"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
. uk...

Cool.

But, anyway, I have a question for you....

In SR it is arbitrarily considered that the transverse direction to the
direction of travel does not change....they thus derive the 'time
dilation' (by inserting the 'ct' for that direction) and go on to examine
the direction of travel and 'prove' non-simultaneity and length
contraction in the direction of travel.

My Q is...WHAT IF the transverse dimension actually contacted?
Say, for instance, if in the direction of travel the front gets quashed
back some and all other dimensions contact except the rear
which GREW? It appears to me that not only would a certain
degree of contaction in the transverse direction make a ZERO
time dilation, but the scenario could also get rid of non-simultaneity
and also, depending on the amount of growth to the rear it would
also get rid of length contraction.

What do you think, could the math work on this?

Thanks!



Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

Typos corrected:

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
. uk...

Cool.

But, anyway, I have a question for you....

In SR it is arbitrarily considered that the transverse direction to the
direction of travel does not change....they thus derive the 'time
dilation' (by inserting the 'ct' for that direction) and go on to examine
the direction of travel and 'prove' non-simultaneity and length
contraction in the direction of travel.

My Q is...WHAT IF the transverse dimension actually contacted?
Say, for instance, if in the direction of travel the front gets squashed
back some and all other dimensions contract except the rear
which GREW? It appears to me that not only would a certain
degree of contraction in the transverse direction make a ZERO
time dilation, but the scenario could also get rid of non-simultaneity
and also, depending on the amount of growth to the rear it would
also get rid of length contraction.

What do you think, could the math work on this?

Thanks!



Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

wrote:
From my understanding, if time went backwards, then our memories will
also be backwards: we will remember things before they happened and
forget them once they happened. That is exactly what is described in
the book. What it means is, time may or may not already be going
backwards but we will not be able to observe it since our perception is
still to see the cup on the table then later broken on the floor. What
he's saying is it doesn't matter which direction "actual" time is
flowing. What matters is the direction entropy is flowing.

That is a very naive argument. It is like arguing that the direction of
time is a matter of convention or something like taking absolute values
of t and -t. That naive thinking cannot support entropy as the cause of
the arrow of time. The real question is, since the equations of motion
are symmetric in t and -t, why there are no phenomena in which time is
reversing, i.e. the cup assembled back from the pieces after it breaks.
By asserting that it is entropy that causes the arrow of time, it is
like begging thr question. Instead of dealing with he mystery of time,
we are left with the mistery of entropy.

Mike

Dear June R Harton:

"June R Harton" wrote in message
.. .
....
My Q is...WHAT IF the transverse dimension actually contacted?

Then experiments that confirm length contraction fail. Consider
the thought experiment where light is reflected back and forth
between two mirrors... with the reflection path perpendicular to
the line-of-motion of the mirrors. If the distance between the
mirrors was reduced, then the witnessed speed of light in the
moving frame must be lower.

Additionally, transverse contraction would provide potential
sources for black holes, since decreasing all spatial dimensions,
increases density. We've pushed electrons to high enough
energies that they should have become black holes and evaporated
as something other than electrons. Yet they consistently stay as
electrons, with the proper momentum.

Length contraction and time dilation are fully in agreement with
"an ilusion of persepctive on 4D spacetime". No need in reading
into it more than it can support.

David A. Smith

Mike wrote:
TomGee wrote:
So, Mike, did he say it wrong and it got past the editors, or did he
say what he really thinks? Was it just simply an error he did not mean
to make, or was it perzacly what he meant to say?

Or did he say it correctly and I am reading it wrongly?

Well, a couple of things:

First, IMO he confuses cognitive perceptions of time with some
allegedly physical quantity of time. Second, he uses the naive knownb
argument which attempts to ground the impossibility of time reversal (
even though the equations of motion are symmetric in +- time), to
cognitive perceptions.

The issue is neither the fact that we do not remeber the broken cup and
then see it on the table, nor the reversibility of equations of motion.
The problem is, nobody knows what time is, and whether it is a
fundamental physical quantity, although it is treated like that in
physical models.


No. Here I must disagree. The issue is whether or not Hawking
correctly explains what he's trying to explain. The issue is not about
time reversal but about the way he tried to explain his experiment.


For example, the current argument about time reversibility and
specifically time travel is that it is possible to do so but even if
someone goes back in time, something will happen that will prevent her
from altering the state of the world.


There is no such current argument today except perhaps in the minds of
numbskulls. The only argument made for time travel today is through a
wormhole and if it kills anyone going through it then it is not time
travel, it is only suicide.


I think Hawking should come out public and ask for forgivness for the
many naive things he has said and written about.


so you have no answer to my questions?

wrote:
From my understanding, if time went backwards, then our memories will
also be backwards: we will remember things before they happened and
forget them once they happened. That is exactly what is described in
the book.


Thanks for your response. Hawking makes no such claim that our
memories would also run "backwards". In fact, he starts out by
assuming that God decided that entropy should run backwards, and that
disorder would decrease with time, and that we would see broken cups on
the floor gather themselves up and come together on a tabletop, and any
human beings observing the cups would be living in that same universe
where disorder increased with time, and that they would have a backward
"psychological arrow of time" and remember the future but not their
past. All that clearly shows that the observers are in the same
reference frame (i.e., that particular universe) and see the same
things that are occurring in that frame in succession and not
backwards. If our memories were accessed backwardly, in a universe
where we would see first a broken cup and secondly unbroken, our
memories would remember first an unbroken cup and next a broken one.
Thus, our memories could not be said to be running backward as well.

