lakmilis

true swansont, but stating time is a dimension is already 'leaving' science. In a model it works....don't forget in terms when tryign to explain such things as time is a dimension one might use the classical rubber sheet object model...and why it rotates around an indentation in the sheet...but then one is 'explaining' gravity through gravity.... a ball on a sheet representing gravity is circular when saying it would curve around the indentation as that would only happen when one assumes gravity is still working downwards on the sheet and the object...but thats what we are trying to explain. if gravity was represented by the sheet and not the sheet + our conceptual idea of gravity working 'downwards' like on earth, the object would just keep moving in its 'straight' path over the indentation right?

wrong, nature itself is infinity, thus all subsets are finite. almost but you left out the major set X, of which all subsets derive from ,) no, thats the whole point of infinity versus finity, a billion minus a billion is 0, infinity minus infinity, strictly speaking in mathematics, is not proven to be either 0 nor infinity but it is non in between. it as someone said yields to infinity however , not in the sense its infinitely large, but rather to the notion that it remains illdefined therefore, infinity minus infinity tends to stick to infinity rather to approaching 0

farsight, I also work in my philosophy with the same postulate as yourself: Time is the perception of movement (is one of my postulates). I can see a lot from some of the introductory text, that we might think more alike in some fundamental concepts of space, energy than I would of previously thought. Perhaps it will make some more sense to you why I asked in a post if pure space had 0 K or not. If I get the time I will try and read your notes and see if I agree or disagree and if not, why not, and if so, why so. for the record, I used to approach relativity and/or space in some similar manner (sorry I only browsed some few of the concepts from your file so I might take it back), but with perhaps principally agreeing with Kaluza-Klein ideas, I was* trying to combine relativity (conceptually at first) with epistomology, thus soem other posters notes earlier in this thread said a few things about concepts vs mathematics which I wished ot comment upon. I agree both with the necessity for the mathematical expression of something physical as its the general language of our exterior reality, yet concepts non-mathematical are also important as these two really go hand in hand. but for a little less positive note perhaps, your ideas or more specifically your rhetoric arguments which follow them tend to be argumentative without the necessary merit. You sound like you wish to create a paradigm in scientific society on a scale like Einstein did for example. After all, don't forget, what you have provided is just interpretations of relativity and space at a hypothetical level; conceptual examples which haven't really shown a disproof or proof for relativity's validity even if you claim things are wrong in relativity. I think from the little I browsed through I might agree with you in some things but stating gravity is stress was it? or space is stress? You have to be consistent, so what are the units of space and gravity? You say we : We call the stress energy, and we call the tension gravity. .. since when did 'we' say this. Energy and stress do not have same units so why do you say we? very demagogical. Ideas though are good and nothign wrong with working out ideas , indeed on this site this approach is often fretted upon but its for healthy reasons.

and of all the topics which have been on, so many others are the ones I see contain wisdom and knowledge. This very topic renders me so emotional that I could run out of the database memory. I simply can not comment a single thing without embarking upon a sojourn of consensus ridicularum. i even see people's replies which I always am interested in seeing what they have to say but this is just too much. enjoy the posts till it becomes degenerate and the inductions and deductions mentioned from the OP's post will become redundant. Sorry, just have to, cos i started reading it all instead of browsing but from bottom up i think. I mean, the point of infinity... one specific point? lol , yes lol. I mean if you are speaking from a metaphysical point , then this becomes interesting. If you mention it as a valid mathematical definition, then there is just no sense in it. (not the part about funtion behaviour, but how you worded 'the' point AT infinity).

The thing is, special relativity is not really viable to go on about superluminous effects or pssibilities. However, what is a bit interesting about special relativity, is that is somewhat predicts out of the 4 black hole types, only one type, and which more a subtype of it...namely extreme kerr holes...which again is most likely the ones occurring naturally. (well, if not the extreme kerr hole, certainly kerr holes..the funny thing is, most laymen will at forums like this always talk about Schwarzchild holes which maybe could be created artificially but which is rather at best, humourous to presume are existing [naturally]).

