farolero

@falolero

 

I understand what you are trying to say, without the proper maths.

 

However your examples are, like your title, set in a Euclidian universe.

 

Newtonian Physics is Euclidian.

 

'Size' variation with position is non Euclidian.

maybe you could be so kind to explain strange, im not sure he is just a contrarian who comes to this section to argue with handicapped people or he isnt even able to understand relativity of size

the space time i propose is not euclidean as you rightly and kindly point is a motionless space

its a radically new concept which breaks with everything weve been considering in the last 4000 years with some exceptions as parmenides

and as strange involuntarily admitted i could take it and no make any difference so he just validated it as a POSIBLE brand new perspective of space and time to explain things as motion

my conception of spacetime is 5 dimensional euclidean space is just 4 dimensional

edit:

studiot if you understand that in a motionless space there can be APPARENT MOTION maybe i can move to next step of my reasoning and explain how you can go past an object just by changing size and this part is what bogles the mind about this new not euclidean spacetime perspective

I have answered. Repeatedly. The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size (there: answered it again) is why your concept of changing size is irrelevant/meaningless.

no youre ignoring a simple single clear and simple question becuase you dont like where it leads to so you ignore the question and bring different arguments

ill formulate my question again and if you want to keep arguing with me please answer this single question:

if two guys are floating in space and they grow in size(thing they dont notice because of relativity of size)and they have a ruler with them how will they measure their distance?

it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size

so here youre validating my model as valid but you stille feel like arguing spreading the hate instead of spreading the love,if my model is valid as you admit why now youre not constructive and try to see where this model take us:

like your model is valid and posible to take is not valid, amazing logic

thank god im not a teacher

now an itelligent argument would be:

yeah motion can be explained as just change of size

but changing size you can never REACH WITH YOUR CENTER a mark 2 m apart nevertheless traspass it

do you understand this question and problem?

So how would you be able tell the difference between everything changing size by the same amount and nothing changing size? What experiment can you do to test your idea?

 

Do you understand that it therefore makes no difference? And that therefore your "size" is irrelevant

i would be able to tell the difference by fictious forces that i would take as magical

picture this:

the earth and the falling apple ARE STILL in space they just inflate

again check this:

and in fact this is what really happen earth and apple get closer, butch is trying to make you see this in his thread einstein was right

youre not answering my question so please answer me this question:

how will the growing guys measure their distance if they happen to have a ruler with them?

no i meant strange is not adressing my questions and still he argues

you have to stop assuming the sun APPEARS TO REVOLVE hence it revolves this is not valid logic

you have to stop thinking it appears to move hence it moves

what if its just change of size and this change of size its been NEGLECTED and ignored all the time for being SYMULTANEOUS it APPEARS to not be there

what is frustrating for me is that if its taking so long to get to the most basics concepts how its gonna be with the more difficult ones

edit:

also i think ill have to start making shorter posts this seems to be a problem, people want to argue with me without even bothering listening to what i say

i think strange problem is that he assumes theres an universal ruler in the universe of the two guys floating in space

theres no universal ruler theres just the ruler thay have in their pocket which is growing

the only way they can measure distance is with the growing ruler they have

do you understand this?

do you understand also they wont notice their ruler is growing because size is relative?

ok youre not answering my questions and its already difficult enough

if initially the guys are one meter big with a one meter big ruler and separated one km the ruler will fit 1000 times

how many times will the ruler fit when the ruler and the guys are 500 m big

i hope youre answer is 2 or well have a problem

now let me ask you another question

the two guys want to obtain their distance and they have a ruler in their pocket, how will they obtain the distance? this is like of what colour is johnys white horse

i hope youre answer is the ruler, correct me if not

ok now please think about this:

will the guys BE ABLE TO KNOW the ruler has changed size if theyre alone in the universe and everything grew symultaneously?

edit:

ok ill anticipate your answers, i hope youre an honest person and are not here just to argue:

nope the guys wont be able to know anyway the ruler has changed size cause their RELATIVE size to everything that exists in this just two persons universe remains constant, theres no universal ruler they can compare theirs with

so if the guys think the ruler has a constant size and intially the ruler fitted 1000 times and finally it fitted 2 times what will they conclude?

that the distance betwee them has shortened?

and have they moved?

no in reality they havent moved?

so is it the dimention of size relevant to distance?

yes it is

if you account for the size dimention you could explain newtons falling apple as still in space and the earth inflating with which the ground accelerates up and hits it

after all when youre at free fall you feel zero g like your still in space and its only when youre on the ground still you feel the force like acelerating and the g forces

also if you picture an inflating earth by relativeness you could picture a shrinking space or what einstein called a curved space

No size is a dimension within x,y,z.

