Einstein and two clocks

This concept after a bit of maths and lots of diagrams (usually involving shining torches and trains), the diagrams are important I really do suggest looking on the net, you get to the maths Shaggie showed. It is quite hard to describe quantitatively 4D space I just think of a 4-vector, and thats also where I get the significance of c. Spacetime comes about from somthing called the Minkowski metric. In Euclidean geometry (the geometry that governs the 3D universe for so long) there is also an invariant quantity ds^2 = dx^2 +dy^2 + dz^2 (ignore my d's I put them in for completeness), this defines 3D geometry. Minkowski devised a similar invariant quantity for relativity s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 − (ct)^2. You can see that a 4th 'dimension' has appeared, this was the birth of spacetime. The best qualitative handle I can find is to firstly think of 3-space as a stack of 2D images built up to make a 3D structure. Now imagine snapshots of the universe stacked up in time, I don't know if thats a good analogy or not. I think thats right. General relativity then goes into how gravity can change the shape of this geometry rather like manipulating the shape of a 3D object.

 

.

 

It was the best way I could think of to show where the 4D aspect comes out. Maybe devised was a bad word though.

 

.

 

So

Time IS a variable depending on dilation?
Cool
Though occam still proposes that each mass [set] that moves at a V. be it a galaxy or a single ship.
Is a subset of an overall objective law that quantifies the effects appon the subset.
Shaggie said there is no 'brain' that does so.
But a law can be a program, and a program has no theoretical bounderies
except the limmits of physical law itself. A law, can be far smarter by an order of 10 than a human.

Occam

 

And

Now that we know/believe reality is far more 'fluid'.
More 'dynamic'.
Than we usually do.

Lets talk about the 'OBJECTIVE LAWS'
They didnt just pop into being.
like all other 'programs'
They were writen.

HOLD ON, this is not about a god.
Occam does not believe in any singular absolutes.
No omnipotent god.

He asks simply..of people with major smarts. [your math makes my head hurt]
Your ideas on what existed before the bang singularity.
There is no one in this town that even knows what a 'singularity'
might mean. To them 'event horizon' is a movie they didnt understand.
And stars wars really did happen in a galaxy far away.

dont abandon me to this hell.. lol

Occam

 

.

 

.

 

eheh, I like that one, I may have to use that North Pole line. To have a shot at picturing how a 4D world looks its often worth picturing yourself on flatworld. Flatworld is a hypothetical world where we picture ourselves as 2D people and try to imagine how the world looks. I believe Michio Kaku goes into this in his book 'Hyperspace'. For example imagine how dropping a ball into a pond would look form the aspect of a pondskater. I this 2D world there would be a series of circles getting wider then getting narrower again. Einsteins first model of the universe was a hypersphere (a sphere in 4D), infact really all thats changed since then is that its expanding in 3-space. If the hypersphere had radius 0 at the big bang then time came into existence at the time of the big bang as well. This one of this situations that mathematically seems fairly simple you just have a 4th component but of course philosophically its more significant. Certainly there are cosmological theories where time is included into the expansion and contraction of the universe so time has a start and end along with the other 3 dimensions. How, if indeed at all, all this propagates into things like string theory I have no idea, I might take a look sometime

 

Glib replies
[patting yourselves on the back?]

The philosophical community.
That is, people like
Thales
SOCRATES
PLATO
ARISTOTLE
Plotinus
Einstein
St Augustine
St Anselm
ST AQUINAS
Duns Scotus
William of Ockham
Machiavelli
DESCARTES
HOBBES
SPINOZA
Malebranche
Arnauld
LOCKE
LEIBNIZ
BERKELEY
HUME:
Rousseau
KANT
Fichte
HEGEL
Marx
Kierkeguaard
Schopenhauer
J.S. Mill
NIETZSCHE
James
Frege
Russell
Wittgenstein
Heidegger
Sartre

They who built the foundation of the western science you espouse as all knowing.
No.. they knew nothing.
What is north of the north pole?

Even a pleb like occam knows there is no 'north'

Is this how you avoid answering
'what existed before the bang singularity'

Occam

 

Philosophy is interesting to some extent but like theoretical physics in recent years it has a long history. I follow scientific and religious philosophy as while it doesnt prove anything it does put some meat on mathematical frameworks. Some philosophy just seems to wonder off wondering which is all very interesting but doesnt really get science any closer to its goals. Mathematics is the language of the universe To steal an idea from Plato maths is the construct of the world of ideas, our descriptions are the poor copies. Or they can be when the theories are any good.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

shaggie

Of course my friend.

Occam plays the part of the 'Advocati diaboli' [ad]

It's a fun part to play, in fact the best part of the play called human life.
Well, thats a subjective thing no doubt, only a few can play the part
well, Only a true generalist can do it.

Whle You and tony think on such things as
s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-[ct]^2=0

Occam is focusing on the geopolitical strategems of the emerging rightwing
millitary expansionism of the new american political structure.
Or on the disfunction of the german OKW in 1941 relative to the
land advance into the soviet union.
Or checking out the totality of our assumed mapping of the human genome.
Or re-reading of a PK DICKS 'maze of death'.
Or getting the lowdown on the boeing x-48b prototype

These are the things required to be an advocati diaboli
Occam will continue to be such..

Just to stop yu guys watching too much TV and get you to your PC's.

lol

Occam

 

Ok , speed of light is 3.0 X 10^8 m/s You have to assume that this does not change.

the equation for velocity = Distance/Time .

So , if we hold the 3.0X 10^8 as a constant, and the distance travelled is constant, the only changing variable here is time, yes?

I think thats it, or atleast that is the way I understood it when my physics professor was explaining it in class.

 

Tony

Scientific method is a product of philosophy.
Are you saying that one day some guy said..
right of the top of his head, it just popped out.
no thinking, no philosophising.

"Oh ok , im gonna process all input by a new method.
If i can disprove it. it aint valid."

Science IS a philosophy, yet scientists try to distance themselves from it.
Why.?
Public opinion. Ego
Or the simple human fear of looking silly trying to do something complex
when ones complex mind is not tuned to such a task

Can a nuerosurgeon build a light water reactor?
Can an astrophysicist predict plate tectonic shifts?

Hard science people , occam thinks, look down on philosophy.

CAUSE THEY CANT DO IT. [hehe]

Occam

PS. And occam looks forward to the reply " and you can?"

 

Jedi

which brings up an interesting idea
That to a person on earth
C is 300K Km a sec~
But 300k KM /sec is not the same thing on earth
as on 'the dilated' ship.
'A second' is X times longer on the ship.

Thus light may appear as a constant to all observers.
But only if they can observe 'events' that process at
different time rates.

Be carefull when you answer. this could technically be called
philosophy, dont want your good name dragged in the mud.


Occam

 

.

 

Shaggie

lol

Well when someone says, 'philosophy is interesting to some extent'
Someone who's expertise would not exist without philosophy..

occam becomes the [ad]

Also, you speak of 'areas' . You dont believe any can be a generalist?
That none can know just enough about each area to be able to think rationally about them all?

Is that not preconception?

Occam