Rethinking Relativity

[junglelord]

Spherical Geometry is the fifth dimension.
Take note.

[StevenO]

Feast your eyes (and minds) on this.
I almost think I understand about half of it.
Can someone more knowledgeable in these matters tell me if this article is no more or less than physicists playing word games with mathematical abstractions?
How can such ideas—if that's the right word—ever be shown to be true or false?

Seriously confused,
longcircuit

Imagine you have multi-dimensional time, just like you have multi-dimensional space. First you could imagine then that things are connected in time while widely separated in space, explaining 'action-at-a-distance'. Next, you could imagine that when mapping these multiple dimensions of time onto the single time dimension of space-time you will have to work with just the 'shadow' of what is happening behind the scenes, explaining the need for statistics and wave functions.

[webolife]

StevenO, could you elucidate the concept of multi-dimensional time with an example the average person, like me, might be able to understand? I get "action at a distance" [have espoused it for nearly 29 years] but don't see what this has to do with "multi-dimensional" time. My unified field concept includes the understanding of [a 3-dimensional] universal action at a distance, even to the point that my late mentor R. A. Smith called it the T-Force [Time], but I don't follow your description of it...

[bdw000]

Imagine you have multi-dimensional time, just like you have multi-dimensional space. First you could imagine then that things are connected in time while widely separated in space, explaining 'action-at-a-distance'. Next, you could imagine that when mapping these multiple dimensions of time onto the single time dimension of space-time you will have to work with just the 'shadow' of what is happening behind the scenes, explaining the need for statistics and wave functions.

This is just an opinion

But until someone (anyone) can point to ONE single "dimension" in the PHYSICAL WORLD, any and all talk of "multiple dimensions" can have nothing to do with what is generally called "science."

It is a valid topic for speculating, but since it is impossible to "resolve" (for lack of a better word) one single "dimension" through some experimental means, talk of "dimensions" as if they can be taken off the shelf at some department store and used to construct "universes" is pure fiction that has zero scientific basis.

Again, this is just an opinion. I am not claiming that I know that multiple dimensions do not exist. I am simply saying that there is no evidence that even one of these "dimensions" exists, therefore any talk of more than one is not going to lead us anywhere productive.

This issue reminds me of talk about "time dilation," and all of the claimed "experimental proof" of such, when they cannot even DEFINE the word time ! The claim to be able to measure something that they can't even define destroys "their" credibility in my eyes.

[bdw000]

I would note that in the discussion of "curved space" that there really is nothing wrong with using a model that includes curved spaces to explain how things work. The flaw in using such a model is in failing to realize that it is simply a model -- and if it helps to explain some phenomena then that is all its purpose is and it has succeeded. Failure to realize that it is no more than a model can result in stretching that model into domains where it no longer describes reality. Similarly, faulting someone that uses the concept of "curved space" as a model is silly since curved space is simply a model and not an actual description of reality. There is no such thing as a model that is reality; all models do nothing more than approximate reality. I am surprised by how often people fail to make the distinction between model and reality in their discussions.

I am certainly no expert.

But my opinion on "curved space" is that it is an abuse of the language. Curves, BY DEFINITION, can apply ONLY to SURFACES. Since "space" is some infinite three-dimensional volume, all talk of curved space, such as around a star, is always in the context of the interior of some three-dimensional volume. To talk of curved space is as meaningless as to talk about "curved water" in the center of some volume of water. Sure, you can have a curved SURFACE on the outside of any volume of water, but the word "curve" can simply not apply to the interior of any volume.

Thus, to use the phrase "curved space," (for me anyway) is just an abuse of language. They are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" so to speak. No one is going to convince me by abusing language as a way to win an argument. Either use the words correctly, or make up new words to suit your purposes.

The obvious correct word that should be used in the context is "density." That is the word generally used to convey the idea of changes WITHIN a volume. But that word was avoided because then they would have to admit that they were talking about "something" (instead of nothing, ie "space") which everyone and anyone would know was the "ether."

As far as I am concerned, "curved space" is nothing short of intentional deception.

[bdw000]

Since even Alton does not believe in time, then we have a concenses.

Ahem . . . "consensus"

I would suggest that we have to be very careful with the word "time." The problem is that the word as it appears in the language does apply to some part of our experience, and does so accurately. To say that "there is no time" does not really hold up. The "word" does refer to some real part of experience. We should specify that we are complaining about the claims of physicists that "time" is some sort of independently-existing "thing" that is "out there" in the universe, just because they put a "t" in some equations.

The problem is that the physicists want to take the common language use of a word, and use that as the sole evidence for metaphysical claims about all of reality. That obviously is nonsense.

But we should not blame the word "time" itself because of that.

The problem is a classic case of equivocation: using two different definitions (usually at least one of which is not explicit) of a single word to win an argument.

[bdw000]

]But my opinion on "curved space" is that it is an abuse of the language.

I found this from another thread:

SevenO:
I'll start a thread on "What is Spacetime to show that 'curved spacetime' is the most logic way to describe our universe, because we can't take all mathematical freedoms to describe a physical reality.

Hey SevenO, if you are reading this, I would be interested to hear your rebuttal to my above post about curved space.

[junglelord]

ERRRRRRRRR, Its FREQUENCY....the inverse of Time.


All charge expression has Pi


So people can go on and on how time is not curved or space...
Yet this is the EU and its frequency and Pi.
Check your math next time you do charge.
Please try to do charge without Pi,
Go ahead.,..
That I want to see....

All this BS talk about time and space and no curve.
What a joke.
Yet the planets are round....and the sun, THE ELECTRIC SUN...IS ROUND

[bdw000]

All this BS talk about time and space and no curve.
What a joke.
Yet the planets are round....and the sun, THE ELECTRIC SUN...IS ROUND

That the planets and stars are round does NOT equal space and time being round (it literally "does not follow").

I do not argue that "curve" does not exist in the universe. All I am saying is that to apply the word to space and time is meaningless.

David Harriman puts it this way: a man can talk about his wife's body having curves, but it is meaningless for him to talk about his marriage being curved. That is EXACTLY the same as saying that space and/or time is curved. No information about physical reality is being conveyed with such language.

Abuse of language as a tactic to win an argument will not convince me of anything. Evidence is what convinces me (or sound reasoning). Use the words appropriately, or create new ones that correctly convey your ideas.

[TalonThorn]

If we say that space-time can be warped/curved, isn't that just saying that change can be "warped/curved," which translated simply means that the rate of change is altered. So then we aren't talking about a change in the "speed of time" for an object, but rather the rate of change in the interaction of the object with other objects that are used as reference points to describe it as "in motion."

Is such a thing as rate of interaction measurable?

[junglelord]

All this BS talk about time and space and no curve.
What a joke.
Yet the planets are round....and the sun, THE ELECTRIC SUN...IS ROUND

That the planets and stars are round does NOT equal space and time being round (it literally "does not follow").

I do not argue that "curve" does not exist in the universe. All I am saying is that to apply the word to space and time is meaningless.

David Harriman puts it this way: a man can talk about his wife's body having curves, but it is meaningless for him to talk about his marriage being curved. That is EXACTLY the same as saying that space and/or time is curved. No information about physical reality is being conveyed with such language.

Abuse of language as a tactic to win an argument will not convince me of anything. Evidence is what convinces me (or sound reasoning). Use the words appropriately, or create new ones that correctly convey your ideas.

That was cherry picking my post.
Charge equations have Pi as an interal part of the equation.
Frequency, the same.
Since Frequency is the proper domain or dimension, then yes it is curved, and charge is certainly curved.
Infact one begins to see that Spherical Geometry is a dimension in its own right.

