• [deleted]

  • Post #73

Dear M.V.

I re-read your essay and all of the posts above in an attempt to better understand your views. It is very refreshing and inspiring to see all the creative effort you have invested in this essay. It's appreciated!

In one post to Eckard you describe space as a dynamic fluid structure which coincides with my own opinion, except that I would use the term medium rather than structure, as structure seems to denote rigidity or immobility. Is the dynamic part.. energy contained within apace?, the passing of energy via EMR thru space?, or space itself posessed of inertial properties?, or something else?

In another post you say that you agree that waves do require a medium for propagation. In response to my post you say that you perceive 3-D space as incompressible. My question is "how is it possible for waves to propagate through an incompressible medium?" (not on the surface of)

About your idea of 4-D space representing the lowest stable energy state for space to exist in... very unique approach and seems to be a cosmological possibility, once the properties of space are better determined.

J.R.

    J.R.,

    thank you for your encouraging words and your interest. From your initials I can't figure out which is your essay. -?

    You ask "Is the dynamic part.. energy contained within space?, the passing of energy via EMR thru space?, or space itself posessed of inertial properties?, or something else?"

    It's all a matter of scale. At the very bottom of it I visualize it as a dynamic structure made of vibrating strings (which appear golden to my inner eye -?). This structure *defines* space. I.e. there is no Euclidean and no Minkowski and no Absolute space without it. Without space there is undifferentiated nothing unable to contain anything. Most people cannot conceive an absence of space and cannot conceive its structure without imagining some structure *in* space. But if they meditate on it for some time, this becomes doable.

    You say, "My question is "how is it possible for waves to propagate through an incompressible medium?""

    The structure vibrates. Just like atoms in a slab of steel vibrate. If you strike a slab of steel, it will resound and transverse waves will propagate through it. If you strike it hard enough, it will also wobble and undulate (which explains why "gravity" is the strongest force: it takes far more energy to make a steel slab wobble than to resound). But steel is not rigid enough in comparison to space. It is a well-known fact that the harder is the material, the faster the waves propagate through it. Space behaves like a super-rigid solid. That's why no 3D model can explain how matter moves through the 3D space fully occupied by this medium. Only 4D can, assuming that the additional spatial dimension is empty and does not contain this medium. For all we know, this empty dimension may be not structured, i.e. it may be the remnant of the Great Void of the singularity in which the universe was born. Since we are "crawling" on the 3D surface, what does it matter how many dimensions that emptiness has? Actually, come think of it, if the emptiness is the remnant of the Great Void, this could be the source of the energy that is pressing the nuclei into the surface (because they stick out) giving rise to mass (it's like some hard objects lying on a bed, covered by a heavy glass pane that presses them in).

    And so the fact that the structure vibrates is crucial in this model. The vibrations is what propagates as quanta or "particles". There is no continuous waves... well, from a perspective of a certain scale, the waves may appear continuous, just as the surface of the structure appears continuous from even greater scale. But when you zoom in on it, you will see the "bricks" and the fact that waves propagate in quanta of underlying vibrations.

    I am glad you made me think about "what it's made of" again... I imagine it now, from the POV of an intermediate scale, as an oily (-? I know) pliable yet very bouncy and stiff... like an oily liquid metal. Icy mercury? I really don't know. I don't think there is a material that could match it.

    To me, space, its structure and its properties is the expression of energy. Just like mass is an expression of energy. And like everything else. Everything is made of the same stuff, starting with the structure of space.

    Israel,

    very interesting posts. And you write so well! You give an excellent historical overview, and I fully agree with the 90% of your position. There are some things that I see differently. I address them in the same order as they appeared in your posts.

    You write, "As we all know, Euclidean space is structureless, it is nothing but the mental abstraction of physical objects ... It is thought of as a background composed of no physical entities and no internal structure; simply because nothingness cannot have structure, no energy or no substance."

    In my view, Euclidean space is the epitome of a perfect structure. Perfectly even, perfectly flat, perfectly regular. If it is 3D, that too is an aspect of its structure. It can be 4 or 7D, which would make it a different structure, with different properties. It appears to me that you are one of those people who take space for granted and cannot conceive an absence of space. Just like Hawking, in the video you suggested, started off making a universe with matter, then energy and, finally, space, lol. As if matter could exist without space. You super-smart PhDs view the world through the prism of abstract mathematics. Maybe that's why you overlook its most important thing, space.

    You wrote re history, "In 1917 he introduced the cosmological constant in his equations to counter balance the force of gravity. He wanted to have a static universe for, without the constant, his universe will collapse."

    See, to me this only means that Einstein, like everyone else, viewed matter as the primary... entity -? that affects space. I rather see space as primary and matter as the extension of its structure. Thus in my view this structure will sooner become empty than collapse because of matter in it.

