The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Space-Time  (Read 13967 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Space-Time
« 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.



 

Offline jeroen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #1 on: 15/03/2015 01:24:59 »
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!
« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 02:04:24 by jeroen »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #2 on: 15/03/2015 12:04:51 »
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.
 

Offline jeroen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #3 on: 15/03/2015 19:24:53 »
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?
« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 20:51:07 by jeroen »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #4 on: 15/03/2015 22:28:22 »
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.

 


 


« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 22:31:40 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #5 on: 16/03/2015 00:42:52 »
......., 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.





 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #6 on: 16/03/2015 02:01:48 »

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!"
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #7 on: 16/03/2015 11:22:00 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.






 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #8 on: 16/03/2015 11:24:16 »

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.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 11:31:10 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #9 on: 16/03/2015 11:26:56 »
......., 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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #10 on: 16/03/2015 11:39:29 »
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/

« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 12:06:19 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #11 on: 16/03/2015 12:20:14 »
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.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 12:23:33 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #12 on: 16/03/2015 15:07:57 »

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!




 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #13 on: 16/03/2015 15:29:29 »

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.

« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 15:31:21 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #14 on: 16/03/2015 15:48:19 »
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.


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #15 on: 16/03/2015 16:04:23 »
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).


 



« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 16:23:40 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #16 on: 16/03/2015 16:43:30 »
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?

 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #17 on: 16/03/2015 17:16:14 »
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!
« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 17:46:03 by Colin2B »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #18 on: 16/03/2015 17:48:47 »
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?



















« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 18:34:34 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #19 on: 16/03/2015 18:54:42 »
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

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #20 on: 16/03/2015 22:04:29 »
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.


« Last Edit: 16/03/2015 22:20:56 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #21 on: 17/03/2015 13:00:10 »

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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #22 on: 17/03/2015 18:38:55 »

What about if the air becomes the same charged as something under it?


Quote
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.

Quote from: box
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.
Quote
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.

Quote from: box
I understand atoms are really small and I have viewed scanning tunnelling before.

I do know we can not observe a single atom directly .

Quote
So why did you ask the question, because you have the answer in front of you.

Confirmation.


Quote from: box
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.

Quote
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,

Quote from: box
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.

Quote
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:

Quote from: box
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.

« Last Edit: 17/03/2015 18:44:03 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #23 on: 17/03/2015 19:06:41 »
Time does not exist and has no use, timing exists and has lots of uses.  What is time?  time is Universal timing.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Space-Time
« Reply #24 on: 17/03/2015 21:57:34 »
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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Space-Time
« Reply #24 on: 17/03/2015 21:57:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums