• [deleted]

  • Post #168

Tom,

"Do you know what you mean by that? I don't. In the conservation of angular momentum in a spinning object, the central point is fixed -- the speed of points equidistant from that point vary evenly from the origin to the extremus. That is, like an ice skater drawing her arms in to spin faster and extending them to slow -- the difference between fast and slow is conserved as a unitary function. It isn't the inertial motion outward that increases local energy (and therefore temperature), but the true centrepital force inward that does so. When I was 12, I had an old Cushman motor scooter to deliver my paper route, which had a centrifugal clutch -- I must have taken that old scooter apart and reassembled it a dozen times in this short carefree part of my life -- the clutch works by expanding its spring-attached pads to the drum lining. When the pads are spinning fast enough -- driven by the energy input from the motor controlled by my hand operating the accelerator -- they contact the lining and transfer part of the force from the heat-generating friction of the lining to the wheel connected to the clutch, and the scooter ... scoots. It should be easy to see that it's not the centrifugal momentum that powers the scooter; it's the energy of the friction lining, stored and then transferred to produce what we call work, with the greater part of the energy content dissipated. Were the lining frictionless, no energy could be directed, no temperature created."

I did grow up on a farm, I do understand the physical effect.

The point is what is the spin in relation too? Is it in relation to other points of reference? For one thing, it's not about energy conserved as diameter of the object changes. This would just be a stable system. The energy is in the spin. Say that object is out in normal interstellar space. We can tell it is spinning relative to the other stars, that give us a fixed background. A piece breaks loose and is thrown out in the direction of momentum at the point it breaks free. Is this due to those other stars giving a stable frame, or is there a stable frame anyway? If those stars were not visible, didn't exist, so there would be NO point of OUTSIDE reference to determine the spin, would this affect whether the object is spinning and thus the velocity and direction of the piece that came loose?

    • [deleted]

    • Post #170

    Tom,

    Ok. Let's not call it space, let's call it an unbounded frame of reference. It has no physical markers. You are on a merry-go-round, or rather the spacestation from 2001 A Space Odyssey. Presumably you would be able to tell how fast it is spinning relative to that frame, by the G forces, not by any reference to outside points.

    So what is that frame, if it has virtually no other physical property than what the spin is relative to? What is this frame derived from? Algebra? Geometry? Space?

    John,

    "Let's not call it space, let's call it an unbounded frame of reference."

    I'm afraid that's what space is. Add boundary conditions and you can call it geometry.

    "It has no physical markers. You are on a merry-go-round, or rather the spacestation from 2001 A Space Odyssey. Presumably you would be able to tell how fast it is spinning relative to that frame, by the G forces, not by any reference to outside points."

    No you couldn't. This was the whole point of Einstein's elevator gedanken experiment -- that one cannot determine whether one, colloquially speaking, is being pulled up or pushed down, in the absence of an external reference.

    "So what is that frame, if it has virtually no other physical property than what the spin is relative to? What is this frame derived from? Algebra? Geometry? Space?"

    Pick one, or all three. Or a method yet to be invented. What is clear though, John, is that you are innocent of how classical physics works. I promise that if you study it, you will be rewarded with insights that not only answer your questions, but lead you right to the edge of the cliff overlooking the truly deep questions.

    Tom

    • [deleted]

    • Post #172

    Tom,

    "Pick one, or all three."

    So we agree space is an equilibrium state.

    "So we agree space is an equilibrium state."

    WHA ....?

    • [deleted]

    • Post #174

    Tom,

    ""So what is that frame, if it has virtually no other physical property than what the spin is relative to? What is this frame derived from? Algebra? Geometry? Space?""

    "Pick one, or all three."

    I picked the third.

    4 months later

    Having been engaged in a long dialogue with James Putnam on his essay site -- though we strongly disagree, I think it worthwhile to reproduce this post on my own site, because I think it adds to the argument in favor of abandoning nonlocality for a topological limit in the generalized Euclidean space.

    James,

    Thinking about your contention that "mass varies" reminded me that I constructed a mathematical picture of what a continuum of mass would look like, in my 2008 preprint "On Breaking the Time Barrier."

    I have done more sophisticated (yet unpublished) work from this basis since. The gist is, though, that such a continuum demands negative mass in the n-dimension Hilbert space, and some criteria for nonlocal measure to make it viable. I wrote it before being exposed to Joy Christian's framework, by which I became convinced that the topological 8-dimension limit (7-sphere) is more physically realistic than the Hilbert space. I haven't taken it down from my site, however, because I think that it shows why a physical limit -- and not nonlocality in the n-dimension Hilbert space -- makes the generalization of Euclidean space up to S^7 (limit of the division algebras) a better bet for a real and complete description of reality.

    I have extracted and attached the relevant pages from the paper.

    TomAttachment #1: 1_Pages_from_timebarrier80108.pdf

      • [deleted]

      • Post #176

      Tom

      The only problem being that e does not =mc2 , in the same way that other similar assertions are wrong. You discount c, but the real point here is that c cannot have any influence on physical existence. c is one of a number of physical attributes which has an influence on the physically existent entity known as light. Which is a representation of what physically occurred, not what occurred. c, etc, has an impact on the physically existent representation, not what was physically existent which it is representing.

      The other underlying problem is that whatever is occurring is only spatial. It alters, to something else. And what was in existence ceases. The rate at which that occurs, ie the changeover from one state to another, is what time is about. There is no duration in physical existence, duration is associated with alteration thereto.

      If one sorts out first, generically, what is happening, then it becomes much easier to identify what all these concepts can relate to.

      Paul

      "The only problem being that e does not =mc2"

      The empirical data disagrees with you.

      Tom

        • [deleted]

        • Post #178

        Tom

        Oh, and what 'empirical' data is this? Hopefully not something that is self fulfilling, ie start with a false premise, sort out facts accordingly, prove start point.

        What I want to see is something which proves that the speed at which a physical effect in photons which, if received by the right entity, can be subsequently processed, has an influence in the physical characteristics, known as energy and mass, of physically existent entities. Or indeed, in the wider sense, how this physical effect, known as light, has any physical influence on physical existence. Because, just for a start, the light is created AFTER that physical existence has occurred! Which sounds to me like something of a showstopper, before disappearing any further into the trees and leaving complete sight of the forest.

        Paul