Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Dubbelosix]

Einstein did not say that time is another spatial dimension.

 

The theory of relativity does NOT predict that for some observer, the earth goes dark, before the sun goes out. It predicts just the opposite! You do not seem to be acquainted with the difference between spacelike, lightlike and timelike intervals, and hence still fail to understand, at all, the theory you purport to critique.

Time is modelled exactly as an extra leg of the spacetime triangle, so yes, Einstein did mathematically show this. Edited October 2, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[ralfcis]

You can't read exchemist? This is exactly what I said. A BA at Oxford is a BSc everywhere else. When you read "Indiana" do you see the word "Oxford"? Really guys, take some remedial reading courses. I'm sick of your lies and mischaracterizations of what I'm actually saying. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

They Offer both Ralfcis , here is the Indiana University page on B.A. and B.S. Physics https://college.indiana.edu/academics/degrees-majors/major-guides/physics-ba.html , basically unlike what I went for originally which was a B.S. in Physics ,the B.A. in Physics is for people not pursuing a graduate program in physics meaning Master's or Doctorate 

Edited October 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Well I guess that settles it.

[Amplituhedron]

Time is modelled exactly as an extra leg of the spacetime triangle, so yes, Einstein did mathematically show this.

 

Sorry, I’m not following. Did you mean that Einstein showed that time is a fourth spatial dimension, or that Einstein showed that there is a frame in which one could see the earth go dark before the sun winks out (effect preceding cause)?

 

The latter is certainly untrue — relativity rules out frames in which effects precede causes, except in case of superluminal transfer of information, which is precisely what relativity denies is possible.

 

As to the former, Einstein did indeed show that time is a fourth dimension, but not that it is a fourth spatial dimension. (Anything can be modeled as a dimension — temperature, for instance.) If time were identical to the three spatial dimensions that we know, then it would behave in exactly the same way, and would be experienced in the same way, as those other dimensions.

 

We should be able to travel, subject to possible physical constraints, in a fourth spatial dimension orthogonal to the other three. We would have tesseracts instead of cubes, we would be able to see into the interior of human bodies, safes, and everything else enclosed by three dimensions, and we would be able to rotate, through the fourth spatial dimension, a left-handed glove, say (or any other object), so that it becomes a mirror image of itself:  a right-handed glove.

 

We cannot do any of this. Also, in this case, then time would have be a fifth (non-spatial) dimension.

 

Actually, if time were literally a fourth spatial dimension, we could not do any of that anyway, because none of us would exist. In a world of four spatial dimensions, gravity would be described by an inverse cube law, which means there would be no solution to the two-body problem, which means there would be no stable orbits, which means there would be no planetary systems, which means we would not exist. So time, clearly, while a dimension, is not a fourth spatial dimension.

 

Incidentally, because I actually am a gentleman, and not a rude churl who routinely insults (unless provoked) his interlocutors, and nor do I ad hom or poison-well them, I commend to Ralf’s attention the following paper: Physicists continue to work to abolish time as the fourth dimension of space.

 

I think the title is wrong, for reasons I have stated — time is not a spatial dimension. However, the substance of the paper should interest Ralf. Here is the takeaway point, quoted from the article:

 

 

In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction.

 

 

Bold face by me. Perhaps this paper will help to support Ralf’s claims in this and other threads.

[Vmedvil2]

Sorry, I’m not following. Did you mean that Einstein showed that time is a fourth spatial dimension, or that Einstein showed that there is a frame in which one could see the earth go dark before the sun winks out (effect preceding cause)?

 

The latter is certainly untrue — relativity rules out frames in which effects precede causes, except in case of superluminal transfer of information, which is precisely what relativity denies is possible.

 

As to the former, Einstein did indeed show that time is a fourth dimension, but not that it is a fourth spatial dimension. (Anything can be modeled as a dimension — temperature, for instance.) If time were identical to the three spatial dimensions that we know, then it would behave in exactly the same way, and would be experienced in the same way, as those other dimensions.

 

We should be able to travel, subject to possible physical constraints, in a fourth spatial dimension orthogonal to the other three. We would have tesseracts instead of cubes, we would be able to see into the interior of human bodies, safes, and everything else enclosed by three dimensions, and we would be able to rotate, through the fourth spatial dimension, a left-handed glove, say (or any other object), so that it becomes a mirror image of itself:  a right-handed glove.

 

We cannot do any of this. Also, in this case, then time would have be a fifth (non-spatial) dimension.

 

Actually, if time were literally a fourth spatial dimension, we could not do any of that anyway, because none of us would exist. In a world of four spatial dimensions, gravity would be described by an inverse cube law, which means there would be no solution to the two-body problem, which means there would be no stable orbits, which means there would be no planetary systems, which means we would not exist. So time, clearly, while a dimension, is not a fourth spatial dimension.

 

Incidentally, because I actually am a gentleman, and not a rude churl who routinely insults (unless provoked) his interlocutors, and nor do I ad hom or poison-well them, I commend to Ralf’s attention the following paper: Physicists continue to work to abolish time as the fourth dimension of space.

