Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: Multi Time Dimension?!
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Zephram Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane on November 27, 1999 06:14:34 UTC
: :Wayne :...Since motion is linear, time is linear
: ZC: Not all motion is linear.
: Wayne: Can you offer an example of nonlinear motion
Sure. A circular orbit.
: ZC: Motion need not be linear, and even if it was this need not follow.
: Wayne: Again, I seek an example.
Take one coordinate system to observe clocks in two others. In the your coordinate system the clocked are pushed against curved geodesics so that they stay at constant velocity in your coordinate system. Put mass along the path of one that varies in density along the path so that this clock runs slower, and slower, and slower along the linear path with respect to hoe the other clock runs. Time in this instance is not linear though the motion is.
: Wayne: :Without matter, and motion combined, there is nothing to change in the way of "relationships" among "physical" bodies. Time has one, and only one function. That is to describe some increment of change.
: ZC: Time needn't be restricted to this function.
: Wayne: What other practicle application can you think of
Another function of time is to complete the symmetric space-time structure that all laws of physics take whether or not they are directly related to matter motion.
: Wayne: :Since increments, by definition, are unchanging (an inch is always an inch & a second is always a second) time is fixed.
: ZC: This is simply not true. Time and distance intervals between events are relative, not absolute. A second between events for one observer's coordinate system is part time and part space between the events for another.
: Wayne: You speak as though "relativity" is a law. It is not. It is a theory. Kip Thorne takes this same approach in his book. To say: "This is simply not true." Is simply premature.
No its not. A law is something that is implied by a theory. Of course relativity is not a law. Relativity HAS laws. We can discuss the laws of relativity or gravitation or classical mechanics or quantum mechanics. Laws are theories inferences.
: Wayne: :In other words it won't warp or bend. If it warps it ain't time.
: ZC: Since your assumption that space and time intervals has long sense been proven to be a Newtonian error, this does not follow.
: Wayne: Again, there is no proof.
Yes there is. You just haven't received education of these proofs yet.
:That is why it is still called a theory. Assuming Newton made an error may be premature.
No its not.
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins