# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Proof  (Read 753 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Proof
« on: 05/10/2016 03:25:56 »
If time really slowed down , then it would take longer to get somewhere and the velocity would also have to slow down of the moving Caesium atom.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #1 on: 05/10/2016 15:00:18 »
Two clocks A and B

clock A at ground state

clock B dilated on board a car

The car travels at v=100mph

v=constant

Time does not slow down because v=constant regardless of time.

added- in short the aeroplane travelling with the Caesium on board in the Keating experiment does not slow down when the clock dilates showing no time dilation.

End of proof.

« Last Edit: 05/10/2016 15:03:13 by Thebox »

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 123
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #2 on: 05/10/2016 16:12:50 »
the problem is that both clocks, A and B, are "still existing", regardless of the dilatation, everything is submited to time, regardless of the dilatation, so there is 2 different constants of the same V, cause V=time, it was never the car that was accelerating, only seems to be like that to us...
There is no cuch thing as "I'm walking", or "I'm driving", or  "the car is moving at V", everything there is seems to be occuring inside time, and time can occur at different velocity but it's always proportional to the dilatation, no matter where interaction it is happening, not even the dilatation....
For as long your two clocks are the same clocks, they on itself would be readapted to the new dilatation, the only way to provide proof is to math and logic, but as for scientific proof, not likely, the two clock would have to remain the same clocks even when existing on different dilatations of space-time, and this is simple not possible, matter is in correlation with space-time, one cannot simple set two clocks apart of the dilatation to measure...

Maybe if you keep the A clock at A dilatation but measuring the events of B, and the clock at B measuring the events on A, this with a considerable distance and dilatation bettween A and B, and certainly not over a planet like earth that is not a good place to test, cause it has a moon, it is translating, and has a silight eliptical orbit around the sun, and most improtant it is indeed very irregular without the water, so there would be many openign to miss interpretations... I believe that conduc such experments on the moon would be a much more easy task instead of using cars and roads... If the two clocks end up measuring the same time on different frames, witch is possible would confirm that time is constant, despise the dilatation, the only thing that would change would be speeds of things, in thsi case the car and the very clocks temselves, even if they are atomic clocks, it would be irrelevant, atomic is precise but is also submited to existence, since the clock is "made" it exists, cannot violate the general law and exist apart from the dilatation where it is occuring...

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #3 on: 05/10/2016 16:36:44 »
the problem is that both clocks, A and B, are "still existing", regardless of the dilatation, everything is submited to time, regardless of the dilatation, so there is 2 different constants of the same V, cause V=time, it was never the car that was accelerating, only seems to be like that to us...
There is no cuch thing as "I'm walking", or "I'm driving", or  "the car is moving at V", everything there is seems to be occuring inside time, and time can occur at different velocity but it's always proportional to the dilatation, no matter where interaction it is happening, not even the dilatation....
For as long your two clocks are the same clocks, they on itself would be readapted to the new dilatation, the only way to provide proof is to math and logic, but as for scientific proof, not likely, the two clock would have to remain the same clocks even when existing on different dilatations of space-time, and this is simple not possible, matter is in correlation with space-time, one cannot simple set two clocks apart of the dilatation to measure...

Maybe if you keep the A clock at A dilatation but measuring the events of B, and the clock at B measuring the events on A, this with a considerable distance and dilatation bettween A and B, and certainly not over a planet like earth that is not a good place to test, cause it has a moon, it is translating, and has a silight eliptical orbit around the sun, and most improtant it is indeed very irregular without the water, so there would be many openign to miss interpretations... I believe that conduc such experments on the moon would be a much more easy task instead of using cars and roads... If the two clocks end up measuring the same time on different frames, witch is possible would confirm that time is constant, despise the dilatation, the only thing that would change would be speeds of things, in thsi case the car and the very clocks temselves, even if they are atomic clocks, it would be irrelevant, atomic is precise but is also submited to existence, since the clock is "made" it exists, cannot violate the general law and exist apart from the dilatation where it is occuring...

