However, suppose that time really is graduated, but that these
graduations can shift along the time axis. Sort of like a ruler where
the graduations can slide back and forth on the surface, an isomorphic
linear translation of the graduations, sort of. The beginning and end
of any interval is completely arbitrary, with the condition that the
length of the intervals is always equal to Planck time, bla bla bla.

With this approach, space remains geometrically originless. And, the
graduations seem something like a visual effect, most likely related
observability somehow.

It also allows time to remain continuous, even though Planck has proved
that it is discrete.


|: P

wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.

It takes a theory to decide is something is an 'illusion' or not.



Physics doesn't count as theory ?

Suppose that you have three observers, A, B and C. They are situated at
the vertices of a right tirangle in space. The triangle is a
1,1,SQRT(2) right triable.

A thinks that B and C are each located at a distance of 1 Planck
length.

B and C both agree that A is located at a distance of 1 Planck length.

The distance from B to C is SQRT(2) Planck lengths. But, this distance
does not exist according to Planck. According to Planck, the distance
from B to C is either 1 or 2 Planck lengths depending on how you round
it off.



Now, let me ask you who's doing the magic tricks. Planck, who causes
distances to vanish completely, to simply cease to exist absolutely ?
Or myself, where nonexistence is merely an "illusion" which is caused
by our inability to observe time below a certain scale ?

I dont even believe in magic. As someone pointed out earlier I can
hardly even "spell" (no pun intended).

: )

That's right Nick -

I dose'nt get much more fundamental than dimensionality.

Observability might even cause such a scenario which you described.

Imagine a large quilt, or a piece of graph paper. Somewhere in the
middle, there are a few blocks which are unobservable for some reason,
they simply "appear" nonexistent. If this manifold retains it's
appearance of continuity, then something is going to have to bend quite
a bit in order to fill the voids.

The problem, how to model "unobservability" using some off the shelf
algebra ??

Nick wrote:
Dynamic dimensions:curve and move
Catch up to time and space shrinks.
It's all in relativity.

Einstein in the 1920's likened his curved space-time
to the aether. He didn't get rid of it. He brought it back!!!

There is no such thing as 'the ether'. There are a multitude of ether
concepts.

LEFTY wrote:
wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.

It takes a theory to decide if something is an 'illusion' or not.



Physics doesn't count as theory ?

Physical theories do not decide what is absolutely real or illusion.
Physical theories invent so-called 'reality' and 'illusion'.

wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Absolute nonexistence does not seem very useful.

But if you have the "appearance" of nonexistence, sort of like an
illusion caused by time becoming unobservable on extreme scales, then
that might actually be interesting.

I know that many people have thought of this before, and math shows
that it is impossible to occur in an absolute sense. However, math does
not preclude the "illusion" from occuring, and in fact seems to
facilitate it.

It takes a theory to decide if something is an 'illusion' or not.



Physics doesn't count as theory ?

Physical theories do not decide what is absolutely real or illusion.


Physics explain mirages as being caused by atmospheric heat gradient.
It "looks like" a mirror, or maybe water, but physics proves that to be
an illusion.


Physical theories invent so-called 'reality' and 'illusion'.


Physics is the science of using mathematical models and theory to
explain observed phenomena. Reality is something for philosophers to
figure out, but illusion is certainly important to physics because
physics tries to explain observed phenomena. If something is altering
the observability of a process, physicists would want to know about
that.

LEFTY wrote:
Suppose that you have three observers, A, B and C. They are situated at
the vertices of a right tirangle in space. The triangle is a
1,1,SQRT(2) right triable.

A thinks that B and C are each located at a distance of 1 Planck
length.

B and C both agree that A is located at a distance of 1 Planck length.

The distance from B to C is SQRT(2) Planck lengths. But, this distance
does not exist according to Planck. According to Planck, the distance
from B to C is either 1 or 2 Planck lengths depending on how you round
it off.



You're talking a lot about distances without saying what you mean by
that. What is your metric? If you are using light quanta to define
your metric, then you do have to worry about the Plank limit. Good
luck getting separate "observers" to exist at those separations..

LEFTY wrote:
Sorry, I know it's a bad habit, and according to Wikipedia it has
various usages.

I almost always use the term in it's non-mathematical context. Maybe I
should just call it space. Cant help it, I'm sloppy.

Then you mean aether. The only properties blue lines
have is they smear when the paper gets wet. )



According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 × 1017 s) is roughly 8 × 1060
Planck times.


This suggests that the dimension of time is graduated like a ruler, and
the graduations are fixed. Space has 4 dimensions, LxLxLxT. Generally,
space it considered to have no geometric origin. But if time is
graduated, then space starts looking just a little bit more like R4,
and I just get wobbly in the knees to see that happening.

If time is graduated, and Planck length is derivable from Planck time,
then maybe LxLxL is also graduated somehow, and maybe the universe has
some type of geometric origin somewhere ? Dosen't seem to agree with
relativity at all - no ma'am.

OK
You convinced me time isn't graduated. )

Are charges ?
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~matsci/waltz2/1.html
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/tchrbkground/some_pp.html
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online...rhydrogen.html

Sue...



: P

Sue... wrote:
LEFTY wrote:
Sorry, I know it's a bad habit, and according to Wikipedia it has
various usages.

I almost always use the term in it's non-mathematical context. Maybe I
should just call it space. Cant help it, I'm sloppy.

Then you mean aether. The only properties blue lines
have is they smear when the paper gets wet. )



According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 × 1017 s) is roughly 8 × 1060
Planck times.


This suggests that the dimension of time is graduated like a ruler, and
the graduations are fixed. Space has 4 dimensions, LxLxLxT. Generally,
space it considered to have no geometric origin. But if time is
graduated, then space starts looking just a little bit more like R4,
and I just get wobbly in the knees to see that happening.

If time is graduated, and Planck length is derivable from Planck time,
then maybe LxLxL is also graduated somehow, and maybe the universe has
some type of geometric origin somewhere ? Dosen't seem to agree with
relativity at all - no ma'am.

OK
You convinced me time isn't graduated. )

Are charges ?

Graduated ? I have no idea. But, I would'nt rule out the possibility of
"yes AND no". Planck says it's quantized and I wont argue with him on
that point.


http://www-ed.fnal.gov/tchrbkground/some_pp.html
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online...rhydrogen.html

That is a neat link !!

Now you've given me some studying to do.


Sue...



All we need is a couple math aces to help model "unobservability of
time at extreme scales". Then we can just bolt it onto the Lorentz
Transform, light the fuse and see what happens. There are plenty of
math & physics folks around here who could do it.

Any ideas ?

I'm no expert on SR or GR, but I know that this is do-able.


There are tons and tons of people in these newsgroups - all of whom
could conribute some talent. My brain is fried. I need algebraaaa.....

Like "Rosebud...."

"algebraaaaaaaa......."