Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 11/03/2015 10:03:43
-
I make a proposal and theory that space-time is not independent of the observer or an object but instead dependent to the observer or object.
We do not observe the time of an object or observer travelling towards us or away from us, we observe our own dependent time viewing the object or observer.
Time dilation shows a dilation of dependent time of the observer or object and not a dilation of an independent time to the observer or object.
-
I can only say I SEE NOW FLAWS IN YOUR THEORY! Chapoo [:)] I think you have a posible winner here! Very nutale and positive or positifly balanced sorry for the spelling errors do you have a theory about darkmatter to and why we have been failing to detect it's shape Or size? Or maybee why we can' t see it? May i prepose it changes faster then light or matter so we have to messeur in the midle or something like that? With a theory like yours you make the universe blose!
-
I can only say I SEE NOW FLAWS IN YOUR THEORY! Chapoo [:)] I think you have a posible winner here! Very nutale and positive or positifly balanced sorry for the spelling errors do you have a theory about darkmatter to and why we have been failing to detect it's shape Or size? Or maybee why we can' t see it? May i prepose it changes faster then light or matter so we have to messeur in the midle or something like that? With a theory like yours you make the universe blose!
If you can not see something that is because it is simply transparent.
-
That is just what I mean I Love transparent things! [;D] it controling or dominating all matter so it must be obvious clear and transparent For our brains! It everywhere all around us and between and in us so thats obvious is it not? But maybee you mean like glass then it schould have a shade and reflection mass and thinks of that kind don't you think? I Mean do you expect it to be like matter? And obeying the rules matter has to because of timespacematter? It Seem it has its one Rules and behaviour and it sets the rules for matter and even adds and adjust rules overtime? [:o] This is not a absolute opinion just small talk and my way of loving perfect imperfection making things move!Anyway I love the one sentense aswers! Do you know you have choosen out of thousants posible thoughts and you only choose one sentence thats control! I WONDER do you think timespace matter was created with the big bang or that it was already there? SO the bigbang happend inside timespacematter /blackmatter.It seem to my we are looking the wrong way treu the window we can only see it if we look treu the otherside of the window so our universe is inside out [:0] or put different we are looking at from our perspective but we need to look under the hood! Inside the engine that makes the rules. I mean timespacematter is not aflicted by itself like we are obvious and transparent is it not?
-
That is just what I mean I Love transparent things! [;D] it controling or dominating all matter so it must be obvious clear and transparent For our brains! It everywhere all around us and between and in us so thats obvious is it not? But maybee you mean like glass then it schould have a shade and reflection mass and thinks of that kind don't you think? I Mean do you expect it to be like matter? And obeying the rules matter has to because of timespacematter? It Seem it has its one Rules and behaviour and it sets the rules for matter and even adds and adjust rules overtime? [:o] This is not a absolute opinion just small talk and my way of loving perfect imperfection making things move!Anyway I love the one sentense aswers! Do you know you have choosen out of thousants posible thoughts and you only choose one sentence thats control! I WONDER do you think timespace matter was created with the big bang or that it was already there? SO the bigbang happend inside timespacematter /blackmatter.It seem to my we are looking the wrong way treu the window we can only see it if we look treu the otherside of the window so our universe is inside out [:0] or put different we are looking at from our perspective but we need to look under the hood! Inside the engine that makes the rules. I mean timespacematter is not aflicted by itself like we are obvious and transparent is it not?
Transparent like air and not like glass or water.
We are submerged in the transparent and unseen energies of the transparent, the constant of the transparent being a coupling to objects of sight and the brain.
chasing a ghost within a ghost is not easy, has any one ever seen an invisible man?
The big bang created time-space matter but this was before the expansion and not cause of the expansion in my opinion.
The Universe is neither flat or spherical or of any shape , the Universe is an undefined shape because we simply can not define it. The Universe is not just the matter that is contained in spacial dimensions, the Universe is the empty space, an empty space that we can only observe matter interactions with limitations to light.
Our visual Universe is only apart of the Universe, the Universe stretches beyond our limitations.
Our Universe is not expanding, matter is moving away into the Universe, there is a huge difference in the misconception.
Science is not bothered though.
Science does not accept there being a passive dark infinite space with zero time point space, each point representing the size of an atom that can be occupied by an atom that accumulates time occupying that space.
I hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.
-
......., I am giving up soon on science.
Don't do that, you've come a long way and it's a hard journey. Anyway, once bitten ........
Science is not bothered though.
People doing science are bothered. They are continually questioning and experimenting to find the best explanation, there is significant accolade to anyone who proves an alternative way of looking at the universe.
People here are bothered, otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in discussion with you.
Science does not accept there being a passive dark infinite space with zero time point space, each point representing the size of an atom that can be occupied by an atom that accumulates time occupying that space.
Why should it? Just stating it does not make it so, you have to show proof. Proof means identifying things that are different if your hypothesis is true and then experiments that show those very differences exist.
You are somewhat of an anomaly. Some parts of your posts are very lucid, clear and well written. If you started with poor literacy you have done well. For example:
Introduction.
I accidentally fell into science with little prior knowledge and poor literate ability, but quickly became ..............s and unable to put the ideas into a context that anyone else could understand.
I feel I have now achieved a better standard of literacy and I am able to express my ideas with clear intent.
Whereas at other times your posts seem incomprehensible and unclear. Eg
....light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, ..
I'm not asking you to explain what that means, just to think whether that collection of words really conveys your ideas to someone unfamiliar with your thoughts. I find it hard to extract your meaning and ideas from that example.
You also need to think whether what is obvious to you is obvious to others, and why. Eg
Move the object you are observing to a different place a different dimension of space.
You will observe that the now unoccupied space from where you displaced the object that time now has no value,
Ask yourself "how is this observed?". It is not observed by others, especially me.
What experiment can be done to show this is true?
No, don't give up, use that passion to study more and learn more about science, but don't allow that passion to lead you down too many blind alleys.
I get the impression that you work in or have a special interest in computing or data communications. We need people who can apply science to practical application, perhaps that is your direction. But whatever you decide don't stop learning or questioning, but do learn to ask the right questions.
I wish you well, good fortune go with you.
-
Transparent like air and not like glass or water.
Air is transparent in almost exactly the same way that glass or water is. Each of these substances absorb light at some frequencies better than at others. This is called their absorption spectrum. The spectrum for air can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_%28astronomy%29#/media/File:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg
Air and glass and water also interact with light even when not absorbing it. Light slows down slightly as it passes through matter, giving rise to refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction)
Air definitely refracts light. This is most obvious when viewing air that is near or mixing with air of a different temperature. The refractive index of air (and water) is dependent on its temperature. This is why we see "waves" above a hot grill or behind a jet engine or coming off a hot road, or when it's –30°C outside and you open the window of your heated apartment. It is also responsible for mirages.
Cool kitchen experiment!: Fill (half-way up) one transparent glass with cold water and one transparent glass with hot water (heated with a kettle or in the microwave to just below boiling is best). Both water samples are transparent, but they have drastically different refractive indices. Slowly pour the cold water into the hot water and observe closely--you will see these "waves!"
-
I hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.
Don't give up. All you need to do is study harder. It takes an enormous amount of work/study to become a scientist and for a physicist that includes a ton of advanced mathematics. If you have a love of physics then I suggest that you really get into it. That means learning advanced math and studying real college level calculus based physics texts.
You will never be taken seriously to change something in physics if you don't have a good understanding of what it is that you propose to change. And talking down to us won't help either. Some of us have been physicists for decades. What ever gave you the idea that you're the only one who has challenged ideas in physics when in my experience that's part of learning the subject in the first place. We don't merely learn my memorizing but by challenging what is presented to us. We accept it temporarily when we are unable to break it. And that's true for all physicists.
Thank you for the kind words, yes in learning I question everything, my ideas came from this. I have learnt some of the maths, I tried to learn more maths on my last forum, they banned me from learning and practising maths on there, they were not happy when I re-wrote some maths to show maths was an invention made to fit the process and the process comes first before the maths is made to fit the process.
I made a m/s to mph conversion using a variation of PI, accurate to within 5 decimal places.
I offered that all interaction of light with a medium or matter was F=f
Maths is not something one can self learn without testing the maths by peer view judgement of the maths to see if the individuals understanding is correct,
I tried Algebra, they said I had it all wrong although the internet shown me to do it that way.
I think a class room type situation is needed to advance maths.
-
Transparent like air and not like glass or water.
Air is transparent in almost exactly the same way that glass or water is. Each of these substances absorb light at some frequencies better than at others. This is called their absorption spectrum. The spectrum for air can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_%28astronomy%29#/media/File:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg
Air and glass and water also interact with light even when not absorbing it. Light slows down slightly as it passes through matter, giving rise to refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction)
Air definitely refracts light. This is most obvious when viewing air that is near or mixing with air of a different temperature. The refractive index of air (and water) is dependent on its temperature. This is why we see "waves" above a hot grill or behind a jet engine or coming off a hot road, or when it's –30°C outside and you open the window of your heated apartment. It is also responsible for mirages.
Cool kitchen experiment!: Fill (half-way up) one transparent glass with cold water and one transparent glass with hot water (heated with a kettle or in the microwave to just below boiling is best). Both water samples are transparent, but they have drastically different refractive indices. Slowly pour the cold water into the hot water and observe closely--you will see these "waves!"
Thank you for the experiment I will try that later. Thank you for the links,
P.s and yes I am ok at computing, I have an IT lvl2 , but am advanced more than that,
I want science to take my brain electrical energy and magnetic field and save it on a hard disk.
Remember our brains are not computers, computers are based on our brains.
-
......., I am giving up soon on science.
Don't do that, you've come a long way and it's a hard journey. Anyway, once bitten ........
Science is not bothered though.
People doing science are bothered. They are continually questioning and experimenting to find the best explanation, there is significant accolade to anyone who proves an alternative way of looking at the universe.
People here are bothered, otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in discussion with you.
Science does not accept there being a passive dark infinite space with zero time point space, each point representing the size of an atom that can be occupied by an atom that accumulates time occupying that space.
Why should it? Just stating it does not make it so, you have to show proof. Proof means identifying things that are different if your hypothesis is true and then experiments that show those very differences exist.
You are somewhat of an anomaly. Some parts of your posts are very lucid, clear and well written. If you started with poor literacy you have done well. For example:
Introduction.
I accidentally fell into science with little prior knowledge and poor literate ability, but quickly became ..............s and unable to put the ideas into a context that anyone else could understand.
I feel I have now achieved a better standard of literacy and I am able to express my ideas with clear intent.
Whereas at other times your posts seem incomprehensible and unclear. Eg
....light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, ..
I'm not asking you to explain what that means, just to think whether that collection of words really conveys your ideas to someone unfamiliar with your thoughts. I find it hard to extract your meaning and ideas from that example.
You also need to think whether what is obvious to you is obvious to others, and why. Eg
Move the object you are observing to a different place a different dimension of space.