Your argument to the contrary, Hawking states that the observers would
see the broken cup first (the future) and remember it being unbroken
(the past), but then when later they saw the cup unbroken (the past),
they would _not_ remember seeing it being broken (the future). Why
not? If they saw the cup broken at first, then later saw the cup
unbroken, why should they not then remember seeing it broken
previously?

Like Einstein and his static universe calculations, no one wants to
admit they cannot understand his posit else they be thought dumb. Or
else, as I first suspected, no one but me saw it as a contradiction in
his explanation. I have nothing to lose here except face, but I can
turn red in private and that helps to save some face, so I admit having
the idea that Hawking could be wrong in his explanations of his
assumptions.









What it means is, time may or may not already be going
backwards but we will not be able to observe it since our perception is
still to see the cup on the table then later broken on the floor. What
he's saying is it doesn't matter which direction "actual" time is
flowing. What matters is the direction entropy is flowing.

TomGee wrote:
I wonder if anyone else has had some doubtful moments as I have had
regarding a passage in "ABHoT", Ch. 9, page 146?

In the last sentence, 2nd-to-last paragraph, Prof. Hawking states,
"When the cup was broken, they would remember it being on the table,
but when it was on the table, they would not remember it being on the
floor."

It seems that the latter effect he describes is opposite to that which
should ensue if disorder would decrease with time. I.e., if in the
future a cup we are looking at in the present falls off the table and
breaks, and entropy is decreased during the time we saw it and until it
fell, it seems we should remember it having been on the floor first and
at some time after that, we must see it on the table unbroken.

If the analogy is to stand, we must see the cup unbroken once and
broken afterward when entropy increases, and we must also see the cup
broken once and unbroken next. It seems to me that we must see the cup
broken and unbroken in both directions of entropy in order for the
analogy to be properly compared.

Did you post this nonsense somewhere else under a different name
[Thomas Garcia]?

James

wrote:
From my understanding, if time went backwards, then our memories will
also be backwards: we will remember things before they happened and
forget them once they happened. That is exactly what is described in
the book. What it means is, time may or may not already be going
backwards but we will not be able to observe it since our perception is
still to see the cup on the table then later broken on the floor. What
he's saying is it doesn't matter which direction "actual" time is
flowing. What matters is the direction entropy is flowing.

xxein: If this were a 'closed' universe, it would 'objectively' go
from order to disorder (as we see it now) and then back to order again
(and repeat). But even inside this temp expanding universe we see
increasing order (energy to stars, planets from debris). All it takes
is imperfection to make a chaos in which all this can happen at the
same time (whether forward or backward).

If this were an 'open' universe, the same chaos would arise from
imperfection.

Time works as 'cause and effect' and if that produces order or disorder
then time is not dependent upon any sense of an order function. It is
here that the meaning of entropy gains a more significant meaning.

Entropy (and sometimes chaos) is a temporary losing of 'universal cause
and effect' (not that it can't also be local). Better said, when does
momentum exceed gravity (whatever you may make of gravity)?

We actually allow (demand) time to comply with what we can measure. If
there is a disassociation of the parts, we connect them with the time
we have set up locally. This is why we describe an event horizon as we
do with 'proper' time and 'observed' time. These are usually looked
upon as a local connection time --- not an objective time such as the
order of time that describes a functioning universe when cause and
effect breaks a local threshold of relative connectedness. But what is
this threshold?

Think of the observed universe. Now, think of the unobservable. When
will we see it? Did a simple (or not) momentum exceed the speed of
light? Doesn't escape velocity imply that something will never return?
But how does that translate into sol? Why, then, does a BH not allow
us to see things inside it? Does expansion do the same?

The contemplation of whether this is an open or closed universe
determines how we construct time. An open universe implies a sort of
different association of entropy with time than a closed one. Although
both have time, a closed universe lends itself more easily to the
notion of reversed time. But nobody says that time is reversed inside
a BH, do they?

In this universe, or beyond to include others, things happen. What do
you suppose time is on that scale? Do you really think it can be
reversed?

Fundamental forces or curvatures notwithstanding, can you understand
time now? Would you like to say that 'entropy' needs a more restricted
definition? How about disconnecting the notion of the 'arrow of time'
with entropy?


SR-GR is primarily based upon what we observe and how it affects us.
It has no other thought in its construction. It has certain
predictions that are evidently true for our self-made-based
measurements. It is RELATIVE to us and our limited understanding of
the greater universal physic. It is a wish of understanding the
objective universe with just enough to justify a belief principle. So
does the common principle of a god, except that no one agrees to accept
another's belief in a same. "Those infidels".

So? What if we had everything wrong? Would we care to admit it, or
would we merrily carry-on with our belief and tell others that they "do
not understand"?

Logic provides an answer only to the degree that our belief lets it.
But what if we suspend belief. Can you imagine that? We could
reconstruct a new belief based on empirics that would be just as valid
as any other. Who could do such a thing and why? Belief has no limits
but science does. Do you see the necessity for a complete objective
thinking, now?


Did you figure out your belief of physics for yourself, or did you rely
on interpretations of empiricals for a start of belief? Did you rely
on raw data or the interpretational belief of them? Were the so-called
empiricals even that? Was the experimental apparatus designed from
preconcieved belief (only to show the relations of that belief), or was
it designed to 'discover' unknown relationships?

Can you tell me such things objectively?


Please use your brain to figure these things out for yourself. Don't
subjugate yourself to other's opinions and beliefs, no matter how
POPULAR they are. They are not in bed with you, but you may be in bed
with them. Choose wisely.

Best of luck to you.

And the relevance of your question to mine, James, is ...?

The relevance is; are you Tom Gee and Thomas Garcia? Or are you Tom Gee
copying Thomas Garcia? Or is this just a coincidence with an
infintesimal probability actually being realized? Kinda like the broken
cup spontaneously reorganizing.