the popular arXiv.org service owned by Cornell University. It has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate.
    ViXra is an open repository for new scientific articles. It does not endorse e-prints accepted on its website, neither does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials.
     
    Dr_Toad and OnlyMe like this.
  23. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    In short, if it appears on vixra.org, it's crazy.
     

Share This Page