You will observe that the now unoccupied space from where you displaced the object that time now has no value,
Ask yourself "how is this observed?". It is not observed by others, especially me.
What experiment can be done to show this is true?
No, don't give up, use that passion to study more and learn more about science, but don't allow that passion to lead you down too many blind alleys.
I get the impression that you work in or have a special interest in computing or data communications. We need people who can apply science to practical application, perhaps that is your direction. But whatever you decide don't stop learning or questioning, but do learn to ask the right questions.
I wish you well, good fortune go with you.
I know what you are saying abut burden of proof, if you want to observe passive dark space that is interwoven with the light, you only have to consider a day time shadow, this reveals the darkness is there.
Consider twilight as translucent space then you may understand.
Thank you for the kind words.
-
analogy - place a glass sided cube in the daylight, then start to cover each side of the cube with a material that stops light passing through, then cover the bottom of the cube, look in the top to see you still have light, cover the top with a camera inside the box, observe you have just captured in your containment passive dark space.
Re-written -
''...light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, ..''
I do not think we actually ''see''. I think everything you see is a mirage inside your brain created by your brain , I think light is actually dark, I do not think that a wave is light without the brain the same as a sound is not a sound unless it is heard.
I really think we ''see'' in the very same way a night vision device works and we simply evolved to see in the dark.
I think the transparent constant is dark, I also think when the transparent constant makes contact with matter, the resisting force of the matter slows down the rate of the transparent constant, causing a radiation pressure, that emits back through itself a spectral signature of energy greater than the constant transparent but still unseen in space because of the wash of incident transparent constant.
If you want it bluntly.
this is me you can see my chain of thought if you view from my first blog.
https://wordpress.com/post/65645687/251/
-
Maybe this will help people understand me , one of my blogs.
It feels a bit strange to sit here writing this post. The uncertainty of not knowing if anybody is even reading it or remotely interested.
I am writing this in the past, you shall be reading this in my future, you can here my thoughts of now but with delay.
We see through the transparent state, by evolution our eyes adjusted to the radiation. Changes in EMR contrast making bright or dull.
I do understand that so far, it may seem a bit confusing, and to help , I will take you into a journey of cognitive thought, and an introductions into learning new learning styles.
There are several learning styles , and given the wavelength a persons brain is on, I presume that is their individual style.
Honey and Mumford would be the name to look up in learning styles.
The reason I mention learning styles, is the reason that if you understand my style, you may understand my thoughts and what I am actually talking about.
Theorist -'' Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesize. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If its logical its good." Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.''
Most science forums reject people who think like me, who think like this. Where as we are the ones who want to be 100% sure. We want to see hard facts, hard evidence, or a certainty of logical perfection.
People referred to has Troll's, are often people who missed a few years of schooling, did not complete an education that provided qualifications , saying well done you can remember the books.
Does this make them less smart?, no!, of cause it does not, it only means they may have different understanding of words and meanings compared to the knowledge of a completed education.
It also means that from an adolescent age, when it is easy to accept, that they have the advantage of questioning even the slightest perception of none logical process.
-
Re-written -
''...light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, ..''
I do not think we actually ''see''. I think everything you see is a mirage inside your brain created by your brain , I think light is actually dark, I do not think that a wave is light without the brain the same as a sound is not a sound unless it is heard.
That is an excellent piece of rewriting. I now understand your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is different. I agree that what I see is my brains interpretation of light and that interpretation can be wrong. However, to me a mirage is something that has no concrete substance, whereas I believe that what I see is a representation of something real - even if that something is a mirage!.
Think also how my viewpoint on sound and light differs from yours. To me a sound is defined as a range of frequency vibrations in air and other media, those vibrations exist whether I experience them or not. Similarly with light.
The questions you are asking are good ones, they challenge our perceptions. These questions have been asked by philosophers in the past, and some still challenge our thinking. others are confusions of definition and meaning.
I really think we ''see'' in the very same way a night vision device works and we simply evolved to see in the dark.
This I like, very perceptive.
There are many crackpots who visit this forum who are incapable of thinking. If I thought you were like these I would not be taking the time to write this.
I think you have the capacity, but as you say, you have not had an education that has given you the same understanding of words or meanings. Some have the words and meanings but either have not been taught to think or are too lazy to do so; you have a head start over these as you are willing to try thinking and challenge your mind.
I have a copy of Honey and Mumford, and although we may have a preferred style, we are capable of using all the styles and it is good to practice them. I have some other books by Peter Honey "Face to Face" and "Solving People Problems", I think you would enjoy them. Have you read the books by Edward de Bono? He suggests we try out various 'thinking hats'. I have been fortunate to meet both Peter Honey and Edward de Bono and they would recommend that you try as many different thinking tools as you can.
I think you should also revisit formal logic. In some of your posts I think you are misunderstanding the use of Armstrong's Axioms.
Can I recommend http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ if you haven't already found it. I only found it this morning thanks to PmbPhy. Look at the section in part 1 on time, then read the rest.
I suspect we will see you back here. If you have specific questions and are willing to listen to the answers you will be welcome.
Some will expect you to believe everything they say, others will be less egotistical!
-
Re-written -
''...light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, ..''
I do not think we actually ''see''. I think everything you see is a mirage inside your brain created by your brain , I think light is actually dark, I do not think that a wave is light without the brain the same as a sound is not a sound unless it is heard.
That is an excellent piece of rewriting. I now understand your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is different. I agree that what I see is my brains interpretation of light and that interpretation can be wrong. However, to me a mirage is something that has no concrete substance, whereas I believe that what I see is a representation of something real - even if that something is a mirage!.
Think also how my viewpoint on sound and light differs from yours. To me a sound is defined as a range of frequency vibrations in air and other media, those vibrations exist whether I experience them or not. Similarly with light.
The questions you are asking are good ones, they challenge our perceptions. These questions have been asked by philosophers in the past, and some still challenge our thinking. others are confusions of definition and meaning.
I really think we ''see'' in the very same way a night vision device works and we simply evolved to see in the dark.
This I like, very perceptive.
There are many crackpots who visit this forum who are incapable of thinking. If I thought you were like these I would not be taking the time to write this.
I think you have the capacity, but as you say, you have not had an education that has given you the same understanding of words or meanings. Some have the words and meanings but either have not been taught to think or are too lazy to do so; you have a head start over these as you are willing to try thinking and challenge your mind.
I have a copy of Honey and Mumford, and although we may have a preferred style, we are capable of using all the styles and it is good to practice them. I have some other books by Peter Honey "Face to Face" and "Solving People Problems", I think you would enjoy them. Have you read the books by Edward de Bono? He suggests we try out various 'thinking hats'. I have been fortunate to meet both Peter Honey and Edward de Bono and they would recommend that you try as many different thinking tools as you can.
I think you should also revisit formal logic. In some of your posts I think you are misunderstanding the use of Armstrong's Axioms.
Can I recommend http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ if you haven't already found it. I only found it this morning thanks to PmbPhy. Look at the section in part 1 on time, then read the rest.
I suspect we will see you back here. If you have specific questions and are willing to listen to the answers you will be welcome.
Some will expect you to believe everything they say, others will be less egotistical!
Thank you for the post , I will read the link in a while. By mirage , I do mean the same as you, that the thing does exist but is only perceived in the brain by the information received and interpreted by the brain to having a colour (spectral) content, by being a different constant to the transparent constant.
My opinion is that sound is frequency of vibration in/off the air but unless our receivers (ears) detect the waves and the brain converts it into a noise (sound), it is simply a wave without volume.
I do not believe a volume of sound is present unless detected and converted.
-
My opinion is that sound is frequency of vibration in/off the air but unless our receivers (ears) detect the waves and the brain converts it into a noise (sound), it is simply a wave without volume.
I do not believe a volume of sound is present unless detected and converted.
OK, we'll agree to differ on that one. I am used to using instruments to measure sounds I can't hear. Also volume for me has a very specific technical relationship with the waveform, you are using a different definition/meaning.
Try looking at some Psychoacoustics, I would recommend some books, but I'm sure you will find plenty on the net. You would be interested in the aural illusions, like optical illusions, they give clues to how our brains interpret the (very real [;)]) sounds.
See you around, I hope.
-
My opinion is that sound is frequency of vibration in/off the air but unless our receivers (ears) detect the waves and the brain converts it into a noise (sound), it is simply a wave without volume.
I do not believe a volume of sound is present unless detected and converted.
OK, we'll agree to differ on that one. I am used to using instruments to measure sounds I can't hear. Also volume for me has a very specific technical relationship with the waveform, you are using a different definition/meaning.
Try looking at some Psychoacoustics, I would recommend some books, but I'm sure you will find plenty on the net. You would be interested in the aural illusions, like optical illusions, they give clues to how our brains interpret the (very real [;)]) sounds.
See you around, I hope.
When considering any process that is recorded and decoded information is processed a person(s) must consider their own interference.
'' I am used to using instruments to measure sounds I can't hear.''
You are using instruments that replicate your ears and hearing, until the carrier wave is interfered with by device or hearing , the sound wave in a space is soundless. The same as a wave propagates by interference, my question is, is it a wave when not in interference, a linearity that compresses by obstruction such as a device to record the action.
Why would a linear moving anything wave unless by interference, a river does not really wave until it hits a rock.
And I like this quote I put in bold a lot.
''5–2Time
Let us consider first what we mean by time. What is time? It would be nice if we could find a good definition of time. Webster defines “a time” as “a period,” and the latter as “a time,” which doesn’t seem to be very useful. Perhaps we should say: “Time is what happens when nothing else happens.” Which also doesn’t get us very far. Maybe it is just as well if we face the fact that time is one of the things we probably cannot define (in the dictionary sense), and just say that it is what we already know it to be: it is how long we wait!''
In my opinion I consider time is an invention by self awareness of death of others around us , an invention in the aim of looking for mortality. The ancient Egyptians were besotted with mortality and elixirs of life, a suggested Pharaoh fear of death creating a time frame of life looking to extend their own existence occupying a timeless space(s).
-
A question to you, if gaseous forms such as air or Helium is made of atoms and in all the space around me right now there is billions and billions of Protons in and of the atoms,
this makes Atoms transparent also?
-
A question to you, if gaseous forms such as air or Helium is made of atoms and in all the space around me right now there is billions and billions of Protons in and of the atoms,
this makes Atoms transparent also?
In the air and in water there are millions of bacteria. I can see them through a microscope, but not usually in the air or water because they are very spread out. Sometimes if they are really dense you can see them as a bloom or mist in the water.
Have you ever looked across a room of what appears to be clear air and seen the light of a sunbeam catch the dust motes floating in the air, but not be able to see those in other parts of the room.
So even apparently transparent things are not totally so. Even in solid matter there is a huge amount of space between atoms.
Atoms are not transparent - because things, including light, bounce off them or get absorbed. Although you might think that the air is transparent because of the empty space between atoms, in fact it is because the atoms do not have available electrons, with energy levels above them, which match the range of the visible photon's energy levels. (sorry PmbPhy, trying to keep it simple). At some frequencies eg UV, air does absorb photons.
However, let's take the example of water (where you are talking about molecules not single atoms). In fact water absorbs most of the EM spectrum except for a very narrow notch in the visible spectrum. That might seem an odd coincidence, but if you think of creatures evolving in water it makes sense that the eye would develop around the frequencies that pass through water. And anyway, if you believe in a God, it wouldnt make much sense to use water in the eye if if you put the eyes sensitive zone where the water blocks those frequencies!
So, for the most part water is not transparent!
-
A question to you, if gaseous forms such as air or Helium is made of atoms and in all the space around me right now there is billions and billions of Protons in and of the atoms,
this makes Atoms transparent also?
In the air and in water there are millions of bacteria. I can see them through a microscope, but not usually in the air or water because they are very spread out. Sometimes if they are really dense you can see them as a bloom or mist in the water.
Have you ever looked across a room of what appears to be clear air and seen the light of a sunbeam catch the dust motes floating in the air, but not be able to see those in other parts of the room.
Even in solid matter there is a huge amount of space between atoms. Atoms are not transparent because things, including light, bounce off them or get absorbed. Although you might think that the air is transparent because of the empty space between atoms, in fact it is because the atoms do not have available electrons, with energy levels above them, which match the range of the visible photon's quantum levels. (sorry PmbPhy, trying to keep it simple)
However, let's take the example of water (where you are talking about molecules not single atoms). In fact water absorbs most of the EM spectrum except for a very narrow notch in the visible spectrum. That might seem an odd coincidence, but if you think of creatures evolving in water it makes sense that the eye would develop around the frequencies that pass through water. And anyway, if you believe in a God, it wouldnt make much sense to use water in the eye if if you put the eyes sensitive zone where the water blocks those frequencies!
So, for the most part water is not transparent!
Well I believe there has to be a space between atoms, I think that atoms can never touch unless by force or pressure.
My presumption for this was that (a) + (b) = C, where (a) is the Proton and (b) is the electron, and C is the positive and negative , ''proton-electron field'' generated by (a) and (b).
So whilst a Proton attracts an electron it also repels other protons of other atoms.
I understand a Lattice design of atoms in matter solids and what I call an ''electro-plasmic residue'', the whitish colour bonding between atoms which I do not know the correct name of.
You mention dust particles in air that reflect the light, this still does not explain why billions of protons in air itself are not seen like in a solid object.
Is it actually just the whitish bonding we see in and of a solid and the atom itself is transparent?
I understand atoms are tiny, but lots of tiny particles in any space should make a visual haze?
My logic is saying to me that atoms of air show a very different behaviour than that of a solid visually.
Air has a net charge?
it rises when charged?
added- apologies my mind does switch from one idea to an idea of something else.
If we took a container with a transparent top and bottom and had solid opaque sides and 2 of the sides could compress a volume of air/atmosphere.
Would the light that passed through have any effect on the compressed air/atmosphere in containment?
Could we add a copper coil and extract the Kinetic energy?
Compress the air creating a denser air and greater refractive index slowing down the electromagnet radiation that generates charge that makes electricity?
-
Because of time constraints I’ll try to answer some of your questions in a brief manner, not a thorough manner. You’ll have to read most of this up.
I understand a Lattice design of atoms in matter solids and what I call an ''electro-plasmic residue'', the whitish colour bonding between atoms which I do not know the correct name of.
What whitish colour bonding, why do you call it ''electro-plasmic residue'' ? . White is due to reflection of all the light frequencies in the visible spectrum, not every solid looks white.
Are you confusing with atomic bonding? This does not have a colour.
You mention dust particles in air that reflect the light, this still does not explain why billions of protons in air itself are not seen like in a solid object.
If you think dust particles are small, protons and neutrons are small beyond belief. Even electron microscopes or the xray equivalents cannot see individual atoms. Look up scanning tunneling microscope.
I understand atoms are tiny, but lots of tiny particles in any space should make a visual haze?
In fact we do get this ‘haze’. If we measure the amount of light falling on the outer atmosphere compared to earth’s surface, a lot has been scattered. In fact we see a blue sky rather than a black or white one because of this scattering.
Air has a net charge?
Not unless something charges it
it rises when charged?
Not unless something above it is charged opposite
-
Because of time constraints I’ll try to answer some of your questions in a brief manner, not a thorough manner. You’ll have to read most of this up.
I understand a Lattice design of atoms in matter solids and what I call an ''electro-plasmic residue'', the whitish colour bonding between atoms which I do not know the correct name of.
What whitish colour bonding, why do you call it ''electro-plasmic residue'' ? . White is due to reflection of all the light frequencies in the visible spectrum, not every solid looks white.
Are you confusing with atomic bonding? This does not have a colour.
You mention dust particles in air that reflect the light, this still does not explain why billions of protons in air itself are not seen like in a solid object.
If you think dust particles are small, protons and neutrons are small beyond belief. Even electron microscopes or the xray equivalents cannot see individual atoms. Look up scanning tunneling microscope.
I understand atoms are tiny, but lots of tiny particles in any space should make a visual haze?
In fact we do get this ‘haze’. If we measure the amount of light falling on the outer atmosphere compared to earth’s surface, a lot has been scattered. In fact we see a blue sky rather than a black or white one because of this scattering.
Air has a net charge?
Not unless something charges it
it rises when charged?
Not unless something above it is charged opposite
For some reason I thought I had seen a molecule picture somewhere and there was a white bonding between each atom and this was like an electrical residue, my mistakes sorry.
I understand atoms are really small and I have viewed scanning tunnelling before.
I do know we can not observe a single atom directly .
Light charges air?
''Not unless something above it is charged opposite''
What about if the air becomes the same charged as something under it?
I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.
I understand the Rayleigh scattering and science thoughts on this.
A red sky at night and a red sky in the morning being caused by angular of the the light and light skipping the magnetic field rather than direct.
-
What about if the air becomes the same charged as something under it?
That would work as well. Worth thinking about why in some instances you get attraction and others discharge eg sheet lighting.
OK, again quick answers rather than full as I am on a deadline over here.
For some reason I thought I had seen a molecule picture somewhere and there was a white bonding between each atom and this was like an electrical residue, my mistakes sorry.
Graphics can be confusing. However, think about why you called it ''electro-plasmic residue''. What led you think there was a plasma in there, or a residue? Much better to ask someone "what does this mean" rather than give it a rather strange and somewhat meaningless name. As PmbPhy say, don't change the name of something just for the sake of it. You will appear confused to us if you do.
I understand atoms are really small and I have viewed scanning tunnelling before.
I do know we can not observe a single atom directly .
So why did you ask the question, because you have the answer in front of you.
I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.
I understand the Rayleigh scattering and science thoughts on this.
A red sky at night and a red sky in the morning being caused by angular of the the light and light skipping the magnetic field rather than direct.
It seems to me that you are trying to devise a complete alternative science. If so you are going to have to do a lot more work on this and provide evidence of what you are saying. You are about to write the equivalent of a number of textbooks (a large number).
For example:
I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.
You need to define what you mean by F=f and how you derive this plus any experimental evidence. If you believe it is a magnetic effect rather than Rayleigh scattering you will have to explain why, although there are magnetic hotspots, the effect does not appear to be dependant on magnetic field strength. There are some other things you'll have to explain as well, but that will make a good start.
A life's work at least, you gonna be busy. But don't give up the day job [:)]
I'm not going to go back and answer all your posts as life is too short compared to what I want to achieve. However, just one example:
Why would a linear moving anything wave unless by interference, a river does not really wave until it hits a rock.
I do a lot of sailing, so I know water. Your statement is incorrect for water and waves in general. You need to understand a lot more 'established science' before you can start to oppose it. There is no point in making basic mistakes of fact, it just reduces your credibility in areas where you might be correct.
I'm going to give this a rest for a while. Do read more standard physics.
-
What about if the air becomes the same charged as something under it?
That would work as well. Worth thinking about why in some instances you get attraction and others discharge eg sheet lighting.
OK, again quick answers rather than full as I am on a deadline over here.
For some reason I thought I had seen a molecule picture somewhere and there was a white bonding between each atom and this was like an electrical residue, my mistakes sorry.
Graphics can be confusing. However, think about why you called it ''electro-plasmic residue''. What led you think there was a plasma in there, or a residue? Much better to ask someone "what does this mean" rather than give it a rather strange and somewhat meaningless name. As PmbPhy say, don't change the name of something just for the sake of it. You will appear confused to us if you do.
Maybe I should just forget this for now and not push it.
I understand atoms are really small and I have viewed scanning tunnelling before.
I do know we can not observe a single atom directly .
So why did you ask the question, because you have the answer in front of you.
Confirmation.
I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.
I understand the Rayleigh scattering and science thoughts on this.
A red sky at night and a red sky in the morning being caused by angular of the the light and light skipping the magnetic field rather than direct.
It seems to me that you are trying to devise a complete alternative science. If so you are going to have to do a lot more work on this and provide evidence of what you are saying. You are about to write the equivalent of a number of textbooks (a large number).
I do not wish to re-write science , I try to avoid interference of maths,
For example:
I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.
You need to define what you mean by F=f and how you derive this plus any experimental evidence. If you believe it is a magnetic effect rather than Rayleigh scattering you will have to explain why, although there are magnetic hotspots, the effect does not appear to be dependant on magnetic field strength. There are some other things you'll have to explain as well, but that will make a good start.
A life's work at least, you gonna be busy. But don't give up the day job [:)]
I'm not going to go back and answer all your posts as life is too short compared to what I want to achieve. However, just one example:
Why would a linear moving anything wave unless by interference, a river does not really wave until it hits a rock.
I do a lot of sailing, so I know water. Your statement is incorrect for water and waves in general. You need to understand a lot more 'established science' before you can start to oppose it. There is no point in making basic mistakes of fact, it just reduces your credibility in areas where you might be correct.
I'm going to give this a rest for a while. Do read more standard physics.
Yes I probably should just drop this.
F=f was force=frequency for the record, force creating a pressure.
P.s very interesting radio show.
-
Time does not exist and has no use, timing exists and has lots of uses. What is time? time is Universal timing.
-
What is time?
The interval that lies between separate events.
I can watch someone fire a pistol and also observe the bullet hit the target. The intervening moments between both of these events can be measured. We give these moments a universal value called seconds, milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, so and so forth. Time and these changing events give meaning to the word existence, without time or change, existence would be a meaningless word.
Consider the TIME you spent reading these words. Had nothing to do with distance did it? Time and distance are only related when determining rate or speed. Distance or measure of length has little to do with time unless we want to determine acceleration or velocity.
-
Time does not exist and has no use, timing exists and has lots of uses. What is time? time is Universal timing.
