I understand time a little better

[paulo84]

I found a thread which talked about tidal gravity and the curvature of spacetime. Would there be any value in looking at time as a kind of displacement which is kind of inverse to space?

Am I making too many threads?? :O

 

[Arman777]

I found a thread which talked about tidal gravity and the curvature of spacetime. Would there be any value in looking at time as a kind of displacement which is kind of inverse to space?

Am I making too many threads?? :O

How did you conclude that idea ? mathematically or any paper that you have read ?

 

[paulo84]

How did you conclude that idea ? mathematically or any paper that you have read ?

Mathematically.

 

[davenn]

Mathematically.

do you have a link(s) to what you were reading please. Else it's kinda difficult to know if
what was being resented is good science or not

 

[paulo84]

do you have a link(s) to what you were reading please. Else it's kinda difficult to know if
what was being resented is good science or not

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/inverse-curvature-of-space-time.787282/

 

[lekh2003]

Am I making too many threads?? :O

There is no issue in making too many threads, but as @sophiecentaur and I explained in a previous thread, you are asking many questions without a full expertise on the basic physics.

 

[paulo84]

There is no issue in making too many threads, but as @sophiecentaur and I explained in a previous thread, you are asking many questions without a full expertise on the basic physics.

I am trying to learn as fast as possible.

 

[lekh2003]

I am trying to learn as fast as possible.

Which might not be the best way to learn. Before jumping into quantum physics and relativistic physics, I strongly suggest you revise:

• Kinematics,
• Newton's Laws,
• Mathematical Properties of Waves,
• Sound Waves,
• Doppler Effect,
• Wave-particle duality of light,
• Diffraction and Refraction of waves,
• Relativistic kinematics and effects,
• Quantum physics (double slit experiments),
• Electron transitions and photon emissions.

You may find resources online or in any textbooks you have. I studied most of these subjects from this textbook: http://fcis.aisdhaka.org/personal/chendricks/IB/Giancoli/Giancoli Chapters.html

 

[paulo84]

Which might not be the best way to learn. Before jumping into quantum physics and relativistic physics, I strongly suggest you revise:

• Kinematics,
• Newton's Laws,
• Mathematical Properties of Waves,
• Sound Waves,
• Doppler Effect,
• Wave-particle duality of light,
• Diffraction and Refraction of waves,
• Relativistic kinematics and effects,
• Quantum physics (double slit experiments),
• Electron transitions and photon emissions.

You may find resources online or in any textbooks you have. I studied most of these subjects from this textbook: http://fcis.aisdhaka.org/personal/chendricks/IB/Giancoli/Giancoli Chapters.html

It wouldn't be 'revising', I never learned half those concepts and Newtonian physics makes a limited amount of sense to me. But I will try.

 

[lekh2003]

It wouldn't be 'revising', I never learned half those concepts and Newtonian physics makes a limited amount of sense to me. But I will try.

Well, if you haven't studied these topics, I suggest you go through each chapter from the textbook in the link I have given you. If you spend your time going through each Chapter carefully, and trying the practice problems, you will have an amazing understanding of Physics when you're done. I managed to complete the textbook in four months with school and other activities.

 

[paulo84]

Well, if you haven't studied these topics, I suggest you go through each chapter from the textbook in the link I have given you. If you spend your time going through each Chapter carefully, and trying the practice problems, you will have an amazing understanding of Physics when you're done. I managed to complete the textbook in four months with school and other activities.

I have made a start. I find time dilation interesting. Thanks.

 

[lekh2003]

I have made a start. I find time dilation interesting. Thanks.

It's good to know you've started. Just another reminder, make sure to go through this in order.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It's good to know you've started. Just another reminder, make sure to go through this in order.

The OP does not appear interested in the correct order; it represents too much work, I think. He may well find a lot of enjoyment in dipping into various parts of Physics but that is no way for him to get any 'understanding' of the subject. If Newtonian Physics gives him problems then he needs to go backwards and not forwards in the subject until he finds a level with which he can cope.
What's required is practice with Scales and Arpeggios, rather than trying to play Concertos.