    You wrote re theory: "What expands is the space itself (the space of relativity)."

    Again this view shows that space is taken for granted. The idea is untenable in an established universe (after the BB), since it implies that something --or someone-- is pouring energy at a constant rate into the universe and they do it evenly everywhere, except right where we are (why Sun is not getting any farther?) In a few hundred years the current period will be known as physics dark ages. Have you ever taken an inventory of your convictions trying to guess, which ones will be ridiculed by our descendants, just as we ridicule some of the most cherished notions of the past? I know, each generation, when we are still young, believe that people were ignorant in the past and that we are the ones to set things right, once and for all, for the benefit of humanity. It takes some living and a study of history to realize that we too will be laughed at hundreds of years from now. About some of our notions they will say, wow, already then they knew it! And about others... Have you ever tried to guess, which of our current believes will get into which category?

    You say about the current theories, "We are talking about two different notions of "empty" space. In the former case, when we have no fields and matter we only have the energy of gravitational potentials (metric tensor), but in the case of QM we have the energy of the zero-point field. QM presupposes that there is some background whereas relativity denies it."

    IMHO, both theories describe the same thing, at different scales. It's like digital music. At a sampling rate we hear it, it is continuous and the quality is better than when the technology was analogue. At another sampling rate, it is a collection of disjoint sounds. But it's the same music.

    GR deals with the curvature of the surface. QM bumps into the micro-fluctuations in this surface. From the scale of GR, those fluctuations are unnoticeable, just like the digital nature of our music is unnoticeable to us, until we change the sampling rate.

    You wrote, "This means that even if there were no matter-energy and fields in the universe we could still have the metric tensor (gravitational field). In this sense I say that the space of relativity is mere geometry, it is not a substantial entity as in the case of the quantum vacuum."

    I don't understand how you could have metric tensor without matter-energy. -? Ah! I guess then the tensor would always predict flat space, ok. But the way you speak about geometry is as if nothing maintains its structure. It is the same structure as in QM, only at a different scale.

    You say, "So, if you support the idea that space is the medium for light, you are implicitly saying that space is the absolute frame of reference because the speed of light is defined relative to the substantial space."

    -?? My understanding of SR is that mathematically it is equivalent to LET. In either case, Lorentz transformation assures that c remains a constant for an observer. I thought that absolute reference frame made sense only in a stationary ether model, for then you could drive a thick nail into that station, lol, and label it O. In the model I propose, nothing is ever stationary in relation to the structure, because all movement is actually driven by it. I see the universe as the ultimate perpetuum mobile where space "wants" to be empty and so it expels all deformations introduced in it locally, and that's how everything moves.

    Absolute reference frame with a dynamic structure? I completely don't get it. It's like the water in the ocean; it is totally real and tangible and you can even measure the rate with which it passes under the keel, but what use is it for navigation?

    (continued)

    • [deleted]

    • Post #76

    Hello M.V.

    Your response is appreciated and I find it enlightening.

    I do not have an essay posted here, having only discovered this site in the last week, but am very excited to have discovered it and especially your essay. We have similar interests relating to space apparently, and perhaps more similarity in an approach to comprehending and articulating it.

    I do not wish to monopolize or contaminate your forum with my ideas but would very much like to communicate more with you on this subject. May I contact you via the e-mail address you posted for someone else above?

    J.R.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #77

      yes, sure, you can email me

      Continued (part 2)

      Israel,

      You wrote, " In relativity, one can introduce, on the right hand side of the equations through the energy-momentum tensor, any kind of fluid field you could think of... and this fluid will define the shape of the metric tensor., but this notion differs from the notion that physical space is a fluid. You should understand this significant difference. And I insist, the space of relativity is nothing but an empty geometrical vessel that could be filled with fields. In contrast to this view, you are proposing a space made up of some physical substance sustaining the fields, i.e., the EM fields do not filled space they are features and manifestations of it."

      Thank you for your clarification. Yes you understand the issue very well.

      You wrote, "If space has an internal structure means that there is no BB, no expansion, no dark energy, no dark matter, that there is an absolute frame of reference, that the speed of light is constant relative to the homogeneous space, etc."

      I don't see how this follows. I am comfortable with BB and can even review my stand on post BB expansion. I definitely do not accept the idea of the dark matter, seeing its invention as a symptom of our lack of understanding of space. As for the dark energy, or negative energy, I don't find it contradictory to the model I propose either.

