Here it can be seen that ; 'curvature of spacetime' is the cause and 'curvature of space' is the effect .
So , space and spacetime are different .
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
Here it can be seen that ; 'curvature of spacetime' is the cause and 'curvature of space' is the effect .
So , space and spacetime are different .
When space and spacetime are compared by either separating them or putting them together, in any way intended to define one relative to the other, it is like walking on eggs shells.
When we describe space or spacetime with mathematical models, whether they are 3-D or 4-D, our descriptions take on very specific limits defined by the fundamental assumptions of the model. When we discuss the same space or spacetime conceptually, some of the specific nature of the mathematical model is lost along with some of the associated limitations. Mathematical models can be constructed to describe space, space and time and/or spacetime. Each, emphasizing some specific aspect of how we understand the dynamics of the universe, which includes both space and time. They are each valid mathematical models intended to address specific aspects of experience.
The Lense-Thirring effect is a prediction that follows from the 4-D spacetime of GR. In that sense, it is difficult to separate time and space and still understand the effect. My earlier description was focusing on the physical interaction which includes change and therefore includes time. We have confirmed that an object's angular momentum does in fact result in frame dragging involving space, dynamically. Time is involved, because frame dragging requires change, the motion of an object in space.
I was not making any comment on the relationship between space and spacetime. They are descriptions of the same thing, our observation and experience, from the context of different perspectives. Both have their place and own potential to emphasize different aspects of our experience.
This was a long winded way of attempting to say that I don't see any difference in what each.., space, space and time and spacetime, are describing, apart from the unique perspective that each implies.
Spin of our earth causes frame-dragging at the outer space . But spin of our earth, does not cause frame dragging to the space, which is within the gravity field of our earth . So, space within the gravity field can be considered as static with relative to our earth . A mass which is static relative to our earth, is at rest with the earth's space . This mass at rest relative to the earth's space , will not cause any frame-dragging but will cause curvature of spacetime ; as it is subject to the gravity . So , this again proves that ; space and spacetime are different .
It can also suggest that there is a fuzzy connection between them. The bound, and the unbound versions of space, and time.
Hansda, the portion in bold above is problematic. Without clarifying what you mean by "gravity field" and any spacial limitations implied, you wind up with overlapping fields with conflicting influences and momentums. Does the Earth's gravity field extend to the moon or sun? And how does it interact with the gravity fields of other objects in space. How does this affect the frame dragging effect associated with the sun, moon and other planets?
The definition you present above seems more ridged than is possible when the gravitational influence of astronomical bodies overlap.
Can you explain further ? Space can be bound or unbound . But , how time is bound or unbound ? Time is , what moves us from past to present to future .
"Gravity-field" is the maximum distance from the cg/surface of our earth ; from where a mass will free-fall towards cg/surface of our earth ; beyond this distance the mass will escape into outer space .
Best ever question, what is time.
OK I say this. Time is associated with observation, observation is associated with the sense of reality springing from the virtual. For example, I see light, but my perception does not exactly exist in the real world. Yet a lot of real components are involved, like the eye and the brain. So the light emanated (?) into the real world from the virtual, excited my retina etc and a reverse emanation (?) took place in the interface between my brain and my mind, sending the perception into a completely virtual reality wherever that is and whateve that means.
And the light itself, when I try to study it, plays games with my mind, leading me to the conclusion that observation is affecting the outcome of my experiments, but I can't really understand observation because it is not only counterintuitive it's just too fringy to deal with.
BUT I can know this, or at least believe it: the thing I call a photon, the "corpuscle" of the "AEther" etc is travelling at light speed. This means for every non lightspeed critter such as me, it has no mass nor time. Time is eternal for the photon. One photon will traverse every possible trajectory to instatiate every possible light beam that ever was and ever will be.
