tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 14 12:56:05 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: {'evnagh} (was Re: KLBC: logh veQ)

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:51:34 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ja' charghwI':
> >pe'vIl maQoch. bImujbej. "space-time" DellaHbe' Quv. 'ay'Hom
> >machqu' 'oH Quv. poH qelbe'.
> 
> logh poH je Del "space-time" Quv.  wanI' ngu'chu'.
> cha'maH wa' vatlh rep nImbuS wejDaq megh vISop.
> ghorgh qaS?  nuqDaq qaS?  jang "space-time" Quv.

poH mIch Daqelbe'ba'.
 
> >*Relativity* Dayajbe'bej. potlhqu' Do.
> 
> ghobe'.  "Einsteinian Special Relativity" vIyajchu'.  ram Do.
> *is relative*bej Do.  vIHlaH bejwI'.  vIHbe'laH bejwI'.
> chungbe'chugh bejwI',  vIHbe' 'e' wuqlaH.  potlhbe'qu' Do.

qarbe'. *Einsteinian Special Relativity" Dayajchu' 'e' DaHar, 
'ach DayajHa'ba'. potlhchu' Do. ram chungtaHghach. nom vIHmeH 
chunglu'pu' vaj potlh chungpu'ghach, 'ach Do potlh law' Do choH 
potlh puS.

> > Doch poH choHbej Doch
> >Do. potlhchugh Do vaj potlhba' vIHtaHghach. Quv juv 'Iv? chay'
> >vIH juvwI'? *space-time* Quv pIm tu' juvwI' pIm. wanI' veH
> >DayajnIS.
> 
> "event horizon" 'oSlaw' <wanI' veH>.  qechvamvaD luj mu'vam.
> wanI' veHqoq ghaj luSpet.  "light cone" ghaj wanI'.

choyajHa'qa'. wanI' veH ghaj luSpet. wanI' veH ghaj Hoch. pIm 
wanI' veHmeyvam.

luSpet wanI' veH vIqel: luSpetDaq SumchoH Doch vaj luSpetvo' not 
cheghlaH Dochvam.

Dochmey le'be' wanI' veH vIqel: DaH wanI' Hopqu' vIleghlaHbe'. 
wanI'wIj veH Sum law' wanI'vetlh Sum puS. lengmeH *light* 
paSpu'DI' poH yap, wanI' vIleghlaH.

qaSbogh 'u'na' 'oHbe' 'u' vIleghlaHbogh. qaSbejbogh 'u'na' 
leghlaH pagh. 'u' pIm legh bejwI' pIm. pImlaw' chuq. pImlaw' poH.

> >Qochbe'meH Quvvammey Do qelnISlu'. reH vIHtaH Hoch.
> 
> Quv'e' juvbogh wa' SImmeH latlh, Do qelnIS.  juvmeH neH, ram Do.

not yuQvo' Damejchugh bIqar. reH SImnIS 'ejDo'. reH Do qelnIS.
 
> >> ...As soon as you start talking about
> >> motion, you have separated space and time.
> >
> >No. Motion is what connects space and time. Using the speed of
> >light as an arbitrary constant, you can measure distance in
> >terms of time and you can measure time in terms of distance.
> 
> potlh 'otlh Do.  potlh nuDlu'DI', Do nIb lujuv Hoch bejwI'pu'.
> le'qu' 'otlh.  reH wa' Do ghaj.  choHbe'chu'mo' Dovam, taQlaw'
> logh poH je.

jIQochbe' 'ach ngoDvam taQ QIjlaHbogh nger le''e' vIghaj.

Do nIb ghaj Hoch 'otlh leghlu'bogh. chaq Do pIm ghaj 'otlh 
leghbe'lu'bogh. 'otlh pIm legh bejwI' pIm.

> The speed of light is not an "arbitrary constant".  It is a *physical*
> constant, measured to be the same by all non-accelerating observers.

Accelleration has nothing to do with it. Nothing in Einstein's 
math or Lorenzo's math mentions accelleration.

> It is the constancy of the velocity of light that yields all of the
> nonintuitive features of time and space when dealing with velocities
> of other objects approaching that of light.

It does create paradoxes which Special Relativity fail to 
untangle. Of course, my own theory lacks that problem...
 
> >Without motion, you cannot connect the math that measures
> >location with the math that measures duration.
> 
> 'otlh yIqel.  'otlhvaD, vIH pagh'e'.  choHbe'taH 'otlh 'u'.

Now, you seem to be presenting an aether theory. There is a 
framework which is constant to all observers, you posit. But 
relativity states that all observers have equally valid 
perspectives. But then, one can only experience photons 
travelling directly to or from each observer. Those on 
tangential paths are not observable. So each observer's photon 
set is unique. That doesn't make them a very good framework for 
creating a common reference frame for all observers.

Einstein never addressed the issue of tangential photons. I 
posit that he also never addressed the issue of unique photon 
sets defined not only by angle, but also by speed. The key is 
velocity, the product of both speed and direction. This is 
motion, the key to any accurate model of the universe.
 
