Spacetime is Infinite

Just in case you did miss it, here it is again:

''Gentlemen, the idea of space and time which i wish to develop before you grew from the soil of experimental physics...

... The provision of equations in which the special laws of relativity take on a new form in which the time coordinate plays exactly the same role as the three space coordinates.''

Herman Minkowski.

Now, tell me, are you still going to say i am wrong? Because if you are, you are saying Eisnteins teacher was wrong also.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding between the setup of local coordinates on a tangent bundle, and the assignment of a metric on each tangent space that allows us to measure differences between vectors in that tangent bundle at each point.

You've studied GR, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes i have. But please listen, the understanding of spacetime, is that space and time share the same continuum prospect, this is why we do not seperate space and time, but rather unite them as spacetime. This is all i have said in this thread, and Alphanumeric has tried to cox something out of what i said, which i never intended at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If any physicist says they are different, they are going against what is accepted by physics.

 

Then you will understand my post, correct?

 

No, it doesn't. The fact it's finite is what seperates relativity and Newtonian physics. If \(c \to \infty\) then \(\gamma \to 1\) and you don't get any time, space or mass dilation effects.

You are humouring me?! Oh please, you don't know anything about the things you just mentioned.

Given you didn't even recognise the expression for how to compute the Hamiltonian of a quantum field theory system ignoring zero point effects, I find it a big stretch you know anything about doing actual computations with it!

And I actually asked if there's a finite 4d shape with negative curvature everywhere.

I'm condescending to you because you make it clear you don't want to enter into proper discussion, just try to lie to people.

My point is that you have no clue about quantum field theory and relativity but you try to school other people in it. It's the blind leading the blind, except you try to tell people you understand it all.

Except every challenge ever put to you to put up or shut up.

Firstly, it wouldn't be the first time a physics great has been wrong. Noone is infallable. Secondly, can you provide the entire article that is from? Because time isn't exactly the same as space in the equations, that much is very obvious. It's considerably more 'uniform' in terms of it's treatment of time and space than Newtonian physics is, since motion through one affects motion through another, but there's still differences. As I asked you but you ignored, if time and space are perfectly interchangable, why isn't the symmetry of space-time SO(4). Do you even know what that means?

You can never stop moving through time but you can stop moving through space. If they are exactly the same, why is that true?

You have failed to show any knowledge of the equations or concepts of relativity, despite us all having been through this before and now you're having to grasp at straws because you don't want to admit you can't do relativity and you're unable to step up to a simple challenge you discuss your work. Ben and I have and do, here is a quick back and fore we had yesterday. Why can't you do that? Why can't you even give me the name of the textbook you use in your lessons?

Come on, step up or shut up.

 

So here it is, surprisingly !!!

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThere exists a reference frame such that the two events are observed to occur at the same time. For these space-like event pairs with a negative squared ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime - 113k - Cached - Similar pages

''In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the spacetime continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension.''

And yet, some people here like to talk about it, as if it isn't.

 

''Firstly, it wouldn't be the first time a physics great has been wrong.''

That is where i stop being part of this nonesense.

 

''Firstly, it wouldn't be the first time a physics great has been wrong. ''


Why don't you just shut up alphanumeric. I will not be part of discussions that intentionally disregard the consensus of physics.

 

Then HOW can the universe be infinite in size if not an infinite amount of time has passed ?

 

Ah well - we can only try!

 

Also, there are no trees in space..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So people like Einstein, Dirac, Newton et al. have never been wrong?

Newton was wrong about light. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Dirac was initially wrong about the Dirac sea. Need I go on?

You're the guy who keeps saying things like \((a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi\), which is equivalent to saying "Every A Level student, undergraduate, postgraduate, post doc, lecturer and professor for the last 250 years is wrong!" so don't come off all high and mighty there Chuckles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You regularly tell me I'm wrong about things I can back up with books, lecture notes, talks and papers. Stuff you should have in your school notes, if you studied the things you claim to. Wolf is considered a quack by most physicists so whenever you agree with him, you're disagreeing with many great physicists.

So you are oozing hypocrisy!

You ignore what physicists say all the time. Remember when you said \((x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})\) was a 6 dimensional Lorentzian metric? That disregarded the concensus of physics and maths. Heck it wasn't even a concencus, you didn't even look up to see what the words mean!

That doesn't contradict anything I've said. Space-time is a 4 dimensional manifold based theory. But then so is Newtonian physics. The point is that while Newtonian physics treats space-time as \(\mathbb{R} \times R^{3}\) globally, relativity only sees space-time like that locally. Both of them are 4 dimensional theories, since you need 4 coordinates to speficy a point in the manifold uniquely.

Yet again, you show you don't even understand what I'm saying or what mainstream physics says. Instead, you've put your ignorance and lies on display for all to see.

Keep digging.

 

Lies!
NASA just conceals the evidence.

 

Perhaps.. I guess we'll know when one enters the atmosphere one day

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wait Alpha, you are wanting to change what is accepted. If you are, make your own thread. For the now, i am sticking with what physics talks about for certainty. It's ironic i am remainin scientific, but then you have the audasity to say i am digging a hole. Amazing.

Enmos

''Then HOW can the universe be infinite in size if not an infinite amount of time has passed ?''

Because, the expansion alone is considered to provide an infinite amount of spacetime, which it does, if it continues spewing out spacetime. If you have a bag of apples, that started as six, and that bag continued forever to produce apples, then that bag is said to produce an infinite amount of apples.

 

The bing bang happened a non infinite time ago, the universe was once finite, it is expanding at a non infinite speed, the universe is not infinitely big. Am I being retarded again?

 

Try? I don't mind it when people get the expansion wrong, but when people say that physics does not predict that space and time are one continuum, (as in playing the same roles, so that we have three spatial dimensions, and an extra one), is where i draw the line.

 

Sorry to be a bit of a pain, but I hate to be ignored. I consider it rude. Reiku, as I managed to find the time to explain to you your misunderstanding, would you mind awfully replying to my last post directed at you?

 

Remain scientific?
You have to start off being scientific in order to remain so.

But at any given time the number of apples actually in that bag is finite.