Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2018 4:29 pm**

Fascinating thoughts Hashi ..

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2018 6:05 pm**

Things definitely get strange. There's a ton we don't get about time yet.
And I've said elsewhere, we don't understand space itself as well as folk think, either.
And I did say the two seem tightly bound to each other.
But H, thing to notice: We can see a thing move in space [or not] whether we're moving in space [or not]. We might have to make a bunch of measurements and get points of reference to calculate the relatives, is all
BUT we cannot see it move [or not], in time OR space, whether we're stationary [or not] in space, UNLESS we are also moving in time.

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2018 7:44 pm**

Agreed--if we are not moving through time then we have more important things with which to concern ourselves other than "is that object moving?" or "how are the results of my experiment turning out?".

Posted: **Sat May 26, 2018 3:18 am**

wow .. wow .. interesting summary V

Some of this stuff blows my mind

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2018 11:17 am**

Until the time comes that we can figure out a way to NOT move in time, we'll always be doing so, and be able to see other things moving in space or time.

Everyone and everything moves at the speed of light. But the vast majority of our speed is in the dimension of time, and extremely little in the three dimensions of space. Move faster through space, and we slow down through time. I guess if ALL of our motion what in space, none would be in time, and we wouldn't be able to see anything move.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2018 3:04 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:
Everyone and everything moves at the speed of light.

You've said that before. And it's a fun angle to take.
But can it be true since there are two things [well, more than two MAYBE, but two we're pretty sure about] that have near-zero time. The "lightest" things---massless photons---and the "heaviest" things. Black holes. And the bottom ones...if your thing were true...having no time would have all motion in space. And near-zero time would mean near-light speed.
I think we'd have noticed by now if black holes...not just random strays flung about, but ALL of them... were screaming through the universe at near-light speed.
It's fun to play with...but the simple direct sum doesn't seem to work?
Maybe you've got a loophole in mind?
[[[putting the speed into spin won't work, in case that occurs/ed to you.]]]

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2018 5:46 pm**

Again, it's not me. I'm quoting Brian Greene. (The actual quotes again, below, to make it easier.) I don't know enough about any of it to find flaws. But it makes sense to me as presented in the quotes. And we're told one of the fundamental facts of the universe is that space and time are one thing, rather than two different things. Spacetime, not Space and Time. This helps me think of it that way. It's harder for me to make them separate things in my head if movement is in all four dimensions of the spacetime continuum; different degrees of the four, always adding up to c.

When an object moves through space relative to us, its clock runs slow compared to ours. That is, the speed of its motion through time slows down. Here's the leap: Einstein proclaimed that all objects in the universe are always traveling through spacetime at one fixed speed - that of light. This is a strange idea; we are used to the notion that objects travel at speeds considerably less than that of light. We have repeatedly emphasized this as the reason relativistic effects are so unfamiliar in the everyday world. All of this is true. We are presently talking about an object's combined speed through all four dimensions - three space and one time - and it is the object's speed in this generalized sense that is equal to that of light.

To get a fuller sense of what Einstein found, imagine that Bart has a skateboard with a maximum speed of 65 miles per hour. If he heads due north at top speed - reading, whistling, yawning, and occasionally glancing at the road - and then merges onto a highway pointing in a northeasterly direction, his speed in the northward direction will be less than 65 miles per hour. The reason is clear. Initially, all his speed was devoted to northward motion, but when he shifted direction some of that speed was diverted into eastward motion, leaving a little less for heading north.

This extremely simple idea actually allows us to capture the core insight of special relativity. Here's how:

We are used to the fact that objects can move through space, but there is another kind of motion that is equally important: Objects also move through time. Right now, the watch on your wrist and the clock on the wall are ticking away, showing that you and everything around you are relentlessly moving through time, relentlessly moving from one second to the next and the next. Newton thought that motion through time was totally separate from motion through space - he thought these two kinds of motion had nothing to do with each other. But Einstein found that they are intimately linked.

In fact, the revolutionary discovery of special relativity is this: When you look at something like a parked car, which from your viewpoint is stationary - not moving through space, that is - all of its motion is through time. The car, its driver, the street, you, your clothes are all moving through time in perfect synch: second followed by second, ticking away uniformly.

But if the car speeds away, some of its motion through time is diverted into motion through space. And just as Bart's speed in the northward direction slowed down when he diverted some of his northward motion into eastward motion, the speed of the car through time slows down when it diverts some of its motion through time into motion through space. This means that the car's progress through time slows down, and therefore time elapses more slowly for the moving car and its driver than it elapses for you and everything else that remains stationary.

That, in a nutshell, is special relativity.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2018 8:37 pm**

spacetime might be one thing.
that doesn't mean that space and time are the same thing...just that they are fundamentally connected/related.
A cake is one thing...that doesn't mean sugar, flour, and eggs are all the same thing.
If they're the same thing, one thing, why not just call it spacespace?
Or would that be redundant?
From what I've seen, Greene is just being lazy and sounding good.
For instance, I've seen it shown that you could equally say everything "really" moves at the same total speed of 2c, or whatever. The math and physics work out the same.

I also think I've seen that the math for all that just doesn't work for any massless particle.

And I'm pretty sure there is no sense of the idea of motion that makes moving in space and moving in time identical statements or processes.

And I'm speculating on my own that it also doesn't work for supermassive objects.
If a single proton and a neutron star [[just different sizes of cars]] are on the same road/space, moving at exactly the same speed/direction in space, they are NOT experiencing the same time. So they CAN't be experiencing the same spacetime total. That could be totally false for some complicated reason...it's just my speculation, never researched it.

