It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a
consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding
the nature of light, and of light's velocity.
Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light,
because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to
discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material
entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material
object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely,
leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace
behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light.
Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of
the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything
regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying
phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
Frank wrote:
> Mauro,
> I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
> spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
> could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
> spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
> cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
> its' initial spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
> Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
> cavity where my interpretation of "up conversion" is relativistic meaning
> space time is twisted making the longer vac flux "appear" faster from our
> perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
> inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
> limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
> energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
> contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
> expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
> confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
> point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
> to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
> necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
> travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
> - they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
> in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
> saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
> with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
> energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
> Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
> further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
> It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
> and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)
>
>
> Hi Frank
>
> Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
> physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
> even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
>
> This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
> Search the archive for "Zitter and ZPE" for an entertaining read.
>
> Mauro
>
> [snip]
>
> Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
> Mauro Lacy
> Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
>
> grok wrote:
>
>> As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar>
>> mounted the barricade and roared out:
>>
>>
>>> The problem with so called "time dimensions", is that they lack
>>> underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
>>> physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
>>> construction we call time, at the physical level.
>>>
>> 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
>> It is an
>>
>
> The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
> matter in space(whatever they are.)
>
>> emergent phenomenon. You start there.
>>
>
> You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
> necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
> 'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
> things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
> Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
>
>> To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
>> relation of matter
>> and space into something it is not.
>>
>
> You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
> of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
> by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
> something that hasn't.
>
>> -- grok.
>>
>
>
>