[StevenO]

StevenO, could you elucidate the concept of multi-dimensional time with an example the average person, like me, might be able to understand? I get "action at a distance" [have espoused it for nearly 29 years] but don't see what this has to do with "multi-dimensional" time. My unified field concept includes the understanding of [a 3-dimensional] universal action at a distance, even to the point that my late mentor R. A. Smith called it the T-Force [Time], but I don't follow your description of it...

If you have no trouble understanding three dimensional action at a distance, what is so different in three dimensional time ? The only point is that time always appears as a scalar motion to a gravitating object moving in space. That scalar value would contain the mappings of motions in three dimensional time (action at a "distance").

[StevenO]

Imagine you have multi-dimensional time, just like you have multi-dimensional space. First you could imagine then that things are connected in time while widely separated in space, explaining 'action-at-a-distance'. Next, you could imagine that when mapping these multiple dimensions of time onto the single time dimension of space-time you will have to work with just the 'shadow' of what is happening behind the scenes, explaining the need for statistics and wave functions.

This is just an opinion

But until someone (anyone) can point to ONE single "dimension" in the PHYSICAL WORLD, any and all talk of "multiple dimensions" can have nothing to do with what is generally called "science."

It is a valid topic for speculating, but since it is impossible to "resolve" (for lack of a better word) one single "dimension" through some experimental means, talk of "dimensions" as if they can be taken off the shelf at some department store and used to construct "universes" is pure fiction that has zero scientific basis.

Again, this is just an opinion. I am not claiming that I know that multiple dimensions do not exist. I am simply saying that there is no evidence that even one of these "dimensions" exists, therefore any talk of more than one is not going to lead us anywhere productive.

This issue reminds me of talk about "time dilation," and all of the claimed "experimental proof" of such, when they cannot even DEFINE the word time ! The claim to be able to measure something that they can't even define destroys "their" credibility in my eyes.

Dimensions are more a mathematical thing, while in physics dimensions have multiple interpretations, e.g. 'degrees of freedom' or 'ratio's of physical units'.

I'm totally confused about about your statement that dimensions do not exist... Is the conclusion that a volume can be described in three dimensions of length unscientific? Do you claim to invalidate physics observations just because they don't fit your opinion? Physics has standards, e.g. how to define and measure time. The time dilation of e.g. GPS satellite movements is predicted by relativity theory and measured to a great accuracy.

Physics is not based on opinions but on theories and observations. SR, GR and QM show that there are more aspects to time.

[bdw000]

I'm totally confused about about your statement that dimensions do not exist....

I did not say that dimensions "do not exist." I said that no one can point to ONE SINGLE dimension right now.

If you cannot, in some way, perceive ONE dimension, existing all by itself, and say, "this thing right here, this is what we call a dimension," then any talk of "the universe is made up of 4 dimensions," or, that "in this situation, there are x dimensions," is simply not science, but just speculation.

The problem as I see it is that a mathematical IDEA is treated, in physics, as if it were a physical object. Just because we have an idea of unicorns does not mean that they physically exist. Same thing with mathenatical ideas. The idea ALONE does not prove physical existence of the idea.

I will reemphasize that I am not claiming to "know " that multiple dimensions do not exist, just pointing out that there is ZERO PHYSICAL ("scientific") evidence that dimensions are more than ideas in our heads. That is all I am saying.

The reason for my posts on this subject is just to see if someone can refute this idea (not just disagree with it).

[TalonThorn]

I'd say that physics measures something, labels it time, and then proceeds wholly with math to postulate what reality looks like. That doesn't make it into some dimension that exists nor into some metaphysical surface that can be curved. Such abstractions occur in the mind, and not necessarily in reality. The "time dilation" measured by GPS satellite movement is a construct of the mind's perception of reality, and what is it really? If time doesn't exist (outside of the mind's perception of it) then "time-dilation" is nothing more than a rate of change difference in the GPS clock vs some other clock. I have my doubts whether experiments could discern between the existence of some dimension called time and a rate of change difference within three physical dimensions, since we are locked into the third dimension and can't observe the fourth directly (but have to imagine it). However, elimination of time results in a simpler explanation.