Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About steveupson

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

4201 profile views
  1. How do you carry position information except for in spacetime? Granted, we can remove the base quantity of time from the information and we have position in space, which is only a partial description of position. Similar constructs can be made using any of the other base quantities, such as mass, temperature, luminous intensity, or amount of substance. Another example would be the information contained in the expression of density. If we remove either component (volume or mass) we no longer have density information. The ratio between volume and mass "carries" the density information.
  2. Each frame in spacetime has a now that can be temporally separated mathematically. By absolute I mean mathematically unique. The frames themselves remain relative to one another (observer dependent) and so are not universal. Information carried by spacetime is position. I imagine that I have a different way of viewing these things. Information, to me, is any derived quantity. Volume is derived from length. I'm, like you, not onboard with an argument that length is a physical quantity but volume is not. Once any derived quantity is reduced to a base quantity (mathematically) then any information is lost. There's nothing to relate it to.
  3. I'm fairly confident that the math shows the existence of an absolute now, which isn't universal and which differs mathematically from the past or future. Interestingly, these same mathematical necessities are responsible for the understanding that there is no absolute direction but there does exist a universal direction (established by the arrow of time.)
  4. Creating gravity in space

    How do we consider simultaneity in a non inertial frame?
  5. Ether evidence?

    What is the definition of ether? Which one are we using in this discussion? The most childish definition is "a proposed medium for the transmission of light." Are we forced to converse like children and use this definition? Of course not. How about something along the lines of Mach's Principle or "In later years there have been a few individuals who advocated a neo-Lorentzian approach to physics, which is Lorentzian in the sense of positing an absolute true state of rest that is undetectable and which plays no role in the predictions of the theory. (No violations of Lorentz covariance have ever been detected, despite strenuous efforts.) Hence these theories resemble the 19th century aether theories in name only. For example, the founder of quantum field theory, Paul Dirac, stated in 1951 in an article in Nature, titled "Is there an Aether?" that "we are rather forced to have an aether".[10][A 20]However, Dirac never formulated a complete theory, and so his speculations found no acceptance by the scientific community." Gee, what could satisfy these requirements? I wonder..
  6. I hate to say goodbye...

    got that right
  7. Pet theory hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    Ok then, what is the definition? This discussion is about science. Why do y'all insist on making it about me? It isn't my fault that the universe is the way it is.
  8. I hate to say goodbye...

    Of course, Mach and Gödel would be banished from this place under these conditions. There is that, too.
  9. Pet theory hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    It's not guesswork to say that, in general, the "theory of ether" is undefined. Newton's bucket argument probably best identifies the requirement for an "ether." The quantity that we refer to as direction does meet this requirement.
  10. Ether evidence?

    Base quantities are what are used to form other quantities, or derived quantities. This is a common mistake, one that I myself have made. A ball is a 3D object. A sphere, by definition, is a 2D surface. It's an abstraction; a mathematical object perhaps - definitely not a physical object.
  11. Ether evidence?

    This is an important point and it isn’t just a semantic argument. I hope this can be discussed without sounding condescending, which isn’t the intention. The intent is to try and highlight a potential problem with the jargon that is being used. Back when our discussions of direction first began, it was asserted that the term direction had a very specific meaning with regards to mathematics. Direction is something that is expressed by a vector. No one has any argument with that. I then suggested that perhaps the term orientation could be used in order to distinguish this component of a vector from all of the other types of direction where a vector isn’t possible. In other words, we needed a term that could be used to express this property, quantity, attribute, parameter, or whatever (no one seems to know exactly what it is, except that they somehow know or intuit without any published mainstream science that it isn’t a base quantity), in those cases where a vector doesn’t exist. Using only the radius of a sphere we can know the diameter. The orientation or direction of the diameter isn’t necessarily known. At the same time, the idea that it has a direction cannot be ignored. Its direction lies between two antipodal points. Its direction is such that it passes through the sphere center. We know these things are true about the direction of the diameter without being able to specify the direction. Therefore, it must have a direction, even though it isn’t specifically specified. Your Legendre polynomials are no different than this example for the diameter of a sphere. Even though the actual value is unknown, we do know that the direction is axiomatically limited by the definition (words like azimuth and Euclidean length) in the same way as a diameter has a direction that is also limited by the definition.
  12. Ether evidence?

    Time is a base quantity. Orthogonal is an orientation.
  13. Ether evidence?

    It's very similar to the hairy ball theorem. Most reference frames are oriented to each other in an organised fashion, like the combed portion of the hairy ball. The math indicates that there are a class of frames that can be chosen that are not directionally related to the organised ones. In other words, there actually is a mathematical distinction that can be shown between what we call now and what we call the past or future. This is another fundamental part of the theory. All directions commute mathematically in the now frame and they don't in the past or future frame. It's more complicated than that because every frame in the past and future does have one instance where a direction does commute, but then all of the rest do not ( at least until we reach the Planck scale.) on edit>>> There is some literature on the mathematics involved using a different approach. It is the same thing that causes the failure of the Whitney trick in dimension 4:
  14. Ether evidence?

    Do you see what you did there? Since space is volume (the original conclusion that I was responding to in this thread), you're saying that space is a property that objects have. I don't think that is the generally accepted view. How does any other frame work? We can't just orient time in any direction in any model that I am aware of. Time has a particular orientation in the frame, always. If we didn't apply this orientation axiomatically then we could end up viewing time as lying along some other axis, coincident with some other parameter, and we lose the ability to represent motion.
  15. Ether evidence?

    objects like volume?