Motor Daddy's Ridiculous Box

[Uncle Pythagoras]

That location point (0,0,0) is the center of the light sphere. There is nothing there at that point after t=0, it is simply a point in space. The blue ring is an expanding light sphere. This is how 3D+Time works.

Oh 3D + Time = sphere. Ok. I should probably think about this.

 

[billvon]

Trolling is using intellectual dishonesty to get a rise out of other folks why wallowing in the attention you've attracted as you drive the discourse into irrelevant nonsense. Even if you don't have the intellect to evaluate you behavior you're still responsible for it.

Well, not quite. A troll uses any of several methods to get attention. For example, a troll on a skydiving forum might ask "but don't most people who skydive die?" because he enjoys the attention (and replies) such a question will generate. No intellectual dishonesty required; just a knowledge of which buttons to push. (And MotorDaddy has developed quite a good knowledge in that area.)

 

[Motor Daddy]

Oh 3D + Time = sphere. Ok. I see. If time was quantized would that make a difference to the sphere?

Explain what you mean by, "if time was quantized?"

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Explain what you mean by, "if time was quantized?"

I don't use time like a sphere. But it might not make a difference, I need to think about it. But it is very interesting anyway.

 

[rpenner]

It's very disingenuous to go after someone for what they said on page 40 of a .999... thread.

Actually, I was attempting to prevent Motor Daddy from derailing the thread where starting on page 50, [post=3165437]post #987[/post] he posts three off-topic posts, followed by an exchange with Baldeee in posts #988 and #989, #991 and #993, #994 and #995. Since the unrelated diagram was causing the discussion to go off topic, I spawned a new thread with my response to Motor Daddy's original #987. Rather than be censorious, I found a more legitimate place for Motor Daddy to air his speculations on the nature of space, time and motion.

any such thread is by definition for entertainment purposes only.

Some would say education.

Mr. rpenner could have picked any one of hundreds of other posts in that thread to attack.

This statement ignores that Motor Daddy invited discussion of his diagram.

Secondly, for one poster to be applauded or encouraged for starting a thread specifically intended to demean another poster, reflects badly on this website.

I was critiquing Motor Daddy's diagram as it purported to be a demonstration of absolute motion. Motor Daddy himself "applauded" my thread on a topic he "encouraged" and thus you are saying Motor Daddy's behavior of thanking me for following up on a topic he wishes discussed "reflects badly on this website." -- Indeed, parsing the metonymy, you appear to be complaining that Motor Daddy's behavior reflects poorly on himself, while I restrict my criticism to Motor Daddy's argument.

He confines his posts to one specific thread

Historically, as links in this thread show, that has not been the case.

that we all agree is for entertainment purposes.

We do not all agree that is its sole purpose.

Therefore what he says is as legitimate as any other poster on this forum, even if his arguments lack mathematical sophistication.

Not all opinions are equally valid. I reject your premise, because I believe people should be required to have an informed opinion before expressing an opinion with legitimacy. But in the restricted sense that Motor Daddy for the most part posts his honest misunderstandings of settled areas of mathematical and physical thought, his expressed opinions are legitimate if not worthy of adopting.

quantization in physics

But not all quantities have evidence of being quantized. Take length for example. Length is unlikely to ever be demonstrated as being quantized because length is not Lorentz-invariant. What is quantized is not length or momentum, but the product of the two with units of action.

And thirdly, Mr. rpenner has in that same aforementioned thread, and very recently, totally misconstrued and distorted something that I wrote.

The solution to that is more speech in that particular thread.

I'm one of the mathematically literate and relatively sane people posting on that thread

Perhaps [post=3165301]post #953[/post] was painful for you to respond to then.

he's a very nasty attack troll.

I disagree and think you lack foundation for this claim. You say "attack", I say "critique." You say "nasty", I say "difficult to refute." You say "troll", I say "motivated to present strong arguments."

I say rpenner should be censured, not applauded

And I say I should be granted Moderator and Admin rights on this forum to use as capriciously as I so choose. Your feelings got hurt and you want to wield your outrage like a torch and burn the world -- I understand -- I was 17 once upon a time, also. But self-serving statements of opinion lack legitimacy as the best course of action.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

In my scenario, I am showing you how distance and time are measured. There is no difference in ANY situation you can think of. This method is not pieced together, it is 100% absolute pinpoint accuracy at every possible scale of the infinite space that we reside in. This is not a theory, it is a fact!

