Hi Nathan,

How are you? Thanks for reading my essay. I am always impressed when people mail me about my essay on Time, because it is intriguing how it manages to get found within the bowels of the yahoo directory :)

Please find my replies imbedded in your text. I will precede my sections with double asterisks **. Cheers, Joe Hanink

-----Original Message----- From: Nathan Cross To: jhanink@usa.net Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 1:47 AM Subject: comments on Time...

>hi. my name is nathan cross. just got done reading your explanation on >time. > > >first off, i would have to disagree with your reasoning regarding time >dilation. > >the model you used of a space ship racing off from earth at X velocity >with a string attached and a spool on earth, had as many un-answered >questions as the theory of time dilation itself... or for that matter >quantum theories.

** Yes indeed. The whole notion of a large spool of thread would pose quite a problem in itself. However, the 'thought experiment' might be yet be useful. When Einstein was making his argument for the Principle of Equivalence, he asked us to imagine a person in an elevator falling from outer space. He admitted that it was unlikely that this would/could be done in practice, but as a thought experiment, he considered it a valid form of argument in discussing and presenting his ideas...

> >i do respect your thought and insight, just have some problems with your >reasoning. > >If I remember correctly, you stated the apparant paradox of having two >different times of when the spool runs out on earth depending on the >reference position. >I think the point described in the relation of length contraction and >time dilation stems from their strict relations with eachother. The >apparent length contraction in the vector of motion is merely observed >because that of the observer traveling the great speed has his time >slown down in relation to that of the outside universe as it appears to >himself.

** There is actually a dispute among scientists regarding this matter; i.e., whether Time Dilation, Length Contraction, and Mass Increase are real or merely observed/measured. Some theoretical astrophysicists say it is real, others say only in measurement. Yet others say that it can't be known. And still others say it is not in the realm of science to speak of the "reality" of a think apart from its measurability, e.g., physical science cannot really prove/disprove that i have a mind of my own...

>If you stand back and look at the big picture of a space craft >traveling at say... 9998 c; you would notice the time relative to the >space traveler is running much slower than the outside universe relative >to him. Therefore, from his prospective, the distance he is traveling >becomes contracted due to the fact that for every 1sec he is traveling >300,000m, he is really traveling 600,000m because 1sec to him is 2sec >outside his reference posistion. Therefore, what would normally seem as >1 lightyear to him at rest position, he forsees as .5 lightyears >distance.

** All the effects of Relativity, as mentioned, depend critically on the basic assumption that the measured speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. I propose that I can devise a model of space/time/gravity/energy that does not utilize this notion. Copernicus led us to the heliocentric theory, yet the Ptolemaic model was mathematically correct. Copernicus' model was merely more plausible. Strangely enough, the physics of today is highly implausible, despite it's adequacy for prediction. I believe that the convention used today (that the speed of light is constant) is merely a convenience, since we do in fact measure light the way we do. It is a bit curious that people can really believe that space and time can morph, and that biological processes as well as mental processes can be affected merely by relative motion. Since it is motion, and not only fast motion that would cause time dilation, my 'rate of time' would be constantly changing, relative to some universal clock as well as relative to everything else in the universe, which has it's own private time, which is also in flux. Indeed, i could never say that i was experiencing 'time of a specific speed' but rather only 'time with a rate relative to x,y, or z' And of what use is that? I can't accept that philosophically, since there is no good reason to believe that an insubstantial and empty space can be modified merely by the objects that move through it. To view space as some 3D lattice of 'fabric' is to confuse empty space with the mathematical models of gravity waves.

>if i may go further... > >To make the model work in such a way as to disprove his actual distance >traveled versus his apparent distance traveled, you would "have" to take >into account from what frame of reference you are measuring. Just >because he experienced less time on his trip to accomplish the same >distance as observed by someone at rest does not contradict or create a >paradox. One has to remember that in special relativity we are talking >about a "distortion" of time/space continuum.

** Yes, time and space are continuous, yet continuity permits of no compression. Furthermore, Quantum Mechanics says that energy is quantized. Therefore, potential energy is quantized. Therefore, since PE = mgh, an object moving along the path of a swinging pendulum could only have 'quantized positions,' implying that space is quantized and not continuous. Of course, time enters the equation as well. What to make of that?

> >maybe i'm not fully understanding your model, and if that's the case, >please inform me... ; ) > >the way i understand time dilation, length contraction and the apparent >increase in mass, is just that.. apparent.

