What is "spacetime" really?

[Boof-head]

The law of conservation says that nothing is created or destroyed. Do you agree?

No, and nor do all the physicists I know.

If you mean: the Law of conservation of energy, then mass is destroyed if it becomes energy and inversely. This is a consequence of SR.

 

Also, you have forgotten or are ignoring the observation that mass is being lost from "our place" as it vanishes beyond visibility. Then there is gravitational collapse; but let's wait for you to catch up.

 

My IQ is something I've had measured, and tried to self-test, but I'm skeptical, since I know intelligent people who have done pretty dumb things - this includes me or I know I intersect with the latter. People who try to wave their IQ around fall immediately into this category.

[Boof-head]

If you can create mass out of space and time, you also need to explain how; you need a generator.

And you need to explain how mass -> energy, and energy -> mass in SR doesn't have this mass generator, like we're sure it does. It must be fundamentally different to your f(space,time) = mass function.

[lawcat]

If you can create mass out of space and time, you also need to explain how; you need a generator.

And you need to explain how mass -> energy, and energy -> mass in SR doesn't have this mass generator, like we're sure it does. It must be fundamentally different to your f(space,time) = mass function.

 

Generator: We need something to spin the coils, due to our current tech. But energy for rotation is in spacetime, and current is in the wire.

[Boof-head]

But you have to only use space and time, the variables you mention that create mass.

Where did "spin, coils, current tech, and current in a wire" come from?

[lawcat]

But you have to only use space and time, the variables you mention that create mass.

Where did "spin, coils, current tech, and current in a wire" come from?

 

The roof of a house has potential energy with respect to ground. As a matter of fact, roof of a house has E=mc2 energy. A house has atoms, and electrons. How come there is no current flow and the house does not burn down?

 

You have to know whaat energy you are talking about, and how to convert into desired form. Therein lies the problem.

[Boof-head]

It's a problem alright; you can't use anything in the lhs of your equation except space and time, you have to have mass as a remainder or product of these two things.

 

Your house and it's roof are on the rhs.

[Boof-head]

Let's see, on reflection I think you can say there are two classes of epistemological time, our local one and the universal one that lets us measure a flow against it - or, we multiply our one by the positive and the negative, real property we perceive (in "it"), since we are always looking back at this time mirror T which has this reflexive character, whatever else it is or isn't.

 

Space looks 3-dimensional when as GR/SR tell us time moves in this opposite direction (events are retrospective)- so we appear to move "forward" reflexively. Something is expanding all by itself, in our epistemic branch of ontologic or "ontic" time, we perceive an ergodic "response" because of this reflective nature.

 

You can't divide by zero, but you can divide zero times; div(m,n) will do nothing to m if n is 0. So if universal time is 1, we can div it by 0; if UT is 0 we then need a time generator, so we can use space to create all the mass.

 

And I abbreviated time into its direction when I stated that the direction lives at the vertex, the direction is the positive or negative sign the angle has, one is imaginary in real spacetime, in which there is no mass yet.

 

So, since epistemically, time 'evolves' in a retrospective direction, positive time is a transform from the imaginary domain; negative or real time t is the basis, and we get: t + i(t) for any e, in E our epistemic set of time measurements.

 

the i is our imagined time-positive universe. Or rather the positive universe of space - still have all that non-existent mass to get from somewhere.

 

Aha, what we need to do is reduce the formula for [math] e \in E [/math] by subtracting the imagination, that generates "future time" which is the putative time-transfer that generates successive time values. So that: t + t = t x t;

 

But why? because the sum and product are a time-ratio, this says that 'static. unmotivated' by our imagination, time, is a unitary product, such that enumerated time expressed as a ratio (divided by) our epistemic "sense" or mechanism that generates it which is an area - it generates a space; the only solution is t = 2, or time has 2 dimensions; which fits the ansatz formulation. Time is a binary switching circuit,

 

