John T. Nordberg's theory...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by curious45, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    That's why I never argue against "concensus" theory, except for the concept of Time. But as that is a subject still under debate, my hope is that sometimes a different POV yielding the same result, could add some interesting aspects to the discussion.

    I know my limitations and would never presume to challenge established science. But Norbert is challenging established science, not only about the properties of Time, but also proposes a new set of mathematics to justify his hypothesis. Apparently he has not been able to formalize his theory into a mathematical equation that can be tested.

    So, there it is. There may "come a time" when this gets sorted out by more knowledge.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,370
    danshawen:

    Time and speed have different physical units, so one cannot be the same as the other. If your description of Nordberg's idea is correct, he needs to go back to the drawing board.

    Saying time is speed is pretty cookey, I agree. Some people get near to that idea by saying things like "time is motion", which is a more vague idea and a bit less obviously wrong, though still wrong.

    No problem.

    Minkovski said time is speed, did here. Where did he publish that, exactly?

    Point me to the relevant publication and I'll tell you whether he lost he marbles too, or whether it's more likely to be your misinterpretation of what he wrote.

    But you've posted no useful content on the idea, as far as I can tell. Just empty claims. Is this really the best you can do?

    No problem.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Not Minkowski; Einstein himself.

    In post #204 of my final thread on Minkowski, Farsight once provided us a link to this, an English translation of possibly the most famous document in science history:

    http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/258?ajax

    You will note both the title and the author. This is not a pseudoscience.

    And the link to the particular page in question:

    http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/271?ajax

    Einstein acknowledges the work of H. Minkowski on the development of his Theory of Relativity, and then goes on to say:

    "Minkowski started out from the premise that the "time coordinate" enters the fundamental equations of the theory of relativity in exactly the same way as the spatial coordinates if t is replaced by the imaginary quantity: square root(-1) * ct = ict which is proportional to it. The equations of the theory of relativity thereby become equations in a four dimensional space; and only in the number of dimensions are the formal properties of this four-dimensional space distinguished from the formal properties of the space of Euclidean geometry."

    The last time I pointed this out, you replied (post #237) in part:

    "You're not making much sense. If t=ict, then t/t = 1, not ic
    Can you do maths at all?"

    To answer your previous question more directly, can you? A PROPORTIONAL relationship is not the same as equality. There may be a constant factor of proportionality involved, and that factor is not necessarily equal to 1. That proportionality constant could be a number greater than 10,000, for example, and it would really make no difference to Minkowski's formulation of the role of time in Special Relativity, nor very much to his math.

    A velocity that is faster than light might impact the assumption of c as a universal speed limit for the bulk propagation of energy, but there would either need to be an extension to the theory, or else it might require another theory partitioned for the same reason a more general theory with gravitation was advanced.

    While researching the answer for your question, I also happened across something else I missed. Evidently Minkowski once wrote that "for any two events, simultaneity does not actually exist". Now that's a gem of an idea I would tend to agree with, other than for quantum entanglement spin flips, that is. Don't know how I could possibly have missed it in that other thread.

    And so Minkowski's formulation of relativity involves complex math in order to assure that the direction of time's arrow cannot reverse in a manner that would permit light to propagate backwards through time. At the same time, it is understood that the factor c means a universal and invariant speed limit so that v < c in all cases where bound or unbound energy travels or propagates throughout a universe where it is assumed there are no large gravitating masses in the special case (Special Relativity). In the general case, there are new equations to deal with (General Relativity).

    And thanks again for your patience, James R.

    One of the beauties of this forum is that the responses to questions are challenging enough to think about for a while, and help us try to deepen our understanding, as meager as might be the case. That's why I still like to read what certain people have to say here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016
    Farsight and Write4U like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Thank you.

    And for the benefit of those readers of this thread who may wish to read a MUCH shorter version of my final Minkowski thread (in "Alternative Theories" area), it went something like this:

    Minkowski: "For any two events, simultaneity does not exist."

    danshawen: Simultaneity exists. Someone should probably deal with that.

    Sciforums: No. You're a crackpot.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    I owe an apology to John Nordberg for misspelling his name several times. My bad....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    Question: If I were to say that "time (duration) is a by-product of motion", would that still be incorrect?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    More to the point, John T. Nordberg states (in his video) that "Time is the speed of light". If that's a crackpot, then so is Minkowski. I never called Minkowski a crackpot. Most certainly, Minkowski was not. Nordberg isn't really a crackpot either; he simply tells us something that evidently, we already knew.

    The speed of light is not the fastest energy transfer we can observe, simply the fastest motion that appears to be contiguous. Entanglement is discrete, which is why people have trouble wrapping their minds around the idea that something is being transferred, like a row of dominoes falling. If bound energy were clothing stitched together with thread, entanglement would be the ends of the thread, which is only the tip of the process we can observe that tells us clothing is manufactured by means of something connected with threads. Time vs. the speed of light is like that. They are not exactly the same, identical, or even terms that should be routinely equivocated, even in math. The speed of light is a velocity (space/time), and time, evidently, is fundamentally based on a kind of motion that is much faster, and one that is associated with what holds bound energy together in a state that is, for all intents and purposes, timeless.

    After clothing is stitched together, it may be worn by persons comprised of bound energy, and the centers of all of their atoms held together by chemical bonds may also move in the aggregate. The geometric centers of every particle of every atom may move in unison, giving us the impression of a permanence we associate with a universe that is, in its totality, composed only of the transfer of energy propagating and/or rotating as it appears to travel, followed only by its aggregate inertia.

