Agreeing on Space-Time, not just Time!

[Trex]

Do you have any children? Are any of them teenagers? So are you saying that because you have created a child that you ALWAYS know where it is (position) and what it is doing (velocity and/or momentum)?

I create the algorithms that stabilize and control aircraft. But do I know EVERYTHING about the aircraft? Heck no! That is why we have a team of designers. In fact, because the range of conditions that a flight control system or automatic pilot may encounter is limitless, I cannot even say I know EVERYTHING about how my own design would react under all circumstances. In fact, no engineer could make such a statement. We design to the "mean" (average) condition and we tweak our designs to handle "3 sigma" cases (i.e. those cases which have a low but measurable probability of occurrence).

RMT

I am a man of 32 and yes I have a child., but I cannot say I created her. Well, RMT, to my mind, it is necessary to make a distinction between God's creation and that of others. But as I said before, this is true if one has faith in God. If one is an atheist, it is not necessary to talk about God at all, ie whether He knows or not. Well, God creates things out of nothing. Man creates things using things available. Even if I have the ability to cause a child to come to life, I, by no means, know anything about how this happens. I have a body but I cannot say I am in full control of it. If it were so, people would not die of heart attacks. I do not wanna turn this into a theological discussion, but God is omniscent so nothing can be considered outside the realm of His knowledge which surrounds everything. In my opinion Hawking said this as he wants to spread his atheistic views. He seems uneasy about Einstein and the like of him being deterministic, ie having faith in God, but I think this is not fair, using science this way. I would respect him more if he said "I do not believe in God so I prefer to completely exclude Him from my theorization, or even not mentioning Him at all, but he ends up attributing a disability to God. Saying that God cannot know the position and speed of a particle at the same is like this question: Can God create a rock so big that he can't lift? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif If we are going to speak with God's terms, He says in one of His Holy Scriptures, Man has been given little of what He knows. Why can't Hawking think that God might have created a universe in which some scientists like himself would, at a certain point in time (in our case in his lifetime), think that God cannot know both the position and the speed of a particle?

Do you watch Lost? Have you noticed in one of the series, what Ben says about the hatch, the Swan, He says this place is a joke, man. Can't this universe be a joke? Why does Hawking think that he can use this universe to be able to learn everything about God, even what He is capable of. Sorry but I really cannot understand this: Even God is bound by this Uncertainty Principle. God creates a princinciple (Uncertainty in this case) and he makes himself bound with it. Can God create a principle and make Himself bound with it? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif What a question! And even we have an answer to this question from Hawking: Yes! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[TimeLord]

Epic fail

 

[Kanigo2]

Edited: By a flash of reason.

I would have to say by now RMT that we can all pretty much agree, that the latter portion of your header is pretty much a bust..

It' Not Just time....

 

[TimeLord]

Do not mix science and religion PLOX.

 

[recall15]

Do not mix science and religion PLOX.

At least not before 2012

 

[Kanigo2]

Epoch drivebys now recall? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif

Particle epoch , back at ya}>

Edit:took large picture down, wasn't needed anymore.

 

[Darby]

Trex,

Why does Hawking think that he can use this universe to be able to learn everything about God, even what He is capable of. Sorry but I really cannot understand this: Even God is bound by this Uncertainty Principle. God creates a princinciple (Uncertainty in this case) and he makes himself bound with it.

I think that maybe you've taken Hawking's quip a bit too literally. I live virtually next door to the University of California Santa Barbara - the west edge of the campus is six blocks from my house. It's my alma mater. Over the years Dr. Hawking has been a visiting professor and many of his lectures have been open to visitors. I've attended several of them. Based on my readings and hearing his lectures I have to conclude that he was making a joke when he said that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle. I can't state that as a certainty but I do believe it to be true. I think that the joke was that the Uncertainty Principle is so counter-intuitive that even a god might be somewhat baffled by the full implication of its details.

I believe in science. I also believe in God. In so believing I don't question the fact that God can create a universe in any manner that he chooses and for his own reasons. In the case of our universe I believe that he purposely created a system of physical laws that allows both the universe to evolve and which also allow us to discover those laws. Where is the limit of our ability to discover the "ultimate truth" about the face of God in our universe? I believe that he built that limit into the fabric of our reality by having physical laws that include quantum uncertainty and the Planck Scale. The laws that he created allow us to view the world and discover its rules mostly from the Newtonian perspective. He alowed us to evolve to the point where we can look much deeper and discover the relativistic and quantum worlds. But he prevented us from looking too much deeper.

