Relativity And Simple Algebra

[OceanBreeze]

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.

 

 

You are exactly right, and Dubbel0 is wrong.

 

Taking the mathematical argument first, The Minkowski metric, which is the most common mathematical structure on which special relativity is formulated, has the following form:

 

ds² = c² dt² - dx² - dy² - dz²

 

As can be seen, the metric signature has one time-like and three space-like characters and they are not treated exactly the same. The two most obvious differences seen are, the time-like character needs to be multiplied by c² in order to make the units compatible with the space-like characters and the sign of the time-like character is always opposite from the sign of the space-like character.

 

That is, the metric signature is either  (+, −, −, −) if its eigenvalue is defined in the time direction, or (−, +, +, +) if the eigenvalue is defined in the three spatial directions x, y and z.

 

Besides the mathematical treatment it is also true that If two events are causally connected ("event A causes event B"), the causal order is always preserved. That is, event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference. There is no frame in which a distant observer will see the earth go dark before the sun goes out, as these events are causally connected.

 

As you stated, time is not in any sense a fourth spatial dimension.

 

And the link you posted is also interesting.

[OceanBreeze]

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.

 

I'm here to tell you that dubbel is wrong, and so are you. And knock off the "retarded" accusations or you might be taking a vacation.

[ralfcis]

What you're saying I totally agree with because it makes sense and I've argued the same points. But I can also show you, if you want, many people who say on the physics stack exchange the time dimension is just another spatial dimension. Of course this would be a petty waste of time for me to post arguments I don't agree with just like it would be a petty waste of time to post arguments of how relativity believes in a future that hasn't yet happened locally but can be seen from another perspective. If you want to put your foot down and say those two positions are wrong on this forum, then I'm all for that because I won't have to waste anymore time arguing against them. But remember, relativity totally postulates the last one with subsequent implications so you're saying relativity is wrong. I totally agree and not in just this one instance but it is totally wrong about everything once you start pulling on any string in that ball of yarn.

Edited October 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Victor, I'm slightly interested in what you said but I need to translate it into my own terms because you seem to have written it with an intent to obfuscate. So let's go through it line by line.

 

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.

 

So this looks like what I call v_t , velocity through time. I also have a separate v_x which is the velocity through space. But are you saying the velocity of time is actually the velocity of space around you which is not the same thing as your velocity through space? Is this an interpretation that arises from the concept of spacetime? (My interpretation arises from keeping space and time separate.)

 

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.

 

I have no idea what that sentence means.

 

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.

 

Ok but that doesn't explain why the velocity through time can't have a + and minus direction like the velocity through space does.

 

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.

 

Don't know what is this mirror you speak of.

[sluggo]

quotes by the author of SR

From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:

page 1.

"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

page 31.

"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."

page 32.

"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate…"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time. I refer to the Minkowski version of SR as a 'lines on paper' theory. Time is represented as a line, removing any attributes that would distinguish its identity from other variables, a line is a line. In a space-time graphic, the lines present patterns that have geometric relationships, that can be interpreted as representing physical processes.

 

In a space-time graphic, the observer with his local clock, moves along the x axis. It’s referred to as a ‘timeline’. That leaves 2 spatial dimensions.

[OceanBreeze]

 

quotes by the author of SR

From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:

page 1.

"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

page 31.

"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."

page 32.

"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate…"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing space-time. I refer to the Minkowski version of SR as a 'lines on paper' theory. Time is represented as a line, removing any attributes that would distinguish its identity from other variables, a line is a line. In a space-time graphic, the lines present patterns that have geometric relationships, that can be interpreted as representing physical processes.

 

In a space-time graphic, the observer with his local clock, moves along the x axis. It’s referred to as a ‘timeline’. That leaves 2 spatial dimensions.

 

 

That agrees with what I posted.

[ralfcis]

What about answering my question to you.

[Vmedvil2]

Victor, I'm slightly interested in what you said but I need to translate it into my own terms because you seem to have written it with an intent to obfuscate. So let's go through it line by line.

 

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.

 

So this looks like what I call v_t , velocity through time. I also have a separate v_x which is the velocity through space. But are you saying the velocity of time is actually the velocity of space around you which is not the same thing as your velocity through space? Is this an interpretation that arises from the concept of spacetime? (My interpretation arises from keeping space and time separate.)

 

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.

 

I have no idea what that sentence means.

 

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.

 

Ok but that doesn't explain why the velocity through time can't have a + and minus direction like the velocity through space does.

 

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.

 

Don't know what is this mirror you speak of.

 

What I was saying is this Time is a moving space dimension and Energy-mass can be only put into the dimension of time as volume for a moment until the next moment, Movement can happen over time which shifts the location of this volume over time which is a mirrored location over time, Time is constantly moving thus the locations automatically shift as a velocity is applied which is a change in space over time in that dimension. Time expressed as a space dimension is Cdt this shows that the time dimension when taken as space is moving at C per second. In invariant special relativity time is shown as a space dimension as Cdt = dx which is a leg on the triangle for the distance formula the solution being S. It is literally taken as a dx dimension of space as a dt dimension that is moving at C velocity. Furthermore, this equation can be rewritten for all the space dimensions to be in the form of the time dimension, as s² = C²dt² - V_x²dt² - V_y²dt² - V_z²dt²  = C²dt² - dx² - dy² - dz² , as dx = Vdt and dx = Cdt, so when I say that the time dimension it just like the space ones I mean it.

