Jump to content

34student

Senior Members
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics biology, chemistry

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

34student's Achievements

Meson

Meson (3/13)

-3

Reputation

  1. I know it isn't. I do not know what you are getting at. No, I only learnt that it was a t axis
  2. Because of length contraction. For one observer a cubic structure is rectangular, for another it is a cube. The hypervolume of an object very much seems to depend on the observer. This is in contrast to what Markus Hanke says a few posts up.
  3. Ok, but my point was that the 4d hypervolume does not seem to be the same for all observers.
  4. But how can that be? Clearly the 4d shape of the universe is different for a photon than for a human.
  5. Hmmm, are you saying that the universe is a unique 4d structure? I never said that one particles has multiple world lines. My OP says "universe", not "particle".
  6. Well, no, you said that I am learning and I agreed. What more do you want. As for your post, I am not sure what you are talking about. And you seem to contradict yourself (read in bold). I just don't know what you are getting at. 2) Spacetime is not the being, becoming or reality. It is a working model that has some characteristics the same as what we observe. We can use that model to extract predictions about (only) some what we observe and also to explain some observations that earlier theory failed to predict. 3) Spacetime has at least one characteristic not possessed by observations (reality ?) In order to have 'world lines' it's grid system imposes an orientation constraint, not inherent in the stucture of observational reality is models.
  7. Yes, I have a better understanding of the mechanics of GR. But it is very unsettling to me. Like you mention here, I want to chat more about this in philosophy. Size, maybe, but shape, no. I might start a new thread in philosophy.
  8. Oh of course I trust the experiments and understand that some of our technology needs certain aspects of relativity to be true. I am not trying to deny that. Relativity is incomplete, at least at the quantum level. So it seems possible that it could be corrected in other ways too. And this issue I have seems, at least to me, to need a correction.
  9. This simply says that the universe, in its entirety and ontologically, has intrinsic properties A, B, C ..., but it also does not have intrinsic properties A, B, C.... At best it seems to be a consistent ontological contradiction.
  10. Thanks. But this theory makes me think of the universe as one huge physical contradiction. To a photon the universe is a pancake; to me it is spacious. Is the universe spacious or is it a pancake? If both answers are correct, then we have a contradiction. What am I missing here? And why isn't this a bigger issue?
  11. The side to side motion would look like s's connecting over and over, and the circular motion would look like a spring.
  12. A world line, as exactly defined, is not a particle. But I understand that the world line is the path that the particle take through the 4 dimensions. But in another since, the block universe seems to imply that the particle exists along the world line.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.