Ignoring 'failed' experiments

[OZLOFT]

Basically then, by this analogy you have stated backhandedly that time is not linear but (at least) 2-dimensional, and this belief necessarily implies the existence of parallel universes in which to avoid the physical impossibilities and logical paradoxes of relativity. I.e. what else could two dimensional time be!!!!!!?????

Well, time certainly is more complicated than the naive Newtonian view of it. But it's not quite correct to call it two-dimensional either.

The last sentence was your own invention CCC when you 'reformulated' clocks A & B as parallel lines, so that is your little conundrum and not mine. However, we have no reason whatsoever to think that time is more complicated than Newton postulated it to be! We cannot explain anything including time right out to some sort of final solution. Matter, space and time are the given beings, the given conditions of our existence and cannot be reduced to each other without leading to logical paradoxes - such as those that infest relativity. This is the basic discovery of philosophy since the Renaissance - but Einstein has overturned it all for Aristotelian medieval nonsense, throwing Western philosophy back by over half a millennium.

You see, space and time together form one four-dimensional whole. As I'm sure you'll notice, space is in itself three dimensional, leaving only one dimension for time.

3-D space and 1-D time are the conditions of our existence. That is the basics of what we need to know to be free of logical paradoxes.

However, and this is important, a three-dimensional object can rotate four-dimensionally (and does so whenever it accelerates). If I am standing still, then the direction of the future is from where I am now to where I will be later. If you are moving past me at constant velocity, then the direction of the future in your reference frame is from where you are now to where you will be later. You will notice that the direction of your future is at a slight angle to the direction of my future.

For both of us, though, time remains a single dimension.

The words of your first paragraph describe not a physically established experimental fact but a mathematical dogma - asserting that time can be made equivalent to a dimension of space by multiplying it by the square root of minus one squared!

If you want a good example of doublethink look at both of your paragraphs immediately above - the second one, a commonsense one, refutes the first - yet you flip-flop whenever you like between paragraph 1 & 2 in order to manipulate the naive into adopting relativity theory. As George Orwell explains in 1984 "Whoever controls the present controls the past; whoever controls the past controls the future." This is the true essential core of EInstein's teaching - and it contains no genuine science whatsoever.

Yours faithfully,
OZLOFT

[CCC]

Well, time certainly is more complicated than the naive Newtonian view of it. But it's not quite correct to call it two-dimensional either.

The last sentence was your own invention CCC when you 'reformulated' clocks A & B as parallel lines, so that is your little conundrum and not mine. However, we have no reason whatsoever to think that time is more complicated than Newton postulated it to be! We cannot explain anything including time right out to some sort of final solution. Matter, space and time are the given beings, the given conditions of our existence and cannot be reduced to each other without leading to logical paradoxes - such as those that infest relativity. This is the basic discovery of philosophy since the Renaissance - but Einstein has overturned it all for Aristotelian medieval nonsense, throwing Western philosophy back by over half a millennium.

I intended to introduce the idea that time can be rotated through space - to a very limited degree.

You see, space and time together form one four-dimensional whole. As I'm sure you'll notice, space is in itself three dimensional, leaving only one dimension for time.

3-D space and 1-D time are the conditions of our existence. That is the basics of what we need to know to be free of logical paradoxes.

Treating them as seperate is one of those places that you disagree with SR.

However, and this is important, a three-dimensional object can rotate four-dimensionally (and does so whenever it accelerates). If I am standing still, then the direction of the future is from where I am now to where I will be later. If you are moving past me at constant velocity, then the direction of the future in your reference frame is from where you are now to where you will be later. You will notice that the direction of your future is at a slight angle to the direction of my future.

For both of us, though, time remains a single dimension.

The words of your first paragraph describe not a physically established experimental fact but a mathematical dogma - asserting that time can be made equivalent to a dimension of space by multiplying it by the square root of minus one squared!

No, not by the square root of minus one squared. Just by the square root of minus one, and that only makes it equivalent in the distance equation sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), by changing the - to a +.