Am I correct? Who knows for sure. But it serves my purposes. I'm happy with the way that he planned it out. He gave us a brain, put obsticles in our way and allowed us to evolve to the position where our curiosity drives us to seek out and solve some of the mysteries of His creation.

 

[RainmanTime]

I would have to say by now RMT that we can all pretty much agree, that the latter portion of your header is pretty much a bust..

It' Not Just time....

I think most people that understand the basis of relativity would agree. But it is difficult to turn the tide of "pop science"-minded people, especially when they cling to a romantic view of time travel. At best we would have to talk about Space-Time travel. Perhaps the next "Titor on tap" could take a hint and incorporate this aspect as a fresh variation on the theme.

But if those of us who are students of science agree that we must now consider Space-Time an integrated manifold, and that the ideas of Space and Time as separate are in error, then it seems to me we are only one step away from a more integrated view of our universe...the one I call Massive SpaceTime. And the good thing about this view I espouse is that the known (and validated) Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum laws already reflect the Massive SpaceTime view.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

TimeLord,

Do not mix science and religion PLOX.

First a question: PLOX? Definition please?

Second, it has often been said (and I think accurately so) that science and spirituality (I classify religion as a man-made crutch which tries to emulate spirituality) both have the same goal, but they just have different methods for how they reach truth. In my view, both schools of thought (science and spirituality), as embodied on our planet today, have inherent flaws. Wouldn't it be great if both of these traditions could see fit to cast-off their obvious flaws, adopt the more prudent aspects of their alter ego, and combine to take us to the next level of evolution? I think so.

It has often been shown that when two diametrically opposed forces are integrated and their differences resolved, that this integration leads to a new, more effective entity. It is my belief that the resolution and integration of science with spirituality will set the stage for our next quantum leap in evolution. It will prepare us to be members of a larger community, instead of isolated on this backwater planet where no one wants to "come out of the shadows" as contact us openly...for fear of our mixed-up and contradictory ways of seeing things.

RMT

 

[Kanigo2]

PLOX is 1337 5p34k Means please.

He was actually speaking to me, I had edited my post, for reasons I don't wish to mention.
Other than to say, It wasn't very nice.

I agree also on the subject of the religious aspect- Newton was an extreme believer.
The very top of what we love as a story is a tragedy.
There is something of a tragedy by all our efforts being thwarted into the study or the universe, much less TT.

Always makes for a good story..Gotta love the fact everything we do comes to nothing..
There is a lesson in there somewhere

But like relationships between Men and Women, as fools we keep trying...

 

[recall15]

First a question: PLOX? Definition please?

To this timeframe:

<font color="red"> PLOX [/COLOR]
1
Generally used by the more veteran users of games and the internet. Used generally as a parody of stupid users who say plz or pls.
May I have free itams plox?!
2
Plox is an annoy word developed by the Gamefaqsers, means please but
3
Stands for please and thanks,used by many noob wanabees.

from:
Urban Dictionary....2008

 

[Kanigo2]

Got a new one here I want ya to look at ray..

Einstein's Legacy: Inside the Quest for Gravity Waves

web page

Talk to me about this , I thought that any electromagnetic field could bend this laser easier(Like the earths mag).

I don't quite get what the are doing even after reading it.

 

[Kanigo2]

RMT , you don't want to touch on this experiment that I posted?

As far as I was concerned , this was a pretty important experiment.

I mean seriously -consider the concept of a gravity wave, it starts to alter the very basis of alot of what we know about an empty vacuum. It actually implies that there is a basic formulated force/mass that underlies "empty space". I keep visualizing a blanket you spread out on a bed.


Just bringing back it up , figured it might have been over looked by you.

 

[recall15]

is the Doopler effect on Infrared light any change would be readed...
depend on the polarization of the laser:

Effects of a passing gravitational wave

Imagine a perfectly flat region of spacetime, with a group of motionless test particles lying in a plane. Then, a weak gravitational wave arrives, passing through the particles along a line perpendicular to the plane of the particles. What happens to the test particles? Roughly speaking, they will oscillate in a "cruciform" manner, as shown in the animations. The area enclosed by the test particles does not change, and there is no motion along the direction of propagation. In the animation at the right, the wave would be passing from you, through the screen, and out the back.