I still would say that the textbook perhaps errs a little in saying a star collapses to the Schwarzchild radius... is it a 1st year university physics book or similar? They all tend to use classical escape velocity to derive this radius and don't even mention that this is not a valid method nor accurate? And for the hell of it, special relativity would predict R= GM/c^2 , thus half the product (although SR isn't valid either) for this. In GR star collapses are more correctly given a correct R by the Kerr metric.

for the OP : definition: "Time is the perception of movement" Analysis : out pops from that definition QM, GR, well science in general Like einteins tensor , very simple and concise, but from it, when analyzed, so much maths, physics, understanding pops out. The definition is a metaphysical quality; it is the most general form, the more specialized levels you apply, the more you get of all the other posts above...science, philosophy, quantum information, mind or brain or matter, etc etc etc etc lak

Im not sure if it was with you I was discussing it, but I am glad you say negligible angular momentum. Most people on these popular scientist sites always do these BH mind experiments with Schwarzchild holes. That is true, but they tend to think that real holes in the universe are of this type which they are not. Real black holes are kerr holes and that is essential. For the possible creation of artificial holes, sure....they most likely must be schawz. holes lak and to the post before mine, wtf, I know NA can be a lil funny to read, cos he replies himself when he is off calculating problems, but from hiw work he posts, I *know-' he knows what he is doing as such. but for that last post by some dan bloke, MY GOD MAN, eat them pills they give you and don't throw them away!!!! This is *not* a high school forum but equally for people researching/working in these fields or close to them... if you find something elitist then just ignore it. But if you find it strange someone says you are clueless, from the little I read above, it is because you are a little hmm clueless perhaps on a topic. ask rather than state.

and conventional physics does *not* predict you travel in time if you would travel faster than light in medium. It is simply the medium of our senses with highest velocity in vacuum, and so has propagated the largest sensory universe of which we are aware of. If in conventional physics or just intuitively at all, you would not travel in time, but be able to observer backwards in time. eg. you could see yourself flying to a planet when already there, but you coul d not affect it. if you flew long enough, you could see dinosaurs on earth. you dont move in time, but you do perceive backwards in time, as time is connected to the fastest sense, vision aka light energy (this was a simplified manner of light, energy , time and observation by all means but should suffice for the erm stormy guy)

For an observer on the train, the light from the train is travelling at c away from the train, hitting the sensor within that next second. For you who are watching the train at 0.95c lets say, see the light travelling at c as well. That is, 2 objects with positive rest mass,having their velocities added with respect to an inertial reference frame would would be v1 + v2, but with light it is not linear...i.e. regardless of the v of the material object light will escape at c from it. For you who was seeing the person then, also will see light hit that sensor before the train is in front of you, simply because a second was a large time interval for the example of v very close to c. Ant to last poster, yes, length contraction or the laplace factor works in the direction of the sum of forces no oops sorry in the direction of the velocity vector. in this case , since the velocity is linear and from front to bacl , only in that direction does special relativity predict contraction.

Think most layman's literature says that.... not to mention a singularity .... (I mean, can you argue for it to *not* be a dimension? )

Yes, anything being 0 K having speed of light is where I get at as well. So that version definitely appeals to my line of thinking. Again, thanks ajb for helpful input and just as we can never quite reach c with mass, neither can anythign quite hit 0 K I believe , even if its as close as you stated foodchain

Hey Alber sorry , never saw this last post. hmm, having a description would not be descript unless it predicted, thus implying it does indeed affect uncertainty, thats all. I do like to see your thoughts, again don't take my thoughts as negative or to contradict, but it is always healthy to have sceptical thoughts accompanying work where one has real progress good luck. Hmm, a group I know of computer scientists mainly are working on discrete continuums, your last post makes me wonder if there could be a link

ye, sounds fine then however, interaction and observation do not have equal signs between them...else consciousness would 'have to be' pretty much deterministic (I can't right now think about long slender female thighs out of the blue , etc )

hail on that last line snail, some people here quote wiki like hell , thinking their posts are 'awesomely enlightening'

lol, now that sounds a bit like mumblejumble to avoid consciousness issues.. with no observation of the system, the system will be in some state Q(t) which might include an electron in some excitation level and when t is set, an observer per definition, comes along to see which the total state looks like. An electron observing a photon hitting it? erm, that doesnt sound much like physics