You're wasting your time here with ideas like that. Not knowing what you're talking about means that you can't see how useless your ideas are. Physics can't even be done or talked about without the concept of time. Reading a few books for the laymen having never formally studied physics is a far cry from having sufficient education to understand why everything you posted in this forum is wrong, if not simply nonsense. I'm not trying to insult you mind you. I'm simply stating the facts.
Nice attempt at a flame but with no prevail. I know very well what I am talking about. I am simply stating your facts that show my ideas to be true.
-
What is time?
The interval that lies between separate events.
I can watch someone fire a pistol and also observe the bullet hit the target. The intervening moments between both of these events can be measured. We give these moments a universal value called seconds, milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, so and so forth. Time and these changing events give meaning to the word existence, without time or change, existence would be a meaningless word.
Consider the TIME you spent reading these words. Had nothing to do with distance did it? Time and distance are only related when determining rate or speed. Distance or measure of length has little to do with time unless we want to determine acceleration or velocity.
Of cause you can time the amount of timing a bullet takes to hit the target, whilst you are observing the target and the bullet you are observing your time of timing increment whilst observing.
The numerical value of a second you are using for timing is based on a distance like science have told me.
Neither the bullet or the target has any impact on your dependent time observing, wasting your time.
Arbitrary use and no more.
No insult to you, you do not have my wavelength of thought and the ability to think deeper than deep.
123456789 takes up a distance across your screen, but I am sitting still when I write 123456789 and there is no distance.
Although 123456789 travels a distance on the screen, relative to me it is not moving anywhere, 123456789 is the observation of my time writing this.
When you read this, you will use an amount of time relative to you reading this.
Your time, not my time, my time writing this ends when I press post.
-
A car travels at Velocity = 1 m/s away from me, at the 10 m mark I have sat their 10 seconds wasting my time observing the departure.
How many seconds does the car take to travel 10 m?
We can not say that in space 10 seconds has passed because if the car was travelling Velocity = 2 m/s ,
then 10 m of space would become 5 seconds. In both instances 10 seconds and 5 seconds is relative only to me.
Where 10 seconds and 5 seconds was relative to the car.
In neither case is the car or me in a space-time, there is no value of time in just the space.
-
Nice attempt at a flame but with no prevail. I know very well what I am talking about. I am simply stating your facts that show my ideas to be true.
This is one of your problems. You're taking criticism as insults. I never flamed you and have no wish to do so. I'm merely explaining to you why you're so wrong in all these claims of yours. And it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. But your inability to see that is a combination of ignorance and arrogance and closed mindedness. It's why I have no wish to help you since its a futile effort since you can't learn. You simply claim that you're right and ignore what we're saying. That's not science at all. Then the second serious problem is the fact that you think you can prove your theories right by changing the definitions to everything. Its for all these reasons that you got onto the crackpot list.
Saying I do not know what I am talking about is trying to flame when it is more than obvious I know very well what I am talking about.
Do you not realise even the less capable person on the planet could think about time?
Do you not realise the same applies for most Physics?
What concept are you claiming I do not understand?
Light?
time?
Gravity?
Force?
Pressure?
Displacement?
space-time?
Einstein?
Newton?
Lavoisier?
Faraday?
Atoms?
Big bang?
I understand very well what I am talking about . A Physicist on Naked science radio show was talking about light today, did you view this and listen?
We really do see in the back of our heads it is called the V1 I think he said.
Crack pots make stupid ideas such as giant lizards outside of our Universe.
I can think about any process suggested, I already have a few lightning ideas but will have to dig a bit deeper.
-
Crack pots make stupid ideas such as giant lizards outside of our Universe.
One doesn't need to believe in giant lizards to be a crack-pot. All that's required is for them to ignore good science, and you my friend, are doing just that.
-
Crack pots make stupid ideas such as giant lizards outside of our Universe.
One doesn't need to believe in giant lizards to be a crack-pot. All that's required is for them to ignore good science, and you my friend, are doing just that.
Vice versus I believe and you all ignoring your own science.
-
Neither the bullet or the target has any impact on your dependent time observing, wasting your time.
It's comments like this that made me say that you don't understand many of the concepts you've been talking about here. First of all this sentence is so unclear that it's almost gibberish. What in the world does "impact on your dependent time observing" have to do with anything? The role that time plays here is that it separates "fast" from "slow" and therefore from "high kinetic energy" from "low kinetic energy" respectively. These are important concepts in physics. The problem with claims like yours is that all you have to do is make a claim that time is useless and sit back and claim that every use we show you of it is useless. That's an opinion and not a fact. You haven't been talking about facts in this or any other thread but merely your opinions and those aren't worth the paper you wrote them on.
Another one of your problems is the level of arrogance that you've been demonstrating here. How dare you claim that
No insult to you, you do not have my wavelength of thought and the ability to think deeper than deep.
People who make this claim, such as yourself, haven't actually done a lot of deep thinking. All they've done has to spent a lot of time doing so. Neither I nor anybody in this thread has seen any sign of your deep thinking.
I have presented facts, your facts, you are trying to get people to think I am crazy, my thoughts are better than your science, my thoughts are fact and not fantasy.
Paddy isnt it from the other forum?
I give you facts and does it look like I sit back?
You are wrong and not I. My logic is more solid than the flimpsy logic science presents.
You are deflecting away from the topic , starting to aim all your threads at me and offer no defence for science v my ideas.
I await your defence which I know you do not have, I know you do not have it because I have looked for a defence for science playing defence and attack.
-
Hello i am back and i am starting to learn programing and did not finisch any edication So I am ad the wrong forum but i do have ideas about the universe and what Isee all around my the behaviour of all things the do akt alike and the are constant I only like to think about these things when I am out of balance So sorry If I talkt down on you I will be Going now and not bother people like u here anymore i supose it is a wast of you time and opsetting anyone is surtenly not my intention just wanted to tell my tought and learn some but this is a good time for me so good luck and please do not quit sience it beutyfull I wiss all of you the best and hope live from earth will surfive longer than the planet oure solar system good luck with sience [:o]
-
I hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.
Don't give up. All you need to do is study harder. It takes an enormous amount of work/study to become a scientist and for a physicist that includes a ton of advanced mathematics. If you have a love of physics then I suggest that you really get into it. That means learning advanced math and studying real college level calculus based physics texts.
You will never be taken seriously to change something in physics if you don't have a good understanding of what it is that you propose to change. And talking down to us won't help either. Some of us have been physicists for decades. What ever gave you the idea that you're the only one who has challenged ideas in physics when in my experience that's part of learning the subject in the first place. We don't merely learn my memorizing but by challenging what is presented to us. We accept it temporarily when we are unable to break it. And that's true for all physicists.
Thank you for the kind words, yes in learning I question everything, my ideas came from this. I have learnt some of the maths, I tried to learn more maths on my last forum, they banned me from learning and practising maths on there, they were not happy when I re-wrote some maths to show maths was an invention made to fit the process and the process comes first before the maths is made to fit the process.
I changed my mind because I've gotten to know you a bit more since I said that and from that I can see that you'll never be able to stop being arrogant which means that you'll never be able to learn since you think you know everything. You really should quit science.
What ever Dy....
-
What ever Dy....
Yep. That's the kind of attitude that makes everyone dislike you. That and your refusal to prove your claims.
Refusal to prove my claims?
I think all I have said is blatantly obvious and axioms.
Matter and time are woven into a single dependent manifold.
Your time is only relative to you, my time is independent of your time. I occupy a different dimension of space.
My space-time is dependent on how long I live, my increment of existence is not in time with your time or occupying the same space.
Time is a multi-dimensional occupancy of space with no beginning and no end, an infiniteness dependent to an individual dimension of an existence in space.
-
I make a proposal and theory that space-time is not independent of the observer or an object but instead dependent to the observer or object.
We do not observe the time of an object or observer travelling towards us or away from us, we observe our own dependent time viewing the object or observer.
Time dilation shows a dilation of dependent time of the observer or object and not a dilation of an independent time to the observer or object.
Hi - I don't see what the new part of this is. Can you elaborate?
-
I make a proposal and theory that space-time is not independent of the observer or an object but instead dependent to the observer or object.
We do not observe the time of an object or observer travelling towards us or away from us, we observe our own dependent time viewing the object or observer.
Time dilation shows a dilation of dependent time of the observer or object and not a dilation of an independent time to the observer or object.
Hi - I don't see what the new part of this is. Can you elaborate?
Hi, in short it is saying we are not within a time and space, we are time in a space and without us or objects in a space time does not begin or end.
-
What ever Dy....
Typical response from Mr. Box of Rocks.
-
Refusal to prove my claims?
Yep. That's right sonny.
I think all I have said is blatantly obvious and axioms.
Nothing you've ever said is blatantly obvious and the axioms are all total garbage. You simply aren't smart enough to understand it.
Matter and time are woven into a single dependent manifold.
So what? Minkowski defined this as a spacetime manifold long before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.
Your time is only relative to you, my time is independent of your time.
What the hell are you saying "my time"/"your time". Define these terms clearly or don't use them. They don't belong in relativity, that's for sure. You might legitimately refer to the reading of a clock on a wall or your wristwatch but if so then you need to make that clear. But the two times certainly aren't independent (more nonsense coming from your ignorance) since they're related by a Lorentz transformation.
I occupy a different dimension of space.
Wow!! That's a totally new level of rubbish. Every object in this universe occupies three dimensional space. No object occupies any other dimension of space, namely because there aren't any. Occupying a different dimension of space is just plain nonsense. However this is the kind of nonsense that we've all come to expect from you.
My space-time is dependent on how long I live, ...
More rubbish. No object with a finite existence resides in a spacetime that exists only as long as the object does. Claiming otherwise is, once more, nonsense. If you knew relativity then you'd know that.
I can't believe the level of crap that you post in this forum while you believe that you know what you're talking about and that you've read the Feynman Lectures. You're just plain full of it.
Will you ever stop wasting space on this forum with the kind of things that I just explained is total garbage?
Well folks, I have to admit: I'm stumped. Question: Why on Earth do we still bother explaining to this total idiot how stupid he is and what total sheet his assertions are? I've never seen such stupid posts since I've been posting on the internet - all from a child who thinks that he's right and its the world that's wrong. Lol!
I thinkmy original assumpion that you are paddy or dy from the other forum is warranted. I noticed the turn in attitude once my ideas were extracted from me again.
Ether way you obvious want to flame and try to get me banned yet again. You are welcome to keep your science I am off and quiting because you are so insulting and I would love to meet you in real life.
Call me an idiot and get away with it over and over again to a situation where I hate you, you are a cyber bully . A keyboard warrior troll. I am more IQ in my little toe than your entire body.
You deny science, and the fact that the keating experiment shows us time is dependent to the observer and independent to each others time,
CYa you fool
-
I am more IQ in my little toe than your entire body.