      That space may be seen as a sort of a substance is fine with me. That's how it was traditionally modeled, no? Like many here, I believe that the next greatest advances in physics will come from material science, applying the concepts learned there to model space in 4D.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #79

      Ms. Vasilyeva

      Within the confine of how reality is manifest (ie science, not belief), there is only physical presence. Space is non existent. It is a conceptualisation of 'not-physical presence', and has two aspects: 1) the size and shape of any given physical presence, 2) the differentiation between any given two. In other words, physical reality is conceived of as being overlayed by a grid which enables the identification of relative spatial position. The points on the grid being a distance apart which equates to the smallest physical presence in reality. Then, as at any point in time, any given physical presence can be conceived as occupying a certain configuration of spatial points, and that can be compared to any other. Whether there are spatial positions which, at any given point in time, are not occupied by a physical presence, is an open question.

      I have deliberately used the phrase physical presence, as there is an incorrect ontological tendency to view physical reality as comprising 'something', and then in addition postulate other forms of 'something' which are deemed to have physical effects, but no physical presence. But, by definition, anything which has any form of physical influence must have some form of physical presence.

      The other important points in respect of the concept of space are:

      -for spatial dimension, physical reality has half the number of possible directions that the smallest physical presence could travel from any given spatial point, not 3. The latter being the minimum number possible when reality is conceived at the highest level

      -time is not a dimension, as the concept is concerned with the speed of change. And change is associated with how realities differ. It is not a feature of a reality, which can only exist in one physical form at a time.

      Paul

        • [deleted]

        • Post #80

        Hello, Mr. Reed! And welcome :)

        Yours is a position, according to which I can classify people onto those who can conceive the absence of space and those tho can't. Clearly, you're in the second category. This is a position of someone who has never given space a thought and always has taken it for granted. Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some object or energies.

        It is very clear to all, except maybe a fish, that fish cannot exist without water. It is clear to a select few who have given this a thought that without space nothing can exist at all, but space can exist with nothing in it. That would be the perfection itself. That is what empty space is: a perfectly even, symmetrical, regular structure, with absolutely nothing to mare its perfection.

        Then you say: "I have deliberately used the phrase physical presence, as there is an incorrect ontological tendency to view physical reality as comprising 'something', and then in addition postulate other forms of 'something' which are deemed to have physical effects, but no physical presence. But, by definition, anything which has any form of physical influence must have some form of physical presence."

        lol, are you trolling me? 'cause this sentence hardly makes sense. Then you say: "The other important points in respect of the concept of space are: ...."

        Ah! the paragraph above was an important point in respect of the concept of space? lol and what did you mean by this:

        "-for spatial dimension, physical reality has half the number of possible directions that the smallest physical presence could travel from any given spatial point, not 3. The latter being the minimum number possible when reality is conceived at the highest level"

        -?? I take it you're in a playful mood. I too love to have fun.

        Regarding time you said, "-time is not a dimension, as the concept is concerned with the speed of change. And change is associated with how realities differ. It is not a feature of a reality, which can only exist in one physical form at a time."

        See, for me time is the change in energy state (in space), not "speed of change" as you define it. At the most basic level, I see energy, time and space as 3 aspects of one and the same.

        And since you wondered in here, I am curious, what is your take on Minkowski spacetime and would you be interested if I go ahead and prove that it is all 4 spatial dimensions in time, not 3 time?

        Dr. Perez,

        don't know if you saw my posts under your last ones -? They are sort of hidden.

        ____

        Mr. Reed,

        I decided not to wait for you and to go ahead and show that Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions in time, not 3D + time, as it is touted. I claim that Minkowski model of space worked out so well for GR, because the underlying reality *is* 4D, just as I argue in my essay. For some reason people have difficulty with this simple notion.

        That Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions, in time, I will show on an analogy with a graph that plots the trajectory of a cannonball. That simple graph is also a spacetime, just as Minkowski model is, even though, of course, it lacks its sophistication.

        In a cannonball graph, we have 2 spatial dimensions, X and Y. We dispense of the 3rd dimension for simplicity and on the grounds that our idealized cannonball follows a parabola on a plane. So, our graph represents the familiar 3D space: we have horizontal X and vertical Y, while the depth of Z is implied but dismissed for simplicity. Agreed?

        Now, we add time to our model. For this we simply align the time axis with the X axis, remembering that X, first of all, stands for a spatial dimension. We could set time diagonally, at 45° to both X and Y, or at any other angle, or even align it with the Y axis, which would be less convenient for the application at hand. Instinctively, we align the time dimension with the X axis and also set its origin where the cannon stands. We also set its direction with the direction the cannon fires. Imagine if we set the time direction opposite from which the cannon fires? That would be very odd. Perhaps we still would be able to figure things out, but it is most natural to simply align the time axis with the X axis, in the direction where the cannonball is fired.

        And so, in this simple graph what we have is a 2D representation of the underling 3D reality, and we aligned the time dimension with one of the 3 spatial dimensions. That's what makes our graph a spacetime. Just like Minkowski's.

        Now we plot the trajectory of the cannonball. In line with Minkowski model, and just as people often picture it, instead of a simple parabola, we draw a fat, ugly line reminiscent of a giant ... in the sky. That's the worldline of our cannonball in spacetime.

