View Full Version : Is c unitless? Do meters=c*i*seconds?
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor? We already\ndefine meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn\'t we\ndefine meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is\nunitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don\'t see why\nwe couldn\'t make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical\nerror of thinking space and time are different.\n\nIn the special theory of relativity, a space-time distance d is\nmeasured by pythagorean theorem, d2 = x2 + y2 + z2 + (c * i * t)^2\nwhere x, y, and z are the first 3 dimensions of space-time and c*i*t is\nthe fourth dimension.\nTherefore a meter seems to be equaivalent (in at least the special\ntheory) to c*i*seconds. Therefore\nc*i appears to be the conversion factor from seconds to meters. Is c\njust a correction factor to the historical error of not allowing "i" in\nour units?\n\nTo say that the unitless speed of light is changing would then be more\nmeaningful (since physical constants with units are problematic in\nstudying changes). It would be saying that the relationship between\nthe i dimension of space-time is changing relative to the other 3\ndimensions.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor? We already
define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn't we
define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is
unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don't see why
we couldn't make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical
error of thinking space and time are different.
In the special theory of relativity, a space-time distance d is
measured by pythagorean theorem, d2 = x2 + y2 + z2 + (c * i * t)^2
where x, y, and z are the first 3 dimensions of space-time and c*i*t is
the fourth dimension.
Therefore a meter seems to be equaivalent (in at least the special
theory) to c*i*seconds. Therefore
c*i appears to be the conversion factor from seconds to meters. Is c
just a correction factor to the historical error of not allowing "i" in
our units?
To say that the unitless speed of light is changing would then be more
meaningful (since physical constants with units are problematic in
studying changes). It would be saying that the relationship between
the i dimension of space-time is changing relative to the other 3
dimensions.
Uncle Al
Dec16-04, 08:06 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>zawy wrote:\n>\n> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor?\n\n"Natural units," h=c=1. It\'s been done. Fancy-shmancy, too,\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units\n\n[snip coals to Newcastle.]\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>zawy wrote:
>
> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor?
"Natural units," h=c=1. It's been done. Fancy-shmancy, too,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
[snip coals to Newcastle.]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Strong_Field
Dec16-04, 08:07 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"zawy" <zawy@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:1103120975.870345.225430@z14g2000cwz .googlegroups.com...\n> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor? We already\n> define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn\'t we\n> define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is\n> unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don\'t see why\n> we couldn\'t make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical\n> error of thinking space and time are different.\n\nGood idea. But I believe it is debatable that there is a "historical\nerror of thinking space and time are different." Even if there were such\nan error, it has not been corrected yet. Think about it, at any given\ntime there are more physicists in the world differentiating with respect\nto time then differentiating with respect to spacetime. So at least\nnominally "time" was able to hold its ground and is still a favorite of\nphysicists.\n\nEven a theoretical contradiction such as this may be said to exist: in\nany given slice of spacetime, you could find a calculus novice trying to\nfigure out the ds/dt business. Indeed, in the real world time still\nexists separate from space, otherwise you couldn\'t write ds/dt.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"zawy" <zawy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103120975.870345.225430@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor? We already
> define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn't we
> define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is
> unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don't see why
> we couldn't make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical
> error of thinking space and time are different.
Good idea. But I believe it is debatable that there is a "historical
error of thinking space and time are different." Even if there were such
an error, it has not been corrected yet. Think about it, at any given
time there are more physicists in the world differentiating with respect
to time then differentiating with respect to spacetime. So at least
nominally "time" was able to hold its ground and is still a favorite of
physicists.
Even a theoretical contradiction such as this may be said to exist: in
any given slice of spacetime, you could find a calculus novice trying to
figure out the ds/dt business. Indeed, in the real world time still
exists separate from space, otherwise you couldn't write ds/dt.
J. J. Lodder
Dec16-04, 08:07 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>zawy <zawy@yahoo.com> wrote:\n\n> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor?\n\nYes, if you want.\n\n> We already\n> define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn\'t we\n> define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is\n> unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don\'t see why\n> we couldn\'t make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical\n> error of thinking space and time are different.\n\nWe wouldn\'t have a \'c\' (or metres) at all,\nif we could start all over again.\nBut ... backwards compatibility takes it\'s toll.\n\n> To say that the unitless speed of light is changing would then be more\n> meaningful (since physical constants with units are problematic in\n> studying changes). It would be saying that the relationship between\n> the i dimension of space-time is changing relative to the other 3\n> dimensions.\n\nIf c = 1 it can\'t change.\nThe unit of length will change instead,\n\nJan\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>zawy <zawy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor?
Yes, if you want.
> We already
> define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn't we
> define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is
> unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don't see why
> we couldn't make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical
> error of thinking space and time are different.
We wouldn't have a 'c' (or metres) at all,
if we could start all over again.
But ... backwards compatibility takes it's toll.
> To say that the unitless speed of light is changing would then be more
> meaningful (since physical constants with units are problematic in
> studying changes). It would be saying that the relationship between
> the i dimension of space-time is changing relative to the other 3
> dimensions.
If c = 1 it can't change.
The unit of length will change instead,
Jan
robert bristow-johnson
Dec16-04, 08:08 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>in article 1103120975.870345.225430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com, zawy at\nzawy@yahoo.com wrote on 12/15/2004 13:39:\n\n> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor? We already\n> define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn\'t we\n> define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is\n> unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don\'t see why\n> we couldn\'t make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical\n> error of thinking space and time are different.\n\ni never heard of an "arrow of space".\n\n> Is c just a correction factor to the historical error of not allowing "i"\n> in our units?\n\n"i" is a number, albeit and "imaginary" one (whatever that means). doesn\'t\nhave much to units.\n\n> To say that the unitless speed of light is changing would then be more\n> meaningful (since physical constants with units are problematic in\n> studying changes).\n\nit would still be problematic. how would be perceive or measure or even\nnotice such a change (as long as all dimensionless physical constants\nremained the same)?\n\n> It would be saying that the relationship between\n> the i dimension of space-time is changing relative to the other 3\n> dimensions.\n\nwhy is it that we cannot move in both directions along this i-axis in\nspace-time? if the difference between this dimension and the 3 spatial\ndimensions was only a historical error and not qualitative, why is it that i\ncan\'t put the gear in reverse when traveling along this dimension? from the\nPOV of my perception, i can\'t even change the speed (along this i-axis) in\nthe direction we are going.\n\nBTW, if you want to express everything in terms of Planck units, not only is\nc unitless, it is 1 as well as G and h-bar.\n\n\n--\n\nr b-j rbj@audioimagination.com\n\n"Imagination is more important than knowledge."\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>in article 1103120975.870345.225430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com, zawy at
zawy@yahoo.com wrote on 12/15/2004 13:39:
> Can the speed of light be viewed as a unitless factor? We already
> define meters in terms of seconds and the speed of light. Couldn't we
> define meters as c*i*seconds in all physical constants (where c is
> unitless)? We use "i" when solving many equations, so I don't see why
> we couldn't make it intrinsic to units in order to fix our historical
> error of thinking space and time are different.
i never heard of an "arrow of space".
> Is c just a correction factor to the historical error of not allowing "i"
> in our units?
"i" is a number, albeit and "imaginary" one (whatever that means). doesn't
have much to units.
> To say that the unitless speed of light is changing would then be more
> meaningful (since physical constants with units are problematic in
> studying changes).
it would still be problematic. how would be perceive or measure or even
notice such a change (as long as all dimensionless physical constants
remained the same)?
> It would be saying that the relationship between
> the i dimension of space-time is changing relative to the other 3
> dimensions.
why is it that we cannot move in both directions along this i-axis in
space-time? if the difference between this dimension and the 3 spatial
dimensions was only a historical error and not qualitative, why is it that i
can't put the gear in reverse when traveling along this dimension? from the
POV of my perception, i can't even change the speed (along this i-axis) in
the direction we are going.
BTW, if you want to express everything in terms of Planck units, not only is
c unitless, it is 1 as well as G and h-bar.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
David Park
Dec17-04, 07:53 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message\nnews:BDE67559.3251%rbj@audioimagination.c om...\n>\n> i never heard of an "arrow of space".\n>\n\nWhat about the radial coordinate inside the horizon of a black hole?\n\nDavid Park\ndjmp@earthlink.net\nhttp://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message
news:BDE67559.3251%rbj@audioimagination.com...
>
> i never heard of an "arrow of space".
>
What about the radial coordinate inside the horizon of a black hole?
