0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JP,I hope you agree that it would be unfair to lock this thread because of D.C.'s continuing insults and insinuations that I am too stupid to understand his "explanations" of his favorite two versions of length contraction, which he is here to promote.
I will try one more time to explain the intent of my "probe" example as proof that length contraction is not "real" but only apparent, as an effect of observational differences at relativistic speeds.......all arguing that length contraction is "real" and all manner of denial of my point,... that the probe was really 20 meters long, not the 10 meters it appeared to be *as contracted.*
Here is another example of me talking to a brick wall. Me: Quote ** You beat on that drum assuming that space, time, and "the fabric of spacetime" exist as entities. Three dimensional volume (space) contains entities, including objects and forces. Space itself is the volume in which entities exist, not itself an entity. Planets are such objects and the gravity which holds them in orbit around the Sun is a force.**D.C.:QuoteIt doesn't work without a fabric. Your volume is a fabric, regardless of your inability to recognise a fabric of more than two dimensions. If your volume was literally nothing, it would not be able to dictate separations between things - two things with literally nothing between them must be touching.......What you need to do then is up your game so that you can speak out of knowledge instead of ignorance, If calling this attitude "arrogance" is wrong, then honesty is not allowed here.
** You beat on that drum assuming that space, time, and "the fabric of spacetime" exist as entities. Three dimensional volume (space) contains entities, including objects and forces. Space itself is the volume in which entities exist, not itself an entity. Planets are such objects and the gravity which holds them in orbit around the Sun is a force.**
It doesn't work without a fabric. Your volume is a fabric, regardless of your inability to recognise a fabric of more than two dimensions. If your volume was literally nothing, it would not be able to dictate separations between things - two things with literally nothing between them must be touching.......What you need to do then is up your game so that you can speak out of knowledge instead of ignorance,
I replied in post 69. (Check it out.) Then the exchange continued, and he still didn’t get what I said. Me:Quote I said, answering your direct question, that I "imagine" space to be the 3-D volume in which objects move around, guided by the force of gravity. I also said that distance is the linear component of that 3-D volume. (Do you even know what that means?) So, as solar systems form around stars, planets are formed as nearly spherical (not flattened) and the distances between them are due to where/how the raw materials of each body were distributed as the planets were formed and distributed in space.D.C.QuoteAnd that isn't a fabric of space? What's the difference between the two ideas then? Your 3D volume isn't just nothing - it enforces three space dimensions on its contents rather than four or five of them. You have distances enforced by your 3D volume too, so how is there no fabric of space in this? When light travels through your 3D volume, how is it restricted to the speed of light? What is it interacting with that enables it to maintain exactly the right speed while it travels through your 3D volume for billions of years?This as if he didn’t even read my**...** above. This is not a conversation.
I said, answering your direct question, that I "imagine" space to be the 3-D volume in which objects move around, guided by the force of gravity. I also said that distance is the linear component of that 3-D volume. (Do you even know what that means?) So, as solar systems form around stars, planets are formed as nearly spherical (not flattened) and the distances between them are due to where/how the raw materials of each body were distributed as the planets were formed and distributed in space.
And that isn't a fabric of space? What's the difference between the two ideas then? Your 3D volume isn't just nothing - it enforces three space dimensions on its contents rather than four or five of them. You have distances enforced by your 3D volume too, so how is there no fabric of space in this? When light travels through your 3D volume, how is it restricted to the speed of light? What is it interacting with that enables it to maintain exactly the right speed while it travels through your 3D volume for billions of years?
I also said earlier that constant 'c' does not require a "fabric" to enforce the speed limit... because 'c' is just how fast light travels through 'empty space' (3-D volume), a vacuum.
Three dimensions, called volume, is what I call “space.” What it contains is another story. It contains objects and forces. There is no “fabric.” A whole international society of physicists and philosopher/ontologists agree that there is no “fabric”,...that spacetime is just a coordinate system for designating the position of “things IN space” as they move, which requires time.
D.C. continues to reify "the fabric of spacetime" without, apparently knowing what reification even means, let alone that he is doing it.
I do sincerely hope that this conversation with him is over.
This must be brief for now."What insight am I missing which you have uncovered?"I didn't uncover it, but Occam's razor covers it. What does a "fabric" add to either space or time or both that 3-D volume (the 'vacuum of space') and the passage of time as things move through space does not already have 'covered?'
Have you checked out the literature yet from the conferences held by the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime? That is of course a rhetorical question, as you show no sign of either interest in or understanding of the ontology of space, time, or "spacetime.'
I didn't uncover it, but Occam's razor covers it. What does a "fabric" add to either space or time or both that 3-D volume (the 'vacuum of space') and the passage of time as things move through space does not already have 'covered?'
It appears to be adding nothing at all as your 3D volume clearly serves the same role. I could ask you the same question: what does your 3D volume add to it when I've already got it covered with a 3D fabric of space? If you can't actually pin down a difference between the two things, I would suggest that we are just using different names for the same thing. Your description simply pays less attention to the structure that your 3D volume provides. Perhaps if you read through everything I've written and translated "fabric of space" into "3D volume" it might make more sense to you that way.
Would it be worth the time when the problem is actually with your refusal to understand the idea of a fabric of space (which is a description of your "volume" that directly addresses its structural qualities)? No amount of reading on my part (or anyone else's) is going to fix your problem.
Me:Quote I didn't uncover it, but Occam's razor covers it. What does a "fabric" add to either space or time or both that 3-D volume (the 'vacuum of space') and the passage of time as things move through space does not already have 'covered?'You:QuoteIt appears to be adding nothing at all as your 3D volume clearly serves the same role. I could ask you the same question: what does your 3D volume add to it when I've already got it covered with a 3D fabric of space? If you can't actually pin down a difference between the two things, I would suggest that we are just using different names for the same thing. Your description simply pays less attention to the structure that your 3D volume provides. Perhaps if you read through everything I've written and translated "fabric of space" into "3D volume" it might make more sense to you that way.So you don't understand Occam's razor either, as you say:" I could ask you the same question: what does your 3D volume add to it when I've already got it covered with a 3D fabric of space?"
The fabric adds nothing to a simple 3-D volume as what space is. Occam's razor "cuts out" stuff that adds nothing to a theory or the concept of space. The simplest definition of space is the empty volume in which objects/particles exist... no "fabric." The fact that the contents of space move around introduces the time factor. But that does not make time an entity either, and still no "fabric" is required to explain how masses attract other masses and make them move in, for instance, elliptical orbits around the sun. The orbits of planets do not require the "fabric" as a metaphorical coordinate system to guide them. The latter is simply a model for the math, which helps to predict those movements.
You:QuoteWould it be worth the time when the problem is actually with your refusal to understand the idea of a fabric of space (which is a description of your "volume" that directly addresses its structural qualities)? No amount of reading on my part (or anyone else's) is going to fix your problem.I have no problem.Space needs no "structural qualities" (fabric) to allow gravity to function as mass attracts mass as things move through space.
Ps regarding this exchange:Me: "I do sincerely hope that this conversation with him is over."You:"You hope nothing of the kind - that's a clear invitation for more interaction."You are way out of line and looking very foolish to "correct me" yet again by telling me that I do not hope what I directly said that I hope. Are you now claiming to be the authority on what I do and do not hope? That is taking arrogance and condescention way beyond what I even expected of you.
As you continue to misrepresent what I have attempted to clearly communicate, I must either correct you or "roll over and play dead," and let your continual confusion (about what I said) stand uncontested. That will not happen, but I continue to sincerely hope that you will 'go away' (quit hijacking my threads) and start your own thread to promote your arguments.