        I hope you noticed the uncanny similarity between our graph and Minkowski model. Can we call our model 2D + time? Both dimensions are actual, bona fide spatial dimensions (the 3rd is implied but dismissed for simplicity). The time dimension is not something extra. It is *not* an additional dimension. In our simple example, it is aligned with the X dimension. The fact that the time dimensions is aligned with it does not make the X dimension any less spatial.

        In the same way, all 4 dimensions of Minkowski spacetime are bona fide spatial dimensions. Just like in our cannonball graph, the direction of time is selected, and it is done in the manner that makes sense and is convenient for the application at hand. Normally we align it with the direction of the movement, just as we did in the cannonball graph.

        Certainly, Minkowski model is a sophisticated mathematical tool, unlike our simple graph. It has built in provisions, one of them to account for the finite speed of light, which is irrelevant for our cannonball application. Perhaps it is the complexity and sophistication of the Minkowski model that veiled the plain fact that it *is* set in 4 *spatial* dimensions. But in principle it is the same as our graph, which has 2 spatial dimensions X and Y, while the time dimension is aligned with X. In exactly the same way, Minkowski spacetime has 4 spatial dimensions, with the time dimension chosen and set at convenience.

        And now the moral of this exercise: Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions. That's why it worked out so well in GR. Because the underlying reality *is* 4D. GR describes the curvature of the 3D surface of a 4D object, IN FOUR SPATIAL DIMENSIONS. Minkowski camouflaged this fact by claiming that the 4th dimension is time, perhaps to make the idea of the 4D model of space more palatable for himself and others.

        I present this for your consideration as yet another evidence of the reality of the 4th spatial dimension and welcome your comments.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #82

          Ms Vasilyeva

          "Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some object or energies"

          It is not a case of 'for me', neither is it 'wrappings', but what is experienceable (or proven to be potentially so). And physical reality comprises physically existent phenomena (probably of several different types), which have shape/size (ie a relative spatial footprint). Indeed, these can be within, &/or separate from, each other. Whether there are 'areas' of physical reality which have no physical presence whatsoever in them, ie space is existent, needs proving. Note: that is different from the circumstance where there is a physical phenomenon, but it is not directly experienceable. So the point is that it is physical phenomena which exist, the concept of space being a logical corollary, an assertion which has no existential substantiation (at least, as yet).

          "lol, are you trolling me? 'cause this sentence hardly makes sense"

          No. I just used a phrase which was intended to cover all types of physically existent phenomena. Rather than the usual form of expression which implies there are physical entities (something) which are 'in something', &/or being affected by 'something', but neither of these, mysteriously, and against the rules of physical existence, have themselves any form of physical presence (ie are something). Again, the underlying point being that there are physically existent phenomena, and whether 'not-physically existent phenomena' exist needs proving.

          "and what did you mean by this"

          What it said. The concept of dimension revolves around the possible directions, either way, that any given physically existent phenomenon can have physical presence (ie its spatial footprint). 3 spatial dimensions (or 6 directions) is just the minimum that can be represented. In reality, the number of dimensions which exist is a function of how many directions the smallest phenomenon could travel from the same point, halved. Put another way around, we tend, understandably, not to differentiate any given reality down to its existential level, which does not necessarily matter, unless we then reify some feature which is only a function of that conceptual level.

          "for me time is...not "speed of change"

          Time is a duration unit, timing is the methodology. Timing can be effected without a timing device, ie by the direct comparison of the number of changes in one sequence to another. Using a duration unit as a common denominator reference just makes measurement easier, but what is still being compared is the number of changes, irrespective of type. That is, the speed/rate at which change occurs. For example: if one is using a quartz watch, then what is really being compared is number of changes against number of crystal oscillations (ie changes). And then disparate types of change can be compared, in terms of speed at which they occur. This is all associated with change, which is about characteristics of the difference between realities. Whatever is existent, can only be so in one physical form at a time. There is no change (and hence time) in whatever constitutes a physically existent reality. Put another way around, again, if reality was differentiated to its existential level, then that which was existent (ie without any form of change involved) could be identified. In the same way that if we slow a film down enough, we can identify the stills which ultimately comprise it.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          • Post #83

          Ms Vasilyeva

          I have commented on spatial dimension above.

          The incorrect modelling of time as a dimension (or variable) of physical reality (Minkowski), stems from Poincaré and his flawed concept of simultaneity (as repeated in the first section of Einstein 1905). [This variable then became a surrogate for the originally postulated variable, which was dimension alteration. Whether that occurs or not is another issue].

          Physical reality occurs. So, whether two or more existent states occurred as at the same point in time, can only be established by analysis of the actual physical circumstances (either specifically or generally), and not by the false concepts of time from Poincaré.