If you want a good example of doublethink look at both of your paragraphs immediately above - the second one, a commonsense one, refutes the first - yet you flip-flop whenever you like between paragraph 1 & 2 in order to manipulate the naive into adopting relativity theory.

On the contrary. The second tries to clarify what I meant by the first.

Treating time as entirely seperate to space does not work with SR. SR treats time and space as a single 4D whole; not two seperate items.

[OZLOFT]

1. However, and this is important, a three-dimensional object can rotate four-dimensionally (and does so whenever it accelerates). If I am standing still, then the direction of the future is from where I am now to where I will be later. If you are moving past me at constant velocity, then the direction of the future in your reference frame is from where you are now to where you will be later. You will notice that the direction of your future is at a slight angle to the direction of my future.

2. For both of us, though, time remains a single dimension.

The words of your first paragraph describe not a physically established experimental fact but a mathematical dogma - asserting that time can be made equivalent to a dimension of space by multiplying it by the square root of minus one squared!

No, not by the square root of minus one squared. Just by the square root of minus one, and that only makes it equivalent in the distance equation sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), by changing the - to a +.

Er, only a minor point here CCC, but to change a - to a + one has to multiply by the square root of minus one twice. I remember this sort of stuff from senior high school where the usual symbol is 'i' (i.e. sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)! The square root of minus one is a "unity" of some sort but it NOT a real number, hence has to be squared in order to form a real number (minus one).

Nevertheless, the separate issue as to the absurdity of reducing the difference between space and time to imaginary numbers is palpable. Space and time are entirely different forms of being - as too is matter, so they are NOT reducible to mathematical treatment which would render them merely 'manifestations' of one another, as relativity and other crazy philosophies do.

If you want a good example of doublethink look at both of your paragraphs at the top of this posting - the second one, a commonsense one, refutes the first - yet you flip-flop whenever you like between paragraph 1 & 2 in order to manipulate the naive into adopting relativity theory.

On the contrary. The second tries to clarify what I meant by the first.
Treating time as entirely seperate to space does not work with SR. SR treats time and space as a single 4D whole; not two seperate items.

In reference to the bolded comment, your second statement above can have no bearing on the first but stands entirely independently. Your next statements are entirely correct for SR though - but also entirely wrong for investigating the physical world.

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

[CCC]

1. However, and this is important, a three-dimensional object can rotate four-dimensionally (and does so whenever it accelerates). If I am standing still, then the direction of the future is from where I am now to where I will be later. If you are moving past me at constant velocity, then the direction of the future in your reference frame is from where you are now to where you will be later. You will notice that the direction of your future is at a slight angle to the direction of my future.

2. For both of us, though, time remains a single dimension.

The words of your first paragraph describe not a physically established experimental fact but a mathematical dogma - asserting that time can be made equivalent to a dimension of space by multiplying it by the square root of minus one squared!

No, not by the square root of minus one squared. Just by the square root of minus one, and that only makes it equivalent in the distance equation sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), by changing the - to a +.

Er, only a minor point here CCC, but to change a - to a + one has to multiply by the square root of minus one twice.

Ah, I see where the confusion comes in. Yes, there are two is in the final equation.

t, however, is only multiplied by one i. The reason that there are two is in the equation is because there are two ts, and each is individually multiplied by i. Thus, substituting (it) for (t) in sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), one gets sqrt(xx+yy+zz+(it)(it)) = sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt) = sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt).

Which is the same equation as you had, we were just describing it in different ways.

If you want a good example of doublethink look at both of your paragraphs at the top of this posting - the second one, a commonsense one, refutes the first - yet you flip-flop whenever you like between paragraph 1 & 2 in order to manipulate the naive into adopting relativity theory.

On the contrary. The second tries to clarify what I meant by the first.
Treating time as entirely seperate to space does not work with SR. SR treats time and space as a single 4D whole; not two seperate items.

In reference to the bolded comment, your second statement above can have no bearing on the first but stands entirely independently. Your next statements are entirely correct for SR though - but also entirely wrong for investigating the physical world.

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

I think we have an unresolvable difference in our worldviews here.