But of course,....... your IQ is so high that you can't even compose a grammatically correct sentence. "I am more IQ" explains it all doesn't it? I know 6 year olds that can communicate better than that!
-
I thinkmy original assumpion that you are paddy or dy from the other forum is warranted. I noticed the turn in attitude once my ideas were extracted from me again.
It's the obnoxious way that you treat others that gets you banned. Claiming that I'm stupid or that you have a high IQ is just plain dumb. Not one person on Earth would believe such crap coming from a deluded child such as yourself. We keep telling you that just because you type a string of words together and make it come out looking like a claim in no way makes it true whatsoever. You have never understood the concept of providing proof of anything. All you do is go around making grandiose claims, all of which we see right through as being so wrong that they're just plain crap.
... I am off and quiting
Wonderful! Thanks!
because you are so insulting and I would love to meet you in real life.
If I met you in real life I'd slap you silly you little punk.
Call me an idiot and get away with it over and over again to a situation where I hate you, you are a cyber bully .
That's not what a cyberbully is, asshole. That's defined by the government as follows
http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/
Cyberbullying happens when kids bully each other through electronic technology.
I.e. its what happens when one kid bullies another kid. I'm no kid. In any case you're the one who starts all of this but you're too stupid to see it. You keep making claims of how much of a genius you are and how dumb everyone else is and you then think that everyone will accept that as true and worship you? Wow! Now that's what I call stupid.
am more IQ in my little toe than your entire body.
Not from what we've seen. From everything we've seen its pretty clear that you have either an average or below average IQ. Mine, on the other hand, is about 130. That means that I'm more intelligent than 98% of the people on Earth and am eligible for membership in Mensa and the International High IQ Society. My level of intelligence is said to make me "gifted".
You, on the other hand, are an idiot. You can't even write a grammatically correct sentence. And you think that makes you a genius? ROTFLMOA!
You deny science, ..
Nonsense. I've been a physicist for three times as long as you've been alive and I don't deny science. I only know that you're understanding of it is sh1t
How many times must I say it, stop expecting me to be a literate genius or a scientist who knows all the terms,
I am an amateur , you should expect this if you have any sort of logic.
-
I am an amateur , you should expect this if you have any sort of logic.
Seriously, what every physicist needs to expect from an amateur (interested in learning) is for that amateur to ask questions without turning the answer into an argument!
If you disagree with the answers garnered here, simply express your position of disagreement with the facts you have supporting that position. To date, none of your positions has been supported with any evidence. In fact, your explanations have been so difficult to logically understand that it has become impossible to even consider, with any clarity, those positions.
Individuals that concede to ask a question should be humble enough to at least consider the answer they receive from those asked. It has been noticed by everyone here that you are humble enough to ask, but never humble enough to accept the answer given. For those of us kind enough to offer those answers, it has become increasingly difficult to continue offering them because you keep dismissing those answers with answers of your own. If you already had the answer, why was it necessary to even ask us?
I personally believe you're not really interested in our answers and in the interest of tranquility and order, if you don't like the answers you're getting, quite asking for them. And if you truly think your answers are better, quite calling yourself an amateur.
-
I am an amateur , you should expect this if you have any sort of logic.
Seriously, what every physicist needs to expect from an amateur (interested in learning) is for that amateur to ask questions without turning the answer into an argument!
If you disagree with the answers garnered here, simply express your position of disagreement with the facts you have supporting that position. To date, none of your positions has been supported with any evidence. In fact, your explanations have been so difficult to logically understand that it has become impossible to even consider, with any clarity, those positions.
Individuals that concede to ask a question should be humble enough to at least consider the answer they receive from those asked. It has been noticed by everyone here that you are humble enough to ask, but never humble enough to accept the answer given. For those of us kind enough to offer those answers, it has become increasingly difficult to continue offering them because you keep dismissing those answers with answers of your own. If you already had the answer, why was it necessary to even ask us?
I personally believe you're not really interested in our answers and in the interest of tranquility and order, if you don't like the answers you're getting, quite asking for them. And if you truly think your answers are better, quite calling yourself an amateur.
My argument is that this - ''In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.''
I do not agree with. Arbitrary time is observed by matter and relative motion dependant to the object or observer, we do not observe a space-time, space allows, time-in-space.
Observe a new formed star, there is no time in that space until the star is born. Space allows occupancy time of space. The Keating experiment shows a dependent time dilation.
-
How many times must I say it, stop expecting me to be a literate genius or a scientist who knows all the terms,
Nobody, especially myself, has ever expected that from you. What we expect, actually what we demand is that you write sentences which make sense. The way you write the sentences are almost gibberish. I'm certainly not a literate genius and neither is anybody else here. But what we all have the ability to do is write sentences that everyone else can understand.
Besides, I already told you to have your mommy and daddy proof read your posts before you make them if you want to be understood.
I am an amateur , you should expect this if you have any sort of logic.
We all know that you're an amateur. That's why you shouldn't be trying to claim that everything you started a thread on in the "New Theories" forum is not wrong. Amateurs have no business creating new theories and redefining well-defined terms.
You cleverly avoid talking about the actual thread, you always try to add an insult, in this instant calling me a child.
Explain exactly what the Keating experiment observes?
Explain how the time being recorded is not dependent to each individual clock?
-
My argument is that this - ''In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.''
I do not agree with. Arbitrary time is observed by matter and relative motion dependant to the object or observer, we do not observe a space-time, space allows, time-in-space.
Your position is at odds with 99.9% of present cosmological theory. Look up Spacetime on Wikipedia and you'll find out how wrong you are about this position. Continuing to suggest that we should see things your way will not be successful.
Time and space are not separate attributes of reality, they can only exist together as a single entity called space/time.
To continue harping about this will only show your ignorance. And I reiterate, the word ignorance only means a lack of knowledge. It isn't meant to signal insult or to be demeaning in any way.
-
My argument is that this - ''In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.''
I do not agree with. Arbitrary time is observed by matter and relative motion dependant to the object or observer, we do not observe a space-time, space allows, time-in-space.
Your position is at odds with 99.9% of present cosmological theory. Look up Spacetime on Wikipedia and you'll find out how wrong you are about this position. Continuing to suggest that we should see things your way will not be successful.
Time and space are not separate attributes of reality, they can only exist together as a single entity called space/time.
To continue harping about this will only show your ignorance. And I reiterate, the word ignorance only means a lack of knowledge. It isn't meant to signal insult or to be demeaning in any way.
Explain exactly what the Keating experiment observes?
Explain how the time being recorded is not dependent to each individual clock?
-
For something to have time, you have to be able to destroy it.
-
I'm looking forward to hearing the first cuckoo of spring.
-
I'm looking forward to hearing the first cuckoo of spring.
Maybe you missed him, try re-reading post#60.
-
It is really simple, try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want, the space is infinite in existence, therefore can not be measured , no space time.
-
There is a simple fact about space and time you're not considering Mr. Box.
Did you know that time passes more slowly in a gravitational field and we now have time keeping devises that can measure the different rates. In fact, there is a new time keeping devise that can measure the different rate of time between a clock on the surface of the earth and one only a few centimeters above the surface. And not only does gravity influence the rate that time passes, any acceleration in velocity will also affect time's passage.
Because the passage of time is altered by the character of the space surrounding the time keeping devise, the two attributes of cosmic reality "time and space" can not be divorced from each other. And there is no space empty of field, so likewise, there is no space unaffected by the time slowing effects of gravity.
This will be my last post on this thread, maybe you'll do us all a favor and consider this last attempt to teach you something of value. If this attempt falls on deaf ears, it will surprise nobody because all previous attempts have seen zero results.
If you really want to learn, you will consider what I've offered you as evidence.
I'm out.........................................
-
It is really simple, try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want, the space is infinite in existence, therefore can not be measured , no space time.
Yet another example of TB demonstrating his total lack of understanding of spacetime and it's relationship to the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Of course he has no idea what that is or what its relation is to spacetime.
When you said try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want all you were doing was yapping about things totally unrelated to how space is created and destroyed. Frankly I can't understand why you'd say something as ignorant as that when you have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think makes you qualified to make such statements? What education, training or whatever do you have which tells us that what you claim to be true can be relied upon?
When cosmologists say that space expands/contracts during the Big Bang/Big Crunch what they're doing is describing the creation and destruction of space. The existence of spacetime is governed by a mathematical object called the Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor. You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor
The "components" of this object are obviously stress, energy and momentum. Clearly its the stress, energy and momentum of the matter which they're referring to which is altering spacetime. The following reasoning is similar to what led Einstein to derive his field equations for General Relativity (GR) in 1915. GR has been thoroughly tested time and time again since then and it's always been demonstrated to be correct. When used to describe the universe it tells us that if the mass density is small enough then there's a finite amount of matter in the universe and that means that the universe has a finite amount of space and matter in it. In any case space is now expanding and at an accelerating rate. That means that right now space is actually being CREATED.
Everything you could possible present as an argument against it has already been done so and failed. And you think you know everything even when you can't even follow the derivation of those field equations. HA!
In this case the reason you're so wrong is because you're trying to use reasoning based on Newtonian notions of space and time and are clearly and atrociously ignoring GR. GR can defy common sense a great deal of the time because our senses didn't evolve with relativity taken into account. I.e. we never had direct experience with the slowing down of clocks or the stretching and contraction of space. If you knew what the metric was and how it's used and what experiments have been done to test GR using the metric then you'd understand how we know that matter can alter space by stretching or contracting it.
Another serious problem that you have in conceptualizing the decrease in the amount of space (i.e. it's "destruction") is that you're thinking of space as a physical object like a teddy bear which you can punch, rip or tear in half. What you've been unable grasp so far is the fact that space can only be manipulated by matter and that matter is represented by the stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor. The SEM tensor is defined and described here: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/energy_momentum_tensor.htm
If you had a real interest in physics rather than a singular desire to try to show everyone that you're a genius then you'd read the following paper and learn how stress can contribute to the inertia of a body.
The inertia of stress by Rodrigo Medina, Am. J. Phys. 74, 1031 (2006)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609144
Very few people (percentage wise) know about this aspect of relativity. If you had ever chosen to learn GR then you'd already know how matter can create and destroy space. Although "destroy space" is a terrible way to describe it.
To learn why cosmologist have determined that the universe is expanding you could read:
http://www.eftaylor.com/exploringblackholes/ExpandCosmos150212v1.pdf
However, that would take a lot of work and I doubt that you'd understand what you're reading.
''In this case the reason you're so wrong is because you're trying to use reasoning based on Newtonian notions of space and time and are clearly and atrociously ignoring GR. GR can defy common sense a great deal of the time because our senses didn't evolve with relativity taken into account. I.e. we never had direct experience with the slowing down of clocks or the stretching and contraction of space. If you knew what the metric was and how it's used and what experiments have been done to test GR using the metric then you'd understand how we know that matter can alter space by stretching or contracting it.''
I am using my own reasoning not anyone else's thoughts or reasoning.
