Riemann's Problems with curved space

EBTX,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>

Changes in Momentum ...

I agree that a stationary body cannot commence movement in response to a curved space alone. It requires the aforementioned "internal actions" to proceed appropriately.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Bent over, grab your heels, and pull. I think you will find that "internal actions" are insufficient to "commence movement" into the air no matter how hard you pull.


JR

JRich,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Bent over, grab your heels, and pull. I think you will find that "internal actions" are insufficient to "commence movement" into the air no matter how hard you pull.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Before becoming to absolute in yur thoughts perhaps you should review the following link.

While this Press Release doesn't address it the full paper, which they sent me goes into detail and say that they can use the device to change orbits.

www.sandia.gov/media/imbalance.htm

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />We postulate that particles have internal properties that cause them to perform "actions in place". That is, a particle jumps around within a confined volume, rotates on some axis or even disappears and reappears within that volume ... all in accordance with the uncertainty principle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Surely you are not proposing a violation of the causality principle? If not, then the uncertainty principle is irrelevant. We will someday see that in some cases, the photon used for observation clobbered the experiment and produced the "uncertainty". I other cases, we will discover that we were trying to determine simultaneously the position and momentum of a wave, not a particle, which is obviously impossible because it does not exist at a point, but has extent.

We all know that quantum physics has no viable physical models for its phenomena, and entertains singularities and even contradictions. But irrationality by others is no excuse here. The bottom line is that no particle "jumps around in place" without something external happening to it to make it jump. Anything less is unconstrained reasoning, of which the world has far too much now.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree that a stationary body cannot commence movement in response to a curved space alone. It requires the aforementioned "internal actions" to proceed appropriately.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In your mind, please explain the physical aspects of "curved space". Is space something (meaning material and tangible) or nothing physically? With either answer, what does it mean physically for space to curve?

Phrased differently, what is your opinion of Tesla's statement, circa 1932?<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[N. Tesla]: “I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. … Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Physics does not forbid the appearance of momentum so long as an equal and opposite momentum is produced ... which is the case here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a pretty amazing statement. You have merged the fields of math and physics into one with no distinction between them. In math, there are no physical constraints, so something can come from nothing. But in real physics, miracles are forbidden, so creation <i>ex nihilo</i> (such as what you described) is excluded. If physics, motion cannot commence unless an external force acts. So again, your example is not possible in physics, only in math.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Objects are mutually pulled toward one another with exactly cancelling momentums.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only in math, which ignores physical principles. In physics, when two equal masses collide head-on inelastically and merge, none of their original momentum goes away. It is all transferred into increased molecular motion (heat). It is impossible to create or destroy momentum in physics, but only to transfer it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If we say that they must invariably be "pushed", we have the counter-example of magnetic and electric phenomena which give no appearance of such everyday pushes (which underlie our expectation of finding them at all levels of physical inquiry).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Coincidentally, the forthcoming issue of the MRB has an article with a physical model for electricity and magnetism. Naturally, these also reduce to "push" forces because that is the only way any two material, tangible entities can ever interact -- directly or indirectly, by collision (a type of push).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Electromagnetism seemingly produces equal and opposite momentums out of nothing but no one regards this as magic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only the mathematicians regard photon pairs as coming "out of nothing". Physicists recognize that an event preceded the photons, one that sent out waves in opposite directions through the elysium. In physics, there are no miracles. -|Tom|-

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Bent over, grab your heels, and pull. I think you will find that "internal actions" are insufficient to "commence movement" into the air no matter how hard you pull.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Before becoming to absolute in yur thoughts perhaps you should review the following link.

While this Press Release doesn't address it the full paper, which they sent me goes into detail and say that they can use the device to change orbits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I've seen this and there is some skepticism that it will actually work (to change orbits). I haven't studied the problem enough to have an informed opinion, but my gut feeling is that it won't work. We will know soon enough. The device isn't actually creating momentum, it is simply borrowing it from the Earth through its interaction with the existing gravity field. In order for the orbital change to occur the momentum transfer must be permanent.

Of course, parts with cyclic movement are required to achieve this. Unless your physiology is somehow unique I'm not sure the requisite motion can be achieved by a human being in the position I described[]


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Surely you are not proposing a violation of the causality principle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes. Absolutely.

Anyone who proposes an ex nihilo universe must propose an acausal principle as the beginning of the observed causality. Whether it is all at once as in the big bang or ongoing as I do ... it is still the same thing.

Your position sidesteps the issue by saying that the problem of why anything exists at all (as opposed to nothing) is irrelevant. I regard this as "philosophical evasion". That is, we take the problem into that infamous "hall of mirrors" and just dump it ;o) I can't say that that is not the way to go ... but ... that's not for me. I prefer to accept a "godless miracle" of logic and work with that.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In your mind, please explain the physical aspects of "curved space". Is space something (meaning material and tangible) or nothing physically?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I imagine a particle as the center of a spherical reference frame. One could draw a sphere around that point and imagine another point doing its thing in response to that sphere. That's all. If you could examine it closely enough you would find nothing there ... same as your idea of MIs. If you look closely enough, there is nothing there but a "hall of mirrors" consisting of more smaller units which in turn cannot be apprehended by any means whatsoever.

In the end there is "nothing" here anyway. After all where would it come from? I regard existence as sort of an answer to the question "What if there were something? What would it look like?" Since we are embedded in that solution, we perceive it as real ... something like a movie on a reel already made. We are the actors in the movie.

I regard existence as a subset of mathematics ... absolutely NOT ... something separate from it. Our differences here are definitely irreconcilable. Not all of mathematics embodies itself as existence but all of existence is embodied by mathematics and its general form "geometry". My model is more abstract than yours ... though ... I started out exactly as you did in '62 ... with spheres and so forth ... trying to be completely physical and not abstract. I abandoned that a few years later. You didn't and went on to elaborate in much greater detail. You became a particle man and I became a field man ;o)

Here is a litmus question for you.

What is MM's answer to the dimensionality of space? Why three and not two or ten or 27,603 or 9.237118... ?
To me, any question which has obvious multiple alternatives should be answered so as to rule out those other alternatives leaving only one unique answer. If you say, "We needn't investigate because the universe has always been this way", I would regard such an answer as "philosophically evasive". Do you agree that any final answer should address this particular issue?

Tom and EBTX,

Given that argueing from physical principles seems pointless, do you have any insight into how we may determine which view, field or mechanistic, is the correct one? Or are the two positions fundamentally indistinguishable, differing only in interpretations of observations and choice of principles to enforce or eject?


JR