 

[paulo84]

The OP does not appear interested in the correct order; it represents too much work, I think. He may well find a lot of enjoyment in dipping into various parts of Physics but that is no way for him to get any 'understanding' of the subject. If Newtonian Physics gives him problems then he needs to go backwards and not forwards in the subject until he finds a level with which he can cope.
What's required is practice with Scales and Arpeggios, rather than trying to play Concertos.

It's not really that sophiecentaur. The correct order isn't the most logical way for me to learn physics. I understand some concepts with relative ease and others with significant difficulty. It makes more sense to me, and is more FUN, to skim through and focus first on gaps that I can fill, with the aim of hopefully eventually covering everything. Also I have a couple of things to do in life apart from physics.

Also don't get me started on Newtonian physics. Also also I think it's a little harsh to accuse me of not having 'any' understanding. :(

 

[sophiecentaur]

The correct order isn't the most logical way for me to learn physics

That is pretty much a nonsense statement. The correct order may not be the most attractive way for you but trying your own approach will result in very little learning of Physics and a few unrelated topics in your head which may give you a feeling of ownership of the subject but will not allow you to use what you have actually remembered. Physics (all Science) is all about the relationships between things, not about a few 'did you know?' statements.
You have posted a hotch potch of posts which seem to have little to do with each other. I, for one, will not be responding to more posts of that kind. They are not doing you (or PF) any good.

I think it's a little harsh to accuse me of not having 'any' understanding

Can you point to any of your contributions that would make me think otherwise?
Scales and Arpeggios, remember.

 

[paulo84]

That is pretty much a nonsense statement. The correct order may not be the most attractive way for you but trying your own approach will result in very little learning of Physics and a few unrelated topics in your head which may give you a feeling of ownership of the subject but will not allow you to use what you have actually remembered. Physics (all Science) is all about the relationships between things, not about a few 'did you know?' statements.
You have posted a hotch potch of posts which seem to have little to do with each other. I, for one, will not be responding to more posts of that kind. They are not doing you (or PF) any good.

Can you point to any of your contributions that would make me think otherwise?
Scales and Arpeggios, remember.

Wow, I think I'm kinda glad you're not a moderator yet...or are you? relative to scales and arpeggios, how about jazz? I mean agreed it's difficult to listen to but it can be nice live...

 

[lekh2003]

Wow, I think I'm kinda glad you're not a moderator yet...or are you? relative to scales and arpeggios, how about jazz? I mean agreed it's difficult to listen to but it can be nice live...

He isn't a moderator, but he sure should be. He's giving you advice that is correct. He is more experienced and knows this field more than you do. It would be helpful for you to listen to him.

 

[paulo84]

He isn't a moderator, but he sure should be. He's giving you advice that is correct. He is more experienced and knows this field more than you do. It would be helpful for you to listen to him.

I am listening to him...I just don't agree with you that the 'correct order' is the correct order for me, as I have already explained why. Can we please get back to the topic?

 

[paulo84]

here's some maths, hope it works as I've been awake a long time.

v=d/t

t=d/v

t/d=v

It would seem there is a relationship between the inverse of displacement and 3 dimensional spacetime?

 

[lekh2003]

here's some maths, hope it works as I've been awake a long time.

v=d/t

t=d/v

t/d=v

It would seem there is a relationship between the inverse of displacement and 3 dimensional spacetime?

These are simple equations. I don't know how you have complicated this so very much. These equations are very straight forward and are simple relationships.

The relationships between displacement/rate and spacetime emerge from relativistic kinematics.

 

[lekh2003]

I am listening to him...I just don't agree with you that the 'correct order' is the correct order for me, as I have already explained why. Can we please get back to the topic?

How are you so special that you do not require the same order as anyone else. When you went to high school, did you argue with your high school teacher that they aren't teaching in the correct order to match your needs. Considering the way you are raving about complex questions from modern physics after specifically saying you do not understand Newtonian kinematics, what else advice is someone supposed to give besides learn it in the right order.

 

[paulo84]

How are you so special that you do not require the same order as anyone else. When you went to high school, did you argue with your high school teacher that they aren't teaching in the correct order to match your needs. Considering the way you are raving about complex questions from modern physics after specifically saying you do not understand Newtonian kinematics, what else advice is someone supposed to give besides learn it in the right order.

