On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > > > On May 9, 6:03 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote: > >> Tim BandTech.com schrieb: > > >>> On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...@sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >>>> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > >>>>> On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...@sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >>>>>> Thomas Heger schrieb: > >>>>>> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or > >>>>>> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. > >>>>> I'm sure there is some more apt quote... > >>>> Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on > >>>> mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. > >>>> You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, > >>>> so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would > >>>> a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics? > >>> I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in > >>> that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does > >>> indeed observe differently than the others. > >> The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in > >> this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is > >> possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see, > >> because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance > >> we could see this and our worldline would be visible. > >> The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we > >> could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote > >> spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different > >> impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our > >> view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every > >> single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the > >> same, but different parts are visible and we would see different > >> configurations of the same things. > >> Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant, > >> because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our > >> impression only and does not represent something 'real'. > >> So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at > >> imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real > >> numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general. > >> This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us > >> to complex four-vectors. > > >> Greetings > > >> Thomas > > > Well, I don't believe there is even any need to use the moon within > > the argument. > > We are not just in an inertial reference frame. > > We are in a rotational reference frame. > > This is a restriction of the relativity theory that perhaps should not > > come later. > > I believe it is standard mathematics to treat rotation as translation > > but the opposite is also possible, particularly through the usage of > > purely spherical systems, which is nearby to Riemann. Here is a > > tantalizing quote > > "I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of > > constructing the notion of > > a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It > > will > > follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of > > different > > measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular > > case of > > a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary > > consequence > > that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general > > notions of > > magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other > > con- > > ceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from > > experience. > > Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from > > which > > the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from > > the > > nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be > > several > > systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure- > > relations of > > space?the most important system for our present purpose being that > > which > > Euclid has laid down as a foundation." > > -http://www.emis.de/classics/Riemann/WKCGeom.pdf > > > The simplest approach yields three dimensional space out of just four > > directions, not six. This can come simply from the observation that > > the ray is more fundamental than the line. The real number is not the > > reference standard any more for me. Riemann has left out the puzzle of > > time as does the title of this thread. Time satisfies the geometry of > > the ray, and so its ability to be taken into the geometry of spacetime > > does exist without the difficulties of the relativity theory. Still, > > until this theory on the ray matures, the topic is more of Hinton than > > of Einstein. Riemann misuses the word magnitude in my book, where > > magnitude carries no sign, and so he has overlooked the possibility of > > generalization of sign. The real number is not fundamental. > > > - Tim > > Hi Tim > > Riemann used the German term "Größe", what can have different > translations in English like (mainly) size, or value or magnitude. Or it > can address a parameter or a variable in a function. > This text of Riemann is more mathematical than physical and leaves out > time, as you wrote. Personally I didn't like it too much, but > quantum-physicists seemingly like it, because a lot of their 'lingo' > could have the origin in this text. > Euclid's space is 'predefined', what means a line is an entity and would > exist in an instant. Could be, that certain lines would exist without > time, but as space is defined over light, our usual (observed) space > isn't instantaneous. So, Euclidean space is not a good description of > reality, but of our view. > My idea was, that light is only a special case of interactions and that > it would be emitted in opposite directions, what would lead to a cone
I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody radiation. You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? If you consider that black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of the light htting the black side come out of the white side?
I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different materials, and I am rusty rather than polished.
> (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and > reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a > general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the > velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and > guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary > distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm > acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant, > what would look static.
> Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This > would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could > not be one-dimensional.
Yikes, Thomas. Are you saying that gravity is directly related to time? This is partially coherent within polysign if we consider mass as one-signed 'charge'. I guess I would challenge your phrase 'since things usually drop' because the earth travels around the sun and does not seem to be dropping in towards it. Would you have the timeline of the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you onward. As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have one.