LEFTY wrote:
Currently, the Lorentz Ttransform does not map 4space to 3space
anywhere. Correct ?

It probably does but you might have asked if it maps
'everywhere'.

... the most general transformation between two inertial
frames consists of a Lorentz transformation in the standard
configuration plus a translation (this includes a translation
in time) and a rotation of the coordinate axes. The resulting
transformation is called a general Lorentz transformation,
as opposed to a Lorentz transformation in the standard
configuration which will henceforth be termed a standard
Lorentz transformation.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing

What I mean is that successive frames of reference are basically
isomorphic unless we're talking about black holes or something - no ?

Who cares? ) When you say isomorphic fourspace that is
the equivalent of using 5 axes for the abstracion of time.


If you have successive frames which are less than Planck length, I want
to map them to --- Minkowski(3+0) space.

I measure things less that a metre with a meter stick.
Are you afraid you won't have enough room under the
fraction bar? Just tape more sheets to your work page
until all the digits will fit. )


Do you just define it to be so - or do you need algebra ? I think that
in the case of time you can get away with just defining it to be so,
but length is trickier. You have the same exact situation with length,
but I think that this must have some implications for the algebra of
the transform.

Review Fitzpatrick's description of the tranform and it may
become clearer what is being represented.

Lengths less than Planck Length must also map to Minkowski(3+0) space.
They will.

Maybe that's the trick. instead of playing around with balls of radius
r and bla bla bla, just incorporate scale right into Lorentz transform.

Pythagoras didn't have to resort to that.



Is that what Nottale did ? Anybody know ?
I doubt any but Nottale know what he did.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307093

Sue...

Currently, the Lorentz Ttransform does not map 4space to 3space
anywhere. Correct ?

It probably does but you might have asked if it maps
'everywhere'.

It seems like it might do some weird stuff because of the nonlinear
terms.

There is no such thing as a _formalized_ nonexistence in GR or SR, or
even QM. No ?




What I mean is that successive frames of reference are basically
isomorphic unless we're talking about black holes or something - no ?

Who cares? ) When you say isomorphic fourspace that is
the equivalent of using 5 axes for the abstracion of time.

I need to make the question more precise.



If you have successive frames which are less than Planck length, I want
to map them to --- Minkowski(3+0) space.

I measure things less that a metre with a meter stick.
Are you afraid you won't have enough room under the
fraction bar? Just tape more sheets to your work page
until all the digits will fit. )

Well, according to Planck, the number of reference frames from t1 to t2
is always finite. Yet Einstein treats time like it's continuous ?


Do you just define it to be so - or do you need algebra ? I think that
in the case of time you can get away with just defining it to be so,
but length is trickier. You have the same exact situation with length,
but I think that this must have some implications for the algebra of
the transform.

Review Fitzpatrick's description of the tranform and it may
become clearer what is being represented.

Lengths less than Planck Length must also map to Minkowski(3+0) space.
They will.


I consider Minkowski(3+0) to be the equivalent of nonexistence because
time is not there - existence becomes trivial.

Is it standard practice in physics to map lengths in 4space Planck
Length to 3space ?



Maybe that's the trick. instead of playing around with balls of radius
r and bla bla bla, just incorporate scale right into Lorentz transform.

Pythagoras didn't have to resort to that.



Is that what Nottale did ? Anybody know ?
I doubt any but Nottale know what he did.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307093

Reading the preface - it hardly makes any sense whatsoever. It's like a
Peano curve of twisting logic. I got a hell of a lot further with a
momentary glance at time scale calculus.


Sue...

LEFTY wrote:
Currently, the Lorentz Ttransform does not map 4space to 3space
anywhere. Correct ?

It probably does but you might have asked if it maps
'everywhere'.

It seems like it might do some weird stuff because of the nonlinear
terms.

There is no such thing as a _formalized_ nonexistence in GR or SR, or
even QM. No ?

All three *formalisms* have null or indefinite spaces.





What I mean is that successive frames of reference are basically
isomorphic unless we're talking about black holes or something - no ?

Who cares? ) When you say isomorphic fourspace that is
the equivalent of using 5 axes for the abstracion of time.

I need to make the question more precise.

Indeed. It would be helpful to state you question
in 3d+1t unless you are making a specific reference
involving mass/energy conservation which might be more
compact in fourspace.
The conservation law of a physical quantity is usually
expressed as a continuity equation.

The most important examples of the [Noethers] theorem are
the following:

The energy is conserved if and only if the physical laws are
invariant under time translations (if their form does not
depend on time)

The momentum is conserved iff the physical laws are invariant
under spatial translations (if the laws do not depend on
the position)

The angular momentum is conserved iff the physical laws
are invariant under rotations (if the laws do not care
about the orientation); if only some rotations are allowed,
only the corresponding components of the angular momentum
vector are conserved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iff




If you have successive frames which are less than Planck length, I want
to map them to --- Minkowski(3+0) space.

I measure things less that a metre with a meter stick.
Are you afraid you won't have enough room under the
fraction bar? Just tape more sheets to your work page
until all the digits will fit. )

Well, according to Planck, the number of reference frames from t1 to t2
is always finite. Yet Einstein treats time like it's continuous ?

Time is a mathematical abstraction so the theorist can
treat it as he pleases.

However, if he predicts that the fuel tank of a drag
racer is not a clock, his theory is not physical.
The energy is conserved if and only if the physical
laws are invariant under time translations
if their form does not depend on time)



Do you just define it to be so - or do you need algebra ? I think that
in the case of time you can get away with just defining it to be so,
but length is trickier. You have the same exact situation with length,
but I think that this must have some implications for the algebra of
the transform.

Review Fitzpatrick's description of the tranform and it may
become clearer what is being represented.

Lengths less than Planck Length must also map to Minkowski(3+0) space.
They will.


I consider Minkowski(3+0) to be the equivalent of nonexistence because
time is not there - existence becomes trivial.

....or you exist forever )


Is it standard practice in physics to map lengths in 4space Planck
Length to 3space ?
That sounds like a reversion to the assumption that
physics plays out on a Cartesian background.
If you are using Planck length, you are probably
making that kind of assumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length



Maybe that's the trick. instead of playing around with balls of radius
r and bla bla bla, just incorporate scale right into Lorentz transform.

Pythagoras didn't have to resort to that.



Is that what Nottale did ? Anybody know ?
I doubt any but Nottale know what he did.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307093

Reading the preface - it hardly makes any sense whatsoever. It's like a
Peano curve of twisting logic. I got a hell of a lot further with a
momentary glance at time scale calculus.

Indeed. I'd consider these better use of reading time:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node26.html
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+.../0/1/0/all/0/1

.... unless you just want to play with magic squares and
look for prime numbers. ;-)

Sue...





Sue...

"LEFTY" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Currently, the Lorentz Ttransform does not map 4space to 3space
| anywhere. Correct ?

It's not the "Lorentz" transform, it's the Einstein cuckoo transform,
but I know what you mean.
It doesn't map anything to anything.
It attempts to map (x,t) to (\xi,\tau) via the eccentricity of an
ellipse,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Eccentricity.html
e = sqrt( 1 - (minor axis)^2 /(major axis)^2),
but that fails because you cannot convert length to time.
Einstein was not a mathematician, he was a symbol shuffler who
didn't know what the symbols represented.


| What I mean is that successive frames of reference are basically
| isomorphic unless we're talking about black holes or something - no ?

I've never seen a black hole, don't know what they are, sorry.
Science starts with observation, that is then investigated and
an explanation is given. I don't work backwards, invent black
holes and then go looking for them. If you see a bright green
flying elephant laying eggs in a black hole, let me know, I've
lost my pet; she was starting to turn green and her ears were
growing at an alarming rate. I suspect she found a runway
somewhere.


| If you have successive frames which are less than Planck length, I
want
| to map them to --- Minkowski(3+0) space.

Go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I'm a crank, I'm no use to you if
you want to do sensible things. Ask a normal person who believes
Einstein.

|
| Do you just define it to be so - or do you need algebra ?

Just define it. That's all Einstein did. Wave your magic wand and say
"Itso" and it is immediately clear it is so.


I think that
| in the case of time you can get away with just defining it to be so,
| but length is trickier. You have the same exact situation with length,
| but I think that this must have some implications for the algebra of
| the transform.
|
| Lengths less than Planck Length must also map to Minkowski(3+0) space.
|
| Maybe that's the trick. instead of playing around with balls of radius
| r and bla bla bla, just incorporate scale right into Lorentz
transform.
|
|
| Is that what Nottale did ? Anybody know ?
|
No idea... like I said, I'm a crank. Turning water into wine and
length into time is something normal people believe in. Harry
Potter is far more popular than science will ever be.

Androcles.

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Check this out -
|
|
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...e_calculus.htm


left dense if p(t) = t leaves me dense.
dense if left dense or right dense leaves me dense as well
I'm a crank.

| --------------------------------------------------
| Time scale calculus
| [Categories: Recurrence relations, Calculus]
|
| In (A science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic
of
| quantity and shape and arrangement) mathematics, time scale calculus
is
| a unification of the theory of (Click link for more info and facts
| about difference equation) difference equations and standard (A hard
| lump produced by the concretion of mineral salts; found in hollow
| organs or ducts of the body) calculus. Invented in 1988 by the German
| mathematician Stefan Hilger, it has applications in any field that
| requires simultaneous modelling of discrete and continuous data.
| --------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
| I think that this would apply to what I'm trying to do - were it not
| for one small hitch, namely, "Invariance of Domain Theorem".

Yeah... we need a theorem so that the domain doesn't change.
f(x) = x^2,
so f(3) = 4 because the domain changed from 2 to 3.



|
| My claim is that 4D "appears" to degrade to 3D - like an illusion -
| because time becomes unobservable. Triviality and nonexistence become
| physically signifigant.

That's being normal. You'll NEVER acheive crank status like that.

| But it might be interesting to ask - if you had succesive reference
| frames in the Lorentz Transform, could you apply time scale calculus
to
| successive reference frames ? Possibly. Would this replicate quantum
| weirdness ? Does this explain nonlocality ? Superluminality ? Maybe,
| but I dont think so.
|
Now you are answering your own questions like a normal person does.
Real cranks let other people answer the question.
I'll give you an example of a crank question.
If I'm between two stars, then one comes toward me and the other
moves away, what is the speed of light from each star, given that
one is blue shifted and the other red shifted?

If I were to answer that myself, I'd be normal like you.
Androcles

Well, according to Planck, the number of reference frames from t1 to t2
is always finite. Yet Einstein treats time like it's continuous ? .

Time is a mathematical abstraction so the theorist can
treat it as he pleases.

I know that it is sometimes treated as an abstraction, but there's
really no denying that it's also a physical phenomena. Same thing with
length.

Calculus treats abstract time as being continuous. Newton treats
physical time as continuous. Planck says it's not.




There is no such thing as a _formalized_ nonexistence in GR or SR, or
even QM. No ?


All three *formalisms* have null or indefinite spaces.


And null space, or indefinite space is a mathematical object. Correct ?


I dont think that it's so hard at all to consider a nonexistence which
is tangible, and not just a mathematical tool.

If you had a flask full of spacetime, and for some reason time was
"unobservable" inside that flask, the contents would "appear" to be
nonexistent. Why ? Because it's trivial. Anything that exists fro zero
seconds does'nt really exist.

If you have reference frames which are closer together than Planck
length, then they must be trivial. In an absolute sense, there are
uncountably infinitely many reference frames for any epsilon s.t | t2 -
t1 | epsilon. The problem is that our ability to observe time is
restricted.

So, any object can be said to exist, or not exist, depending on how you
observe that object. I have a car parked outside. I can observe the car
just fine because I'm observeing it for signifigant periods of time -
much greater than Planck time. But if I could take a picture of it
using a camera that has a shutter speed of say (1/100) * PlanckTime,
then the car would not show up in the photo. It would vanish, like
Dracula when he looks in the mirror.

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...

| So, any object can be said to exist, or not exist, depending on how
you
| observe that object. I have a car parked outside. I can observe the
car
| just fine because I'm observeing it for signifigant periods of time -
| much greater than Planck time. But if I could take a picture of it
| using a camera that has a shutter speed of say (1/100) * PlanckTime,
| then the car would not show up in the photo. It would vanish, like
| Dracula when he looks in the mirror.

Uh huh... You might get lucky with one. Write it up as your own
page, publish it on the web and I'll nominate you for crank.net.

Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...

| So, any object can be said to exist, or not exist, depending on how
you
| observe that object. I have a car parked outside. I can observe the
car
| just fine because I'm observeing it for signifigant periods of time -
| much greater than Planck time. But if I could take a picture of it
| using a camera that has a shutter speed of say (1/100) * PlanckTime,
| then the car would not show up in the photo. It would vanish, like
| Dracula when he looks in the mirror.

Uh huh... You might get lucky with one. Write it up as your own
page, publish it on the web and I'll nominate you for crank.net.

I have been looking all week for something to agree with you
on... just to ocassionally be civil. [Argggggh!]

I will even contibute my photos of Michael Jackon sleeping
inside inductors and capacitors (we all know the time is
different there) to alter his ageing rate. ;-)

Sue...


Androcles.

heh heh -

This site is the most excellent thing i've seen on the web
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html


Seriously, it really does make sense to use nonexistence as a genuine
natural phenomena. You can demonstrate nonexistence in the lab very
easily using trivialities. Basically, the proof is trivial. And it's
also constructible with a very subtle tweak to Planck Time.

Consider any physical object which really does exist. The Earth, your
car, Los Angeles, whatever. I ask you to make an observation of that
object using whatever method you wish - but you MUST make your
observation very quickly, you must complete the observation in LESS
than PlanckTime. You will not be able to observe anything, and must
report back to me that these things are "unobservable". You cannot
confirm whether they exist, or not.

It's all a matter of relative scales.


Is that so cranky ?

LEFTY wrote:
heh heh -

This site is the most excellent thing i've seen on the web
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html


Seriously, it really does make sense to use nonexistence as a genuine
natural phenomena. You can demonstrate nonexistence in the lab very
easily using trivialities. Basically, the proof is trivial. And it's
also constructible with a very subtle tweak to Planck Time.

Consider any physical object which really does exist. The Earth, your
car, Los Angeles, whatever. I ask you to make an observation of that
object using whatever method you wish - but you MUST make your
observation very quickly, you must complete the observation in LESS
than PlanckTime. You will not be able to observe anything, and must
report back to me that these things are "unobservable". You cannot
confirm whether they exist, or not.

It's all a matter of relative scales.

Not at all.
The Chevy may observe the Ford to have no motion.
The Ford may observe the Chevy to have no motion.
But at end of 1/4 mile, the fuel remaining in the
tanks will indicate the race car with less mass.

Metaphysical musings don't get us any closer to
the notion of time than a couple of kids can
measure with a fuel can on a Sunday afternoon.

Sue...





Is that so cranky ?