When did I say I was special? Yes I argued extensively with a number of high school teachers. I'm trying to avoid arguing here and learn somethings.

The problem with Newtonian physics is it's fundamentally flawed. I'm not saying it's not useful and I'm going to try to learn it.

 

[lekh2003]

The problem with Newtonian physics is it's fundamentally flawed.

What are you talking about? It is the very foundation of classical physics, it doesn't work with near-light speeds or on the scale of Angstroms, but you won't understand any of modern physics without it.

You are severely underestimating the power of what Newton worked on. It is all that matters in the real world.

 

[paulo84]

What are you talking about? It is the very foundation of classical physics, it doesn't work with near-light speeds or on the scale of Angstroms, but you won't understand any of modern physics without it.

You are severely underestimating the power of what Newton worked on. It is all that matters in the real world.

Can you please cut me some slack? I'm not saying it's not useful and I'm going to try to learn it.

 

[lekh2003]

Can you please cut me some slack? I'm not saying it's not useful and I'm going to try to learn it.

Sure. Here, take some slack.

 

[Dale]

The correct order isn't the most logical way for me to learn physics.

It is the most effective way. Frankly, your idea of “logical” is wrong, both here and in at least one previous thread.

Don’t get me wrong, I will try to answer your questions as best as I can. But your approach will not be faster in the end, and you will alienate potentially valuable resources by insisting on it.

 

[paulo84]

It is the most effective way. Frankly, your idea of “logical” is wrong, both here and in at least one previous thread.

Don’t get me wrong, I will try to answer your questions as best as I can. But your approach will not be faster in the end, and you will alienate potentially valuable resources by insisting on it.

Thanks, I appreciate you answering my questions.

 

[Dale]

Would there be any value in looking at time as a kind of displacement which is kind of inverse to space?

This concept (at least the correct version of it) is called “proper time”. Start here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

 

[paulo84]

This concept (at least the correct version of it) is called “proper time”. Start here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

Thank you.

 

[jbriggs444]

here's some maths, hope it works as I've been awake a long time.

v=d/t

t=d/v

t/d=v

Perhaps some review of basic algebra would be appropriate. That last equation does not follow from the previous.

Edit: Going out on a very weak limb here. If one were to have accepted the above equations at face value then the next obvious move would have been to apply the transitive property of equality and derive: $$\frac{d}{t} = \frac{t}{d}$$Then from that equality, one might reason that $$d=t$$ (at least up to choice of sign). Is that chain of reasoning what has prompted you to equate time with distance? All predicated on an algebra error?

 

[paulo84]

Perhaps some review of basic algebra would be appropriate. That last equation does not follow from the previous.

Edit: Going out on a very weak limb here. If one were to have accepted the above equations at face value then the next obvious move would have been to apply the transitive property of equality and derive: $$\frac{d}{t} = \frac{t}{d}$$Then from that equality, one might reason that $$d=t$$ (at least up to choice of sign). Is that chain of reasoning what has prompted you to equate time with distance? All predicated on an algebra error?

Ignoring vectors and scalars just for now...

t^2/d^2=1/3v^2

3v^4=1

where 1 is some kind of constant? I'm way too old and tired and noobish to know if my maths is even correct.

 

[lekh2003]

t^2/d^2=1/3v^2

How did you arrive to this? BTW @jbriggs444 made it clear that your reasoning was incorrect, and this might be the source of your errors.

 

[jbriggs444]

t^2/d^2=1/3v^2

Where does this asserted equality come from? Also, it might be worthwhile learning to present your equations with LaTeX.$$\frac{t^2}{d^2}=\frac{1}{3}v^2$$Is that an accurate transcription?

Edit: sorry to repeat what @lekh2003 already asked

 

[paulo84]

Where does this asserted equality come from? Also, it might be worthwhile learning to present your equations with LaTeX.$$\frac{t^2}{d^2}=\frac{1}{3}v^2$$Is that an accurate transcription?

Edit: sorry to repeat what @lekh2003 already asked

I'm looking into relearning maths. Where can I find out about LaTeX?

 

[lekh2003]

I'm looking into relearning maths. Where can I find out about LaTeX?

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/

This link explains how to use LaTeX on PF.