I think I will just give up, science is weird in every sense, almost the same has religion with lots of false belief.
You really do not understand the fairy tale life you are living within science.
You idolise people which is pathetic, complete belief in those that were before us.
''When you said try to destroy the space around you, ''punch the air'', burn it, explode it, try anything you want all you were doing was yapping about things totally unrelated to how space is created and destroyed. Frankly I can't understand why you'd say something as ignorant as that when you have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think makes you qualified to make such statements? What education, training or whatever do you have which tells us that what you claim to be true can be relied upon?''
Space can not be destroyed, science and yourself if you believe this, well what can I say, it is not normal.
What makes me qualified to say this? 42 years on the planet and simply knowing, you can not destroy space please feel free to try.
Another problem is, another problem is, I have no problems in my camp, the problems are in your camp, science is full of fallacy with no proof so why do you defend obvious lies? Obvious lies I have asked people in real life about, can you destroy a space? answer- that is an absurd question, no you can not destroy space.
When are you going to post your new theory on this forum showing us how to destroy a space?
When are you going to post your new theory showing how to record time of a space?
-
I think I will just give up, science is weird in every sense, almost the same has religion with lots of false belief.
Great idea. You really should give up. It's clear that it's way to hard for you to understand since what's very clear and well demonstrated to intelligent physicists all over the world is a "false belief" to the lesser intelligent such as yourself.
Not to mention that we don't like liars such as yourself here giving false information about your date of birth when you joined.
So please stop saying this ignorant crap based on zero knowledge and experience. It's far too hard for you to ever grasp and you don't demonstrate any willingness to do the work like the rest of us which is required to understand physics. So go away and just keep saying to yourself "It's all wrong. It's all wrong. It's all wrong. There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home......"
You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.
P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.
I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.
I will make my final stand in this thread. I am getting tired in trying.
Let us elaborate and take note of the false testament of science.
1. Space itself is expanding(not observed, only matter is observed)
2. A Curvature of space(not observed, there is no evidential that shows a space fabric)
3. A space time ( not observed)
4. White light is a mixture of frequencies (not observed)
5. A time dilation (not observed)
6. Time travel (not possible)
7. Atoms (not observed)
8. A Graviton ( not observed)
None of the above are observable or experimentally proven to be true.
1. Space is transparent and infinite and matter moves through space until it is beyond our visual boundaries. (observed)
2. A Curvature of no substance is impossible, there is no evidence to support any fabric of space.(observed)
3. Time can not be measured of a space, time is meaningless of a space.(observed)
4. White light is transparent and not white, the spectral range is interaction and only shows us that by interaction or observer effect, that the transparent light can be modulated into a frequency that we define, transparent light itself is an undefined frequency and not a mixture.(observed)
5. A time dilation is a crock of , a dependent flux of emittance of the individual Caesium clock by being displaced from gravity by relative velocity does not effect time. (observed)
6. see 5
7. We do not directly observe an atom, to say it is made up of parts is pure guestimation.(observed)
8. A graviton , not observed completely made up.(observed)
That is my stance on your science by discourse of the present information, I await your providence of definitive proof to the eight subjects outlined, otherwise as a none scientist I can only conclude that you have falsities in the science process.
-
P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.
Here's a model of reality that may or may not be true, but it's worth considering. Imagine a long piece of string with knots in it. The knots are matter and the string is "space". It's possible to make knots that disappear if you pull the string on either side of them too hard (or they could "burst", thereby turning themselves into vibrations that race away along the string), and it would be possible for a knot to move along the string by rearranging itself. You can do the same kind of thing with a sheet - pull a bit up and tie a knot in in - the knot is matter while the unknotted parts of the sheet are space. You can send waves along the string or through the sheet. If the string or sheet is made of elastic, it can be stretched. If it is made of something more exotic, it may be possible to expand it without it trying to pull back together, and whatever it's made of, it may be able to source new material from somewhere to enable that expansion. It is hard to imagine how it would do that, but there may be a whole sea of such material sitting alongside the universe in another dimension. The key thing you need to take in from all this though is that "space" is not nothing. If it was nothing, how could there be any spatial separation between two items in space? If there is literally nothing between them, they must be touching.
I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.
It is obvious to everyone that you have your own logic, but it is not the logic I recognise as logic.
I will make my final stand in this thread. I am getting tired in trying.
The world (in the northern hemisphere) is coming back to life as Spring begins, so get out into it to enjoy nature - the forum season is ending. Get out there and live.
4. White light is a mixture of frequencies (not observed)
Are you being serious about that? Have you never seen a prism and what it does? Have you never tried mixing colours on a screen by setting the RGB pixel values?
4. White light is transparent and not white, the spectral range is interaction and only shows us that by interaction or observer effect, that the transparent light can be modulated into a frequency that we define, transparent light itself is an undefined frequency and not a mixture.(observed)
And you accuse people of spreading misinformation!
-
Here's a model of reality that may or may not be true, but it's worth considering. Imagine a long piece of string with knots in it. The knots are matter and the string is "space". It's possible to make knots that disappear if you pull the string on either side of them too hard (or they could "burst", thereby turning themselves into vibrations that race away along the string), and it would be possible for a knot to move along the string by rearranging itself. You can do the same kind of thing with a sheet - pull a bit up and tie a knot in in - the knot is matter while the unknotted parts of the sheet are space. You can send waves along the string or through the sheet. If the string or sheet is made of elastic, it can be stretched. If it is made of something more exotic, it may be possible to expand it without it trying to pull back together, and whatever it's made of, it may be able to source new material from somewhere to enable that expansion. It is hard to imagine how it would do that, but there may be a whole sea of such material sitting alongside the universe in another dimension. The key thing you need to take in from all this though is that "space" is not nothing. If it was nothing, how could there be any spatial separation between two items in space? If there is literally nothing between them, they must be touching.
At least you was honest, (see bold text).
The problem with myself, if it is not logical it can not be true. For a strange reason I see what I consider reality and unless something is 100% then I can not accept it to be a truth.
Certain things I mention are of axiom values, I do not understand why science would ignore this.....
Ignore me by all means , but do not ignore the axiom truths.
The true ability of a scientist is to rational think and draw a logical conclusion on something that is not known, and using Physical comparatives to assess and determine the unknown.
The art of knowing without knowing.
I know without knowing that by rational thinking I can deduce that space is infinite, I can not deduce that matter is infinite spread throughout space with spacing.
-
David - May I make a suggestion? TB has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't have the capacity to understand nearly anything in physics. As you can see from his last post he's now resorted to quoting an 8 year old to support his twisted logic. The more we respond to him the more craziness he brings to TNS. The only way that he can post anything is when he is given something to respond to and then he has the opportunity to respond with lunatic reasoning. It's for this reason I will never respond to him again. The combination of his intense arrogance and shear stupidity has made him the worst crackpot that I've ever seen on the internet during the nearly 20 years that I've been helping people learn physics. He even thinks that it's *I* who has asserted that space can be created and destroyed and has totally refused to acknowledge that it's the entire community of relativistic cosmologists who have determined this many decades ago using general relativity. It's a very simple concept which is beyond his understanding. And for that reason he's incapable of learning. So please join me in restoring some sense of sanity even to this shady portion of the TNS.
Consider your words from a wise perspective, you are seeing very different from the normal crackpots, it is simply you not understanding me.
-
The problem with myself, if it is not logical it can not be true. For a strange reason I see what I consider reality and unless something is 100% then I can not accept it to be a truth.
That's a good principle to stick with, so I'm with you on that. The thing you need to be really careful with though is checking whether you're doing your reasoning correctly or not. Running your ideas past people on a forum like this is a good way of having your reasoning tested, and what you have to do if they still disagree with you is try to work out why that's happening. You need to identify the point where your reasoning and their reasoning don't match up, and then you can point out that issue and see how they respond to it, but you need to express your ideas clearly and strip out any wild claims that will invite people to go off on long diversions where they attack those claims while they fail to recognise any crucial point that you may have made and that they may have missed. I think your biggest problem is with communication. If you can fix that, it will then be easier to explore how you reason.
-
The problem with myself, if it is not logical it can not be true. For a strange reason I see what I consider reality and unless something is 100% then I can not accept it to be a truth.
That's a good principle to stick with, so I'm with you on that. The thing you need to be really careful with though is checking whether you're doing your reasoning correctly or not. Running your ideas past people on a forum like this is a good way of having your reasoning tested, and what you have to do if they still disagree with you is try to work out why that's happening. You need to identify the point where your reasoning and their reasoning don't match up, and then you can point out that issue and see how they respond to it, but you need to express your ideas clearly and strip out any wild claims that will invite people to go off on long diversions where they attack those claims while they fail to recognise any crucial point that you may have made and that they may have missed. I think your biggest problem is with communication. If you can fix that, it will then be easier to explore how you reason.
''The thing you need to be really careful with though is checking whether you're doing your reasoning correctly or not''
I do check that my understanding of present information is correct , I use forums and internet information such as you-tube documentaries. My reasoning is based on simple observation of the reality of something and the Physics of something. I make no assumptions that are not reasoned firstly , then secondly self-objective to my own ideas.
Communication is seemingly the problem, which is strange because I read all your posts the same has my posts read back to me.
''You need to identify the point where your reasoning and their reasoning don't match up,''
A point where time began for instance? a big bang that before it nothing existed, not even space. Now if any one in the world can imagine a singular point and nothing else, not even space surrounding the point, then I take my hat off to them, it is logically impossible to imagine a point that is not surrounded by dark space, shut your eyes and try it, the point is always pictured in the dark space.
There was two cavemen discussing the world and the first question was, how did we get here? what are we? with a blankness of minds they looked to the skies and the black background of space for answers.
Hug says ; ''we must be prisoners inside of a cave, and the distance glows of the night sky must line the caves ceiling like our fire lines our cave floor, because compared to my cave I observe dark walls, so maybe like the ants you have in that bucket, maybe we were put here or were made here and are within a cave''.
Huggy , the smarter of the two, sits and thinks for a while, then replies; '' When I am in my cave I observe a space within the cave , and outside of the cave is more space, so if we are in a space within a cave within a space within a cave, then that must mean that after that there is more space. I also observe that when the fire on the cave floor dims, the cave walls become a darkness and I can no longer see the cave walls compared to the walls of space. I also observe that when you walk away from me with your lit torch, eventually you and the torch vanish into the blackness of the night. Maybe the blackness of the walls of space are the same as the blackness of night, and we can just not see the objects that have vanished into the darkness, because at distance I can neither see you or the lit torch''.
Hug replies ; '' so how many times can we fit a cave inside of a bigger cave, and the bigger cave inside of an even bigger cave, and keep repeating this?''
Science says space itself is expanding, and after that there is nothing, impossible and comparative to a flat earth theory.