    Apologies; I really can't say any of that in a way that would not do the estimable Captain Obvious proud. Not so obvious is the idea that there exist only three physical dimensions, not four, and each and every one of them is equivalent to the dimension we call time. Give me another 10 points for that one then, James R.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,611
    Correct, in that there is no absolute simultaneity, it depends on the reference frame.

    If by that you mean there is an absolute simultaneity then you are incorrect.

    Not just the sciforums, all of science would say that is a crackpot notion.
     
    Kristoffer and danshawen like this.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    I am still a little confused, there seems to be a more fundamental transfer of information possible.
    For instance,
    Question: if I have a bathtub full of water and I add a single drop of water does not the entire body of water simultaneously get heavier by that single drop and is the effect (information?) of adding the drop not instantaneously transmitted throughout the entire bathtub?

    Perhaps I am looking at this too simplistically, but can anyone explain?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    It wouldn't be the first time the whole world said: "That's a crackpot notion." I'm fine with that. The Eath was once flat. It was the center of the universe. Planets orbiting other stars were rare.

    Complex math doesn't legitimize an idea that is wrong from its inception.
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,611
    That is different than what I am talking about. However even the effect of a drop of water added to a bath is not instantaneously transmitted thoughout the tub. The increase in pressure for instance is only transmitted at the speed of sound through the water.
    There is no absolute simultaneity, it depends on your reference frame whether 2 events are simultaneous or not. If there are 2 people in a room and they clap their hands together they can say they clapped their hands simultaneously. This is certainly correct. However a person in another reference frame very well might say they did not clap their hands simultaneously. The wiki write up on Relativity of simultaneity is quite good IMO.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,611
    That is simply pseudoscience and as such has been reported. If you have some "complex math" or valid explanation why the concept of simultaneity is incorrect then present it. If you are just going to make claims that you cannot back up then they should be discussed in the "On the Fringe" section.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    But Minkowski never said that time is the speed of light. He pointed out that there was a certain relationship between a time coordinate and spatial coordinates that depends upon the speed of light. You are starting to actually read Minkowski, that is good, but you are still substituting your own ideas for what Minkowski actually did.
     
  17. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Unbound energy propagates isotopically at exactly the same rate in every direction. The geometric center of bound energy is prohibited from traveling faster than unbound energy in every direction, yet if you push it to 0.999c in a single direction,increasing its energy/mass (inertia), that doesn't prohibit increasing its energy still more by pushing it in another direction, or closer to the speed of light. Changing direction requires, literally, zero time interval, just like quantum spin, which is analogous to reflection/entanglement for bound energy. The limit of the speed of light is broken every time energy becomes bound as a particle of matter.

    There is good reason that whole scenario works the way it does that is only obfuscated by complex math that does not even begin to grasp the complexity of the nature of time itself. It is Euclidean space that does not exist, not time. Time is not an afterthought grafted onto one imaginary component of space. It is space. Simultanaeity does not destroy relativity; it extends it.

    The only thing that can acquire more inertia than that mechanism is a bad idea expressed with even worse mathematical symbology to shore it up.

    And there is no way that a single individual can change something so ponderously massive as a mountain of ignorance. Hard to notice also, lately that mountain has gotten a whole lot more massive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,611
    Why do you think that?
    How is spin analogous to reflection/entanglement. What do you mean by 'reflection/entanglement', do you think they are related?
    Why do you think that?
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    Yes I understand the concepts of the Wave function, Relativity, and Simultaneity, but IMO, the Wave function and Relativity do not apply here, only Simultaneity.

    My point was that the very instant you add the drop, the entire body "has" more mass than before you added the drop. The increase in weight of the total body of water is instantaneous. IMO.

    I admit I can't prove it mathematically, but perhaps someone can offer some insight.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2016
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You are speaking of an abstract entity. You identify the area of "the entire body", but the mass of that body has no effect on anything aside from the actual locations of all the mass. So whenever you consider that drop to be added to the rest of the water makes no difference to any physics.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    I disagree, the mass of the physical body of water increases by the mass of the water drop, instantly, regardless of the size or mass of the original body of water. This is not abstract, it's elementary.

    A similar argument can be made in relation to the concept of Time, which IS an abstraction. Both are simultaneous (concurrent) results of a specific physical action, regardless of the dimensional properties..
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2016
  22. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    My bold.
    For clarity, are you saying this instant increase of mass would apply to any substance and not just water ? You also mention size does not matter.

    Mass alters spacetime, the influence of mass on spacetime is limited to light speed.

    I take a one lightyear long rod. To one end (A) I attach a 10 ton mass. By your reckoning the other end of the rod (B) instantaneously increases in mass too. Now, this new increase in mass at (B) will alter spacetime at light speed. This altering spacetime at (B) would be detectable and you have a faster than light communication set-up. Is that right?

    Even if I'm wrong about being able to detect the altering of spacetime at (b) because it is so immeasurably small, you are still saying that information (the mass increase) has passed faster than light from one end to the other?

    My first 'take' was to detect the rods increase in mass at (B) leaving aside all that spacetime stuff. Again, That would be a faster than light communication set-up. But, that increase would be immeasurably small, but your saying it's faster that light never the less?
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2016
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,750
    IMO, no, because while the overall mass increases instantly it may be distributed unevenly and therefore not have an evenly distributed influence on spacetime..

    I'm saying it's concurrent.

    I am saying the moment the weight is added to the rod, its overall mass will increase simultaneously.

    I believe it answers to a different, more fundamental law in the hierarchy of *mathematical states and functions*, it transcends SOL.

    Of course I qualify this POV as my own and cannot test it in a controlled setting.[/quote]
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2016

Share This Page