Without the i coefficient for one of the lhs terms, the universe has 4 dimensions of time. To remove i, you divide the i term, by i; to recover imagination you multiply it again (actually you need a null-time i functor). This raises and lowers our imagination transfer "Hamiltonian" from the system; when it goes back in squared time transforms into a space as well. So the formula so far, goes:

 

[math] t^2 + i(t) + t = e; t^2 + t + t = 0; t + t / t \times t = 1 [/math]

[modest]

Moderation Note: As promised I have moved posts which focus on the topic of cosmology and entropy to 19314 where they can be afforded their appropriate attention. Please direct all responses on that topic to that thread. Thank you.

[Boof-head]

Deforming and puncturing a nullspace

 

If you can get from this point you're on which is "at" the intersection of 3 curves; one is the apex of a real cone, another is its imaginary reflection in a time-mirror T, and the third is a null-curve, a geodesic in spacetime, to somewhere, what do you do? Do you look up, or is it looking down, how can you tell?

 

If you can also move, as you look, you can imagine this movement, along a null-geodesic is time, your very own little stretch of it, and you can call it t, when you look at its reflection in the mirror, it's t', so everything is ok.

 

However, now there's this other t' "looking back" at you; you have to reverse its orientation in a left to right sense, so it orients with your other perceived dimensions, but, since you are only a point looking in 1 dimension, the other 2 you imagined have to collapse or vanish in the time mirror, that is, on the surface of the mirror your handedness extends both ways when you imagine that the t - t' axis exists, you can't keep the expansion along it that lets you look in a circle - the imaginary circumference that corresponds to the perimeter of your nullcone, because you have to keep looking "up" at this perimetric region (or maybe it's down after all).

[Boof-head]

boofhead, speak in english.

 

Que?

[Boof-head]

Next, consider a surface, S with independent observers on it, each able to communicate with a neighbour; each observer o, has at least 2 neighbours o',o'' who send and receive messages, t', and t''.

The observers are t-connected over S, and the algebra is A(t,t), for a connection, which takes 'messages to messages', or: t -> t'

 

Each observer also can communicate with external events, apart from those encoded as o(t), in the alphabet, these are all simplex; local channels of communication are simplex/duplex. Channels are all memoryless, each observer has a memory m, in (M,t); this represents the adjoint algebra, over S,

 

Hence, a triad, or trinity, or (less reified), a triple with a spectrum A, a structure M, and a surface or background. And C is the dynamic with connections in it (t-connected nodes). I would call these "people" but that's a little, you know .. 'scary'.

[Boof-head]

Moving forward

 

When going somewhere, make sure you haven't arrived yet.

Otherwise instead of moving backward, backward, you will be moving forward backward.

 

..."The Management"

 

And we remind all our customers, we are expressly imdemnified against any delays in service.

[Boof-head]

It could be that time, being imaginary (or conversely, the future is imagined because the past is real) is only a perception because we simply can't observe every event, out of the vast set of discrete timed-events collected over any large enough interval we have to discard most of them - we erase or 'forget', or make no record except for a small subset.

[We cannot remember or construct a large enough store of information - even if we use single atoms or photons of "light", so that we can observe all events individually or collectively, since we can only extend our own store, or knowledge of how to construct a more efficient, information-dense one, that we will "know everything; nor can we in principle, since we have to retain it by transforming it, into denser and denser encoding - in terms of the information and the smallest space we can store a smallest bit and use a smallest bit of matter.

 

There has to be a 'pullback' that recovers the store. This is something Aristotle no doubt considered as did his predecessors. We mark something and read it later, but it has to be maintained. The store itself is not the invariant. The invariant is the entropy of information.]

 

So time is all the gaps in knowledge, or all the information we don't make a copy of.

In the lightcone model, these are all events tangent to the surface of the extended cone. There is another model called: thermal time, in which time is treated like heat flowing through a medium. Carlo Rovelli's child is controversial, since time is indeed reified by physicists as a real, worshipable entity, and yea, do they make homage verily.

 

But: then the surface is a manifold like a heat engine, driven or gauged by time like heat entropy gauges thermodynamics; the Lagrangian is "time energy", the initial condition is a surface with a lowest state, such that absolute zero time is backwards-inducted. The beginning of heat is the same vertex for our universe as the beginning of time - mass comes along for the ride.

[Boof-head]

So since you can communicate, you receive messages; these are encoded as alphabets whose characters are represented as "bits" of information. You can reduce an alphabet of any arbitrary complexity, to strings of bits, and store them in m.

 

You receive a message from observer o', telling you an event has occured: there is a body with a diameter d, external to the surface, or G that you are both on; this object is in "space" because it has an angle, or azimuth, that places the event (the diameter) beyond the surface, or beyond a horizon of it, H.

 

When you look for this object, it's below the horizon, and you can't see an azimuth; you have to wait for something. You expect to see this object or rather its diameter, d. You know this because the surface, and/or the object are in motion. You can remember positions and "motions" of this object; these are all in the past 'lightcone', you have a store of 'tangents' as a 'bundle', each encoded in units of t.

 

The message from observer o', has a known position, since you can communicate positions, and "locate" yourself wrt at least 2 other observers. This means you can calculate, by triangulation over the surface, the area, or the 'distance angle' to the horizon H.

[Boof-head]

This might be getting close to my last effort here at 'forum, and I'd like to introduce (in a clear and concise way) the idea of 'causal structure'. This is the 'initial vacuum'; it must be a robust model and so strongly imply the existence of discrete space and time. That is, explain why these are distinct, when the general structure is not.

 

Assume a 'hole' in a space S; this is a topological defect or pole.

A motion, along the perimeter or edge of the hole orients something (direction) so an apex appears.

The radius of curvature, for this path around the edge, is the geometry of the space.

 

We assign the label [math] \mathbb \gamma_0 [/math], to the global radius which the curved path depends on - you can envisage a 'particle' q, moving in a curved path along a surface S; it moves in a curve because of the global (universal) radius of the space.

 

The path is 'fixed', the particle q is 'free'; it moves around a horizon H. It might find a closed path (return to its initial position), since it 'knows' where it started from.

 

The surface is null-colored; the particle is colored, or has dimensionality (of color). The pole has vertices - the particle q and its path, constrained by [math] \mathbb \gamma_0 [/math]

 

P.S. "the natives are restless, send beads and blankets."

[Boof-head]

I've been instructed that the previous version of a surface I constructed (out of thin air) was unacceptable science, or somesuch. Therefore here is a revised (hopefully familiar) version, which is a copy of v1, with addenda:

consider a surface, S with independent observers on it (here, we might consider a 'planet' with 'mechanical beings' who can communicate), each able to communicate with a neighbour; each observer o, has at least 2 neighbours o',o'' who send and receive messages, t', and t''. (These might be 'computers' at fixed locations on the surface)

The observers are t-connected over S, and the algebra is A(t,t), for a connection, which takes 'messages to messages', or: t -> t'. (computers can communicate -> abstract mechanical beings can too)

 

Each observer also can communicate with external events (see things on the surface and above its horizon), apart from those encoded as o(t) ( - from other observers) in the alphabet, these are all simplex; local channels of communication are simplex/duplex. Channels are all memoryless, each observer has a memory m, in (M,t); this represents the adjoint algebra, over S,

 

Hence, a triad, or trinity, or (less reified), a triple with a spectrum A, a structure M, and a surface or background. And C is the dynamic with connections in it (t-connected nodes). (we might consider 'planet earth', with people and computers in a network or mesh, over the surface, here)

[freeztar]

Please keep the thread on topic. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss success and learning.

 

Moderation note: the 6 post to which this post refers have been moved to 19447, because they’re a discussion about the general subject of effective ways to learn, not the original thread’s subject.