2
   

Spacetime Nature

 
 
Reply Sat 14 Dec, 2013 07:52 am
I just come up with the strangest thought while thinking about relativity of time so I want to put it out there n see what comes out from the crowd.
Please be gentle, I am no physicist...

Spacetime is absolute at plank scale what is relative is the comparative length of matter at different speeds between geometry changes as X (in relation to Y) closes up to the speed of light !
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,824 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:49 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I just come up with the strangest thought while thinking about relativity of time so I want to put it out there n see what comes out from the crowd.
Please be gentle, I am no physicist...

Spacetime is absolute at plank scale what is relative is the comparative length of matter at different speeds between geometry changes as X (in relation to Y) closes up to the speed of light !

If you answer these preliminary questions Fil, I will try to explore your idea.

Would you say it is true, that the Universe is a set of distinct objects... yes or no?

Could it be defined, using your view (simplified) of the Universe, simply as: objects that are not space and space that is not an object... yes or no i.e. the Universe of the problem has two elements consisting of objects and space?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 08:27 am
@igm,
I see where you going with this but I don't see the relevance as I will justify later on...so in short yes I perceived them as two different (even if connected) objects in the same way energy is clearly distinct of matter although deeply related with it, I wonder why you don't if you don't ? Perhaps you care to provide a vision a model which is scientifically accurate with observations as my take is perfectly aligned with them.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 09:41 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
igm wrote:

Would you say it is true, that the Universe is a set of distinct objects... yes or no?

Could it be defined, using your view (simplified) of the Universe, simply as: objects that are not space and space that is not an object... yes or no i.e. the Universe of the problem has two elements consisting of objects and space?


Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...in short yes I perceived them as two different (even if connected) objects in the same way energy is clearly distinct of matter although deeply related with it...


My next preliminary questions are two related questions:

Therefore you are saying that the set of the Universe has two elements: all objects and space. You have also said they are, "connected" but if something is connected it is not distinct from the element it is connected to but the set of the Universe must have 'distinct' elements. Wouldn't the set be better defined by saying it has one element which is the union of objects and space, the element being the inseparability of objects and space? If not why not?

contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 01:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I perceived them


Whatever you had been smoking, I want some.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:37 pm
@contrex,
LMAO Contrex what is your alternative to interface with the world do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just punching around for kicks ?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:44 pm
@igm,
That is as much logic as saying because I am connected with you in the web there is no distinction between me and you...what distinguishes things is the system by which they organize. Although there are ever higher levels of order which obviously result from different parts just like societies are for instance an higher level of order then singular people, the fact remains the connection between them doesn't render people per se meaningless. Space works as a medium for transfer of matter and energy. Now can you please clearly state what is your alternative suggestion, this is the 2 post I ask you for one and so far you keep going past by it. Also I would like you to stay on topic which is not Buddhism but Physics, and in particular how Relativity works with Spacetime.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:30 pm
This is quoting a reply I gave in another thread which might shred some light in this one:

Quote:
You might just as well have asked, once time is just the measure of movement and change, if all things, all chemical and physical reactions came into a full stop, if there is any way so they can start again...but what you are assuming is the absence of active energy anywhere, 100% thermal equilibrium...but again as far as I can tell in the Big Bang there wasn't any 100% thermal equilibrium as the deep space radiation background picture of the event clearly has shown. The maximal degree of order needs not imply a perfect balance. The flow of time, of energy, is more of a prove for precarious balance. The Universe is and works like and engine, but is not a perpetual motion machine, either it came from a Multiverse and will evaporate, in which case, we will need explain the machine Multiverse itself is, and probably without notions of motion, if we truly intend a final outcome without infinite regressions to ever greater degrees of order and Meta-systems, or alternatively the Universe itself and spacetime need be explained resolving the problem of motion so an "engine" can be de-constructed to something else.

More succinctly the million dollar question is, what starts the starter ?...and does it make sense starting a starter ? hmm...it seams evident we need to reframe the problem...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
My point is a Set that moves in a loop is a finite collection which itself does not move. The collection is always the same. That says something upon the nature of motion itself and something fundamental about spacetime.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 05:45 pm
I advise the group of ignoramus idiots voting down the thread to get familiarized not only with the 2 but also with the 1 law of thermodynamics !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 06:10 pm
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 06:26 pm
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 04:19 am
A take on time which very much resembles my own view:

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 08:23 am
More about cycling models and the inversion of the 2 law...


0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 10:22 am
I shall ad in the case of the present video the 2 law is reset and not inverted as phase space volume is shrunk with the evaporation of black holes but the actual result for all purposes is the same, and that's what I was aiming at with a fully functional cycling model.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 10:49 am
Now the take by Leonard Susskind on which the 2 law in fact reverses:

Quote:
Anyone can see that the past is different from the future. Anyone, that is, but theoretical physicists, whose equations do not seem to distinguish the past from the future. How, then, do physicists understand the "arrow of time" — the fact that the past and future are so different? Leonard Susskind will discuss the paradox of time's arrow and how physicists and cosmologists view it today.


0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 07:35 pm
And down the rabbit hole...

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 09:15 pm
holly cow guys...I just learned Lee Smolin speaking of a reinterpretation of Einstein's relativity is saying exactly what I am saying, check at minute 55:

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Dec, 2013 11:12 pm
This next video actually presents the classical relativistic argument against time or motion in a very visual very easy way to grasp, I vividly recommend it:

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2015 07:48 pm
I love it that this debate goes exactly accordingly with my perception of spacetime determinism and the impossibility the Universe actually grows into nothingness which is obvious nonsense...check it out !

Unfortunately the 2 guy in the row, a philosopher no less is spouting nonsense but the 1 philosopher along with the 2 physicists gets it right...

Simple question for the silly guy if time does flow where does the Universe expands into ? Nothingness ? Right...
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Spacetime Nature
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2020 at 09:48:09