It's like the odd thing of Grand Unified Theories.
Under extreme energy level/conditions, all the forces are unified---act the same way, follow the same rules, one equation.
Any YET---in that state---they all still have their own, different, force-carrying particles. So they're not, "really" one force....

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2018 2:06 am**

Space is just one of the four dimensions. Four axes - S X, Y, and Z. Space and time were never separate; were never combined. Space and time are different aspects of the same thing; not different things joining together to make a new thing. Mass does not warp the dimensions of space only, and leave the dimension of time undisturbed. Mass warps spacetime.

We call it spacetime because our limited senses and awareness only allowed us to see the aspects, rather than the whole. Once we had learned from our intellect what we could not from our senses and awareness, it was easier to refer to it in terms we were used to.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2018 5:55 am**

Vraith wrote:spacetime might be one thing.
that doesn't mean that space and time are the same thing....... why not just call it spacespace?

or spime?

Yes please continue your intellectual intercourse .. just a fluff thought

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2018 12:07 pm**

Maybe instead of a cake and its ingredients, think of a blanket and its qualities. Texture and color. No, this doesn't help us understand how changing movement along any of the four axes changes it along the other three. But it helps us see how spacetime is one, inseparable thing. Shear the sheep; do whatever the hell it is you do to make it into thread; weave the thread into a blanket. When we twist the blanket, we understand that the color twists right along with the softness.

Heck, we can just use the wool after it's sheared off the sheep.

Posted: **Mon May 28, 2018 3:32 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:Space is just one of the four dimensions. Four axes - S X, Y, and Z. Space and time were never separate; were never combined. Space and time are different aspects of the same thing; not different things joining together to make a new thing. Mass does not warp the dimensions of space only, and leave the dimension of time undisturbed. Mass warps spacetime.

We call it spacetime because our limited senses and awareness only allowed us to see the aspects, rather than the whole. Once we had learned from our intellect what we could not from our senses and awareness, it was easier to refer to it in terms we were used to.

Interdependence/contingency/integration, whatever is not the same as identity.

And description is not definition.

On that first:
Suppose you have a radioactive particle. You can stack up as many spacial dimensions as you like, in whatever exotic shapes/directions you can think of...but no matter how many, it will "never" decay. Because decay happens in a different kind of thing---time.
Or imagine two things separated in a space space. If there is no time, there is no way whatsoever that either of those things can know about the other...no information available.
But if two things are only separated by time, knowledge IS possible. At minimum the one that happens later can know about the one earlier.

On that second: spacetime is a model. A very damn good one---though not perfect---but a model.
Like this: You can model weather and use it to make predictions, accurate predictions, without including even the slightest bit of concern for the material components, physical reality, or underlying physics or anything else beyond data about how things flow---a mathematical description of appearances.
It can tell you all kinds of things about what happens, but doesn't [and doesn't need to] tell you what it IS. Physicists and other scientists want to know about both, of course [at least most do]. And math/models are an incredibly effective [[though not unreasonably so]] tool in the box. Still:
The mechanism is not the material.
There is a way that our concepts relate to reality...but that's a mysterious thing still, and it is never fully accurate, nor complete, nor consistent.

And the more I think about it lately, the more I think none of them ever will be. Not because of a lack of our knowledge/brain-power/imagination [though that makes things slower and more difficult] but because they are different kinds of things and neither can ever be entirely contained/constrained within the other. Think about it: we have not just one or two but MANY mathematical systems...and they contain/describe enormously more [maybe infinitely more] "things," "objects" than physically exist. Many CAN't physically exist in any literal universe [[or no literal universe can exist within them]].
At the same time, they cannot fully describe the---relatively speaking---tiny number of things/objects that DO exist.
People [well, at least the kinds of people who hang around places like this] often talk about the GR and Quantum contradictions with each other. Also about the incompleteness of both. But they don't just contradict each other---model on model hot action pillow-fight---they conflict with or disjoint from the material.

Last note: there are a fair number of views that conceive spacetime as not fundamental at all...expressions of an underlying other thing. Several of those talk in terms of fields underneath. And the fields that govern spaces and time are different kinds of field.
They still function with spacetime presenting as a unitary 4D mathematically.

The method is not the madness.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2018 7:24 am**

Fucking geniuses

ahirashangar.ihugny.com/phpBB3/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2018 2:39 pm**

Vraith wrote:model on model hot action pillow-fight

I thought this was a thread about science, not your personal fantasies.

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2018 4:27 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Vraith wrote:model on model hot action pillow-fight

I thought this was a thread about science, not your personal fantasies.

Oh boy...me, [in]discrete mathematics and top[less]ological geometry in a private Symplectic penthouse suite!
My minister told me I'd go blind doing that kind of science!

Posted: **Thu May 31, 2018 6:32 pm**

What is the coefficient of sliding friction?

Posted: **Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:08 am**

Posted: **Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:09 am**

Posted: **Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:31 pm**

To get things back to my original topic.
Who needs clones? No one. This is mostly about brain cells...but if it can make it there, it can make it anywhere...

And the potential useful variations are whole body/life.

https://singularityhub.com/2018/06/26/t ... -and-fast/

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:39 am**

Apologies in advance .. but

... some animals ... have cells in their rectum that sometimes transforms into-not kidding-their brain cells.

I have seen evidence of this in humans

today in fact

Sure explains a lot, no?

Kevin's Watch

More Human Than...