Thinking Straight About Curved Space

[nix]

gravity is not seen as a force but as a fundamental property of the universe from which all the other so-called forces derive.

I am sorry if I misread this as asserting that all the other forces derive from gravity but that is what it says!

[Obvious Leo]

gravity is not seen as a force but as a fundamental property of the universe from which all the other so-called forces derive.

I am sorry if I misread this as asserting that all the other forces derive from gravity but that is what it says!

No that doesn't follow, because everything is not frozen in place, hence time exists as changes in the complexions of this Cartesian space, if it weren't for the objects in the Cartesian space and their variations we could not even define time!

What don't you try and explain why the equations of physics are time invariant and reality is not? Even better. Why don't you try and explain why some but not all of the equations of physics are time invariant? Are you seriously proposing that these equations are modelling a physically real universe. If so you may be interested in an Eiffel tower I have for sale.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the mechanism by which space expands by the way. Does it just thin itself out a bit or do new bits of space appear from somewhere to fill in the gaps?

[Obvious Leo]

I am sorry if I misread this as asserting that all the other forces derive from gravity but that is what it says!

This is what I assert and this is what I can prove.

[nix]

Time is NOT a Cartesian dimension, it's a fractal dimension.

What does that even mean? A one dimensional object with fractal properties? So where are the self similar characteristics which make it fractal? Surely the expansion of the universe guarantees that it is not self similar that there is an arrow of time?

Perhaps a more productive model would be that of non commutative geometry in which non local effects are modeled (see Michael Hellers essay in On space and Time CUP 2008)

[nix]

I am sorry if I misread this as asserting that all the other forces derive from gravity but that is what it says!

This is what I assert and this is what I can prove.

Prove it then!

[Obvious Leo]

Read the story.

And answer my questions. I have many more for you.

[nix]

Is it the case that matter and energy in the universe travel through time at the speed of light? I've put this same question to dozens of highly qualified physicists over the years and all have agreed that this is one way of looking at it but that this is not the way that physics is done. This is my very point because this alternative way of looking at the same facts leads to an entirely different set of conclusions.

No they don't travel through time at the speed of light! The only reason that the physicists said you might look at it that way is because of the minkowski diagram! With axes ct,x,y,z the world line of a partice in the diagram describes its motion through spacetime, the velocity through space is then dx/dt etc the slope of the graph. There isn't a velocity through time, C is just a conversion factor to turn time in seconds into a distance so it has the same dimensions as the space coordinates. "Velocity through time" is just a way of asking for d ct/dt = c in this diagram!

[nix]

Read the story.

And answer my questions. I have many more for you.

I read it, there is nothing that constitutes proof in it!

[nix]

I'm still waiting for you to explain the mechanism by which space expands by the way. Does it just thin itself out a bit or do new bits of space appear from somewhere to fill in the gaps?

GR does not posit a mechanism by which it expands; As you know It gives equations based on an attempt to generalize special relativity to non-inertial frames of reference. From that came equations which gave a better description of gravity than Newton did (i.e more accurate agreement with physical observations of planetary trajectories, new phenomena such as gravitational red shift of spectral lines, bending of light etc). GR has solutions in the model which have expansion of the "universe" . That is for which the spacetime distance between points spontaneously increases. When we look out at the universe we find just such an expansion. To ask for a mechanism for why it expands is to go beyond what science gives. Space isn't something that thins out a bit nor is it conserved ; it is the distance between objects. Your question is the same as asking why does mass exhibit the property of gravity (or equivalently why does mass warp spacetime). We do not know! Is this question even meaningful? How would we go about finding an answer which is anything but wishfull thinking?

[Obvious Leo]

There isn't a velocity through time, C is just a conversion factor to turn time in seconds into a distance so it has the same dimensions as the space coordinates.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Physics expresses a temporal interval in terms of a spatial distance but this is bullshit. Time is not a spatial dimension!!!
Spatial dimensions are bi-directional and time is unambiguously not. I presume you realise that physics has no explanation for why the arrow of time points stubbornly from the past towards the future via the nexus of the present. In the Cartesian space there is absolutely no reason why this should be so.