[cincirob]

CCC: No, not by the square root of minus one squared. Just by the square root of minus one, and that only makes it equivalent in the distance equation sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), by changing the - to a +.

OZ: Er, only a minor point here CCC, but to change a - to a + one has to multiply by the square root of minus one twice. I remember this sort of stuff from senior high school where the usual symbol is 'i' (i.e. sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)! The square root of minus one is a "unity" of some sort but it NOT a real number, hence has to be squared in order to form a real number (minus one).

cinci: At the risk of disrupting this amusing mathematical discourse with some rational thinking, the function "sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)" has a few things wrong with it. First, if it is supposed to represent the basis for Minkowski's version of realtivity, it doesn't. The Minkowski basic equation is

(ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with substituting ii for -1 although I can see no particular reason for it nor any reason to suppose that Minkowski was doing this. In any case, the function shown subtracts the square of time from the square of distance and then takes the square root of whatever that is. (meters - seconds)^.5, I suppose. Is this a unit that works in some parallel universe?
******************************

[OZLOFT]

CCC: No, not by the square root of minus one squared. Just by the square root of minus one, and that only makes it equivalent in the distance equation sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), by changing the - to a +.

OZ: Er, only a minor point here CCC, but to change a - to a + one has to multiply by the square root of minus one twice. I remember this sort of stuff from senior high school where the usual symbol is 'i' (i.e. sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)! The square root of minus one is a "unity" of some sort but it NOT a real number, hence has to be squared in order to form a real number (minus one).

cinci: At the risk of disrupting this amusing mathematical discourse with some rational thinking, the function "sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)" has a few things wrong with it. First, if it is supposed to represent the basis for Minkowski's version of realtivity, it doesn't. The Minkowski basic equation is

(ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with substituting ii for -1 although I can see no particular reason for it nor any reason to suppose that Minkowski was doing this. In any case, the function shown subtracts the square of time from the square of distance and then takes the square root of whatever that is. (meters - seconds)^.5, I suppose. Is this a unit that works in some parallel universe?

Evidently this Minkowskian trash works in your parallel universe - and you're welcome to such rationalistic Vagueness. What surprises me is that you don't make the logical deduction from this mathematical nonsense involving the sqrt of -1 (an imaginary number) by claiming that "space and time are imaginary compared to each other."

Perhaps because if you did, we could reply: "Yeah, imaginary, TOTALLY imaginary - just like your Einstein relativity-controlled universe."

Yours faithfully,
OZLOFT

[cincirob]

cinci: At the risk of disrupting this amusing mathematical discourse with some rational thinking, the function "sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)" has a few things wrong with it. First, if it is supposed to represent the basis for Minkowski's version of realtivity, it doesn't. The Minkowski basic equation is

(ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with substituting ii for -1 although I can see no particular reason for it nor any reason to suppose that Minkowski was doing this. In any case, the function shown subtracts the square of time from the square of distance and then takes the square root of whatever that is. (meters - seconds)^.5, I suppose. Is this a unit that works in some parallel universe?

OZ: Evidently this Minkowskian trash works in your parallel universe - and you're welcome to such rationalistic Vagueness.

cinci: Oh I'm sorry. Was I too vague? Let me make it perfectly clear. sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt) makes no sense at all. By the way, "rationalistic vagueness" borders on being an oxymoron.
****************************************

OZ: What surprises me is that you don't make the logical deduction from this mathematical nonsense involving the sqrt of -1 (an imaginary number) by claiming that "space and time are imaginary compared to each other."

cinci: What surprises me is that you think it's illogical. The negative sign is on the quantity (ct)^2 (in the "rationalistic" equation). In and of itself this doesn't indicate an imaginary number. The value of the argument ((dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2) would have to be negative and I suspect that this is impossible in real situations. It would be interesting to check it out. Why don't you do that before youstart "imagining" things?
*****************************************

OZ: Perhaps because if you did, we could reply: "Yeah, imaginary, TOTALLY imaginary - just like your Einstein relativity-controlled universe."

cinci: You replied it anyway.
******************

[CCC]

CCC: No, not by the square root of minus one squared. Just by the square root of minus one, and that only makes it equivalent in the distance equation sqrt(xx+yy+zz-tt), by changing the - to a +.

OZ: Er, only a minor point here CCC, but to change a - to a + one has to multiply by the square root of minus one twice. I remember this sort of stuff from senior high school where the usual symbol is 'i' (i.e. sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)! The square root of minus one is a "unity" of some sort but it NOT a real number, hence has to be squared in order to form a real number (minus one).

cinci: At the risk of disrupting this amusing mathematical discourse with some rational thinking, the function "sqrt(xx+yy+zz+iitt)" has a few things wrong with it. First, if it is supposed to represent the basis for Minkowski's version of realtivity, it doesn't. The Minkowski basic equation is

(ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with substituting ii for -1 although I can see no particular reason for it nor any reason to suppose that Minkowski was doing this. In any case, the function shown subtracts the square of time from the square of distance and then takes the square root of whatever that is. (meters - seconds)^.5, I suppose. Is this a unit that works in some parallel universe?
******************************

That's the second time in a few days that I've forgotten the c. Thank you, cincirob.

Splitting the -1 into ii is done, as far as I know, entirely so that one can write the equation as follows:

(ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 + (i*cdt)^2

...which makes (i*cdt) equivalent to (dx) in the equation. I'm not sure exactly what this says about the nature of time, though I'm sure it's a question some people have asked.

As for units, ds is measured in units of length (the time units are cancelled out by multiplying dt by c).

[OZLOFT]

Now this piece of sabre-rattling by Dearth Vaguer is a real eye-opener!

By the way, "rationalistic vagueness" borders on being an oxymoron.[/b]

The simplistic world of the rationalist where everything is fully ordered (i.e. covertly if not overtly deterministic). Lord Vaguer forgets that rationalism also leads to mystification - those who preach it excessively e.g. Richard Dawkins, end up clinging to Einstein's and other mathematics-based nonsense all the more tightly.

The end result of rationalism is vagueness and hypopcrisy everywhere - whether Calvinistic religion, Jesuitical casuistry or those rationalistic forms of a secular variety. Einstein for example was a rabid Zionist, describing Palestinians as bandits and outlaws - a poor lookout for mankind's future indeed though it does suggest that mankind yet has much to learn from so-called "irrational" ideas and movements e.g. the Nazis.

The mess arises fundamentally because people do not understand that the universe is fundamentally DISordered and that while there is causality there is no universal harmony - hence our need for governments and organizations that no amount of Leftist (and Rightist) anarchistic rationalistic nonsense will ever explain away, these political philosophies being the ones that cling most tightly to Einstein's drivel.

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

[cincirob]

OZ: The simplistic world of the rationalist where everything is fully ordered (i.e. covertly if not overtly deterministic). Lord Vaguer forgets that rationalism also leads to mystification - those who preach it excessively e.g. Richard Dawkins, end up clinging to Einstein's and other mathematics-based nonsense all the more tightly.

The end result of rationalism is vagueness and hypopcrisy everywhere - whether Calvinistic religion, Jesuitical casuistry or those rationalistic forms of a secular variety. Einstein for example was a rabid Zionists, describing Palestinians as bandits and outlaws - a poor lookout for mankind's future indeed though it does suggest that mankind yet has much to learn from so-called "irrational" ideas and movements e.g. the Nazis.

The mess arises fundamentally because people do not understand that the universe is fundamentally DISordered and that while there is causality there is no universal harmony - hence our need for governments and organizations that no amount of Leftist (and Rightist) anarchistic rationalistic nonsense will ever explain away, these political philosophies being the ones that cling most tightly to Einstein's drivel.

cinci: This sounds like "worderology". Don't bother looking it up, I just coined it. It's the verbal equivalent of numerology. In numerology, words, names, dates, etc and turn them into numbers by some process and things with the same number are idnetified. Things like the date of a UFO sighting in Levelland, Texas, the name of the town istself and the number for the blocks in the base of the Great Pyramid at Giza turn out to be the same. They figure this out and then say "See?" Your little diatribe looks like the same thing only without the numbers.
*************************************