 

I think the title is wrong, for reasons I have stated — time is not a spatial dimension. However, the substance of the paper should interest Ralf. Here is the takeaway point, quoted from the article:

 

 

 

 

Bold face by me. Perhaps this paper will help to support Ralf’s claims in this and other threads.

Ya, dubbel has his Master's in physics and as a Biophysics person I am here to tell you he is right. Time is literally written as a 4th space dimension in Invariant Special Relativity and in General Relativity as the g_uv matrix. Both you and Ralfcis have incorrect views of special and general relativity because of lack of education its fine continue to fight over something neither of you understand, remember the special relativity lectures from Harvard or Princeton or whatever watch them so you don't both sound retarded(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36012-lectures-on-special-relativity/). After that if you are feeling adventurous watch the general relativity lecture which I am certain neither of you understand(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36011-lectures-on-general-relativity/). General Relativity simplifies Special Relativity to the point that makes me realize how retarded the both of you are. It's like watching two retarded kids fight over who gets to sit with mickey mouse at Disney land.

Edited October 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Amplituhedron]

Just because time is mathematically described as such does not mean it is literally a fourth spatial dimension. If it were, then, instead of spewing insults, you could meet the points that I have made: you cannot travel freely through time as you do through the three dimension of space. You cannot rotate an object through time so that its becomes its own mirror image. You cannot travel freely backward and forward through time, as you can through the three spatial dimensions. So obviously, you are wrong. A mathematical description of something does not mean that the math describes anything real.

 

It remains a source of wonderment to me that the venom and insults that people like you spew are allowed here, when supposedly the rules specifically ban this very thing. 

 

 

[ralfcis]

Ummm, ok. I'm not aware of any incorrect views I have. I have views that disagree with relativity but I'm also not aware that I've misrepresented relativity in any way. Do you have any specific examples?

 

Damp seems to agree with me that time is not a 4th spatial dimension but also disagrees with me that relativity says it is. He keeps incorrectly stating that I believe causality can be broken but he also believes the future can be seen from a distant perspective before it occurs locally which is indeed what relativity states but I disagree with. 

 

Also 006 has a Master's in physics? Is it an MA or a home schooled degree?

 

 I've heard of biofuel but Biophysics? So I googled it. Don't see anywhere how non-Newtonian physics is applied to biology. Do you have an example of a field of research where this is applicable? It seems to me people are throwing the term "physics" around too loosely in order to self-aggrandize. SR has nothing to do with biology.

[Vmedvil2]

Ummm, ok. I'm not aware of any incorrect views I have. I have views that disagree with relativity but I'm also not aware that I've misrepresented relativity in any way. Do you have any specific examples?

 

Damp seems to agree with me that time is not a 4th spatial dimension but also disagrees with me that relativity says it is. He keeps incorrectly stating that I believe causality can be broken but he also believes the future can be seen from a distant perspective before it occurs locally which is indeed what relativity states but I disagree with. 

 

Also 006 has a Master's in physics? Is it an MA or a home schooled degree?

 

 I've heard of biofuel but Biophysics? So I googled it. Don't see anywhere how non-Newtonian physics is applied to biology. Do you have an example of a field of research where this is applicable? It seems to me people are throwing the term "physics" around too loosely in order to self-aggrandize. SR has nothing to do with biology.

Protein Folding aka bioinformatics is where Quantum Mechanics is used but it is true that SR or GR is not necessarily used, but we still studied it, here is a link about biophysics(https://www.biophysics.org/what-is-biophysics). Biophysicists are teachers and researchers in biology, physics, engineering, and many other fields. They work in universities, hospitals, tech startups, and engineering companies developing new diagnostic tests, drug delivery systems, or potential biofuels. Basically, to have a mastery of biophysics it means to have a mastery of all the sciences minus psychology. My weakest subject is chemistry though, I will admit but I have a mastery over all of them, physics and nanotechnology being my best subjects, which I know I have a degree in. My point is watch those lectures and you will begin to understand where you have gone wrong the both of you.

Edited October 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Amplituhedron]

Of course, as explained here, there is also a crucial mathematical difference between time and space.

 

I have not claimed that ralficis says that causality can be broken. I have only pointed out that by his own words, he claims Einsteins' theory implies that from some frame it CAN be broken -- which is false. The theory does NOT say that, it says the opposite. So either Ralf has a reading comprehension problem, or he is lying about what I said. 

 

I again challenge the newest mud slinger, who called me a retard, to explain why, if time is literally a fourth spatial dimension, that we cannot travel back and forth through it, rotate objects to their mirror images in it, and so on. He won't even try to explain.

 

The above link explains what is also mathematically wrong about his claim.

[Vmedvil2]

Of course, as explained here, there is also a crucial mathematical difference between time and space.

 

I have not claimed that ralficis says that causality can be broken. I have only pointed out that by his own words, he claims Einsteins' theory implies that from some frame it CAN be broken -- which is false. The theory does NOT say that, it says the opposite. So either Ralf has a reading comprehension problem, or he is lying about what I said. 