OK! I think you sort of understand.

Yes in this scenario v=t, if we consider d/t=c  , the time never changes at a constant velocity.  in example we could use gravity and a falling object.

An object will fall to the ground at a=9.81m/s, the seconds are unimportant, the object will always fall at a=9.81 m/s .

If we was to add time to the scenario now presented, and time the event of a falling object using clock A and clock B, the object will take the same time to fall regardless of what either clock says the measurement is.

The speed of fall does not slow because the clock B shows a slow rate of time.  We can apply this scenario also to the speed of light from the sun to earth, a photon/wave travels at c, it arrives in approx 8 minutes and 24 seconds, timing the event will not change the velocity of the light, time dilation fails because this is proof without any doubt, this relativity is factual.

added- and yes both clocks exist in time and are not time.

« Last Edit: 05/10/2016 16:40:04 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2016 16:47:59 »
Diagram

no contraction of space

no time dilation or slowing down of time

v=t

The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2016 17:00:17 »
''you'' can also look at it like this ,

Clock A times the car travelling d/t and it takes 1 hour to travel 100 mile.

Clock B times the car travelling d/t and it takes example 1 hour and 5 seconds to travel 100 mile.

We know that clock B is contradictory to the constant velocity of the car. The car does not travel slower and neither does the distance shorten in length.

The car will always take the same amount of time to travel distance X at v=constant .

So quite clearly there is no actual time dilation.

added- time and free space are interwoven, relatively time and free space are not moving or observed to move, time and free space is the ''stationary'' reference frame that allows things to move in and be observed as distinguishable different to  the time and free space ''stationary'' reference frame.

Without time and free space, it would be impossible for matter to exist, there would be no volume for the matter to exist in.

« Last Edit: 05/10/2016 17:11:13 by Thebox »

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 123
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #6 on: 06/10/2016 18:39:51 »
The car will always take the same amount of time to travel distance X at v=constant .

So quite clearly there is no actual time dilation.

added- time and free space are interwoven, relatively time and free space are not moving or observed to move, time and free space is the ''stationary'' reference frame that allows things to move in and be observed as distinguishable different to  the time and free space ''stationary'' reference frame.

Without time and free space, it would be impossible for matter to exist, there would be no volume for the matter to exist in.

Yes, and most probably, but seems to be not that simple, two factors remain, a practica understandment of what does create time as a general constant(proportional to the dilatation yes, but only, when compared to a stationary frame, witch we determine), that being said time is as constant as the speed of light, but shouldn't be possible, unless light, more especificaly "photon" were not wrong, only missinterpreteded...
The way is to presume photons traveling as being incorrect, even if you does agree with that, one need to question the base, in order to readapt the rest toreach the correct reason behind "GR" be correct...
We do know that it's almost certain that GR is correct (frame to frame), but observing universe, something is missing, cause many things shouldn't be happening as they do out there, "GR" seems to be correct but subjected to it's reverse, E=mc2 "covers the point of view of matter", as it is usefull to us humans we naturaly advanced on it, but there is still missing the point of view of space-time, gravity is originated from coerelation betwenn enegy/mass with space/time, almost as if energy is to space, as mass is to time...

I can't desagree on your question, I agree that time is contant to the dilatation, the same way light is, constant accelerating and dessacelerating speeds only when we are "framing" time on examples, when indeed, equal objects with equal acceleration, always, independently of where they exist inspace, are always moving at the same speed...
About l'm not 100% convinced that light has it's speed cause it moves, as for now I agree with the speed of ligth provinient from the speed of the traveling massless photons, but not to confident on the "photon" concept...

If I understood you, space is static on your point of view, but when mass is presented, such as planets, suns, their interaction (with space), starts to set the static onto motion, in my point of view producing our local time( within the heliosphere) or you consider space to be static everywhere at any given instant?