I read it, there is nothing that constitutes proof in it!

Do you deny that the prediction I make in my experiment would falsify current theory?

Obvious Leo wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to explain the mechanism by which space expands by the way. Does it just thin itself out a bit or do new bits of space appear from somewhere to fill in the gaps?



GR does not posit a mechanism by which it expands;

We do not know! Is this question even meaningful?

To a philosopher it certainly is. Empty space has no physical properties and yet it can supposedly expand and contract and bend and twist and curve. How does an entity with no physical properties perform such miraculous feats. You accuse me of mystical nonsense and then you try and defend this action at a distance bollocks. No wonder physics makes no fucking sense.

[nix]

What don't you try and explain why the equations of physics are time invariant and reality is not? Even better. Why don't you try and explain why some but not all of the equations of physics are time invariant? Are you seriously proposing that these equations are modelling a physically real universe. If so you may be interested in an Eiffel tower I have for sale.

The point about reversibility and irreversibility is a long debate from Boltzmann, through Prigogine etc by way of the second law of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics....all of which involved careful mathematical models of physical phenomena (see boltzmann equation, discussions of dissipative structures etc).

Of course they are modeling a physically real universe. They are themselves not the physically real universe, they are models which attempt to abstract a part of it. If the predictions of the model agree with physical measurements we can make on the real universe then the model is a good one. That is not to say that "a better model might not be found". The better one had better be able to do everything the earlier one did but add some additional predictions that the earlier one got wrong. That the model works in this way tells us something about the physically real universe, say that atoms exist, but our picture of what atoms are changes over time, is elaborated and enriched but perhaps never is complete.

[nix]

There isn't a velocity through time, C is just a conversion factor to turn time in seconds into a distance so it has the same dimensions as the space coordinates.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Physics expresses a temporal interval in terms of a spatial distance but this is bullshit. Time is not a spatial dimension!!!?

It is not bullshit to make this conversion but only because C, the velocity of light is exactly the same for all observers irrespective of their relative motion. It is the one factor, all observers, in all frames will agree on so they can all apply the same scale factor to the time axis of their own space time diagrams. That is what makes time equal to space as a coordinate. But:

Your main beef, I think is that time is reversible in the theory and you reject reversible time, so you reject the theory, but that would lead you to reject all of mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc. There are lots of phenomena which this irreversibility is not prominent does that mean we cannot define time for them in our descriptions of them? No.

You seem to want science to provide a single theory which has no approximations in it, so that its concepts exactly model all aspects of the physically real universe, I think that is an impossibility.

[Obvious Leo]

If the universe is a dissipative structure, which incidentally is exactly what I'm claiming, then it is defined as a non-Newtonian entity. (Incidentally I regard Ilya Progogine as one of the most important figures in 20th century science). Dissipative structures evolve from the simple to the complex, i.e. from high entropy states to lower entropy states. Do you deny that this is what the universe is quite obviously doing, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics?.

[Obvious Leo]

It is not bullshit to make this conversion but only because C, the velocity of light is exactly the same for all observers irrespective of their relative motion. It is the one factor, all observers, in all frames will agree on so they can all apply the same scale factor to the time axis of their own space time diagrams.

OK it's not bullshit, it's a mathematical convenience. However it doesn't relate to a physically real universe because SR is not a physical model. Don't forget, nix. There's no such thing as a flat space.

[nix]

If the universe is a dissipative structure, which incidentally is exactly what I'm claiming, then it is defined as a non-Newtonian entity. (Incidentally I regard Ilya Progogine as one of the most important figures in 20th century science). Dissipative structures evolve from the simple to the complex, i.e. from high entropy states to lower entropy states. Do you deny that this is what the universe is quite obviously doing, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics?.

The universe as a whole cannot be a dissipative structure in the sense of Prigogine. Dissipative structures are always open systems, that means they get energy and matter from outside of themselves that is why the entropy can decrease in them. The universe is by definition an isolated system.