David Park
djmp@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/
Frank Hellmann (Certhas -at- gmail -dot- com)
Dec17-04, 07:54 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>robert bristow-johnson wrote:\n> in article 1103120975.870345.225430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com, zawy at\n> zawy@yahoo.com wrote on 12/15/2004 13:39:\n\n> why is it that we cannot move in both directions along this i-axis in\n> space-time?\n\nThis is indeed a good question I\'ve been pondering a bit for some time.\nFor one if you take a relativistic Lagrangian any Worldline is always\ntimelike, for it to turn around would require a spacelike part thus we\nknow that a single particle can\'t turn around. It\'s in the equations\n(where of course the sign in the metric makes sure that timelike and\nspacelike are physical and can not be transformed into each other by\nLorentz transformations).\n\nBut what about particles always moving backwards in time? A\nrelativistic Hamiltonian reduces to the constraint p^2 = m^2.\nInterpretate p^0 as the momentum in time direction and you can easily\nhave forward and backward momentum, forward and backward moving parts.\nLet\'s assume that we, on an observer worldline interact (I think this\nis only possible in QM but if anybody can give a good argument for this\nthat would be wicked) with the particle, we wouldn\'t interpretate it as\nflowing backward through time but instead we would still in interacting\nwith it follow it\'s worldline in our direction, the signs of p^0 and\nx^0 have nothing to do with causality at this point! But they cause us\nto see different bahvior in the particle, in particular we see an\nantiparticle.\n\nNow an Arrow of time? Well CPT tells us that both directions of time\nare really equivalent, but if some structures exist that organize\nthemselfs and their enviroment they tend to introduce such things as\nmemory and they tend to introduce thus an arrow of time. It\'s very much\nlike a broken symmetry.\n\nThink about it, you take a Container of Gas, if all the Gas is only in\none half does this container tell you of an arrow of time? No. If you\nfollow the free evolution in both directions the 2nd Law will be ok.\nWhat breaks this symmetry is that a human phyisicist inserts a wall in\none of the time directions. Thus not the return to equilibrium and the\n2nd Law give an arrow of time, but our capacity to (locally) reverse\nit.\nGravity does a fine job as well, the more matter it has organized into\nspheres the more matter those spheres draw to themselfs.\n("Organization" as I use it here, that is, unscientifically and\ncolloquialy, has no direct relationship with Entropy)\n\nBottom line, time really is like space, in GR you can even make the\ncoordinate transformation (t,x,y,z) -> (x,t,y,z) without disturbing the\nequations. The differences arise dynamically, and especially since we\nare (at least approximately) one dimensional in spacetime.\n\nBTW you can\'t change your speed at all. With p^2 = m^2 c^2 => v^2 = c^2\nIf you start moving through space you are just redirecting some of your\ntime velocity in a space direction (time dilation)\n\n\n---\n\nFrank.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article 1103120975.870345.225430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com, zawy at
> zawy@yahoo.com wrote on 12/15/2004 13:39:
> why is it that we cannot move in both directions along this i-axis in
> space-time?
This is indeed a good question I've been pondering a bit for some time.
For one if you take a relativistic Lagrangian any Worldline is always
timelike, for it to turn around would require a spacelike part thus we
know that a single particle can't turn around. It's in the equations
(where of course the sign in the metric makes sure that timelike and
spacelike are physical and can not be transformed into each other by
Lorentz transformations).
But what about particles always moving backwards in time? A
relativistic Hamiltonian reduces to the constraint p^2 = m^2.
Interpretate p^0 as the momentum in time direction and you can easily
have forward and backward momentum, forward and backward moving parts.
Let's assume that we, on an observer worldline interact (I think this
is only possible in QM but if anybody can give a good argument for this
that would be wicked) with the particle, we wouldn't interpretate it as
flowing backward through time but instead we would still in interacting
with it follow it's worldline in our direction, the signs of p^0 and
x^0 have nothing to do with causality at this point! But they cause us
to see different bahvior in the particle, in particular we see an
antiparticle.
Now an Arrow of time? Well CPT tells us that both directions of time
are really equivalent, but if some structures exist that organize
themselfs and their enviroment they tend to introduce such things as
memory and they tend to introduce thus an arrow of time. It's very much
like a broken symmetry.
Think about it, you take a Container of Gas, if all the Gas is only in
one half does this container tell you of an arrow of time? No. If you
follow the free evolution in both directions the 2nd Law will be ok.
What breaks this symmetry is that a human phyisicist inserts a wall in
one of the time directions. Thus not the return to equilibrium and the
2nd Law give an arrow of time, but our capacity to (locally) reverse
it.
Gravity does a fine job as well, the more matter it has organized into
spheres the more matter those spheres draw to themselfs.
("Organization" as I use it here, that is, unscientifically and
colloquialy, has no direct relationship with Entropy)
Bottom line, time really is like space, in GR you can even make the
coordinate transformation (t,x,y,z) -> (x,t,y,z) without disturbing the
equations. The differences arise dynamically, and especially since we
are (at least approximately) one dimensional in spacetime.
BTW you can't change your speed at all. With p^2 = m^2 c^2 => v^2 = c^2
If you start moving through space you are just redirecting some of your
time velocity in a space direction (time dilation)
---
Frank.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Substitute meters in physics equations with i*c*seconds. For example,\nvelocity=m/s would be velocity=i*c. Natural units aren\'t the same thing\nbecause they don\'t include an "i" dimension. Combining this idea with\nnatural units would remove the c and c^2 that would be everywhere in\nthe new physics equations. Interestingly, the vector quantities we\nnormally use in physics (velocity, acceleration, force, momentum, and\npressure) would automatically have an "i" in them. So would density\nbut i can\'t remember density being used as a vector quantity and it\nwould also be negative in relation to the other vector quantities\n(maybe that has something to do with the flow of time?). Since we\nwould measure meters as i*c*seconds, plugging it into the new equations\nwould just give us the old equations. Maybe relativity equations would\nbe the only thing simplified. The point is that maybe somewhere the\nnew equations might improve theoretical insight. Some constants would\nalso have an "i" in them.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Substitute meters in physics equations with i*c*seconds. For example,
velocity=m/s would be velocity=i*c. Natural units aren't the same thing
because they don't include an "i" dimension. Combining this idea with
natural units would remove the c and c^2 that would be everywhere in
the new physics equations. Interestingly, the vector quantities we
normally use in physics (velocity, acceleration, force, momentum, and
pressure) would automatically have an "i" in them. So would density
but i can't remember density being used as a vector quantity and it
would also be negative in relation to the other vector quantities
(maybe that has something to do with the flow of time?). Since we
would measure meters as i*c*seconds, plugging it into the new equations
would just give us the old equations. Maybe relativity equations would
be the only thing simplified. The point is that maybe somewhere the
new equations might improve theoretical insight. Some constants would
also have an "i" in them.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>>why is it that we cannot move in both directions along this i-axis in\n> space-time\n\nThere\'s no moving both ways in space either if you believe in\nspace-time or feynman diagrams.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>>why is it that we cannot move in both directions along this i-axis in
> space-time
There's no moving both ways in space either if you believe in
space-time or feynman diagrams.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I have been thinking abou this some more: my last post shows a way to\ndo away with the idea of length (which is going further than just\nunitless constants). If we make our measurements of mass and energy in\nterms of the Schwarzschild radius and convert those meters (as mention\nbefore by relativity) to i*seconds, then mass and energy are just\ndifferent ways of expressing complex seconds. If I understand how\nseconds are measured in atomic clocks, then electric charge could also\nbe expressed in units of complex seconds. (the hyperfine energy\ntransition depends on the electric charge to give us seconds). The\nnatural units page only mentions time, length, mass, and charge as\nunits of measurement. All other units of measurement can be derived\nfrom these (for example, the magnetic field constant is just determined\nfrom the elctric charge and temperature is just based on Energy (as\nshown on the unitless constants page mentioned above). Are there any\nother basic physical units of measurement? Entropy remains the\nunitless odd duck that seems to be more about our perception,\ncoordinate system, or historical position than about nature. So, is\nthere any reason we can\'t make all measurements (except entropy) in\nunits of complex seconds?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I have been thinking abou this some more: my last post shows a way to
do away with the idea of length (which is going further than just
unitless constants). If we make our measurements of mass and energy in
terms of the Schwarzschild radius and convert those meters (as mention
before by relativity) to i*seconds, then mass and energy are just
different ways of expressing complex seconds. If I understand how
seconds are measured in atomic clocks, then electric charge could also
be expressed in units of complex seconds. (the hyperfine energy
transition depends on the electric charge to give us seconds). The
natural units page only mentions time, length, mass, and charge as
units of measurement. All other units of measurement can be derived
from these (for example, the magnetic field constant is just determined
from the elctric charge and temperature is just based on Energy (as
shown on the unitless constants page mentioned above). Are there any
other basic physical units of measurement? Entropy remains the
unitless odd duck that seems to be more about our perception,
coordinate system, or historical position than about nature. So, is
there any reason we can't make all measurements (except entropy) in
units of complex seconds?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.