[RascalPuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Ok, I see where you're coming from, and greatly appreciate your contributions of simpler explanations of Einstein's and other's ideas. It just seems, to me, a bit misleading to call gravity the 4th dimension, as it works identical as in the original paradigm, although gravity and motion may just very well be the 4th dimension, but I as you know, realize time is equivalent to distance of matter motion, and seems a much more fundamental way of presenting it. But, if that's how you choose to present it, there's not much harm in it, as long as you've clarrified as you have. And, I did read your material. I just had further questions.

Now, and as you have in other posts agreed, we have to figure out the exact wave dynamics of the differences of the out-expanding matter, and the out expanding space/aether, and the incoming aether/em waves, or whatever, to thoroughly define the true fundamental gravity actions... That I think is a bit complex, and many physicists are working on this through quantum gravity. I think this is the highest possibility of success, area...

Are you familiar with the physicist's/scientist's name who worked out just such an idea, in the early part of the last century? It was to do with the entire motion dynamics of all bodies, internal and external motion and momentums. I've lost that information...

Lloyd
____________________

Dear Lloyd:

Granted, 'gravity is the 4th dimension' is an unorthodox manner of presentation, though I would ask it to be borne in mind that it is the titular introduction to an unorthodox series of conclusions: based on the orthodox.

Encounters with those who would take issue with the definition of time and motion (timotion) as being translatable as a dimension are not unusual.

As you are well aware, I have learned from your other posts, linguistics often plays an important role in communicating what we mean.

Upon reading or hearing 'gravity is the 4th dimension', a lot of folks disagree, introducing the statement 'time is the 4th dimension'.

The point is, it is acknowledged in such disagreements that timotion is a dimension, 'because Einstein proved it'. Yes. Precisely.

So there is this schizoid perspective that (gravity is) timotion 'isn't a dimension', accompanied by (the 'argumentive') acknowledgement that Einstein proved it is... ('I thought time is the 4th dimension'...)

"Gravity is the 4th dimension" is merely another approach to confirming the same 'acknowledgement'. The unprecedented expression is alien to the uninitiated, who characteristically take vacant - self contradictory, and often aggressive - issue with it.

I encourage you to read my auto-bio blog on 'How I became the world's #1 Einstein Groupie.' I consider it both entertaining and educational.
Would like to know what you think of it.

"Are you familiar with the physicist's/scientist's name who worked out just such an idea, in the early part of the last century? It was to do with the entire motion dynamics of all bodies, internal and external motion and momentums. I've lost that information..."

The only specific names that come to my mind are Boltzmann, Planck and Einstein, although, as you probably know, there's an entire retinue of scientists who were working on that key issue, in - and ever since - the immediate post quantum mechanics era.

I consider my work to be a contribution toward the expressed objective, whereas, my work is not accepted in (generally unknown to) the mainstream ('Obviously corporeal matter is not expanding' - meanwhile, the entire flocking spatial universe is expanding, as a result of and beginning with the accelerating expansion of the denser forms of matter, going on to extrapolate into the expansion of electromagnetism at right angles from 4-D matter), let alone being utilized as a factor of resolution.

Beginning to sound like you and I are independently working on the same row of ducks...

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks for the thread Rascal.Time and motion and but a relative potion! No more or less!



regards mıchael.

[NotStein]

I don't think they are equal as such, because I don't think time exists other than as a tool/method we use to measure change/motion. Take all motion away, and does time still exist? In fact, I think the only thing that does exist is energy/mass. Motion is just a property of energy/mass, as gravity and the aether a remnant of energy 'gone by'.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by NotStein I don't think they are equal as such, because I don't think time exists other than as a tool/method we use to measure change/motion. Take all motion away, and does time still exist? In fact, I think the only thing that does exist is energy/mass. Motion is just a property of energy/mass, as gravity and the aether a remnant of energy 'gone by'.

Dear NotStein:

There is no observed or known condition of energy, mass, space, etc., bereft of motion, which is synonymous with time; hence the term 'timotion', originated in the observation, 'gravity - includes time and motion - is the 4th dimension'.
(Until further notice, the cessation of all motion - Absolute Zero Kelvin - remains unknown and unachieved in the laboratory and unobserved in Nature.)

Einstein proved that 'time is the 4th dimension'. Ergo, the 4th dimension includes motion.

Time = Motion = Timotion. Einstein is acknowledged as having proved that timotion is a dimension.

(End of statement of the obvious - with which many still take vacant issue, i.e., 'time isn't a dimension'.)

A condition of absolute non motion, it is true, would be timeless, but, again, until further notice, there is no motionless condition.

Time, like metric mathematics, is indeed, apparently a man made tool - obliged to conform to and accurately measure and describe existential conditions. Proclaiming that there is no time, is, in this manner, tantamount to proclaiming that there is no metric mathematics. But as long as their are 'things' to describe and measure, there will be the tool of metric mathematics, and, as long as their is motion, their will be the descriptive tool of measuring time.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, do you really think confusing the issue with more linguistic creations, actually adds to solving the problem of non-understanding? I think "timotion" can be eliminated from the confusion, don't you...?

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Rascal, do you really think confusing the issue with more linguistic creations, actually adds to solving the problem of non-understanding? I think "timotion" can be eliminated from the confusion, don't you...? Lloyd

Dear Lloyd:
I suppose the combination of the two words (timotion) can be abandoned if and when a condition of motionless is observed.
Then there will be a state of no motion and therefore, no time.

In the interim, it provides a reminder-service comparable to that of Einstein's amalgamation of space-time - if and when one can be found independent of the other, the linguistic term of clarification may become obsolete.