 

I again challenge the newest mud slinger, who called me a retard, to explain why, if time is literally a fourth spatial dimension, that we cannot travel back and forth through it, rotate objects to their mirror images in it, and so on. He won't even try to explain.

 

The above link explains what is also mathematically wrong about his claim.

Time is actually a rate velocity in the form of space meaning the reason you cannot travel through it freely is because of velocity that time travels meaning each moment of time's space continuously changes which the velocity of time is C per second in the form of space. It is because the time dimension moves you can actually see the mirror of yourself in it by moving in a circle as time continues as well as rotate objects in it. You cannot travel backward in time because that moment of space is already gone as the movement will make that moment cease to exist replaced by the next moment, basically it is a changing dimension of space. It has a maximum degree of movement per second too which is C, the max amount of moment that can occur in one second is C amount in the other 3 dimensions of space, but since time is constantly moving you cannot see the mirroring effect over it, everything can be mirrored and moved over time, but you see the next moment as the mirror as time is a moving space dimension. The fact that the Energy-mass still exists is the mirror over time.

 

Light in 4-D mirrored across time.(light cone)

 

 

Movement within the cone over time, which mirrors the object to a different location every Planck Time being the smallest unit of time.

Edited October 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

To clarify, the only thing that saves causality in relativity, if you believe a distant observer can see our future before we can, is the fact he is too distant to reach us in time to warn us about our impending future. I'm just saying flat out there is no perspective that can see our light goes out before the sun goes out. It doesn't matter if he can warn us and affect our causality, he can't see our future before we do under any circumstances. Einstein said he can, I've mathematically shown he can't in my train in the station example. I've challenged you to show me where my math was wrong and of course you can't so you slithered away in silence.

 

PS. Even though I'm highly abusive to my inferiors, I would not stoop to use the "r" word in reference to them.

 

PPS. I've just noticed this thread is now the 2nd highest most replied to thread in the history of this forum replacing my other thread which held that title previously. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

To clarify, the only thing that saves causality in relativity, if you believe a distant observer can see our future before we can, is the fact he is too distant to reach us in time to warn us about our impending future. I'm just saying flat out there is no perspective that can see our light goes out before the sun goes out. It doesn't matter if he can warn us and affect our causality, he can't see our future before we do under any circumstances. Einstein said he can, I've mathematically shown he can't in my train in the station example. I've challenged you to show me where my math was wrong and of course you can't so you slithered away in silence.

 

PS. Even though I'm highly abusive to my inferiors, I would not stoop to use the "r" word in reference to them.

 

PPS. I've just noticed this thread is now the 2nd highest most replied to thread in the history of this forum replacing my other thread which held that title previously. 

 

See this is where you misunderstand basically this, there is no differences besides in the rate velocity of time for different locations as dt shifts to dt', time in the universe does not actually change he does not see our future but rather only moves in fast motion, the motion speed within the light cones change. To say the rate of time that he experiences changes not the actual flow of time in the entire universe, he cannot see the future because that future has not happened yet, it is just effecting him in that relativistic bubble of increased motion.

Edited October 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Also Victor you recently said:

 

"Keep going Ralfcis, as I said before you may yet change special relativity with the amount of work you are putting in."

 

and now I'm an "r" word?

[Vmedvil2]

Also Victor you recently said:

 

"Keep going Ralfcis, as I said before you may yet change special relativity with the amount of work you are putting in."

 

and now I'm an "r" word?

Well, no your fighting is retarded, it is not what you have said. You guys fight over the smallest of things, but just putting it out there I can be a bigger dick.

Edited October 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Amplituhedron]

 

PPS. I've just noticed this thread is now the 2nd highest most replied to thread in the history of this forum replacing my other thread which held that title previously. 

 

That is because everyone likes to gawk at a train wreck. The internet allows one to interact with such a wreck. :lol:

[Kardashev6]

I just want to say this thread consists of a collection of very intelligent thinkers/educators. A club I wish I was an active participant in vrs passive (due to my limitations of education). Yes, some push mainstream views...some not. Yes, the mainstream crowd (across academia & cyberspace) is larger, or the majority. Still, there has to be a level in which both can coexist peacefully. This coexistence may prove to be frustrating to opposing point of views but still can exist peacefully:)

 

I cannot even describe the level of, "reader satisfaction" I have enjoyed on this one thread! I understand not everyone can be correct. That aside, it does not matter (to me). The reader must determine what to filter and what conclusion to accept at the end of the day. As a reader here, I do not skim...especially if a viewpoint is being challenged by multiple individuals (not saying that is wrong, saying it can cause reader bias sometimes). I try to remain objective no matter how lopsided an argument is (quantitatively or qualitatively). I benefit from every single adult mannered post in this thread. For that, thank you all! Keep up the great work. Passive thread participants (no real contribution to give, like me) are here viewing and appreciate this web site and it's forum!

K6

Edited October 3, 2019 by Kardashev6