So I would say that time is the action (?) that instantiates reality out of the virtual by "filling in" results for every photon trajectory that allows some causal connection to occur between the things we call particles ... well I'm slobbering here but, in conclusion I would say that I have imagined space time as an extrusion (think of a ball rolling from A to Z, integrate over time and you get a rod of length AZ, this is what I mean by extrusion) now the photon has forever to buzz all around this ball whenever it "needs" to to "create" (here I mean instantiate) the rod that it "sees" that we can't see because we're not photons (yet). So this is kind of related to what you guys are saying is it not?
OK I say this. Time is associated with observation, observation is associated with the sense of reality springing from the virtual. For example, I see light, but my perception does not exactly exist in the real world. Yet a lot of real components are involved, like the eye and the brain. So the light emanated (?) into the real world from the virtual, excited my retina etc and a reverse emanation (?) took place in the interface between my brain and my mind, sending the perception into a completely virtual reality wherever that is and whateve that means.
And the light itself, when I try to study it, plays games with my mind, leading me to the conclusion that observation is affecting the outcome of my experiments, but I can't really understand observation because it is not only counterintuitive it's just too fringy to deal with.
BUT I can know this, or at least believe it: the thing I call a photon, the "corpuscle" of the "AEther" etc is travelling at light speed. This means for every non lightspeed critter such as me, it has no mass nor time. Time is eternal for the photon. One photon will traverse every possible trajectory to instatiate every possible light beam that ever was and ever will be.
So I would say that time is the action (?) that instantiates reality out of the virtual by "filling in" results for every photon trajectory that allows some causal connection to occur between the things we call particles ... well I'm slobbering here but, in conclusion I would say that I have imagined space time as an extrusion (think of a ball rolling from A to Z, integrate over time and you get a rod of length AZ, this is what I mean by extrusion) now the photon has forever to buzz all around this ball whenever it "needs" to to "create" (here I mean instantiate) the rod that it "sees" that we can't see because we're not photons (yet). So this is kind of related to what you guys are saying is it not?
Time is relative to a moving body. The body can move in any direction, time will then bond to this direction. When it comes to spin, the bond becomes a rotational vector. When it comes to spin drag, a rotational vector gradually becomes less bonded over distance. Past, present, and future are included in formulas using maths, but English words that don't mean the same thing. When you look at the path of a moving body, that path was always in the present, but in maths it is based on time. But there is another way to talk about time, and that is Cause, and Effect. If we go back to the maths, each stage of the moving body is creating a new cause followed by a new effect. If we now remove past, present, and future, we have Cause(1) + Cause(2) = Effect(1), cause(2) + Cause(3) = Effect(2). Allow each one to exist in the present, but rewind back to Cause(1) instead.
This way TIME simply can be explained as " past + present = future " ; where every next moment , previous present becomes past and previous future becomes present .
It can cause the confusion that you are experiencing. Cause(1) need not include any other words to describe it. Rewind the Universe to Cause(1), and don't say "This happened in the past" just say "Cause(1) + Cause(2) created Effect(1), and it happened when they were local to one another."
Effect(1) is created by cause(1) and cause(2) .
But,
What created cause(1) and cause(2) ?
Locality creates cause, so before cause(1), particles were not local to one another. There was a gap between them.
Locality creates cause, so before cause(1) you could say that particles were not local to one another. There was a gap between them. You could then say that scale is relative so the particles scaled up, then they eventually overlapped, and cause, and effect began.
What is cause(1) ?
cause is the law arising from "moving" time as opposed to, say "stationary" time, e.g., photon time?
locality. If you imagine an bunch of none local particles, they cannot cause influence on anything else (forget action at a distance, because there is a bunch of invisible locality involved). In English, rewinding time is actually rewinding locality. I can either throw a ball if it is local, or do nothing to the ball if it is none local. Cause requires locality, time requires locality.
What do you mean by " moving time " and " stationary time " ?
What cause locality ?
Scale, which is a none time dependent factor. If something has scale it just exists. If it expands, it is merely soaking up energy in a static space. If it scales up to eventually have locality with another particle then cause can begin, and particles can now cause effects on other particles.