> >For simplicity and because it is functionally acceptable for us
> >here on Earth with no vast distances or high rates of motion,
> >we pretend that there are absolute measures of distance and
> >time. In truth, we measure the interval between two times and
> >the interval between two locations and our motion relative to
> >each other is small enough for us to agree on measurements.
> 
> chuq poH je tIwavHa'.  cha' wanI' tIbej.  "spacetime interval" rap
> lujuv Hoch bejwI'pu'.  vIHlu' 'e' yIbuSHa'.  mISmoH neH Do.

*Special Relativity* DayajHa'chu'.
 
> Combine the two.  Measure the distance between two events and the
> time between them, and treat the values as coordinates in a four-
> dimensional reality.  The length of the 4-vector is an "interval"
> which *everyone* agrees on.  Ignore motion.  Motion serves only to
> confuse the issue.

You assume that there is a stable framework which all observers 
can agree upon. This is directly opposed to Special Relativity. 
You cannot "ignore motion" and agree upon an "interval". 
Instead, all parties need to agree upon an arbitrary stable 
framework and calculate their own velocity relative to that 
framework and adjust their time and space measurements in order 
to agree with the arbitrary standard.

Just look at Mercury's orbit. Getting someone on Mercury to 
agree with someone on Earth on how long a Mercurial year takes, 
you need to get the two observers to choose some arbitrary 
common frame of reference. Otherwise, you are dealing with two 
different clocks and two different yardsticks and they don't 
agree. Mercury moves fast enough to slow down its clock and 
lengthen its yardstick. To our perspective, a Mercurial year 
takes longer and moves farther than it "should". On Mercury, it 
is shorter on both scales. This was the first example to 
validate Special Relativity.
 
> >When we enter the realm of cosmic distance and speed near or
> >exceeding light, it becomes impossible to measure time or
> >distance without adjusting for velocity relative to common
> >landmarks among those wishing to agree upon coordinates.
> 
> In order to transform between the coordinate systems of two observers
> one must account for both the distance between them and their relative
> motion.  But until you want to consider what the events you're watching
> look like from someone else's point of view, velocity is irrelevant.

I'm curious about your concept of "coordinates" independant from 
concern about how they look from someone else's point of view. 
Your simplicity is refreshing. Remind me to get directions to 
the next qep'a' from someone else, though...
  
> >Space-Time is motion. It simply is. We like to break these
> >things down into space and time because standing here on Earth,
> >our relative motion is so small between observers and the
> >obeserved that it is easier to measure distance with a ruler
> >than with a laser and a clock, but in a larger context,
> >everything is in motion (both on the cosmic and infinitessimal
> >levels) and the properties of each object's motion (both on the
> >cosmic and infinitessimal levels) define most of the properties
> >of the object.
> 
> Daj ngerlIj.  jum, 'ach Daj.
> 
> >The physical properties of water are quite different for a
> >person wading in it than for a person falling from an airplane
> >at 3,000 feet onto water with no chute. Relative motion is
> >important. Heat is motion. Life is motion. Being is motion. The
> >absence of motion is a human concept with no parallel in nature.
> 
> Look at the universe from the point of view of a photon.  There is
> no motion in a photon's universe.  

If you accept Einstein's math, there is no universe from a 
photon's perspective. Once you reach the speed of light, you 
divide by zero and everything disappears. If you believe that 
all photons move at one velocity and photons provide us with all 
evidence of matter with a distance greater than zero from an 
observer, then, for a photon, there are no photons to transmit 
evidence of that universe. It's out there, but you can't see it 
or otherwise experience it, except as a function of time. There 
is no distance.

> All events the photon encounters
> occur simultaneously.  There is no elapsed time on a photon's clock
> between its creation and its destruction.  Its existence occupies a
> single conceptual instant.

Well, that's the other way of looking at it. The point is that 
according to Relativity, the clock stops and the ruler becomes 
infinitely long when you hit the speed of a photon. This is an 
odd perspective to use as the stable framework from which you 
are to measure all things...
 
> >We can digitalize all our measurements, but the universe will
> >remain analog, contiguous and moving.
> 
> A quantum physicist would likely disagree with you. :-)  Until we
> can "digitize" gravity, we're nearly stalled in our understanding
> of the nature of the universe.

Perhaps it is because we are using the wrong tool...
 
> Measure the electrical charge of anything -- you'll get an integer
> multiple of the charge on a single electron.  No inbetween values.
> Measure the potential energy of an electron bound to a nucleus --
> it's not a continuous function.  It does not move from one value
> to the next, it *jumps*, effectively instantaneously, between one
> allowed value and another.

There may well be masses which exhibit these intermediate 
charges that are not observable from our persepective. It is our 
perspective which creates these integer leaps. Our limited 
ability to perceive does not imply that there are no properties 
of matter and energy that we cannot perceive.
 
> 'ach Hol wIbuSHa'choHta'.  "Relativity" vIqel DaH 'e' vImev.

qatlh mu' Qav qanob 'e' DapIH?
 
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI'

Back to archive top level