Starship Asterisk*

Dr. Skeptic wrote:I'm not coming up with a quick answer. Space and time are in a symbiotic relationship, one cannot exist with out the other. An object can be represented on a 3D graph, to plot where it resides in both time and space to another 3D object, a fourth dimension needs to be added.

I know I can explain the concept much better than that, I'll need to ponder awhile.

I'll agree they are in a relationship; that is why I feel time is a property of the three dimensions. I really can't quite connect it as the 4th. It may be; but I'd like to understand it.
Orin

Representing entities on a 3D graph can show a static position on axises X,Y,Z. Or, it can represent 2D position on X and Y and ∆t on Z. To Have X,Y,Z represent position, ∆t need to have vector all its own, layering the graph alternate colors or Multiple "Time Frames" (more than one graph or a movie representing ∆t). X, Y, Z, ∆t = 4 vectors needing representation.

That's the simple mathematical explanation, explaining time in relation to the other 11 possible dimension is more difficult. Let me know if I need to elaborate.

I have to ponder this. Still a little deep. Does that mean that the other [7] dimensions can be proved mathematically also? How is a dimension than described? Time as a dimension than described as a point when an event occurred?
Thanks--- so far
Orin

Does that mean that the other [7] dimensions can be proved mathematically also?

Theoretically, yes. It is possible data from the new collider coming on line next year will prove the existence of the missing pieces.

How is a dimension than described? Time as a dimension than described as a point when an event occurred?

Well, yes, time marks a point when an event occurs or the duration of an event, but also sets a fluid "frame of reference" when dealing with special relativity - change the rate of time and it effects distance and speed. All four dimensions are interdependent. As in one of these threads, if a photon had "eyeballs" and zipped pass the Sun, it would not see any change to it's trajectory, an observer near the Sun would see the photon's trajectory curve do to the ∆ space/time generated by the mass of the Sun. So time isn't just a place marker on a graph, "t" is just as interdependent as X, Y, and Z.

X, Y, and Z cannot exitst without "t".

if a photon had "eyeballs" and zipped pass the Sun, it would not see any change to it's trajectory, an observer near the Sun would see the photon's trajectory curve do to the ∆ space/time generated by the mass of the Sun.

So whose perception is more accurate as to whats going on here- the photon or the observer?

What does the above example have to do with time?

And does it mean anything that the above example would have no impact/influence on my current position and time of existence?

Is time independant to an event and can it influence the time of another event?

It seems motion/energy is the cause of time. But does this imply time is an actual "container" for events to pass thru? Perhaps time is a required reaction of motion/energy. Such as a massive object's influence on 3 dimensional space is a required reation of gravity?

With respect to the statement:

Quote:
if a photon had "eyeballs" and zipped pass the Sun, it would not see any change to it's trajectory, an observer near the Sun would see the photon's trajectory curve do to the ∆ space/time generated by the mass of the Sun.

In answer to your first question:

So whose perception is more accurate as to what’s going on here- the photon or the observer?

The perception of the observer of the event is most accurate as to the actual path taken by the photon.
From the Photon's perspective, it sees along the curved path of light to its destination point on the other side of the Sun, so although it travels a curved path, it's perception of its trajectory never changes.

Your second question:
What does the above example have to do with time?

I see no direct affect with respect to time alone other than how far your destination point changes within time at it is also moving along its orbital path. The only thing that time can change in this case, since you are a photon and traveling at "C", is the fact that the reflected light from your destination will be getting younger as you travel towards it.

As for the rest of your questions: I'll defer to others more knowledgeable than I

Martin wrote:

if a photon had "eyeballs" and zipped pass the Sun, it would not see any change to it's trajectory, an observer near the Sun would see the photon's trajectory curve do to the ∆ space/time generated by the mass of the Sun.

So whose perception is more accurate as to whats going on here- the photon or the observer?

What does the above example have to do with time?

And does it mean anything that the above example would have no impact/influence on my current position and time of existence?

Is time independant to an event and can it influence the time of another event?

It seems motion/energy is the cause of time. But does this imply time is an actual "container" for events to pass thru? Perhaps time is a required reaction of motion/energy. Such as a massive object's influence on 3 dimensional space is a required reation of gravity?

Who's perception is more accurate? The both are 100% accurate That is the wonders of Special Relativity. As in the Twin Paradox, one twin stays on Earth and the other zips to a neighboring star and back again near the speed of light, the traveling twin may have aged 10 years while the twin waiting on Earth has aged 70 years. The perception of the traveling twin, the trip took ten years, the perception of the waiting twin the trip took 70 years - both perceptions are 100% accurate do to the change in the time dimension caused by Special Relativity. Does this explain why time isn't just a simple "mark" or did I just add to confusion?