The foregoing animation is the result of a pair of masses that orbit about each other (e.g., black holes) on a circular orbit or a rotating rod or dumbbell. In this case the amplitude, A, of the gravitational wave is a constant, but its plane of polarization changes or rotates (at twice the orbital or rotating-rod rate) and so the time-varying gravitational wave size or periodic spacetime strain h, exhibits a variation as shown in the animation.[2] If the orbit is elliptical or the rotating rod’s centrifugal-force change varies during rotation, then the gravitational wave’s amplitude (that is, the amplitude of the periodic spacetime h), A, actually also varies with time according to an equation called the “quadrupole”

More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

a Math Model:

<font color="blue"> This flat-space metric has no physical significance; it is a purely mathematical device necessary for the analysis. Tensor indices are raised and lowered using this "flat-space metric". [/COLOR]

 

[recall15]

I thought that any electromagnetic field could bend this laser easier(Like the earths mag).

I don't quite get what the are doing even after reading it.

got it:
A special type of pp-wave spacetime, the plane wave spacetimes, provide the most general analog in general relativity of the plane waves familiar to students of electromagnetism. In particular, in general relativity, we must take into account the gravitational effects of the energy density of the electromagnetic field itself. When we do this, purely electromagnetic plane waves provide the direct generalization of ordinary plane wave solutions in Maxwell's theory.

Furthermore, in general relativity, disturbances in the gravitational field itself can propagate, at the speed of light, as "wrinkles" in the curvature of spacetime. Such gravitational radiation is the gravitational field analog of electromagnetic radiation. In general relativity, the gravitational analogue of electromagnetic plane waves are precisely the vacuum solutions among the plane wave spacetimes. They are called gravitational plane waves.

Read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pp-wave_spacetime

Examples:
<font color="blue"> Explicit examples of plane wave spacetimes include

* exact monochromatic gravitational plane wave and monochromatic electromagnetic plane wave solutions, which generalize solutions which are well-known from weak-field approximation,

----This one is boring ------ cause is static!!! LOL

* the Schwarzschild generating plane wave, a gravitational plane wave which, should it collide head-on with a twin, will produce in the interaction zone of the resulting colliding plane wave solution a region which is locally isometric to part of the interior of a Schwarzschild black hole, thereby permitting a classical peek at the local geometry inside the event horizon,

* the uniform electromagnetic plane wave; this spacetime is foliated by spacelike hyperslices which are isometric to S3,

* the wave of death is a gravitational plane wave exhibiting a strong nonscalar null curvature singularity, which propagates through an initially flat spacetime, progressively destroying the universe,

* homogeneous plane waves, or SG11 plane waves (type 11 in the Sippel and Gönner symmetry classification), which exhibit a weak nonscalar null curvature singularity and which arise as the Penrose limits of an appropriate null geodesic approaching the curvature singularity which is present in many physically important solutions, including the Schwarzchild black holes and FRW cosmological models.
[/COLOR] :D

 

[recall15]

OK Kanigo
if you could see "matter, time or light" under Gravimetric forces it look like the clouds on this video
Video example of -waves-


:oops:

 

[Kanigo2]

Couple other thing that came out of that wiki there recall-
Check these out

*That gravitational waves are at 45* degrees- *

The Power radiated by the Earth-Sun system is:

Substituting these values into the above equation gives about 313 watts of power radiated by the Earth-Sun system in the form of gravitational waves.

and:

Gravitational waves have two important and unique properties. First, there is no need for any type of matter to be present nearby in order for the waves to be generated by a binary system of uncharged black holes, which would emit no electromagnetic radiation. Second, gravitational waves can pass through any intervening matter without being scattered. Whereas light from distant stars may be blocked out by interstellar dust, for example, gravitational waves will pass through unimpeded. These two features allow gravitational waves to carry information about astronomical phenomena never before observed by humans.


and:

The amplitude of any wave will fall off as the inverse of the distance from the source (the 1 / r term in the formulas for h above). Thus, even waves from extreme systems like merging binary black holes die out to very small amplitude by the time they reach the Earth.

Which brings in the question of a,

Gravitational Constant

Manipulating:

Planck Time

By generation of a higher Gravitational constant. In effect a new *stable* dimension...A fishbowl in an ocean in effect.

***********************************************************************************

It just weirds me out that to really look at spacetime, in effect you discover that it seems like a dirty rug with fleas on it, Fleas being the kinetic force of electromagnetism.