Completely with you Severian

Swantsont, please keep in mind that Relativity does *not* conclude that there is no absolute/universal time. It suggests that all [inertial] reference frames are equivalent. However, this is a question about metaphysics. We sometimes in science as in anything else, extend derivations to larger systems. If one provided the logical hypothesis that All subsets of a set X are equivalent, and only X is not a subset of a set, not itself, then relativity would hold for all the given subsets bar X. The question then is, if X exists, relativity holds for all but X which would be 'absolute'. Relativity says X is a subset of itself and therefore a subset (ergo equivalent), but does not prove this conclusively as such. Of course, one has a good case for stating the opposite of my argument as stated just above, as all these subsets are typically belonging to the dimensional magnitude of Relativity. but if X perhaps has a higher order of dimensions, then X can exist and relativity holds to the subsets (Minkowski space). We sometimes forget that these things belong to philosophy, which science is a subset of. With this though, I do not mean to say, we are always left to merely believe or not, if X exists. I agree derivations of that assumption must yield some pattern we can predict if X exists. X does exist, and in fact is abundantly present in mathematics, but we are at the start of the 21st century. Similar paradigms of early 20th century will also come around as time goes by. lak

Errors by Phyti: No, as swansont points out, since the mirror and lad are both at rest w.r.t. each other, light does *not* take a longer time to reach the mirror (the relative distance would be the same within the frame, and the light travelling at c. Note that the obvious constraint is that this reference frame has always v < c no mathher how minute the difference). Again you are arguing with the wrong frame in mind (an additional external one.)

) of course that would entail you prove Heisenberg wrong and man, a real paradigm in QM. good luck. If this would be the case, it would improve our limited magnification of reality, allowing us to explore a new realm of smaller orders ,x

thanks ajb. I know the topic would sound a lil silly, but there is reason for it I'll look for it when I have time. The coming weeks are gonna be a bit bogged down

yes, I agree on that. Again, the question was to see if it has meaning

no offense, but the guy's a muppet. Does the video explain how it works? I don't see that. I see him speculating that the lasers are effective enough to create frame-dragging. To what effect? Earth is a fairly massive thing compared to those lasers, don't you think? Check out probe B results for frame dragging and then try and think about what those lasers must do to create a precondition for the 'discussion' whether such frame dragging could produce time travel lol. Take things with a pinch of sal sometimes mate. Ok now having commented on the humorous movie clip, to your question. The only important principle we wish to address to start with is if stirring space can create time tunnels. Intuitively such things would rather be one way forward pointing. just intuitively! By creating a massive gravity well as I guess it is called sometimes, can one manipulate a coordinate in Minkowski space... well maybe. Time is the perception of movement. No wonder in the cases of photonspheres of black holes will create perceptions which makes time fuzzy when we deem it a quality. I think however time is not a dimension and funnily enough, *if* possible, one would find it very strange we don't see things and people popping up (or travelling in to Earth from one of their created black holes or whatever) continously, telling us not to do this and to do that.

ya, but for the record....I hate this notion people use that a dimension çurls' up infintely small. Is completely bananas to think of dimensions as that.

well, I am very unsure about the topic of entropy. I never felt comfortable with accepting current definitions and interpretations. So only thing I wanted to point out is that when you state black hole entropy and stating there is none at the singularity, it makes sense as such. There are two solutions for a black hole, the event horizon and the singularity. At the singularity absolutely all physical meaning from our models and theories break down, thus finding 0 as an answer is no surprise (an infinite value wouldn't be a surprise either really). I think though the entropy of a black hole has more to do around the EH. Black holes at the EH have technically a surface area and that is what the entropy is related to I believe. Adding the cosmic censorship principle makes entropy at the singularity with that in mind, irrelevant (thus 0 is quite sensical, so would a indetermined value of [MATH] infinity [/MATH]