          Using extracts from: Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1 Definition of Simultaneity:

          Para 3: "If, for instance, I say,"That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.""

          Comment: Incorrect. The two events did not occur simultaneously on this basis. The train was at its specified spatial position before the hand on the watch reached its specified spatial position. Because, for a physically existent state to be observed, the photons which reacted with it (and thereby, in the context of the sensory system known as sight, conveyed a representation of it) must reach the observer. And the consequent delays involved are different, since the relative spatial positions of train and watch, vis a vis observer, are different. Indeed, the relationship of those spatial positions, ie original vis a vis on receipt of light, could alter at different rates during the delays, if the entities involved are moving at different speeds (dimension alteration could be an additional factor in this situation). Furthermore, there can be no presumption that light travelled at the same speed in both circumstances, since that can be afffected by environmental circumstances. Finally, at the practical level, the two observations would be effected consecutively, ie upon receipt of information about the train, the observer would then look at the watch.

          Para 4: "but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or-what comes to the same thing-to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch." And Para 6 third part: "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."

          Comment: Incorrect. Physically existent states do not each have their 'own' time. They exist as at a point in time. Timing being an extrinsic measuring system which, with the use a common denominator, enables the establishment of the relative relationship between occurrences (and enables comparison of rates of change).

          Para 6 fourth part: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."And Para 7: "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: t(b) - t(a) = t'(a) - t(b)

          Comment: Incorrect. No more than one physically existent state can be in the same spatial position at a time. The concept of 'immediate proximity' is false. As at any given point in time, everything is in a relative spatial position. It is just that some entities are nearer each other than others, but there is always a distance between any two. As at any given point in time, AB is a specific distance. So whether it is measured as A to B, or B to A, is irrelvant, as too is the method used to calibrate and express that. That is, it is not necessary to use light to determine the time taken to travel that distance. And it is incorrect to assess this in terms of a relationship between the duration incurred one way, and then the duration to subsequently travel back. This introduces a factor which is non-existent, ie reifies time as a dimension, and because of the coincidental use of light speed (as opposed to any other possibility) implies a property thereof which is incorrect.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          • Post #84

          Ms Vasilyeva

          I thought it might be useful to just clarify why, irrespective of number, there is no dimension of time in reality.

          There are two knowns: 1) existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) difference occurs. So physical existence is a sequence, ie something occurs, then re-occurs, differently, and so on. And within any given sequence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time, because for the successor to exist its predecessor must cease. That is, no form of change can be involved in whatever constitutes a physically existent state.

          Only physically existent states exist. Comparison of these states, either within or between, any given sequence, reveals difference. So change is associated with how realities differ, it is not existent and is not a feature of a reality. Change involves: 1) substance (ie what changed), 2) order (ie the sequence of differences), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which change occurred). The latter being established by comparing the number of changes, irrespective of type, that occurred over the same duration, which could involve any sequence (including the same sequence), and have either occurred concurrently, or otherwise. This is timing.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          • Post #85

          Mr. Reed,

          You wrote, " Whether there are 'areas' of physical reality which have no physical presence whatsoever in them, ie space is existent, needs proving. "

          and " Only physically existent states exist. "

          That's an interesting position. For you, space does not really exist until proven. To me, this represents an opinion vastly different from mine. I see space as the primary entity that exists and thus allows everything else to manifest (as deformations in its otherwise perfect structure). I see such differences in our POVs as irreconcilable, since to me that space exists is a given, while for you, it appears, it is not. But then please tell where and how physical reality exists? What *is" physical reality in absence of space and where do "physically existent states exist"?

          My position is very simple. To me, everything that exists is the expression of the structure of space itself. Thus, if physics is to find that common denominator through which all known forces can be expressed, such a theory of everything will be a topological theory describing the structure of space, in its various dimensions, as it evolves and changes in time.

          We have a far more similar --almost identical, in fact-- stance on time. Time is change. There is no time without change. For any change to occur some energy must be spent, changed, or transformed. Thus time is the expression of changes in energy state. This much everyone understands and agrees on. Then the question becomes, does the same time exist for vastly separated localities in space? You seem to imply that yes it does, but I happen to disagree. To me time is what emerges locally, as changes in energy states evolve in a given locality. And how they evolve depends entirely on the state of the structure of space locally (and in fact, these changes in energy states locally is what is evolving).

          That's how I understand GR. Gravity == curvature == gradation of density of energy in space. The same process that takes place in a denser segment of space will take longer (from some hypothetical POV of absolute space and time) than the same process in a less dense (or 'more empty') segment of space. The fact that 2 vastly separated events can and do coincide from the POV of a reference frame that includes the first 2, is irrelevant, because time evolves locally in each of the first 2 reference frames according to their local conditions.