-
A point where time began for instance? a big bang that before it nothing existed, not even space. Now if any one in the world can imagine a singular point and nothing else, not even space surrounding the point, then I take my hat off to them, it is logically impossible to imagine a point that is not surrounded by dark space, shut your eyes and try it, the point is always pictured in the dark space.
Physics often steps beyond logical limits in the way it states things, and that can mislead the believers and repel the disbelievers. The way to fix that would be to get physicists to be more careful in the way they use language so that they don't make claims about things not existing when they might exist, or that there was no time before the big bang. It is not certain that the big bang came from a singularity - it may just have been a very dense clump of stuff. The fabric of space that the stuff we see resides within was also compressed into that clump of stuff, but that doesn't mean there can't be an external space fabric (potentially infinite) within which the other space fabric is expanding - physics doesn't talk about such an external space as we have no way of detecting it, so it's left for philosophy to consider it and speculate about it, and indeed to think about whether it needs to exist at all. What is wrong is for physics to state that it doesn't exist when physics doesn't know. This is an area where you are actually free to imagine for yourself without being told that you're wrong. The idea that time started at the big bang and that there was no time before that is also just an assertion which is "true" within the bounds of a favoured theory, but the theory is not guaranteed to be correct. The problem we have in this case is that a lot of people have bought into that theory so heavily that they consider it to be true (and in many cases they regard it as proven), and that makes them assert things without qualifying their assertion with an "if" tag.
This makes it hard to get your foot in the door when discussing the nature of reality, because you don't know whether people are talking out of their hats or if they're standing on firm ground, and the number of qualifications tied to their name isn't always a useful guide. When you make a suggestion and get shouted down by someone holding to the official line, you need to know enough about the theory/theories they've bought into to be able to tell whether they're parroting dogma or thinking for themselves, and once you know enough to be able to tell the difference you can then press them to clarify where their assertions come from and whether they're backed by experiment or ideology.
The key advice to follow is the old one: know your enemy. Study what they believe and do your best to see if you can make their beliefs fit reality as you see it, and then go on the attack, homing in on the parts that don't seem to match up properly. Pick one issue at a time and become an expert in that. Don't go for everything at once, because you won't have had time to think more than a fraction of it through properly. Latch onto a single problem and explore it in depth - lay bare the problem by analysing it in great detail so that everyone has a chance of seeing the fault that you have spotted (or of spotting the point where your reasoning has gone astray). At the moment you're a drunk man in the dark with a blunderbuss shooting lead shot into everything you can hear rustling around you. Buy yourself a bright torch and study one thing at a time with great care.
-
A point where time began for instance? a big bang that before it nothing existed, not even space. Now if any one in the world can imagine a singular point and nothing else, not even space surrounding the point, then I take my hat off to them, it is logically impossible to imagine a point that is not surrounded by dark space, shut your eyes and try it, the point is always pictured in the dark space.
Physics often steps beyond logical limits in the way it states things, and that can mislead the believers and repel the disbelievers. The way to fix that would be to get physicists to be more careful in the way they use language so that they don't make claims about things not existing when they might exist, or that there was no time before the big bang. It is not certain that the big bang came from a singularity - it may just have been a very dense clump of stuff. The fabric of space that the stuff we see resides within was also compressed into that clump of stuff, but that doesn't mean there can't be an external space fabric (potentially infinite) within which the other space fabric is expanding - physics doesn't talk about such an external space as we have no way of detecting it, so it's left for philosophy to consider it and speculate about it, and indeed to think about whether it needs to exist at all. What is wrong is for physics to state that it doesn't exist when physics doesn't know. This is an area where you are actually free to imagine for yourself without being told that you're wrong. The idea that time started at the big bang and that there was no time before that is also just an assertion which is "true" within the bounds of a favoured theory, but the theory is not guaranteed to be correct. The problem we have in this case is that a lot of people have bought into that theory so heavily that they consider it to be true (and in many cases they regard it as proven), and that makes them assert things without qualifying their assertion with an "if" tag.
This makes it hard to get your foot in the door when discussing the nature of reality, because you don't know whether people are talking out of their hats or if they're standing on firm ground, and the number of qualifications tied to their name isn't always a useful guide. When you make a suggestion and get shouted down by someone holding to the official line, you need to know enough about the theory/theories they've bought into to be able to tell whether they're parroting dogma or thinking for themselves, and once you know enough to be able to tell the difference you can then press them to clarify where their assertions come from and whether they're backed by experiment or ideology.
The key advice to follow is the old one: know your enemy. Study what they believe and do your best to see if you can make their beliefs fit reality as you see it, and then go on the attack, homing in on the parts that don't seem to match up properly. Pick one issue at a time and become an expert in that. Don't go for everything at once, because you won't have had time to think more than a fraction of it through properly. Latch onto a single problem and explore it in depth - lay bare the problem by analysing it in great detail so that everyone has a chance of seeing the fault that you have spotted (or of spotting the point where your reasoning has gone astray). At the moment you're a drunk man in the dark with a blunderbuss shooting lead shot into everything you can hear rustling around you. Buy yourself a bright torch and study one thing at a time with great care.
I agree some science is stated has fact and needs proper representation to save misleading readers, I admire your honesty.
My problem is I have studied enough to know enough and to make conclusion, I believe in axiom values, and there is several subjects that are logically axioms without observation needed which I mostly state.
I find one problem then this effects something else, that is why I seem to be multi-tasking ideas.
I will try to calm and start at the beginning maybe, starting with the logic of the big bang.
-
Space-Time is an absolute 4 dimensional environment.
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"
All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion.
The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,
is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managed
to discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.
http://goo.gl/fz4R0I (http://goo.gl/fz4R0I)
-
Space-Time is an absolute 4 dimensional environment.
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"
All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion.
The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,
is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managed
to discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.
http://goo.gl/fz4R0I (http://goo.gl/fz4R0I)
what a crock of , that link is gibberish.
-
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!
-
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!
I apologise to you, it is obvious to me now from forum time, that you really are a scientist, is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?
Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.
-
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!
I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.
-
Time is a dependent experience that occupies dimensions of space an occupied space existence travelling forward time through a space. Space itself is ageless and immortal and the mortal time travels through the ageless immortal space. Something that has immortality can only logically be presumed infinite with no end or beginning and isotropic in all directions after all if your were immortal you could travel in any direction for an infinite distance. Our time is finite only finite by death and a finite time universe somewhat 38 billions years old, only by limited distance of observation and a said expanding space. Space itself has no physical structure, it is not balloon like with surface, it is empty like except the transparent dark you see through, and the radiation charging the CBMR that is to weak for us to see through without intensity of the radiation. A dark cave is not absence of light, it is absence of sight, with heat detector devices I could see you, and if I had evolved to see by CMBR alone, again I would see you. It is never really dark while the existence of cmbr remains, that what makes it not void. It is also never really light, that is all in your head, and your night vision eyes only work at specific frequencies and intensity. Other species evolve better and they naturally see in the darkness of the night. A time dilation is nothing, arbitrary time devices do not effect ageless immortal space, each clock was dependent to gravitational field and velocity and is an independent experience for each clock. Space does not have an edge, it just has no large enough light sources at distance by vanishing points of matter.
-
Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.
I know you have given a lot of thought to light, but some alternative thoughts:
A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.
A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!
A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, so assume an object could travel at the speed of light. If passing through our solar system it would reflect the sun's light and because of persistence of vision we would see a line of light. What arc this would be visible over I haven't bothered to calc, but I assume that on both approach and retreat there would be a point where the Doppler effect means the light would be outside of visible range.
-
Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.
I know you have given a lot of thought to light, but some alternative thoughts:
A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.
A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!
A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, so assume an object could travel at the speed of light. If passing through our solar system it would reflect the sun's light and because of persistence of vision we would see a line of light. What arc this would be visible over I haven't bothered to calc, but I assume that on both approach and retreat there would be a point where the Doppler effect means the light would be outside of visible range.
A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have no mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!
-
I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.
Yes. It's based on the viewpoint that the ds in ds^2 = gab dxa dxb is sometimes called a "distance" because it looks like the expression for distance in Euclidean geometry. In SR its merely an analogy based on the way it looks. But some misguided people insist on interpreting it as the "distance between two points in spacetime" and then that distance divided by the proper time between the two events is called the speed through spacetime. The funny thing about this definition is that the speed of a photon through spacetime does not have the value
I apologise to you, it is obvious to me now from forum time, that you really are a scientist, ...
So all this time you thought I was lying about it? Unbelievable! Is that what you normally do, i.e. assume people are lying to you about something like that? If it'd make you happy I'll scan my degree into my computer and post an image of it in this forum. It will have to wait though. A long time ago when I moved from one place to another it got lost in the process. I've been planning on getting another one for a long time. I just contacted my old alma-mater and will be getting a copy of it in a few weeks.
In all the years I've spent on the internet I've never seen someone who wasn't a physicist claim to be one. It's too easy to catch someone in a lie like that because it's very difficult to get the education of a physicist by self study. It's far too difficult for the average person. I'd wager that people who aren't a physicist don't claim they are because they'd be afraid of being asked a question that any physicist could answer but which a non-physicist most likely couldn't answer.
... is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?
What download are you referring to?
Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.
Objects don't create time by moving through space.
-
A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.
If the graviton is discovered someday and has the properties we believe that it does then the graviton also has zero proper mass and therefore travel at the speed of light. I believe that they will because gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light.
A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light.
While that's correct, I myself try to avoid making statements like. Since no object can travel at the speed of light we'll never be able to measure the particles proper mass.
A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, ...
Really? He actually doesn't "believe" relativity? I don't think I was aware of that. What does he base that belief on?
-
If the graviton is discovered someday and has the properties we believe that it does then the graviton also has zero proper mass and therefore travel at the speed of light. I believe that they will because gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light.
I did wonder about the graviton.
While that's correct, I myself try to avoid making statements like. Since no object can travel at the speed of light we'll never be able to measure the particles proper mass.
Good point
Really? He actually doesn't "believe" relativity? I don't think I was aware of that. What does he base that belief on?
Belief. That can convince you of anything you want.
-
So all this time you thought I was lying about it? Unbelievable! Is that what you normally do, i.e. assume people are lying to you about something like that? If it'd make you happy I'll scan my degree into my computer and post an image of it in this forum. It will have to wait though. A long time ago when I moved from one place to another it got lost in the process. I've been planning on getting another one for a long time. I just contacted my old alma-mater and will be getting a copy of it in a few weeks.
In all the years I've spent on the internet I've never seen someone who wasn't a physicist claim to be one. It's too easy to catch someone in a lie like that because it's very difficult to get the education of a physicist by self study. It's far too difficult for the average person. I'd wager that people who aren't a physicist don't claim they are because they'd be afraid of being asked a question that any physicist could answer but which a non-physicist most likely couldn't answer.
... is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?
What download are you referring to?
Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.
Objects don't create time by moving through space.
All this time I thought you wee a member from other forum giving me a hard time, I have had bad experiences on other forums that the mods let the members behave like a school yard name calling, and mods even joined in.
The video was about time, and a chap sitting in a wheel chair?
And objects are time moving through space, you wanted to know what time was, I have told you , logically only things that can ''die'' or be destroyed can have time. Time is not relevant to anything else and may Newtons sword slash it from wiki.
You can use x,y,z to plot a vector, you can draw a line that does not really exist, you can put a time to it which does not really exist, you have just calculated travelling time of an object, space is static.
(a)......................................................................................(b)
There is no time between (a) and (b) there is only the ageless distance of space surrounding the ageing (a) and (b)
Consider expansion
space................................(at)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<space>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(bt)..................................................space
no space time,
Distance is equal to the dependent time of (a) and the dependent time of (b) and the dependent velocity of (a) and the dependent velocity of (b).
That is all there is to it.....
100% physical fact, for something to expand, there has to be space to expand into,
100% physical fact, we occupy and move through space,
100% physical fact we age and space can not age,
100% physical fact, that nothing can exist unless there is a space to exist in,
100% physical fact that things can not occupy the same space at the same time
100% physical fact that things are always in motion.
That is Physics and axioms, I do not do fairy tales. Anything less than 100% , is not fact or a truth, I only accept 100%.
space.........................(muon life)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(muon death).....................space
Time is a dependent distance travelled through space in a life cycle.
-
A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, ...
I knew there were other particles with zero mass but I don't post things unless I know for certain. I did some checking. As of 2014 the only two particles having zero mass which have been discovered are photons and gluons. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
It's expected that if gravitons are ever discovered then they too will have zero mass.
-
Upon looking for something else I ran across this post, written by the forum crackpot;
You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
Nobody ever said anything about "measure time of a space" since that's such a screwy statement I can't make out what it's supposed to mean. And you can await answers all you want. That's just a favorite way that crackpots try to provoke people into endless arguments. One of the reasons I gave up on trying to help you is for crap like this
If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, ...
That's one of the most ignorant statements a person can make. It's irrational to think that if a person can't provide you a proof or something than that thing is wrong. But you've never been that rational so its expected. But the reason I stopped trying to help you is because I made several attempts in proving my case. I explained to you that general relativity allows for both an expanding and a contracting universe. If our universe is spatially closed then it used to be extremely small. So small that it was too small to contain a baseball. The universe started expanding about 13.2 billion years ago. When that started to happen space started to be created. That means that there was more and more of it as time went by. By "more and more of it" its meant that you could actually measure how much space there was with a tape measure. Of course there were no tape measures back then and it was expanding too fast and it was too hot etc. to do that. However the process is still going on, space is still expanding, the universe is still growing in size.
I wasn't the one to prove this was the case. It was done long before I was born. Solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity are famous for being notoriously difficult to solve. While I an certainly follow and understand the derivation I very much doubt that you can. So if I showed you a proof you'd be unable to grasp it. Now you're demanding experimental proof when all I've said to date that it's possible, i.e. that general relativity predicts it. The only experimental evidence that makes sense to talk about is that which is used to test general relativity. It's also possible for a universe to contract. If there were no dark energy and the mass density was too small then the day would come when the universe would stop expanding and then start to contract. When that happens there becomes less and less space as time goes on. That's what is meant by "space being destroyed." I.e. when there is less space in the universe it's said to be less by space being destroyed. However, if you don't like that terminology, or if its the terminology that is bothering you then use your own words - just to make you comfy!
What makes you the raving crackpot are statements like this one
and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology. You're simply too lazy to look it up or do a google search. You can learn about the expansion of space here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0
You need to know about the metric before you could grasp that. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The model of the universe which is contracting is called The Big Crunch and is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
The best explanation you could have found if you weren't such a lazy stupid person is this one:
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_space_and_how_can_space_be_created_or_destroyed_when_the_universe_expands_or_contracts
The author explains what I just explained to you, i.e.
If the universe expands it can only do that in space-time meaning that space is continually expanding and applying the same theory in reverse it should give us the opposite so as to say contraction might destroy space.
People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.
Children should never think that what they see posted in a forum is correct. After all, look at all the bogus nonsense that you post on a daily basis.
P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.
You're son has an idiot for a father. No wonder he can't grasp cosmology with someone as dumb as you trying to teach it to him. Besides, nobody bases what's logically correct in physics based on the thought processes of an 8 year old, unless you're a raving lunatic such as yourself.
I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.
Oh, please! You're the most ignorant person on this forum.
-
Upon looking for something else I ran across this post, written by the forum crackpot;
You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
Nobody ever said anything about "measure time of a space" since that's such a screwy statement I can't make out what it's supposed to mean. And you can await answers all you want. That's just a favorite way that crackpots try to provoke people into endless arguments. One of the reasons I gave up on trying to help you is for crap like this
If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, ...
That's one of the most ignorant statements a person can make. It's irrational to think that if a person can't provide you a proof or something than that thing is wrong. But you've never been that rational so its expected. But the reason I stopped trying to help you is because I made several attempts in proving my case. I explained to you that general relativity allows for both an expanding and a contracting universe. If our universe is spatially closed then it used to be extremely small. So small that it was too small to contain a baseball. The universe started expanding about 13.2 billion years ago. When that started to happen space started to be created. That means that there was more and more of it as time went by. By "more and more of it" its meant that you could actually measure how much space there was with a tape measure. Of course there were no tape measures back then and it was expanding too fast and it was too hot etc. to do that. However the process is still going on, space is still expanding, the universe is still growing in size.
I wasn't the one to prove this was the case. It was done long before I was born. Solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity are famous for being notoriously difficult to solve. While I an certainly follow and understand the derivation I very much doubt that you can. So if I showed you a proof you'd be unable to grasp it. Now you're demanding experimental proof when all I've said to date that it's possible, i.e. that general relativity predicts it. The only experimental evidence that makes sense to talk about is that which is used to test general relativity. It's also possible for a universe to contract. If there were no dark energy and the mass density was too small then the day would come when the universe would stop expanding and then start to contract. When that happens there becomes less and less space as time goes on. That's what is meant by "space being destroyed." I.e. when there is less space in the universe it's said to be less by space being destroyed. However, if you don't like that terminology, or if its the terminology that is bothering you then use your own words - just to make you comfy!
What makes you the raving crackpot are statements like this one
and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology. You're simply too lazy to look it up or do a google search. You can learn about the expansion of space here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0
You need to know about the metric before you could grasp that. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The model of the universe which is contracting is called The Big Crunch and is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
The best explanation you could have found if you weren't such a lazy stupid person is this one:
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_space_and_how_can_space_be_created_or_destroyed_when_the_universe_expands_or_contracts
The author explains what I just explained to you, i.e.
If the universe expands it can only do that in space-time meaning that space is continually expanding and applying the same theory in reverse it should give us the opposite so as to say contraction might destroy space.
People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.
Children should never think that what they see posted in a forum is correct. After all, look at all the bogus nonsense that you post on a daily basis.
P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.
You're son has an idiot for a father. No wonder he can't grasp cosmology with someone as dumb as you trying to teach it to him. Besides, nobody bases what's logically correct in physics based on the thought processes of an 8 year old, unless you're a raving lunatic such as yourself.
I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.
Oh, please! You're the most ignorant person on this forum.
Although this idiot is tired from a long days labour I feel the need to reply to your post of nothing but childish insults. You may claim to be some sort of scientist but you are certainly not a professional or a gentlemen. My son and daughter have an idiot for a father yet my daughter wins awards at school at the age of 8 and can read any book you give her or can operate a computer and can type accurately. My son is only six but also can operate a computer and his reading skills are coming on great. Both of my children can cross a road safely are well aware of the stranger rule and do not have accidents because this idiot father as learnt them and is still learning them life and to avoid random dangers or random dangerous situations that you Sir could not even comprehend the sophistication of thought that I do not just apply to physics but apply to everyday.
I am a genuine thinker without prejudiced belief and if I could be bothered I could discourse your statement shredding all the information and rewrite it to absolute truth values that obviously yourself could never understand because you accepted education and what was said before your time like you even admit in the post saying
You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology.
any one can be a parrot I can quote wiki all day in which that would mean I am super smart according to your standards.
I see you and any other person like a Dictaphone stuck on repeat and consistent to repeating text that is written . I am still waiting to hear something smart from yourself.
PLEASE POST A NEW THEORY IF YOU ARE SO SMART. PUT UP OR SHUT UP
When that started to happen space started to be created.
YOU CA NOT CREATE SPACE/ SPACE CAN NEITHER BE DESTROYED OR CREATED/ SPACE IS INFINITE LIKE THE LOGICAL AXIOM OF A BOX INSIDE A BOX THAT i SHOWED. ONE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE TRUTH BECAUSE HERE IS NO OTHER ANSWER.
SPACE WITHIN A SOLID OR A SOLID WITHIN A SPACE WITHIN A SOLID IS INFINITE REGARDLESS WHAT WE CAN SEE OF SPACE.
Physics 101 for something to expand it 100% has to have something to expand into meaning space or expanding space inside an expanding solid that is expanding into a space.FACTS NOT FICTION
tHE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY A SPACE CAN EXPAND IS IF IT IS INSIDE A SOLID AND THE SOLID IS EXPANDING LIKE BEING AT THE INSIDE CENTER OF A BALLOON.
added thought- when an object expands by heat does the center of the sold object become hollow?
is it possible that space is expanding because we are in a vacuum inside a solid that is expanding by heat inside of a space?
-
Like I said...
Space-Time is an absolute 4 dimensional environment.
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"
All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion.
The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,
is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managed
to discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.
http://goo.gl/fz4R0I (http://goo.gl/fz4R0I)
Hence, via the presence of the ongoing c magnitude of motion within spacetime,
we end up with the spacetime interval invariant under lorentz transformation.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F3%2Fc%2Fa%2F3ca46b395205278179039eaf70f30cb1.png&hash=86cac59834a604e9c19da94f761361d7)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F3%2Fe%2F6%2F3e6502fa4b2e9d9c0852e7a42b50e80f.png&hash=e2fc26c676acc0db532b4936dbf71249)
Thus it is by no mere coincidence that c appears in the above equations.
Thus as is proven at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKAwpEetJ-Q&list=PL3zkZRUI2IyBFAowlUivFbeBh-Mq7HdoQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKAwpEetJ-Q&list=PL3zkZRUI2IyBFAowlUivFbeBh-Mq7HdoQ)
absolute motion ongoing within absolute spacetime, leads to special relativity and all of its equations.
-
Waaaa!!
Grow up, TB.
-
People are allowing themselves to get a little out of control - it's easy to do, and I'm in no position to criticise as I do the same myself from time to time, but they've both gone a wee bit too far and they need to put the brakes on.
-
Waaaa!!
Grow up, TB.
quoting waaa from me , I do not believe I even posted that. again you avoid the tricky questions because you know I know my facts that can not be denied because they are 100% truths.