One last consideration, when you check that time is constant despise the dilatation, reaching back, des it leads you to a universe that was composed for only energy, that become matter, that start a singularity and the acceleration of such object, started to decompose matter into energy leaving behind "this empty space blackground we see)? As if matter and planets are now only spearated fragments of once were a unique single think, and the ony reason empty space is now outhere is becose the singularities, have gradually deactivated all that energy/,atter, into all this dark matter?  I ask cause most think on the reverse of this...

I could explain beter, but in resume, a big bang, not one that happened over nothing, but one singularity that happened at the very center of the already existing energy(that was already there), the singularity produced the very first empty space on the dimmension, and from that point forward, all the energy that was there was and still sppining in function of the singularity, as it was growng large the center was expanding in area, gradually loosing the acceleration on the center, in a short version all those galaxies existing inside the the center of the singularity, and all those spherical objects outhere, copies of the original dimmension, suns, planet, moons, even atoms, dispise the composition, being only ordinary atempts (local) of the original universe... Time as being result of the general acceleration of the whole universe...
« Last Edit: 06/10/2016 23:38:25 by Alex Siqueira »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #7 on: 07/10/2016 09:45:11 »

Yes, and most probably, but seems to be not that simple, two factors remain, a practica understandment of what does create time as a general constant

Time is not created it exists without physicality , i.e free space.

Quote
unless light, more especificaly "photon" were not wrong, only missinterpreteded...

Quite possible,

Quote
I can't desagree on your question, I agree that time is contant to the dilatation, the same way light is, constant accelerating and dessacelerating speeds only when we are "framing" time on examples, when indeed, equal objects with equal acceleration, always, independently of where they exist inspace, are always moving at the same speed...
About l'm not 100% convinced that light has it's speed cause it moves, as for now I agree with the speed of ligth provinient from the speed of the traveling massless photons, but not to confident on the "photon" concept...

Well we both truly know that the ''Photon'' is of the imagination without any real proof of existence. If there was an existence it could also be explained as a ''piece''/''fragment'' of light separated from the whole .

Quote
If I understood you, space is static on your point of view, but when mass is presented, such as planets, suns, their interaction (with space), starts to set the static onto motion, in my point of view producing our local time( within the heliosphere) or you consider space to be static everywhere at any given instant?

I consider space is static everywhere at any given instant, I think people/scientists ignore looking ''behind''/''underneath'' the light. If we removed all EMR from space, the space left must be static containing no physicality or structure with a ''viscosity'' of zero.

Matter creates fields that affect fields, the fields do not exist without the matter, the space remains a void unless occupied by matter that has fields.

Space curvature is the effect of fields and not an interaction with space in my opinion, relative space occupies absolute free space. An object of matter or ''energy'' that rotates will produce a disk like field. Centripetal and ''centrifugal'' force playing a part.

Imagine an invisible ball with a very low viscosity spinning and creating ''centrifugal'' bulge, the spherical ''ball'' oblates.

Quote
One last consideration, when you check that time is constant despise the dilatation, reaching back, des it leads you to a universe that was composed for only energy, that become matter, that start a singularity and the acceleration of such object, started to decompose matter into energy leaving behind "this empty space blackground we see)? As if matter and planets are now only spearated fragments of once were a unique single think, and the ony reason empty space is now outhere is becose the singularities, have gradually deactivated all that energy/,atter, into all this dark matter?  I ask cause most think on the reverse of this...

Well behind the light I also think a dark energy occupies the free space void , static space, this energy contracts and is attracted to itself always, a bit like a stretchy rubber ball.
(think along the lines of magnet bottling, except an infinite bottle by its own means).

Quote
I could explain beter, but in resume, a big bang, not one that happened over nothing, but one singularity that happened at the very center of the already existing energy(that was already there), the singularity produced the very first empty space on the dimmension, and from that point forward, all the energy that was there was and still sppining in function of the singularity, as it was growng large the center was expanding in area, gradually loosing the acceleration on the center, in a short version all those galaxies existing inside the the center of the singularity, and all those spherical objects outhere, copies of the original dimmension, suns, planet, moons, even atoms, dispise the composition, being only ordinary atempts (local) of the original universe... Time as being result of the general acceleration of the whole universe...

time and free space pre-existed the big bang, the dark energy contraction is the start of everything.

Imagine an infinite volume void, an entity of absolute zero. The very essence of nothing. However not entirely nothing because we have free space.  Now imagine this void also has an infinite volume of negative energy that is attracted to itself but does not move.  Imagine at any given point this energy is attracted to that point and adjoined at the point but there remains no force or pressure on the point. However there is also infinite timeless time, and at any given point because of infinite time, the point gains ''something'' that sparks a positive.

« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 09:54:06 by Thebox »

#### puppypower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 535
• Thanked: 40 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #8 on: 07/10/2016 12:05:21 »
In the twin paradox, the two twins begin on earth. One twin is placed in a rocket and is given relativistic velocity. The moving twin eventually returns to the earth, where he is now younger, compared to the twin, who had remained stationary on earth. This is due to time dilation. Although the twin that returns is now younger; implicit of time having slowed down in his reference, he is not permanently shorter than the other twin, even though the stationary twin also saw what appeared to be distance contraction. We see space-time contracting, while in motion, yet in the end, only time changes in a tangible way.

Also, both twins do not look younger, to each other, when they return; relative motion affect, even of they appear to see that while in motion. The final affect is reference dependent. Only the twin that was given extra energy for the propulsion of his rocket, shows tangible time dilation. As long as two references never meet, we see a relative reference illusion. But once they meet, we see both references are not the same, but a hierarchy will appear based on energy.

That being the case, I often wondered whether the universal Doppler shift assumption is correct. The reason is, distances will reverse in the twin paradox, but only time will show a permanent change. The question is, is the red shift based on the time shift; frequency shift? The wavelength is the dependent variable; reversible, and not the active variable. It follows the lingering time shift so the product of frequency and wavelength has to equal the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 12:18:36 by puppypower »

The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

#### RD

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8088
• Thanked: 51 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #9 on: 07/10/2016 12:33:55 »
In the twin paradox, the two twins begin on earth. One twin is placed in a rocket and is given relativistic velocity. The moving twin eventually returns to the earth, where he is now younger, compared to the twin, who had remained stationary on earth.

The "twin paradox" is not really a paradox : the twin in the spacecraft has undergone acceleration, the one on Earth hasn't : they are not symmetrical ... https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #10 on: 07/10/2016 13:22:11 »
In the twin paradox, the two twins begin on earth. One twin is placed in a rocket and is given relativistic velocity. The moving twin eventually returns to the earth, where he is now younger, compared to the twin, who had remained stationary on earth.

The twin can't be younger, the twin travels at v=constant distance = X, the twin makes the return journey v=constant distance=X

Both twins experience the exact same amount of time measured by v=constant and distance=X.

A car makes a round trip and travels A to B and back again from B to A at v=100 mph

The round trip takes 1 hour timed by A and B and the car.

The clock on the car could  be running at a slower rate but this does not affect x/v=t

« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 13:29:29 by Thebox »

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 259
• Thanked: 30 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #11 on: 07/10/2016 14:42:54 »
There is an equivalency principle between SR and GR. Time dilation is just that dilation of fundamental energy. When space time is more dilated cesium electrons travel further and take longer to tick tock. It is exactly the same for mechanical clocks as light clocks. Fundamental energy is c. v reduces the available space time energy as it approaches c. c is a spin amount that moves a wave of light and is constant. c is faster then the electron that caused the wave on space time energy. It is the rotation of the electron in energy that creates the light wave. The dilation of that energy frame in GR creates the red shifted light in a gravity well. It has nothing to do with change in momentum. Light moves at a constant by spin of space time energy independent of its dilation. Light travels the extra distance same as the electron travels the extra distance for its tick tock. ......... . . . . . . . the material dilates also because of the increased travel distance of the electron. Physics is the same in every frame.