          See, for me, time is not separate from the process of change, which takes place *in space* and thus is dictated by the local conditions of that segment of space. Space, energy and time are 3 aspects of one and the same: a process of change taking place... where? where else but in space, lol (and you say, it does not exist as such :) why, for me this is what dictates *how* things change). Since all 3 depend on each other, we can express any one in terms of the first two. And that's what relativity theory does.

          You give interesting quotes and disagree with Einstein. But the reason you disagree --as I understand it-- is because you view the reality from the position of Absolute space (the existence of which you deny) and Absolute time, which, according to you, exists independent of the local conditions in space (the existence of which you deny in the first place). While I understand that psychologically we are wired in such a way that we always examine whatever model of space and time from the POV of absolute space and absolute time in our heads, what Einstein did was to show how things *are* in practice. SR showed that there is no practical means of assessing an absolute frame in practice. Now, maybe we will find a way of observing --not in theory but in practice-- such that an absolute reference frame will be revealed. Then yes, all your objections would be justified. Until this happens, i.e. we will find a way to an absolute reference frame, all we have is relativity, according to which space, energy and time are intimately linked and inseparable from each other, each one being the expression of the other two.

          That's my take on it, anyway. I understand there are other POVs.

            If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

            Sergey Fedosin

            • [deleted]

            • Post #87

            To All

            Time is a term created by mankind to gauge relative motion. As a stand alone entity it is non existent, and being non existent, cannot exist in any dimension other than an imaginary one. Spacetime is a term created to account for the fact that any motion requires space to transpire. On a cosmic scale the clock can be said to be the relative motion of everything in the universe. On a more local scale, the relative motion of everything in our solar systm, and on down, etc., to a personal level.

            J.R.

              J.R

              Time, or more precisely, timing, guages relative speed of change, by comparing the number thereof in different sequences irrespective of type, ie motion is just one form of change. Unless one could ultimately express every change in terms of motion, but that just brings it back to the same logical point anyway.

              But you are correct to say it is non-existent and is not a dimension of reality. It is concerned with the difference between realities, not of a reality.

              Paul

              Dear Vasilyeva

              Thank you for your reply which I have read and analyze in detail. Please do not get me wrong, but from your comments I could see, as I could also notice in your essay, that you are mixing distinct conceptions of space; one from the mathematical and possibly one from the mechanical. You also make some naive critics on science and scientists which only reflects your lack of knowledge on how science is actually done. In this respect, I would suggest that you try to develop your ideas further and get at least one article published. This will be a lesson for you to realize and understand how scientists work and why it is so difficult for science to accept your ideas even if they are very reasonable.

              You say: In my view, Euclidean space is the epitome of a perfect structure. Perfectly even, perfectly flat, perfectly regular. If it is 3D, that too is an aspect of its structure.

              Here you are talking about mathematical structure, whereas I am talking about physical structure. Euclidean, Minkowskian or Non-euclidean space does not posses mechanical or electromagnetic properties such as elasticity, compressibility, permitivity, viscosity, permeavility, etc. Geometrically, I agree with you that Euclidean space has a perfect mathematical structure, but it does not have viscosity because this is a property of material fluid. Unless you show me that I am wrong and that there is a theory that models Euclidean space with these physical properties.

              You say: I rather see space as primary and matter as the extension of its structure.

              I conceive space as matter and particles and fields as states of space. Formally, particles can be modeled as solitons. As consequence they are phase patterns moving OVER the 3D space (as you argue in your essay) and fields are states of this 4D space, but again, it is a fluid space of 4D, not a 4D geometrical vessel as you insist. Euclidean space is the abstraction of the properties of solids, not the solids themselves (see the essay of Einstein: matter and geometry).

              You: Have you ever taken an inventory of your convictions trying to guess, which ones will be ridiculed by our descendants, just as we ridicule some of the most cherished notions of the past?...

              I think this is irrelevant for our discussion. Most people do not care what future generations will think of us. We have particular problems now and we have to solve them based on what we know now.

              You: But the way you speak about geometry is as if nothing maintains its structure. It is the same structure as in QM, only at a different scale.

              You are mistaken. GR is a background independent theory whereas quantum mechanic is not. Therefore the way space is modeled and treated is different in each theory. The space of GR is not the space of QM, this has nothing to do with scales.

              My understanding of SR is that mathematically it is equivalent to LET. In either case, Lorentz transformation assures that c remains a constant for an observer. I thought that absolute reference frame made sense only in a stationary ether model, for then you could drive a thick nail into that station, lol, and label it O...

              Again, you are misunderstanding. They are mathematically equivalent but LET assumes the PSR and SR rejects it. Thus they are two different theories. This is what I discuss in my essay. The rejection of the PSR leads to a series of paradoxes (see my discussion with Daniel Wagner in my entry and his and check my reference 17). Reintroducing the PSR eliminates the paradoxes and defines the speed of light only relative to the PSR, i.e., the material space.

              You: Absolute reference frame with a dynamic structure? I completely don't get it. It's like the water in the ocean; it is totally real and tangible and you can even measure the rate with which it passes under the keel, but what use is it for navigation?

              Obviously, you cannot use it to orient the ship during navigation but the water is necessary for the ship to float. The same with space, it is necessary not for orientation but for solitons and waves to move. At a first approximation and for the sake of simplification in the calculations we can assume that space is static (this would resemble the old notion of aether) but in general it could be in motion, dynamic.

              You: If space has an internal structure means that there is no BB, no expansion, no dark energy, no dark matter, that there is an absolute frame of reference, that the speed of light is constant relative to the homogeneous space, etc. I don't see how this follows. I am comfortable with BB and can even review my stand on post BB expansion.

              If space is a material fluid it behaves as any other medium. Space could be thought of as actually a solid or a liquid depending on the elasticity (Lame coefficients). All media are dissipative and dispersive, this implies that as light moves through space it loses energy. From this it follows the that light coming from distant galaxies will appear as red shifted, in other words, the universe could be static and still manifesting Hubble's law. This has already been mathematically proven. Since Hubble law can be explain without resorting to expansion, it follows that there is no BB and no need to introduce dark energy. Dark matter is part of this material space.

              You: That space may be seen as a sort of a substance is fine with me. That's how it was traditionally modeled, no?

              No, I have explained to you how space is modeled in relativity and QM. Since 1905 when Einstein rejected the aether space has never been considered a material substance and therefore it does not have mechanical properties.

              Israel

              Anon(? M.V. V.)

              "For you, space does not really exist until proven"

              For me, or indeed anyone else involved in science, nothing exists until proven. We certainly know of the existence of a variety of 'stuff' (technical word!). But the concept of space, in the sense of 'nothing', as opposed to a fundamentally different form of 'stuff', implies the existence of 'not-stuff'. Logically, this is a possibility, and as expressed, would entail a spatial position (or configuration thereof) where, as at a point in time, there was absolutely no 'stuff' of any form. How this is proven, if it occurs, would obviously be difficult. But, it cannot be asserted that just because 'stuff' exists, then the corollary does.

              "But then please tell where and how physical reality exists? What *is" physical reality in absence of space and where do "physically existent states exist"?

              The answer to that follows on from the above. There is 'stuff' (which is constantly reconfiguring). One has to presume, until proven otherwise, that the entirety of reality is 'stuff' (albeit of different types). That is, what appears to be space, ie difference between 'stuff', is just different 'stuff'. Indeed, if any given physically existent state is deconstructed to its existential level, then as the process progressed, what appeared to be space would be revealed as more 'stuff' within the boundaries of other 'stuff', and ultimately it would become impossible to delineate, what appeared to be at a higher level of conceptualisation, separate 'stuff', other than as its elementary constituents.

              Put simply! The concept of composite entities, and that they are 'in something', is ontologically incorrect.

              "There is no time without change"

              Not so. There is no physical existence without change. Time is just the duration unit in a human devised measuring system known as timing. It does not exist. Neither does change. Physically existent states exist. And when compared difference is revealed. So change is concerned with the difference between realities. That difference does not, of itself, exist. The type of change involved, and why it occurred, is irrelevant. It is the rate of a rate. Any sequence of change compared to any other sequence.

              "You give interesting quotes and disagree with Einstein"

              Really the disagreement is with Poincaré (Measure of Time 1898 for example), Einstein just repeated it, but I had the quotes from 1905 available. Indeed it could have been my alternative paper (ie 'where is the fundamental mistake').

              "But the reason you disagree --as I understand it-- is because you view the reality from the position of Absolute space (the existence of which you deny) and Absolute time"

              The reason their concept of simultaneity it is incorrect is because:

              -any given physically existent state does not have a time of occurrence of its 'own'. Timing is an extrinsic, human devised, measuring system. Any given physically existent state occurs at a point in time. Establishing the relative relationship between the occurrence of different states in terms of timing, necessitates the reverse engineering of the physical processes which enabled knowledge of those occurrences.

              -having made that mistake, it is compounded by the presumption that physically existent states which are in "immediate proximity" can be attributed with the same 'own' time. But every physically existent state is some distance from another, as more than one cannot exist at the same spatial location at the same time. Relative distance has nothing to do with when physically existent states existed. Apart from which, the question would be: At what spatial point does 'immediate proximity" cease being "immediate proximity", and why?

              -finally, a simple mistake is made in the assessment of when simultaneity occurs, even though the whole concept is incorrect anyway. This involves assessing distance as a function of sequential timing, ie difference to travel one way, and then, back. A distance is a distance is a distance. And the duration taken to travel that distance by anything (using light is irrelevant) is a duration. Distance has nothing to do with a different point in time at which the return journey was effected in measuring it.