I'm still thinking about it. Oh I had the box moving the wrong way.. doh.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

I'm going to program it, because I need to practice my programming anyway. For light speed I use a set distance in a chain of sphere. I try to copy the quantum physics, so instead of maths I use 3D models. I presume that spacetime is a grain structure, and that photons are part of that grain structure, so I just thought... copy nature. My photons are huge because that gives them a high speed in my slow computer. I didn't add all of the quantum physics to this test. I will just keep it simple.

 

[origin]

I try to copy the quantum physics, so instead of maths I use 3D models. I presume that spacetime is a grain structure, and that photons are part of that grain structure, so I just thought... copy nature.

Making assumptions and then making a drawing of those assumption is not even close to science.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Making assumptions and then making a drawing of those assumption is not even close to science.

It's not a drawing, it's a computer program. The images have coordinates, and coordinates can be used for speed. A set distance of photons, is a fixed speed of C. You light one up at a time like a Christmas tree, and you have a fixed speed... a strobe light. Then you move the box, and the mirror, and the sensor, and you check the coordinates, and get the results from those coordinates. It's not all assumption, it is taken from action at a distance. Photons move through points, my model moves through points. I use models for maths, because then you are not trying to force a result to happen.

 

[rpenner]

In a certain rest frame, we have a right cuboid box moving in the +x direction with velocity v. As measured in the rest frame the box has one axis aligned with the x axis and of length A and the other axes aligned with the Y and Z axes and of identical length B. At one point the center of the box coincides with the center of our coordinate system and a flash of light is emitted and bounces off a mirror at the leading edge of the box and returns to the center of the box. Also it hits a detector at the center of one of the faces parallel to the direction of the movement.

Question 1. Describe all events in the rest frame if the event where the center of the box coincides with the center of coordinate system is labeled as (T, 0, 0, 0).

Event O -- The light leaves the center of the cube

$$ O = (T, 0, 0, 0)$$​

Event D -- the light hits the detector in the center of a face parallel to the direction of movement.

$$ D = \left(T + \frac{B}{2} \times \frac{1}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}} , \quad \frac{B}{2} \times \frac{v}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}}, \quad 0, \quad \frac{B}{2} \right)$$​

Event M -- the light bounces off the mirror in the leading direction

$$M= \left(T + \frac{A}{2} \times \frac{1}{c - v} , \quad \frac{A}{2} \times \frac{c}{c - v}, \quad 0, \quad 0 \right)$$​

Event R -- the bounced light returns to the center of the moving cube

$$R = \left(T + \frac{c A}{c^2 - v^2} , \quad \frac{c A v}{c^2 - v^2}, \quad 0, \quad 0 \right)$$​

But none of these calculations relate to Special Relativity which is the assertion that all inertial coordinate systems are valid descriptions of the same physics and that the speed of light is the same for all directions in all inertial coordinate systems.

The theory of special relativity says the relations between these events have a geometry.

Question 2. What are all the geometric constraints (according to the theory of special relativity) on these four events.

Here we compute $$\eta_{\mu\nu} a^{\mu} b^{\nu} = c^2 a^t b^t - a^x b^x - a^y b^y - a^z b^z$$ which are the invariants that are preserved by the Lorentz transform.

$$\begin{array}{rcl|cl}
( D - O ) & \cdot & ( D - O ) & 0 & D-O \; \textrm{is light-like}
( D - O ) & \cdot & ( M - O ) & \frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( D - O ) & \cdot & ( R - O ) & \frac{A B}{2 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( D - O ) & \cdot & ( M - D ) & \frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( D - O ) & \cdot & ( R - D ) & \frac{A B}{2 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( D - O ) & \cdot & ( R - M ) & \frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

( M - O ) & \cdot & ( M - O ) & 0 & M-O \; \textrm{is light-like}
( M - O ) & \cdot & ( R - O ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) }
( M - O ) & \cdot & ( M - D ) & - \frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( M - O ) & \cdot & ( R - D ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) } - \frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( M - O ) & \cdot & ( R - M ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) }