 

 

im not saying there are other axes of space than those

im saying than newton and einstein considered the size dimention along the xyz axe as universally CONSTANT and hence just neglect it and ignore completely all along

i claim its posible things could be just relatively constant in size to each other

i dont know if you understand this:

if 2 guys both double their size the metric tape they have in their pocket will have grown as well, their eyes have grown the measure instrument has grown, so universally they have grown but of course RELATIVILY to each other or to the measure instrument or to their eyes size remains constant and they dont notice they have grown

so imho neglecting the size dimention because your mind tells you things dont change size is trusting too much our senses as to trust blindly the sun revolves around earth because thats what my senses tell me

but newton assumed a 4 dimentional spacetime when there are five relevant dimentions:

x,y,z,time and size

newton and einstein ASSUMED size is constant and hence completely ignore this dimention

but what if size was constant just relatively to each other.

imagine a 2 m plane where theres one inhabitant and as he halves distance from the end of the plane he halves his size

from his perception this 2 m plane would be infinite, size is a very relevant dimention

not if theyre groing simultaneously

if theyre growing simultaneously they wont notice theyre growing but the metric tape they have in their pocket to measure distance has grown as well so APPARENT distance has decreased

i suppose i could define it from the equation s=vt taking v as the velocity of an object under no external forces

so next would be define whats space

a space is defined as the distance between two objects but lets imagine there are just two objects alone in the whole universe

distance is relative to ones size and how can i define distance if i dont define size

for example if i slowly double the size of both objects APPARENT distance will be half than before

i hope you see where im going how can i define the distance dimention if i dont define the size dimention?

we are just assuming as theres no RELATIVE change in size theres no change in size at all in space but we can not not is theres a change that relativily doesnt change

so there wouldnt actually be 5 dimentions to acount for?

x,y,z, time and SIZE

edit:

what is more what if parmenides, zenos teacher was righ and motion was illusory?

could you explain APPARENT motion as a symultaneous change of size between two separated objects?

of course if two objects grow symultaneously they wont notice theyre growing because relatively they dont change size with respect to each other but their apparent distance is decreasing

you may argue then how is it posible an object goes past other as we know it happens in the real world because however big this objects grow their centers never cross

but this is where zenos dichotomoy enters the game

so the objects doubles size so apparent distance halves, they double size again and apparent distance halfs again

but lets suppose that as they double their size to keep conservation of momentum true they half theyr time rate

then they would apparently be separated 1 meter in one second half meter in half second quarter of meter in quarter of second and at second 2 they will have cross and at second 3 they have gone past by the opposite ways but how is this posible?

imagine a cuadriculated space with 5 dimensions:

x rotation y rotation z rotation change in size and time

youre on the coordinates (0,0,0) and go past an object in the coordinates (0,2,0)

what happens exactly with time and space?

theres a light clock at those coordenates you want to go to

we assume the light clock doesnt move but just change size

when it doubles its size the light beam has double distance to run but the period remains constant which means the beam is twice as faster than before so its time rate has halved

the light clock keeps doubling size as its time rate halves and as i explained before on this way at second two you reach it, but what happens next?

if after crossing the clock you look back accounting before crossing it the light beam was going to the right what sense is it going after you cross it, the opposite sense to the left,so time has reversed

so whats going on here? that time is relative to size, the bigger the size the slower the time but relativily the time period is always the same

if the time is going negative means that instead of growing you are shrinking and if you multiply -1*(-1) you get the same than if you multiply 1*1

and this is actually whats going on, you advance towards and object and it grows you walk away from an object and it shrinks

so wouldnt relativity of space time allow us to consider space motionless?