 

Visualization of what I am talking about again as light cone.

 

 

 

The Linear world lines over time and location within the volume which is done just as a space dimension's triangle leg.

Edited October 3, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

You are exactly right, and Dubbel0 is wrong.

 

Taking the mathematical argument first, The Minkowski metric, which is the most common mathematical structure on which special relativity is formulated, has the following form:

 

ds² = c² dt² - dx² - dy² - dz²

 

As can be seen, the metric signature has one time-like and three space-like characters and they are not treated exactly the same. The two most obvious differences seen are, the time-like character needs to be multiplied by c² in order to make the units compatible with the space-like characters and the sign of the time-like character is always opposite from the sign of the space-like character.

 

That is, the metric signature is either  (+, −, −, −) if its eigenvalue is defined in the time direction, or (−, +, +, +) if the eigenvalue is defined in the three spatial directions x, y and z.

 

Besides the mathematical treatment it is also true that If two events are causally connected ("event A causes event B"), the causal order is always preserved. That is, event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference. There is no frame in which a distant observer will see the earth go dark before the sun goes out, as these events are causally connected.

 

As you stated, time is not in any sense a fourth spatial dimension.

 

And the link you posted is also interesting.

Explain how I am wrong... The metric you even chose states that the time dimension is an imaginary leg on the ordinary Pythageorean space.

[Vmedvil2]

Explain how I am wrong... The metric you even chose states that the time dimension is an imaginary leg on the ordinary Pythageorean space.

That too, I agree dubbel I think Oceanbreeze doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Amplituhedron]

As a side note, Tegmark and others have presented papers showing that the signature 3+1 is the only one compatible with sentient observers — quite an interesting find, if true. One can logically imagine three dimensions of time and one of space, or four dimensions of space and none of time, or any other combination you could dream up, but none of them seem to admit of observers. So if one asks why we live in a 3+1 cosmos, it is an anthropic selection effect. Of course, the “why” here only refers only to why we observe, what we observe; not why it is that way, and not some other way. It is only to say that if it were some other way, no one would be around to notice. 

 

I should like to add, as a further side note, that this place really could be a haven for those interested in science, people of all educational and knowledge levels, if discussions were actually moderated to preclude insults, trolling and ad hominem — which unfortunately regularly occur here, despite the rules, and which no doubt intimidate people who may try to come here and converse, but are scared off from posting for fear of being called a retard, a hyena, etc.  

 

I don’t personally care about being attacked in such a churlish way, but I am sure many others do. In the realm of philosophy, Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Frazier University, wrote an article, “Philosophy as a Blood Sport,” about this very problem in his own field (even before the trollish internet), and lamented about how many people had been driven from academic philosophy, including one of his best students, by mud-slinging argumentation in place of reasoned discussion motivated by the philosophical principle of charity, with at least a residuum of mutual respect, even if sometimes feigned.

 

I also bring up Swartz because, in a chapter of one of his books, he offers a long and brilliant philosophical exegesis on the nature of space and time, which can be found online for any interested. IMO it is a masterpiece of modern analytic philosophy, though I acknowledge that many hold philosophy to be meaningless, as did the late Steven Hawking. They are wrong. As Swartz has noted, the entire scientific enterprise is shot through with often unrecognized philosophical presuppositions. I’d be tempted to post a link to the chapter, but I get the distinct impression that here, it would either be disparaged or ignored, by people who agree with Hawking, or who think that nothing has any meaning except algebra.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

Correct.

[Amplituhedron]

So, you think algebra is the meaning of life?

 

Too bad you're not even good at it.

[ralfcis]

Bwahahaha how would you know?

[OceanBreeze]

As a side note, Tegmark and others have presented papers showing that the signature 3+1 is the only one compatible with sentient observers — quite an interesting find, if true. One can logically imagine three dimensions of time and one of space, or four dimensions of space and none of time, or any other combination you could dream up, but none of them seem to admit of observers. So if one asks why we live in a 3+1 cosmos, it is an anthropic selection effect. Of course, the “why” here only refers only to why we observe, what we observe; not why it is that way, and not some other way. It is only to say that if it were some other way, no one would be around to notice. 

 

 

 

Interesting position to take

 

 

 

I should like to add, as a further side note, that this place really could be a haven for those interested in science, people of all educational and knowledge levels, if discussions were actually moderated to preclude insults, trolling and ad hominem — which unfortunately regularly occur here, despite the rules, and which no doubt intimidate people who may try to come here and converse, but are scared off from posting for fear of being called a retard, a hyena, etc.  

 

 

 

I don’t personally care about being attacked in such a churlish way, but I am sure many others do. In the realm of philosophy, Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Frazier University, wrote an article, “Philosophy as a Blood Sport,” about this very problem in his own field (even before the trollish internet), and lamented about how many people had been driven from academic philosophy, including one of his best students, by mud-slinging argumentation in place of reasoned discussion motivated by the philosophical principle of charity, with at least a residuum of mutual respect, even if sometimes feigned.

 

 

 

 I think GAHD tries his best with admin/mod duties. As for myself, I don’t have the time to spend here and have advised GAHD to try and find someone else to replace me; maybe you would be interested in the job?

 

A big part of the problem is there simply are not that many people posting here and of those who do post, a disproportionate number are crackpots or pseudointellectuals who have no real background or training in physics or mathematics but can’t help themselves from pretending. If we were to ban these people there would not be enough quality posters left to keep this forum viable. Hence, this forum is presently a crackpot haven for those who have been kicked off of many other forums; it has become a place of last refuge for crackpots and other forum misfits.

 

But, as you said a few posts earlier “everyone loves to watch a train wreck”; unfortunately that may be the only thing still interesting to see here; the only redeeming feature.

Maybe the best approach is to just laugh!

 

I also bring up Swartz because, in a chapter of one of his books, he offers a long and brilliant philosophical exegesis on the nature of space and time, which can be found online for any interested. IMO it is a masterpiece of modern analytic philosophy, though I acknowledge that many hold philosophy to be meaningless, as did the late Steven Hawking. They are wrong. As Swartz has noted, the entire scientific enterprise is shot through with often unrecognized philosophical presuppositions. I’d be tempted to post a link to the chapter, but I get the distinct impression that here, it would either be disparaged or ignored, by people who agree with Hawking, or who think that nothing has any meaning except algebra.

 

 

By all means, please post a link, better still start a thread with your own comments on this; it sounds interesting

[exchemist]

As a side note, Tegmark and others have presented papers showing that the signature 3+1 is the only one compatible with sentient observers — quite an interesting find, if true. One can logically imagine three dimensions of time and one of space, or four dimensions of space and none of time, or any other combination you could dream up, but none of them seem to admit of observers. So if one asks why we live in a 3+1 cosmos, it is an anthropic selection effect. Of course, the “why” here only refers only to why we observe, what we observe; not why it is that way, and not some other way. It is only to say that if it were some other way, no one would be around to notice. 

 

I should like to add, as a further side note, that this place really could be a haven for those interested in science, people of all educational and knowledge levels, if discussions were actually moderated to preclude insults, trolling and ad hominem — which unfortunately regularly occur here, despite the rules, and which no doubt intimidate people who may try to come here and converse, but are scared off from posting for fear of being called a retard, a hyena, etc.  

 

I don’t personally care about being attacked in such a churlish way, but I am sure many others do. In the realm of philosophy, Norman Swartz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Frazier University, wrote an article, “Philosophy as a Blood Sport,” about this very problem in his own field (even before the trollish internet), and lamented about how many people had been driven from academic philosophy, including one of his best students, by mud-slinging argumentation in place of reasoned discussion motivated by the philosophical principle of charity, with at least a residuum of mutual respect, even if sometimes feigned.

 

I also bring up Swartz because, in a chapter of one of his books, he offers a long and brilliant philosophical exegesis on the nature of space and time, which can be found online for any interested. IMO it is a masterpiece of modern analytic philosophy, though I acknowledge that many hold philosophy to be meaningless, as did the late Steven Hawking. They are wrong. As Swartz has noted, the entire scientific enterprise is shot through with often unrecognized philosophical presuppositions. I’d be tempted to post a link to the chapter, but I get the distinct impression that here, it would either be disparaged or ignored, by people who agree with Hawking, or who think that nothing has any meaning except algebra.

This sounds interesting. There are a few of us who might appreciate it.

 

There happen to be three prolific posters here who fairly obviously have mental conditions (Ralfcis, Dubbelsox and Victor offhis Medsville). I have had all three of them on Ignore for quite some time. But I do scan the forum most days just to see if anything interesting has been posted. If you care to post something on another thread, away from these characters, I will certainly read it.

 

The main entertainment here otherwise is waiting for another perpetual motion crank to show up.

[ralfcis]

I'm all for you navel gazers to go navel gaze on another thread amongst yourselves. I won't bother you because I find you've got nothing important or interesting to say. I see a lot of hurt feelings, egos and malice but no glimmer of intelligence in any of you. However, I do enjoy batting you guys around from one post to the next like a cat with a play toy so I'll miss that. 

 

Popeye is the only one here who is rational, knowledgeable, and can do the math yet he won't engage with me. As Damp said, I must be scary. I enrage the rest of you but he's neither critical or overly supportive but I assume he's labelled me as one of the cranks. So long as he lets me crank away at the math to see where it leads, I guess it really doesn't matter. Once I tie up all the loose ends, I'll set up shop on a forum that has the experts to test me and you can turn this place into an online yoga studio if that's your goal.