Erstwhile, such terms prove useful as a reminder that until such time the terms can be seperated by the observation of space and/or motion w'out time, they are in fact inseparable.

No, I don't think - with the provided qualifications - that the terms add to any 'confusion'.
They tend more to simplify the compound issues.

On the contrary, I think - as qualiifed - the cited linguistic terms subtract from the confusion while they expedite and augment consciousness.

Post Script:
Several cohorts, upon encountering that term ('timotion') as I created and practice it, have commented:
"I wish I had thought of that".

It corroborates the philology - the evolution - of scientific language.

Contrary to your post's linguistics, I did not 'create' the condition, I invented a term that simplifies and accomodates it.

Comparable to Minkowski space-time and the existentially observed mass-field and concentric zero-center.

Best Regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Incidentally, Lloyd, a knowledgeable man has impressively conveyed to me that:
The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
(At least some of the previously subjected ducks, seem to be quacking in unison?)

[D.A.Peel]

Dear All.
I think back to when I read St Augustine of Hippos Confessions, book 11, which is really a chapter. His main arguement was that time is indipendent of motion, something that I have always had difficulty with. He argued that if all motion stopped, time would carry on independantly. When we freeze a thing we slow down the motions involved in the decomposition of that thing. ulternatively if we could reach near light speed, we would slow down the motions of any active process. Because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, if you were to reach it, you would not be able to move without exceeding that speed. Time would have to stand still. I believe that our experience of time is very real and needs to be explained. I beleive that time is the product of motion. If we could say that at the most fundamental level of physical reality everything is tavelling at the speed of light, we would be able to say that at the most fundamental level of reality there is no time. We would be liveing in a clockwork Universe that runs at the speed of light and therefore in a 0 time frame. Our experiance of time becomes nothing more than how we relate the distances of things in motion travelled relative to each other within that 0 time frame. Light from the Sun perceives that it took 0 time to reach the Earth, and yet we measure aproxametly, 8 minutes. What if the clock took 0 time for the second hand to go around 8 times. We simply relate the motion of one thing to another. I'm not really very good at this.ops

[Profpat]

Hi D.A. Peel;

Your comment is interesting in that at the speed of light your Time is nil, and I believe Motion for you would also be nil, what about space for you? Don't you get ultimately compressed and therefore no space for you.

Interesting things happen at light speed and is probably why mass can't exceed or equal its velocity.

Best,

Pat

[NotStein]

Dear RascalPuff,

I don't believe that just because a condition has not been observed means that it cannot be conceptualized, mathmatically represented, and used as a step in a deductive logic sequence. Else, we'd have to throw out most of quantum mechanics, and all of string and quantum loop theories, 'cause we can observe barely any of that! I don't believe time and motion are synonymous, either, otherwise we wouldn't have a separate word for each; and, as D.A.Peel so elegantly pointed out, when something travels at the speed of light, time 'stops'/ceases to exist, while it's obviously still moving, therefore, they are different. Which brings up two interesting things ponder:

1) If time does not exist for a photon travelling at 'C', is there any real need for there to be more than one in the entire universe? After all, it can be everywhere at once.

2) Since inflation apparently occurred faster than the speed of light, did time run backwards during inflation - meaning that by the time our universe expires, or 'crunches',or whatever, zero time will have passed?

BTW, I believe that space & motion are the '4th dimension', although I believe that using the term '4th dimension' will ultimately be proved to be a misnomer. I believe what we like to call the 4th dim. is actually better described as the 'fabric' of our universe, or in classic terms, the aether.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by NotStein Dear RascalPuff, I don't believe that just because a condition has not been observed means that it cannot be conceptualized, mathmatically represented, and used as a step in a deductive logic sequence. Else, we'd have to throw out most of quantum mechanics, and all of string and quantum loop theories, 'cause we can observe barely any of that! I don't believe time and motion are synonymous, either, otherwise we wouldn't have a separate word for each; and, as D.A.Peel so elegantly pointed out, when something travels at the speed of light, time 'stops'/ceases to exist, while it's obviously still moving, therefore, they are different. Which brings up two interesting things ponder: 1) If time does not exist for a photon travelling at 'C', is there any real need for there to be more than one in the entire universe? After all, it can be everywhere at once. 2) Since inflation apparently occurred faster than the speed of light, did time run backwards during inflation - meaning that by the time our universe expires, or 'crunches',or whatever, zero time will have passed? BTW, I believe that space & motion are the '4th dimension', although I believe that using the term '4th dimension' will ultimately be proved to be a misnomer. I believe what we like to call the 4th dim. is actually better described as the 'fabric' of our universe, or in classic terms, the aether.

String and quantum loop (for example) are not theories, because they are based on non-metric mathematics (refer The Elegant Universe, and Castles In The Sky).

That is, metric mathematics is obliged to reflect, accurately describe and conform to existing conditions.

On the other hand, non-metric mathematics is not bound to describe reality, it (non metric mathematics) for example, may hold out two equations - each equally accurate, while they mutually contradict each other.

Conceptualization and deductive logic, does, as you say, have a valuable place in the contemplation of physical conditiions, and the points you make to that effect are, IMO, well expressed.

Regarding your conclusion that time and motion aren't the same 'because otherwise we wouldn't have a separate word for each'... is remiss, in the fact that motion is a natural condition, and time is a man made tool for measuring that condition. Motion is a verb, while time is more noun than verb.

With these exceptions, IMO, your post is well expressed and significantly clarifies several otherwise frequently misunderstood considerations. Thanks for the alternative perspectives - on D.A. Peel's posts as well.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie