Motor Daddy's absolute space and time

Moderator note: This thread has been split from the thread [thread=112331]Relativity, really[/thread].

Cool. Let's start with what distance and time are. Describe to me the concepts of distance and time. Please save the discussion of motion until after we have talked about distance and time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Motor Daddy

Distance is a measurement, it is also a dimension, one of four that make up spacetime, indicating any event or position requires all four. It is a map we use to see the reality and none of it is absolute. Distance and time vary with different frames of reference.

space-time (sp s t m ). n. Physics. The four-dimensional continuum of one temporal and three spatial coordinates in which any event or physical object is located.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/space-time

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is such a lame response. You jump into frames of reference, measurements, dimensions, positions, maps, reality, spacetime, events, continuum, temporal and spacial coordinates, physical objects, locations, etc.

Tell me what distance and time are. I have no idea what a frame of reference is, what a map is, nor how I would go about measuring something I don't even know what it is.

What a lame response!

If you are going to attempt to teach me relativity you need to start by teaching me what distance and time are. Teach me, teacher, I am waiting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You need to get out of Dodge - you don't belong in this thread. Your problem is that you have NO grasp of the very rudimentary basics of physics.

Grumpy is doing a good deed but it's not his responsibility to HAVE to teach anything on a kindergarten level. I've seen quite a large number of your posts and must say that none of them demonstrate an educated mind nor anything more than rudimentary intelligence.

So please leave this thread and go back to playing in your personal sandbox.

 

I belong in this thread as much as the next guy. I am making no claims of my own. I am not in any way making against the mainstream claims. I am simply asking for him to explain relativity with no arm waving, and to back up his claims. The burden of proof is on him. He wants to start a thread and make claims, fine, but he needs to be prepared to back up his claims to the very root of the issues, at the kindergarten level if need be.

Your ego of claiming to be beyond discussing things at a core level, in which the issues are "boot strapped" from the kindergarten level is absurd. I want to hear relativity boot strapped from the kindergarten level, so there is no arm waving going on. Are you here to defend him? What is the problem with defining the terms at the beginning? In order to have a productive conversation that MUST happen in the beginning!

Take a chill pill, pal. We'll get to the level of your ego soon, but first we need to start in kindergarten so we are ALL on the same sheet of music from the beginning.

 

To begin with, I'm NOT your pal and neither would I ever want to be under ANY circumstances.

But my point is simply this: You are cluttering up a good thread for no good reason. There are LOTS of good books out there aimed directly at your level of understanding - do you think you are too good to do a little simple, honest, reading and studying???

 

So if I ever see you stranded on the side of the road at midnight, when it's snowing, and 25 degrees outside, and your car is broken down, you have no blankets, and you are in a t-shirt and shorts, freezing, I should just keep on going, and totally ignore you? K, I'll do that.

Using that logic, Grumpy is cluttering up good space on this forum, because there are plenty of books out there one can learn relativity on their own.

He is making claims, and I am here to make sure he doesn't do any hand waving, and that he backs up his assertions with proof.

 

Motor Daddy

Distance is a measurement(good so far?)and measurements make maps(mentally processed models that we use to explain the reality we see, we compare the distance of something far away by comparing it to lengths we are better able to understand like miles and inches), it is also a dimension(a point has one dimension, so does a line, a sheet has two dimensions, a sphere has three and they all exist in time as well). Time is what makes it possible for things to happen non-simultaniously(big word, means not all at once)along the timeline, space is what allows them not to happen to you. Together they are spacetime and provide the arena within which all events and objects reside.

You call lead a horse to water... I take it you didn't bother going to the sites I posted? Teachers don't teach, students learn. If a student wants not to learn but to simply disturb the class there are better uses of my time and yours. Specific questions, not kindergarden behavior please.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is pure garbage! Is that the best you can do to define what distance and time are?

You say distance is a measurement and ask me if I am good so far??? A measurement of what, temperature? Is distance a measurement of how hot my oven gets? Is it a measurement of how much sugar I put into my coffee?? What the heck are you talking about???

You are so wrong! I was a teacher, and I know a thing or two about teaching and students. Show me a student that leaves with a lack of understanding and I will show you a teacher that didn't do his job. Don't you dare blame a student for your failures!

 

Motor Daddy:

Whenever you discuss some advanced piece of science there will be certain things that are assumed to be "facts" without discussion (and these assumed facts are generally those that are easy for a five year old to grasp, but very hard for an internet troll).

Space and time are the assumed facts. It's beyond the scope of this thread to have to explain to you that space and time exist, but I'm sure if you find a five year old, he or she will assure you that they do. Distance is a measurement of the amount of space between two objects. Time itself is a dimension that establishes certain relative characteristics of events, specifically characteristics of causation and thermodynamic irreversibility.

If you wish to dispute the existence of space or time, that would be a good topic for another thread, but you should be prepared to offer some very extraordinary evidence or at least some strong epistemological arguments. If you do not dispute the existence of space and time, then (1) the definition of distance should be painfully obvious, and (2) there is no real need for anyone to define time to you.

 

It's beyond the scope of this thread to explain what distance and time are??

That is a real knee slapper right there. This thread is discussion of distance and time, and it's beyond the scope to define those terms?

Are you out of your mind?

Oh, let me guess. The discussion will start on a train, and lightning strikes will occur and observers on the tracks and train will disagree over their clocks and rulers.

The entire subject is about clocks and rulers and you say it's beyond the scope of this thread to define distance and time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Get a clue!

 

Distance is defined mathematically, but also defined by measurement. If you physically walk the distance from your house to, say, a bus stop, you're physically measuring that distance. If you want to know what the distance is in metres, say, then you could use an odometer, or a metre ruler.

I think an 8th grader would probably understand that it takes time to walk from somewhere to somewhere else. But in mathematics, a distance isn't necessarily physical. Indeed, the distance you measure between your house and a bus stop isn't something you can take with you, or use. But it is physical and real because of measurement.

I think Grumpy's description of distance as being a dimension is inaccurate. You can have a distance in one, two, or three dimensions, or in fact in any number of dimensions. In which case you describe start and end points with that many dimensions, whereas a distance is one-dimensional in each case, being a scalar quantity.

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

I'm good with the infinite lattice, but the lattice itself is not an object capable of motion. The lattice is imaginary in the infinite VOLUME (3 dimensional distance) of space. In other words, both a black hole and myself reside in space. At any point in time, say 12:00 there is a specific distance between myself and the center of the black hole. I do not need to know that distance, nor could I. The distance itself is not warped, bent, stretched, contracted, or any other physical aspect. The distance is the space between me and the center of the black hole at any given point in time, regardless of what mass occupies that space at that point in time.

I have a little problem with the time aspect of your statement. While it is true that a clock would have a specific reading at any point in time, the concept of time is more than a "point", it is a "duration" which means an interval from point to point. I just want to be a little more clear. Clocks measure duration (time).

 

It is not a physical object that is capable of moving. The lattice is an IMAGINARY coordinate system of the volume of space. The volume of space is not an object, it is volume, which is 3 dimensional distance. We are not talking about measuring the length of a stick, we are talking about distance in space, without regard to objects of mass. It is an imaginary coordinate system in the infinite volume of space.

Imagine the infinite volume of space as an infinite amount of 1 cubic meter blocks of space. The blocks are simply 3 dimensional blocks of distance. The blocks can't move because they are not a physical object. Objects of mass travel in the volume of the blocks. Light travels in the blocks. The blocks are simply an imaginary grid system, incapable of motion, because the volume of space is incapable of motion. Objects of mass are what is capable of motion in the volume of space.

 

Motor Daddy's confusion might be connected to his inability to imagine that an observer, or a clock, can be at rest but moving in the direction of time.

Which is why we feel gravity acting on us (as observers, of ...gravity); locally we're in an accelerated frame in the time dimension. That means all the events we observe as "simultaneous" lie on the 3-plane intersecting the apex of our past lightcone. This 3-plane is only really flat in a small neighbourhood of the apex which represents our observation of "the present".

Sprinkle some points on this hypersurface and imagine they represent all events we can observe simultaneously.

 

No confusion on my part. I have a coordinate system (x,y,z) and objects move in those 3 dimensions, and the travel occurs over a duration of time. Light travel time defines the meter.

I can also define and measure the state of motion "at rest," can you?