( R - O ) & \cdot & ( R - O ) & \frac{A^2}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} & R-O \; \textrm{is time-like with a proper time of} \; \frac{A}{c \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( R - O ) & \cdot & ( M - D ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) } -\frac{A B}{2 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( R - O ) & \cdot & ( R - D ) & \frac{A^2}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} - \frac{AB}{2 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( R - O ) & \cdot & ( R - M ) & \frac{A^2}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}

( M - D ) & \cdot & ( M - D ) & - \frac{A B}{2 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & M - D \; \textrm{is time-like with a proper spatial separation of} \; \frac{\sqrt{A B}}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt[4]{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( M - D ) & \cdot & ( R - D ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) } -\frac{3 A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
( M - D ) & \cdot & ( R - M ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) } -\frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

( R - D ) & \cdot & ( R - D ) & \frac{A^2}{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } -\frac{A B}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} & R - D \; \textrm{is light-like if} \; v = \pm \sqrt{1 - \frac{A^2}{B^2}} c
( R - D ) & \cdot & ( R - M ) & \frac{A^2}{2 \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) } -\frac{A B}{4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

( R - M ) & \cdot & ( R - M ) & 0 & R-M \; \textrm{is light-like}
\end{array}$$

That would be an error prone calculation to say the least, unless you exploit symmetry and the bilinearity of the inner product.

$$\begin{array}{c|cccccc} \cdot & D-O & M-O & R-O & M-D & R-D & R-M \\ \hline
D-O & 0 & \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B
M-O & \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & 0 & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A)^2 & - \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right) & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A)^2
R-O & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A)^2 & (\gamma A)^2 & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) ( \gamma A - B ) & (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right) & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A)^2
M-D & \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & - \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) ( \gamma A - B ) & - \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{3}{2} B \right) & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right)
R-D & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right) & (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right) & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{3}{2} B \right) & (\gamma A) ( \gamma A - B ) & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right)
R-M & \frac{1}{4} (\gamma A) B & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A)^2 & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A)^2 & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right) & \frac{1}{2} (\gamma A) \left( \gamma A - \frac{1}{2} B \right) & 0
\end{array}$$
Here -- in every case the quantity A is associated with a factor $$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$ which is related to the fact than in the rest frame of the cuboid (as reached by a Lorentz transform) the cuboid is longer in the X direction than when moving at velocity v.

 

[origin]

It's not a drawing, it's a computer program.

Fine.

I'm going to program it, because I need to practice my programming anyway. For light speed I use a set distance in a chain of sphere. I try to copy the quantum physics, so instead of maths I use 3D models.

A program that does not incorporate the maths is little more than a drawing. You cannot learn anything from a computer program makes a 3d drawing based on assumptions instead of using math, it is meaningless.

I presume that spacetime is a grain structure, and that photons are part of that grain structure, so I just thought... copy nature.

So you are making a program that will produce a 3D picture based on your PRESUMPTIONS about space time. That is nice, but then it is only an illustration of what you think, which may or may not have any relation to reality. If that is your goal then fine. If you are trying to prove something you are going about it the wrong way. You HAVE to use math.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Fine.



A program that does not incorporate the maths is little more than a drawing. You cannot learn anything from a computer program makes a 3d drawing based on assumptions instead of using math, it is meaningless.



So you are making a program that will produce a 3D picture based on your PRESUMPTIONS about space time. That is nice, but then it is only an illustration of what you think, which may or may not have any relation to reality. If that is your goal then fine. If you are trying to prove something you are going about it the wrong way. You HAVE to use math.

The Universe doesn't use math, Maths are just a substitute. My program is a substitute. But anyway my tests are getting computer slowdown from somewhere. I need to see if I can fix it.

 

[origin]

The Universe doesn't use math, Maths are just a substitute. My program is a substitute. But anyway my tests are getting computer slowdown from somewhere. I need to see if I can fix it.