Does this mean that a person traveling to a distant star; say 10 light years distant; near the speed of light may actually get there before he ages 10 years while the person not traveling ages 10 years? So to the person travelling would actually seem to be going faster than the speed of light?
Orin

orin stepanek wrote:Does this mean that a person traveling to a distant star; say 10 light years distant; near the speed of light may actually get there before he ages 10 years while the person not traveling ages 10 years? So to the person travelling would actually seem to be going faster than the speed of light?
Orin

Nope, he'd never perceive himself travelling faster than light. Due to Lorentz contraction, he'd experience a shorter distance of travel, such that his apparent velocity would never reach or exceed that of light.

At least, that's my understanding of it. Anyone wanna confirm this?

And does it mean anything that the above example would have no impact/influence on my current position and time of existence?

Is time independant to an event and can it influence the time of another event?

It seems motion/energy is the cause of time. But does this imply time is an actual "container" for events to pass thru? Perhaps time is a required reaction of motion/energy. Such as a massive object's influence on 3 dimensional space is a required reation of gravity?

Martin wrote: Is time independant to an event and can it influence the time of another event?

Is anything independent?

It seems motion/energy is the cause of time. But does this imply time is an actual "container" for events to pass thru? Perhaps time is a required reaction of motion/energy. Such as a massive object's influence on 3 dimensional space is a required reation of gravity?

Reaction.. What about the time it takes to make no reaction, or a motion free exsistance... I can't look at time as simply a reaction. It is however amazing that it is dependant on motion/energy. My big question is, what makes the rate of decay decrease as speed/motion increase!?
I remember thinking long and hard about that once before, I'll have to do it again to see what I came up with.

Hello All

Wadsworth said

what makes the rate of decay decrease as speed/motion increase!?

Does it?

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Americans John C. Mather and George F. Smoot have won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work that helped cement the big-bang theory of the universe.

Mather, 60, works at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Smoot, 61, works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

Their work was based on measurements done with the help of the NASA-launched COBE satellite in 1989. They were able to observe the universe in its early stages about 380,000 years after it was born. Ripples in the light they detected also helped demonstrate how galaxies came together over time.

"The very detailed observations that the laureates have carried out from the COBE satellite have played a major role in the development of modern cosmology into a precise science," the academy said in its citation.

It looks like Harry has lost anther battle in his quest for understanding.

harry wrote:Hello All
Wadsworth said

what makes the rate of decay decrease as speed/motion increase!?

Does it?

Gawd Harry!
The experiments that prove this are too mumerous to mention. They involve things like cosmic ray obsevations, synchronised (atomic) clocks, even the corrections required for the GPS system to work are a similar effect due to a somewhat different cause.

No, I'm not going to provide lnks. Many others have provided you with links to articles regarding these issues. You obviously don't read them, don't believe them (why would these people lie?), or I don't know what.

It's all of a piece. If SR, GR and QM don't work you better stop posting to the forum. Because the internet and even the PC you are using cannot work and are therefore figments of your imagination.

If you want some cedibility, take a course in SR and start asking some real questions.

All right. Rant over. It's just that

Robert Heinlein wrote:some brands of stupidity ought to be a capital offense

No, really. The rant is over now....

As to Wadsworth's question, I don't know if there is a real answer to "what." Special Relativity explains the observations and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations fairly well (BTW, Fitzgerald's contraction conjecture was first proposed in 1889). Asking this question is kind of like asking "what makes water wet" (hold on, there is a good answer for that one...).

Cheers all,
(Exits stage left still muttering into beard)

Hello dcmcp

My question is

Does it?

Have you got info on it?

I'm not saying it does not.
I want to read up on it.
==========================================

Hello Dr Skeptic

you posted

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Americans John C. Mather and George F. Smoot have won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work that helped cement the big-bang theory of the universe.

I do not think they cemented the Big Bang.
If you have info on it I would like to read it.

Hello All

ooops I have email. Your not going to believe it. Its on the subject.

Mather shares the prize with George F. Smoot, a professor of physics at the University
of California at Berkeley, for work that helped solidify the Big Bang theory for the origin
of the universe.

http://hubblesite.org/news/2006/49
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... ather.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... press.html

What do you get from a group of Big Bang people who believe in The Big Bang?

Harry,

Read their papers!

Their peers nominated and awarded the the Nobel Prize! If the science was flawed, the science community would be up in arms - its pure observational science that brought them the award ... get real!

Hello Dr Skeptic

I have read their papers. There are many issues there that I will bring up.

For years the Big Bang has had a hold on alot of people. These people work with tunnel vision.

Take note: One year maybe two. The scientific community will change a few issues.

Until than stay cool.

For those people who read my writing. I'm unconventional and maybe you should read standard models and think along those lines.

If you read the papers you would know that the observation rule out a steady-state universe and and prove a Big Bang density model to 50 parts per million. Unless you are willing to redesign the steady state theory and have it match observations your theory is done - finished - outdated - wrong.