              "SR showed that there is no practical means of assessing an absolute frame in practice"

              SR did not show this. In 1905 (which is not SR) Einstein invoked a truism of physical reality, as encapsulated in the principle of relativity. Though it had been referred to earlier and the only interest was in respect of motion. Because we are trapped in an existentially closed system, no one reference can be deemed as the absolute in respect of any attribute. So any reference can be chosen and then measurement established by comparison to it. There can only be relativity within a closed system. And for different measurements to be comparable, the same reference must be used, but it does not matter which one. To mangle a well known phrase: everything is in motion, it is just that some motion is more than others. The only 'glitch' in this is the presumption of dimension alteration (commonly just referred to as contraction). This occurred (allegedly) due to force applied which also caused changing momentum. So if something was moving, relatively, then it could be subject to dimension change, which makes its use as a reference, not impossible, but certainly more difficult. Hence all this mis-placed paranoia about 'rest' frames of reference.

              Paul

              Dr Perez,

              thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment.

              First, I did not bring up Euclidean space. You did in the post to which I was replying. There are many mathematical spaces but only one real thing. What I was saying in my post about Euclidean space was that each space has it own properties and characteristics, which is something you seem to overlook. Mathematically, characteristics of a space are part of its definition. But what energies and forces define characteristics and properties of the real thing in which we live? You seem to have completely overlooked this. Thus who approaches space naively is an open question ;).

              But say, when did you decide that underlying reality is 4D? You do not mention it in your essay. Was it my naive essay by any chance that gave you this idea?

              Re 'have you taken an inventory of your convictions' you said, " I think this is irrelevant for our discussion. "

              That's exactly the topic of discussion here and the purpose is to reveal which of our convictions are right and which are wrong. It is the wrongs ones that our descendants will ridicule.

              You said, " You are mistaken. GR is a background independent theory whereas quantum mechanic is not. Therefore the way space is modeled and treated is different in each theory. The space of GR is not the space of QM, this has nothing to do with scales. "

              You speak about physical theories as if they determine the underlying reality and not the other way around.

              You say, " Again, you are misunderstanding. They are mathematically equivalent but LET assumes the PSR and SR rejects it. Thus they are two different theories. ...The rejection of the PSR leads to ... paradoxes ... Reintroducing the PSR eliminates the paradoxes and defines the speed of light only relative to the PSR, i.e., the material space. "

              I think the misunderstanding is due to your choice of terms. LET is set in stationary ether; that's why PSR makes sense in that theory. But you want to model "ether" as a fluid. Also, the way you talk about it, i.e. "the rejection of PSR leads to paradoxes", as if choosing "a right" theory, which mathematically happened to be the same, will have a direct effect on the underlying reality. How does your stance on PSR differ from what you replied to Pentcho Valev, i.e. why is measuring absolute speed of light from a hypothethical PSR is a practical impossiblity for Pentcho, yet makes perfect sense for you? What exactly will make it a possibility?

              Besides, light being the property of the medium, its speed is dictated by the medium. Can you really use air as the PSR for sound?

              Re BB, yes I understand that 'tired light' takes care of the presumed current expansion. By denying BB you seem to imply an infinite, static, eternal universe, with no beginning. I definitely have a problem with this idea. I can't conceive of an infinite eternal universe. BB offers a model of how it started.

              You write, " No, I have explained to you how space is modeled in relativity and QM. Since 1905 when Einstein rejected the aether space has never been considered a material substance and therefore it does not have mechanical properties. "

              But the underlying math remained and its origin was in material science. That's how I meant it.

              But you seem to agree with the main point of my essay, namely that the underlying reality is 4D. Was it my naive essay that gave you this idea?

              Dr. Perez,

              I replied to your post in the same thread above.

              _________________

              Mr. Reed,

              yes, the anon above is me, MV. Sometimes the sys looses the id. I was logged in, as I am now.

              Re our discussion, we appear to have irreconcilable differences. You deny the existence of space, but then what do you measure between the 'stuff'?

              To my plain and obvious 'There is no time without change' you reply, " Not so. There is no physical existence without change. Time is just the duration unit.... It does not exist. "

              What's duration? See, to me it is the duration that does not exist. It is a series of changes in some system with which you measure "duration" of another. So, all that exists really, are some changes, and at the lowest level, where there is nothing to compare them with, you can't tell how long it is between each change. You can only register the fact that a change took place.

              And so on and so forth. There are such vast differences in our appreciation of reality that I do not see a point in continuing our discussion. You will never convince me of your POV, because it is very different from where I stand. We are all entitled to our own views; what's forbidden is to impose them forcefully on others.

              Good luck with the competition and take care!