If you"shake" the rug The fleas and particles will all move the same amount, except the fleas being a little more excited(kinetic energy) may jump into other fleas(radiation). Standard particles will of course just "ride the wave".
And apparently you can "nail a section of the rug to the floor, (by having large masses, defined by the gravitational wave page)" and apparently the eddy force will have no real impact upon those portions(or at least effect).


I understand the whole point of being able to measure the eddy effect of the gravity wave,<font color="red"> what I don't understand is why the gravitational Constant is even there in the first place.[/COLOR]

I think that would describe the constraints of "time references" pretty well. Because if even gravity travels in waves, then even gravity is a matrix of "Time Proper". Without being able to remove a gravity wave from having any effect then we are subject to only INCREASING the amplitude of the gravity shell as an option towards stability of the "Space-Time" we are trying to manipulate.

Understand? (I hope you do, I am trying to explain a concept of EMPTY SPACETIME and the manipulation of it and **all I see as an option is actually ADDING more mass/matter/force to manipulate it** , Seriously how would we take anything away from complete empty space?)

That ring a bell in anyone?

 

[Darby]

Substituting these values into the above equation gives about 313 watts of power radiated by the Earth-Sun system in the form of gravitational waves.

And those numbers indicate why it's so difficult to actually detect a gravitational wave.

You have 313 Joules (watts) of energy generated per second by the system. That energy is spread out over ~255 million square kilometers on the surface of the Earth. That's the half of the Earth facing the Sun. It comes out to about .00000123 J/km^2.

The gravitational force is ~10^-42 times less than the EM force. It's incredibly weak. We detect it simply because it is attractive and "piles up" where the EM force is a signed quantity, + &amp; -. In natural systems the positive and negative force carriers come in just about equal numbers and cancel out.

With only .00000123 J/km^2, the signal-to-noise ratio is such that the gravitational wave energy gets lost in the background noise. Someone walking on the surface of the Earth 100 m away would generate more energy at the detector than the Earth-Sun system delivers to it. Of course, the detector is a lot smaller than a square kilometer. If the detector is 1 meter square it will receive one-millionth of the energy indicated above for a square kilometer.

 

[RainmanTime]

Kanigo2,

RMT , you don't want to touch on this experiment that I posted?

Give me some time... I have been traveling back from St. Louis, and I am trying to catch up on the work in my office that piled up while I was gone. I will get to it this weekend, hopefully. The grass in my front yard is also looking a bit..... uhhh....ghetto...so I need to take care of biz at home too! :D

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

This one is for TimeLord and Kanigo2...because both of you made the comment:

Also, your diagram looks more than a little metaphysical.

and

*Seems a little TOO metaphysical for me. *

Are either of you familiar with the term "meta-data" and/or familiar with the knowledge engineering concepts behind it?

If so, the next question would be :
Do you accept that either a holographic theory of the universe is "correct", or alternately that physical reality presents itself to us as a "systems within systems" organization?

Do you believe that "consciousness" is central to a definition of physical "reality"?

If you say "yes" to any of these, then what you should consider is that a system-within-system or holographic view of physical reality pretty much REQUIRES that any mathematical/geometrical theory that attempts to "explain everything" would have to be based on meta-physics.

In my business of developing complex, and ever more intelligent aerospace systems, meta-data is what allows us to build systems that can reason about themselves and their environments they operate within... their own "universes" so to speak.

Yep. Sounds a lot like consciousness, doesn't it? Well, we DO tend to associate the human ability to reason with intelligence... and that is related to consciousness, is it not?

Fundamentally, any theory that wants to "explain everything" will end up having to explain what "larger space (system)" that this "everything" exists within. Therefore, in order to completely describe physical reality (Grand Unified Theory?), you will have to describe it within a higher-level, systemic context.

IOW.... you gotta go meta.

And that is one way to interpret what I mean when I talk about how we are passing from the Age of Information towards the Age of Intention... When we moved from the Age of Energy into the Age of Information (the event that marked this was the mastery of Energy in the Atom Bomb), we went from Energy to meta-Energy. We just happen to call meta-Energy "Information".

But "Information" has a meta-state just like Information IS the meta-state of Energy.

You heard it here first, folks: Rainman is making the claim that the meta-state of Information is a FIELD EFFECT CALLED INTENTION.

This field (INTENTION) has a relationship to Einstein's Equivalency Principal (IMO). This might lead to an understanding of gravity, also, as a field of INTENTION.

RMT