clark (clark@netsites.net)
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 05:08:30 +0100
----------
> From: Magnus Berg <qmgb@bull.se>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: Principles
> Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 5:45 AM
>
> Hi Anthony
>
> Ant McWatt wrote:
> > Glad you liked all the Pirsig stuff. I think your comment
> > that velocity is even a more complicated concept than time
> > is correct (so I won't be telling my MOQ opponent Eric
> > about this just yet!) If you could explain why an absolute
> > speed of light "hardwires" space and time together that
> > would be helpful (I guess it has something to do with
> > general relativity but I'm not sure of the exact
> > relationships here).
>
> Std disclaimer:
> Relativity is by no means native to me so don't take this
> too literal.
>
> Check the formula for speed, v = s/t (velocity equals stretch
> divided by time). At relativistic speeds, s and t are affected,
> but they are affected equally much so that v is kept constant.
> Well, constant is maybe the wrong term. It's rather the only
> variable in the equation we are able to control.
>
> By setting c as the absolute constant v at which light travels,
> you have determined (hardwired) the relationship between s and t.
>
> > Maybe the speed of light isn't an
> > absolute as previously thought and I'd definitely go along
> > with Bodvar's extension (of Pirsig's comment on time) that
> > everything that is an abstraction such as velocity or space
> > is a STATIC intellectual pattern of value trying to explain
> > (or predict) aspects of reality.
>
> I'd say that these abstractions are intellectual SPoVs enabling
> us to make an internal universe modeling the inorganic SPoVs
> of our external universe. It's almost what you just said, I'm
> just trying to avoid the word "reality". It seems to mean a lot
> of different things to different people.
>
> I spent some time on the web yesterday and actually found
> references to what they called "absolute time" or "background
> Newtonian time". This time would replace the absoluteness of c
> and he discusses what other consequences this brings. I can't
> judge the scientific value of the theory, but you might want
> to take a look.
>
> http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/space-time.html
>
> Magnus
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Hi Anthony and Magnus and LS,
As with most everybody else I don't know anything for sure but I thought
maybe a few ideas I have picked up over the years might give a toehold for
further extension.
As I remember Maxwell's concepts, electromagnetic radiation (including
light) travels in a series of clicks perpendicular to each other thus:
--|--|--|--| (click,click,click,click, and so forth). One of these
dimensions is the electrostatic field and the other is the electromagnetic
field. The shorter the fields the quicker the clicks and the longer the
fields the slower the clicks. thus, the wavelength (where you tune your
radio dial) varies the frequency of the clicks. The result is that
wavelength (stretch) governs the number of clicks per second but the time
between clicks is variable with stretch with the result that
electromagnetic fields always cover the same distance in equal times. This
is true for an observer who is immobile in space (no such thing).
When Michelson and Morley performed their experiment proving that light
traveled at the same speed regardless of the motion of the observer what
they were demonstrating was Magnus's stretch. Travelling toward a light
source less stretch, quicker clicks, same speed. Travelling away from a
light source more stretch, slower clicks, same speed. This results in the
red shift that allows us to get a handle on the age of the universe. Also
shows us that the universe is expanding. Also, if we are travelling
perpendicular to a light source the path to that light source will be
curved because of our speed since electromagnetic radiation is the only
means of communication at stellar distances.
Starting with the presumed Big Bang, the original naked singularity (?)
must have been pure energy. The universe resulted from the original
singularity so the universe must be composed of nothing but energy in
different forms.
Einstein postulated, and this has been borne out by experiment, that
gravity affects energy, that is, gravity affects light and presumably all
other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Matter is energy that has
been confined to movement that is mostly internal to the atom but also to
movement within narrow confines within a locality depending on heat
content. At absolute zero that is why matter does interesting things like
running up hill. (Does gravity not operate at absolute zero?) Also,
molecular motion is supposed to be stopped at absolute zero. Gravity is
said to be due to the action of the graviton, which is a particle (bundle
of energy) that is so massive that we do not have the machines on Earth to
reproduce it. No one can say, Eureka, I have found gravity.
The barest statement that I can make is that the universe results from
the action of gravity on energy. The whole concept functions together in a
single system which results in the spherical (curved) universe that we
experience today. We are contained in that universe and
are subject to all of its laws of operation. We cannot stand outside of it
to observe it in isolation.
To my mind the big mystery here is the action of gravity. If gravity is
reduced or eliminated at absolute zero (no heat at all) then it seems to me
that the graviton concept is probably correct and that the whole universe
is nothing but energy.
We know that we can take wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that
are the same or very close and use them to cancel each other or to augment
each other, or any degree in between. Does very dissimilar wavelengths, a
very long wavelength like the massive graviton, act on shorter wavelengths
to produce the results that we see today? Does the graviton wavelength,
instead of canceling, simply bend shorter wavelengths?
Describe gravity to me and I think we will have a pretty good handle on
the whole thing. I hope this gives you some ideas for further speculation.
Ken Clark
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:40 CEST