Did albert Einstein wrong when he turn to the time Dimension

[cohen avshalom]

ok-what i am saying is not the mainstream,that for sure,because i have new define..and other point of view..

 

but ok...let move to the question..

Did albert Einstein wrong when he turn to the time Dimension,and he didnt stay and try maybe to look if there are other elemant that could Match the missing element ,that will be Instead the "missing aether",maybe the space himself could bring the process (the fuel)and the missing energy that allow the universe to stay at the same way he is be now (not big Frozen material that could not have any Oabrtzih)

and explain why he make enough energy that will allow the universe stay at the way he is staying today...???

if space himself could change his state not only the material inside-- else the space himself that keep/allow the material and the energy to be at the space ---were been changing here state to energy..

 

for more understand i will try to make it simple--material and energy can be only at place that can hold them,there for there volume is not zero..

 

let take for example one point in space

 

let see what we are having there..

 

we have at that point :

e(energy) ,m(material),and the last thinks the space/area-this is very hard to explain this word at english(because this turn is not exsist at english-at hebrew this call merchav-that mean the place that allow the material can be -since material or energy,can not been at "

no -where"...

if this place(that have no volue=0,since he can hold the energy-could change his state or splite)-then we have the missing energy..

 

so maybe the black hole-is just place where-the space himself change his state..??

 

 

 

ok-let here what you can say..

 

cohen avshalom charly

israel /haifa

icarus5-universe at time minus

[lawcat]

I do not know if Einstein, and science in general erred.

 

I think it's all in the interpretation.

 

Time has angular characteristic.

 

That fact creates curvature, for every eucledian axis.

Therefore, we should really think of the fourth dimension as relative curvature between two sections of space; not as time per se..

 

(youcan also think of it as two space domains, one cartesian and one polar, each with 3 dimensions--2 domains, 3 dimensions). The interplay between the two is the fourth dimension, and common to both. It is Time cross-section Space, in math logic terms. We can not comprehend fourth dimension because to us both space and time are in three dimensions, but this crosssection gives us an intuitive insight into its existence.

 

The fourth dimensions likely has imaginary characteristics, much like in the field of electro-magnetism there is real and imaginary component. The existence of imaginary component, although imaginary, has real effects. The same goes for the fourth dimension. it is an imaginary axis that represent interplay between space and time, cartesian and polar; and, although imaginary, it has real effects. (x,y,z,i); (r, theta, phi, j).

[modest]

Did albert Einstein wrong when he turn to the time Dimension,and he didnt stay and try maybe to look if there are other elemant that could Match the missing element ,that will be Instead the "missing aether",

 

I'm not exactly sure I understand. I think you're asking a common question that it is found under the heading "Common Pitfalls in Relativity" in the wikibook on Special Relativity:

 

If students do not grasp that, from the outset, modern Special Relativity proposes that the universe is four dimensional, then, like Poincaré, they will consider that the constancy of the speed of light is just an event awaiting a mechanical explanation and waste their time pondering the sorts of mechanical or electrical effects that could adjust the velocity of light to be compatible with observation.

 

-Common Pitfalls in Relativity

 

Before the idea of spacetime people like Lorentz and Poincare tried to explain the constant (or invariant) speed of light with aether and other mechanical effects rather than with a 4th temporal dimension. But, the most successful approach and the modern approach to special relativity has time as the 4th dimension. Time as a 4th dimension was not introduced by Einstein as you say. It was rather Hermann Minkowski who created the idea of "spacetime" 2 years after Einstein developed special relativity.

 

I would recommend you find a good introductory book on relativity before you try to alter the modern interpretation.

 

~Modest

[modest]

That fact creates curvature, for every eucledian axis.

Therefore, we should really think of the fourth dimension as relative curvature between two sections of space; not as time per se..

 

I've never heard this interpretation. Do you know of any online links making that explanation that I could check out?

 

~Modest

[lawcat]

Modest,

 

there is no paper stating exactly what I stated. But, Would you say that the predominant theory is the manifold which effects all three euclidean axis?

 

First, manifold implies some sort of curvature which GR predicts. Second, the problem with the manifold theory is multiplicity--in essence, we have no known frame of reference---Fourth dimension effects known 3d space differently everywhere.

 

Therefore, all we can speak of is the change in curvature between two objects. Fourth dimension, in space, is relative to two objects.

In other words, to predict location of any point, we need x, y, z for the target object with respect to the reference object; and, we need to know relative curvature between reference and target object.

http://www.geocities.com/aletawcox/Sunset.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_introduction_to_the_mathematics_of_curved_spacetime

[cohen avshalom]

lawcat, modest---thank for peplying,and i will check soon your link..

 

second:why this is so much time need the forum to post,or move from one thread to other,and sometime this is seem like the computer just do a long time out before he even let you enter....it all work realy slow---i tried other site and forum and this probleam didnt been there(can this happen because of to much people on line--???)...

 

 

3 .i just try to look -at other way...

 

such as :

 

black hole -as area that change his state..

the edge of the universe as area that it has not been format area,there for this area- can not allow to hold material -since material can been only at area that can hold him,material can not been at "no place/no where"..but he can ba at some point in space..

 

and of course later-splite of area(not the material inside him)

and area "as a fuel",by converating area to energy..

but this is for later...

 

 

remark: one word is miss for me ,at english-at hebrew this call "merchav",,this is like the area in general and not what is inside there,like new yourk city as the point in the map,not the citry himself,where this city is standing-in general..

 

 

cohen avshalom charly

israel/haifa

icarus5-universe at time minus

Icarus 5, Unlimited energy being produced at the outter edge of expanding space

[modest]

Modest,

 

there is no paper stating exactly what I stated. But, Would you say that the predominant theory is the manifold which effects all three euclidean axis?

 

First, manifold implies some sort of curvature which GR predicts. Second, the problem with the manifold theory is multiplicity--in essence, we have no known frame of reference---Fourth dimension effects known 3d space differently everywhere.

 

Therefore, all we can speak of is the change in curvature between two objects. Fourth dimension, in space, is relative to two objects.

In other words, to predict location of any point, we need x, y, z for the target object with respect to the reference object; and, we need to know relative curvature between reference and target object.

Seven Dimensional (and up) Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe - Hawking Forum Post

Riemannian geometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction to mathematics of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This is not correct. The 4th dimension in spacetime (including general relativity) is time. 4 coordinates will tell location: x, y, z, t. The 4th is time. This is true in general relativity as well. The manifold you speak of is how spacetime is represented. It is a 4 dimensional Lorentzian manifold which you can think of as a map. A good analogy is a paper map of the earth. You can have a 2 dimensional map representing the 2 dimensional curved surface of the earth. Spacetime in general relativity is similar but has 4 dimensions instead of 2.

 

~modest

[modest]

second:why this is so much time need the forum to post,or move from one thread to other,and sometime this is seem like the computer just do a long time out before he even let you enter....it all work realy slow---i tried other site and forum and this probleam didnt been there(can this happen because of to much people on line--???)...

I don't know. I've never heard anyone have this trouble. You might try navigating the site on another computer to see if the problem is still there.

 

3 .i just try to look -at other way...

 

such as :

 

black hole -as area that change his state..

the edge of the universe as area that it has not been format area,there for this area- can not allow to hold material -since material can been only at area that can hold him,material can not been at "no place/no where"..but he can ba at some point in space..

 

and of course later-splite of area(not the material inside him)

and area "as a fuel",by converating area to energy..

but this is for later...

 

 

remark: one word is miss for me ,at english-at hebrew this call "merchav",,this is like the area in general and not what is inside there,like new yourk city as the point in the map,not the citry himself,where this city is standing-in general..

 

I'm sorry Cohen. I really cannot make sense of what you're trying to say.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Modest,

 

I believe that we are talking about the same thing, and yet we differ about our understanding of time.

 

For example, we can understand time to be: (1) a tick, (2) a spin, (3) a potential. If time is a tick, than the change in spacetime between two points is the change in perception of ticks. If it is a spin, then the change in spacetime is the difference between spins; if it is a potential, than the change is the difference in potential. In any case, we are talking about about relative change between point; a gradient; curvature.

 

Would you say that is the case?