** see above, re differences in the scientific community's position on this matter.

>These 3 occurances, given that they defy general relativity, do not defy >special relativity. The bench mark for special relativity is the >velocity of light.

** as it turns out, the belief that the velocity of light is a constant started out as an "assumption" made by Albert Einstein. He made three assumptions when beginning his study of Relativity. And that was one of them. From that starting point, he drew other things into the equation, but everything else relied on that assumption. It seems that the Galileian physical model could be used as well, if it were modified slightly. This would then permit us to preserve the basic intuitive notion of absolute time and space and still predict things correctly. If we assume that space and time are 'constant' then light is relative. If Einstein promoted relativity, then what's wrong with approaching this problem from the other end? :)

>The way i view time is this... > >if you were a photon and were in a light beam, your frame of reference >out looking the universe would be uni dimensional. Your traverse "time" >would be instantaneous! therefore when we observe light as velocity, it >is a constant... why? because time moves at the speed of light. time is >relative to velocity.(only from external frame of reference). Light is >pure energy and has no mass... here we have a magnetic field inducing an >electrostatic field and vise versa. Its velocity moving on the fabric of >space/time. It is a constant in any and every frame of reference. If you >presuppose that space/time is synonymous with a ruler and that the >spatial distance cannot compress, that is quite an assumption. Your >assuming velocity and gravity do not affect space and time.

** it is very difficult to speak of time as "moving." We end up with problems as discussed in my essay, such as how to 'time' time itself. Space is not made of marshmallows that can be sqeezed to take up less volume. Space is that volume in which events occur. If it is 'allowed' to be malleable, then really anything could happen. We open the Pandora's box, and out springs Relativity :)

> >Here is how I see it... Space is nothing and has nothing like you >stated. However it supports the dimension to allow something to occupy >its space. Likewise the opposite of nothing is something. ie. space & >mass.. what force does mass have? ... gravity...

** If Space is nothing, then it is not a 'fabric' that can be mutated... Furthermore, the opposite of nothing is fullness, or plenum. Space is empty yet full, oddly enough. It is full of emptiness. Those objects that reside in space, are merely there. Objects can act on objects. How can objects act on space... on nothingness?

> >The same is true with time... Time is nothing and does not exist outside >of motion. i.e.. time & motion... what is the ultimate force of >motion?... velocity of light. (because it dictates the existence of >time... something like a benchmark; constant).

** to view c as a constant/benchmark is merely a convention. the mathematical models are simplified by it. And the physical model is based on the mathematical one. To then translate that code into a perception of the reality of the universe is not philosophically sound when the results are inconsonant with our other powers of reasoning.

> >So if we have something that occupies space and motion that dictates >time, we have space/time dimension. >Now suppose we were to reach the velocity of light, or become extremely >close to its speed. Do you see the effect of how this benchmark of time >now becomes distorted? The very fabric we are traveling on that supports >mass and motion, we are defying! Therefore the dimension becomes >contracted and approaching uni dimensionality. The same is true for >gravity.

** I think therefore i am, said Descartes. In such a statement, he says that he exists, yet does not mention his body nor anything else physical. But to think is an action... one that requires time. Time is the precondition of change, not merely 'change in space' (aka physical motion). Indeed, that it is a precondition doesn't imply that it only exists when there is change, merely that if there is change, then there indeed is time.

> >Mass, the substance that occupies space.. It too has an affect on >space/time... how? with gravity! gravitation, which is directly related >to mass (which occupies space) has an effect on the fabric as well! How >could it not? We see it nowadays in gravitational lensing.

** gravity and mass are intrinsically related. But i see not how that implies a direct connection to the issue of Time. Gravity affects objects in space, but not necessarily space itself. Curved space/time and gravitational attractors are represented well with non-Euclidean geometry, but it is a mathematical description of effects and fields. those fields also exist in space, but are not space itself, for space is nothing.

> >Having made those distinctions, (philosophically) I find it quite >apparent that if gravity noticeably has an effect on space/time, why >wouldn't it's counterpart? ...velocity/motion. > >anyway, i think you see where i am coming from. I just happen to believe >that our dimension of space and time is directly affected by its >counterparts; mass and motion. > >Thanks for listening to my craziness. :) feel free to comment... God >bless

** God bless you too. You are very thoughtful and though-provoking person. Take Care. -- Joe

> >-nåte > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

• Re: Joe Hanink's response back to me... - Jimmy_Smith/">Jimmy Smith - November 16, 1998 - 06:32 UTC