Hallo NG

in a discussion in this forum, I was brought to the topic of topology of
space.

After thinking about the mixed metrik of the Minkowski-space and the
principle of relativity, that needs a space with four dimensions of equal
rights, I had an idea and don't know what to with it. Is it usefull, common
sense or crap?

It goes like this:

I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'. The universe is something
like an event, since it started its existence very long ago, but in a finite
time. 'Space' is the stage for this event.
Space in relativity is mostly regarded as having four dimensions of the type
lenght. It puzzeled me, how it is possible to get the time dimension, to
define expansation and how to come to the Minkowski-space.
My proposal is, to regard 'space' having four dimensions of the type time.
The Minkowski-space is 'inscripted' by the path of an observer.

A Minkowski-space, if you leave out one dimension, has a form of a cone. The
observer is drawing its worldline ( I prefer the word: eventpath) in the
middle of this cone, pacing at lightspeed away from its origin.

The observer measures the space around as having three dimensions of lenght
and one of time (defines length as a distance that light travels in a
certain time) . Other objects create their own Minkowkis-space with
themselfs in the centre. Their flight in their cones have an angle to the
first mentioned observer. With some geometry, you could see, that object
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction, faster
if more distant. The speed on the own eventpath is not measured by the
observer. He predicts himself as not in motion.

The idea has advanteges:

it could stop the discussion about the speed of light as not beeing c.
( 1: its not important, c could be regrarded as mainly the speed on the
eventpath, and light is that fast because photons have no mass
2: it makes no sense: lenght is defined from a time and based on the
constanct c, so c is constant by definition
3: its wrong: speed of light is - as far as I know - allways constant)

It is according to the princliples af relativity.

It allows a definition of what matter is, without using matter for this.
'space' could not expand (it has no lenght) only the Minkowski space can
expand ( and will).
Since any object draws its own line through space, theese lines can curve
and bent. The existence of gravitation implies, that space can bent itself
and have something like inherent energy. Matter could be regarded as little
'ripples' in the eventpath.

thomas heger

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Hallo NG

in a discussion in this forum, I was brought to the topic of topology of
space.

After thinking about the mixed metrik of the Minkowski-space and the
principle of relativity, that needs a space with four dimensions of equal
rights, I had an idea and don't know what to with it. Is it usefull,
common sense or crap?

It goes like this:

I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms in
physics is well understood.

Bill

I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms in
physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy? This is in my eyes a topic, when you are
allowed to discuss in such a way. I think, it is more difficult, to think of
space as having four (orthogonal !) dimensions of lengh then of having four
dimensions of time. Both is really methaphysical. But what other way you
propose to deal with that?

Thomas Heger

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms in
physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy?


Nothing - but it is not physics. Unless it is specifically is about the
philosopshy of relativity here is not really the best place to post.
Physics has already decided what space and universe means so discussion
about it are pretty pointless as far a physics is concerned.

This is in my eyes a topic, when you are allowed to discuss in such a way.
I think, it is more difficult, to think of space as having four
(orthogonal !) dimensions of lengh then of having four dimensions of time.
Both is really methaphysical.

Not really. It is a fact that we require 3 separate numbers to specify a
point in space and only one to specify what a clock reads. The reason
space-time forms a 4 dimensional manifold has to with the experimentally
verified fact dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^ - dt^2 is invariant.

But what other way you propose to deal with that?

By using words in the way standard to physics.

Bill


Thomas Heger

"Bill Hobba" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms
in physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy?


Nothing - but it is not physics. Unless it is specifically is about the
philosopshy of relativity here is not really the best place to post.
Physics has already decided what space and universe means so discussion
about it are pretty pointless as far a physics is concerned.


To find out, how they decided, I asked Wikipedia (as in most cases for the
first try)

[quote Wikipedia about universe]

..... A fundamental aspect of the Big Bang can be seen today in the
observation that the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they move
away from us.

[end quote]

[quote from myself]
With some geometry, you could see, that objects
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction, faster
if more distant.
[end quote]

In my eyes, what I wrote could explain that. Are there other or better
explanations for that?

I don't think you are wright, that physics has a clear concept about the
universe

[quote Wikipedia- 'the universe']
....
An important open question of cosmology is the shape of the universe.
Mathematically, which 3-manifold is the universe?
Firstly, whether the universe is flat, i.e. whether the rules of Euclidean
geometry are valid on the largest scales, is unknown.

....

[end quote]

best regards



thomas Heger

Bill Hobba wrote:


Physics has already decided what space and universe means so discussion
about it are pretty pointless as far a physics is concerned.

I will add to this by saying that it is time to shut down the patent
office because it "appears" all patents have been discovered already.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Mike






Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms in
physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy?


Nothing - but it is not physics. Unless it is specifically is about the
philosopshy of relativity here is not really the best place to post.
Physics has already decided what space and universe means so discussion
about it are pretty pointless as far a physics is concerned.

Sounds a bit dogmatic to me, Bill.

Thomas Heger wrote:

I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms in
physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy? This is in my eyes a topic, when you are
allowed to discuss in such a way. I think, it is more difficult, to think of
space as having four (orthogonal !) dimensions of lengh then of having four
dimensions of time. Both is really methaphysical. But what other way you
propose to deal with that?

Thomas Heger

Read Einstein's physics essays in his book Ideas and Opinions for some
philosophical ideas about space.

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Hallo NG

in a discussion in this forum, I was brought to the topic of topology of
space.

After thinking about the mixed metrik of the Minkowski-space and the
principle of relativity, that needs a space with four dimensions of equal
rights, I had an idea and don't know what to with it. Is it usefull,
common sense or crap?

It goes like this:

I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'. The universe is
something like an event, since it started its existence very long ago, but
in a finite time. 'Space' is the stage for this event.
Space in relativity is mostly regarded as having four dimensions of the
type lenght. It puzzeled me, how it is possible to get the time dimension,
to define expansation and how to come to the Minkowski-space.
My proposal is, to regard 'space' having four dimensions of the type time.
The Minkowski-space is 'inscripted' by the path of an observer.

A Minkowski-space, if you leave out one dimension, has a form of a cone.
The observer is drawing its worldline ( I prefer the word: eventpath) in
the middle of this cone, pacing at lightspeed away from its origin.

The observer measures the space around as having three dimensions of
lenght and one of time (defines length as a distance that light travels in
a certain time) . Other objects create their own Minkowkis-space with
themselfs in the centre. Their flight in their cones have an angle to the
first mentioned observer. With some geometry, you could see, that object
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction,
faster if more distant. The speed on the own eventpath is not measured by
the observer. He predicts himself as not in motion.

The idea has advanteges:

it could stop the discussion about the speed of light as not beeing c.
( 1: its not important, c could be regrarded as mainly the speed on the
eventpath, and light is that fast because photons have no mass
2: it makes no sense: lenght is defined from a time and based on the
constanct c, so c is constant by definition
3: its wrong: speed of light is - as far as I know - allways constant)

It is according to the princliples af relativity.

It allows a definition of what matter is, without using matter for this.
'space' could not expand (it has no lenght) only the Minkowski space can
expand ( and will).
Since any object draws its own line through space, theese lines can curve
and bent. The existence of gravitation implies, that space can bent itself
and have something like inherent energy. Matter could be regarded as
little 'ripples' in the eventpath.

thomas heger

It's crap...
Ask Cassini the time, now and next late April, and you'll see why.
Androcles.

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one who
is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Hy Androcles
you made me happy. I tell you in April why
Thomas Heger

It's crap...
Ask Cassini the time, now and next late April, and you'll see why.
Androcles.