Math is a way to describe the universe and can be used to predict future outcomes. A computer program that uses that math can be a powerful tool to make models such as weather forcaste models. A program that is not based on the mathematical descriptions of a phemomena being investigated will tell you nothing about the phemonena. Good luck on fixing your program, what language are you using?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Math is a way to describe the universe and can be used to predict future outcomes.

So math describes reality now? I thought math was a self reliant system that doesn't pertain to physical realities? It's own proof is internal, right? The rules of math pertain to math, not physics.

 

[origin]

So math describes reality now? I thought math was a self reliant system that doesn't pertain to physical realities?

If I have to drive 100 miles on the expressway I can use math to estimate how long I will be driving. That use of math seems to reflect a physical reality.

 

[Motor Daddy]

If I have to drive 100 miles on the expressway I can use math to estimate how long I will be driving. That use of math seems to reflect a physical reality.

If .999...=1, then you can't ever drive 1 mile, you are always trying to get past the 0.999... marker, but suffer infinite miserable failure.

Don't make me go get all the quotes from math people that say math doesn't pertain to the real world, it has it's own rules.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

If I have to drive 100 miles on the expressway I can use math to estimate how long I will be driving. That use of math seems to reflect a physical reality.

You can do that with a computer program too. Just set a car driving down the same route. If you had it all fixed to a gps for everyone you could see all of the other cars too.

 

[origin]

If .999...=1, then you can't ever drive 1 mile, you are always trying to get past the 0.999... marker, but suffer infinite miserable failure.

Don't make me go get all the quotes from math people that say math doesn't pertain to the real world, it has it's own rules.

Well, like I said I can use math to figure out how long I would be driving, but apparently you would not have any idea how long it would take.:shrug:

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Ok so my computer can't keep up with the speed. I give up. I get this...

What is the problem that MotorDaddy is seeing anyway?

 

[rpenner]

Math is a way to describe the universe and can be used to predict future outcomes.

So math describes reality now?

Math is very good at describing reality. Science is about making precision predictions of the behavior of reality and "precision" means agreement within small numerical tolerances.

I thought math was a self reliant system that doesn't pertain to physical realities? It's own proof is internal, right?

Math is not predicated on reality. Physics is about creating the best model of reality, and certain mathematical models of reality have shown to be spectacularly precise at predicting all observed phenomena within their applicable domain. The success of math in the field of physics is the topic of this 1960 essay by Eugene Wigner "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."

The rules of math pertain to math, not physics.

This is a peculiar position to take from the author of

When you care to discuss math and physics with me again, then it will be your analysis of this.

where "this" is a diagram which has been marked up with a lot of numerical quantities.

If I have to drive 100 miles on the expressway I can use math to estimate how long I will be driving. That use of math seems to reflect a physical reality.

If .999...=1, then you can't ever drive 1 mile, you are always trying to get past the 0.999... marker, but suffer infinite miserable failure.
Don't make me go get all the quotes from math people that say math doesn't pertain to the real world, it has it's own rules.

Math is all about the consequence of certain rules, reality appears to be governed by rules, so to the extent that reality follows logically consistent rules then if we guess those rules correctly math will allow us to predict the behavior of reality. As a practical matter it has been the historical case (over 350 years) that guessing the rules wrongly can still lead to very good predictions where for most of the time only precision experiments or examination of extreme events can demonstrate that rules of reality and the wrong rules of the model that we implemented do not lead to identical outcomes. This is why Newtonian Universal Gravitation was so successful to the extent of allowing travel to the moon. Nevertheless we now know of phenomena in reality which are good at showing that UG is not precise at describing the behavior of reality and we have replaced UG with Einstein's General Relativity for that reason.

It is only in the comparison of math predictions with precision observations of reality that one can know if one is using appropriate math to describe reality.

Euclidean 2-D geometry follows certain rules that apply approximately (within certain tolerances) to small plowed fields and to flat blackboards and pieces of paper. But the surface of the Earth deviates from the assumptions of Euclidean 2-D geometry at some scales in ways that are both irregular (grains of dirt, ridges in a field, hills and valleys) and regular (curvature of the Earth). So Euclidean 2-D geometry has limited applicability to modeling reality. But within the applicable domain it is a very precise model of the geometry of reality.