SR works differently for equivalency with GR. Its a distance through space equivalency. Acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing similar to GR acceleration on the surface of the earth. Clocks are slowest in the center of the earth where it is like being inertial in space. Acceleration and deceleration causes gravity they are indistinguishable but in deceleration clocks increase there tick rate while acceleration decreases your tick rate. This is the basic proof of logic that energy is of space and not mass. Mass is just a conduit for space energy by moving the electrons of mass.

There is really no proof of anything. Only the logic of the mechanical cause of observations will give us a clue to the real foundation of existence.

In SR

The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #12 on: 07/10/2016 15:31:14 »

That being the case, I often wondered whether the universal Doppler shift assumption is correct. The reason is, distances will reverse in the twin paradox, but only time will show a permanent change. The question is, is the red shift based on the time shift; frequency shift? The wavelength is the dependent variable; reversible, and not the active variable. It follows the lingering time shift so the product of frequency and wavelength has to equal the speed of light.

red-shift has to be compression, light stretched beyond 750nm is ''invisible'' with no spectral content.

Unless I have the wrong perception in my mind about red-shift.

added - to clarify my understanding, an object travelling away from an observer at the near speed of light will stretch the light? causing a red shift, this would  be contradictory to wave length , red being a compression of less than 750nm?

if it was stretched, surely it remains ''gin-clear''?

An object moving away surely removes radiation pressure, but I cant see how the radiation could then compress to red-shift?

added- unless the ''gin-clear'' light of free space is ''blue'' , 400nm or less to begin with.

red is longer wave length than blue but a shorter wave length than the invisible spectrum.

« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 15:45:20 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #13 on: 07/10/2016 15:48:18 »
When space time is more dilated

0 can't dilate, any measurement after 0 becomes instant memory, no matter how fast or slow the rate of measurement or the length of measurement.

« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 15:51:44 by Thebox »

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 123
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #14 on: 07/10/2016 16:31:17 »
When space time is more dilated

0 can't dilate, any measurement after 0 becomes instant memory, no matter how fast or slow the rate of measurement or the length of measurement.

Not exactly, it could be possible if we change the conception of where we exist on the universe, could be hat it is indeed 0 and can't dilatate (to minus), but if everything that is is occuring inside the center of a singularity (that is spining), it would change the grid from static, as result time wouldn't be slowing down when near massive objects, what occurs is that at the center of each masive object time would be null, more than this, (no time at all, at the center), acceleration and electromagnetism, yes, but times seems to require direct interaction with space energy, witch wouldn't be happening at the center... For time t exist, someplace needs empty space, a considerable layer of dese atomic structure with almost no space within the atoms, would virtualy split the universe in two, the outher one could energy and the inner one (tiny fraction that was split), the opossit, hot and expanding, the problem and reason why planets do not explode, seems to be that electromagnetism and charger, provinient form the exitement of this very expansion (sppining), is bounding everything toguether...
Only woundering, the inner core expands constantly, as muchas it does the sppining is absorbed by the outhercore, the absorbsion produces electromagnetsm that bound and prevent the planet from expanding too fast, and as long as this cycle keeps happening outher space will remain in constant interaction with the object, compressing itself by being atracted to this...

The point is, outer space would be the resting one (+), dilatation would start to occur in function and towards the massive object, becoming (minus-), zero dilatation is possible(when the mass is proportional), but not possible to happen from outside in the body, space has no barriers on the exterior, it simple can't reach even 0 dilatation only on the exterior of the body on normal conditions, to achieve 0 it would requeire a physical barrier of density (mater) to be happening isolated from the whole...

For more incomplete and ilogical that it sounds, raises the question,
"energy ony became mater becose of time?"
and if so...
"when matter gets too near to a black hole(considering it, the surrownding of a black hole, as a point of -0 dilatation, where time basicaly does not exist, is all that mater not desapearing on a dimmensional magical hole, but simple, being deactivated from  its condition of mater,(before it could even reach the neutron star) and so converted back into space energy?" Could this be the reason why we imagine that mater is falling inside (being stored), when instead it is simple being converted into space energy (before reaching the neutron star)?

One consideration, a question, "only for an instant assuming" black holes (neutron stars) as to be acting as ordinary innercores, but one that due it's composition can sustain itself (acceleration) even when in direct interaction with space(without the necessity of a crost), could be the case that the sppining of the neutron star is so fast that the acceleration of space surpases the speed of ligh (density of the medium), in other words, creating a "split" on a point of (minus -0 dilatation) AND since such dilatation should not be possible to exist, by convinience the neutron star able to still existing "isolated" from the whole? Something like, the neutron star, followed by a "spherical barrier of -1 dilatation"(witch means no space existing on that area, true emptiness), followed by the outherspace that we all know and see (enveloping it)?
The question is, something that surpasses the speed of light, would not leave this unverse, but simple coexist with it, but being completly apart of it, surrounded by it, but not submited to it and its energy, including time?

-0 dilatation could exist cause it could be represented by a "split" separating this universe we see into two pieces(external and internal, the whole exterior universe, and the interior beyond anything that reached and broke that very limit (speed of light)... Like a bubble of gas inside another bubble of the same gas, separated only by the acceleration happening inside of the secund bubble, so fast that it is compressing tge exteror towards it, and expanding anything on the interior "due acceleration' reaching 0(null), a little bit more energy, and it will unbalance between expansion and compression, but for all effects, -0 dilatation of space, is one correct into assume -0 dilation is represented by a rupture betwenn the exterior universe and the object that is accelerating?
« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 01:19:16 by Alex Siqueira »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #15 on: 08/10/2016 13:11:06 »

Not exactly, it could be possible if we change the conception of where we exist on the universe, could be hat it is indeed 0 and can't dilatate (to minus), but if everything that is is occuring inside the center of a singularity (that is spining), it would change the grid from static, as result time wouldn't be slowing down when near massive objects, what occurs is that at the center of each masive object time would be null, more than this, (no time at all, at the center),

I feel I must correct your interpretation, you think that when for example a Caesium atom is at the center of gravity that the rate slows down to zero. Although this might be true, this has no affect on time, time ''runs'' regardless of position.

What you have to consider is that time is independent of everything. Time is not of objects and remains external of any objects.

Time is not the physical ''thing'' dogma makes it.

Quote
acceleration and electromagnetism, yes, but times seems to require direct interaction with space energy, witch wouldn't be happening at the center... For time t exist, someplace needs empty space, a considerable layer of dese atomic structure with almost no space within the atoms, would virtualy split the universe in two, the outher one could energy and the inner one (tiny fraction that was split), the opossit, hot and expanding, the problem and reason why planets do not explode, seems to be that electromagnetism and charger, provinient form the exitement of this very expansion (sppining), is bounding everything toguether...
Only woundering, the inner core expands constantly, as muchas it does the sppining is absorbed by the outhercore, the absorbsion produces electromagnetsm that bound and prevent the planet from expanding too fast, and as long as this cycle keeps happening outher space will remain in constant interaction with the object, compressing itself by being atracted to this...

The point is, outer space would be the resting one (+), dilatation would start to occur in function and towards the massive object, becoming (minus-), zero dilatation is possible(when the mass is proportional), but not possible to happen from outside in the body, space has no barriers on the exterior, it simple can't reach even 0 dilatation only on the exterior of the body on normal conditions, to achieve 0 it would requeire a physical barrier of density (mater) to be happening isolated from the whole...

For more incomplete and ilogical that it sounds, raises the question,
"energy ony became mater becose of time?"
and if so...
"when matter gets too near to a black hole(considering it, the surrownding of a black hole, as a point of -0 dilatation, where time basicaly does not exist, is all that mater not desapearing on a dimmensional magical hole, but simple, being deactivated from  its condition of mater,(before it could even reach the neutron star) and so converted back into space energy?" Could this be the reason why we imagine that mater is falling inside (being stored), when instead it is simple being converted into space energy (before reaching the neutron star)?

One consideration, a question, "only for an instant assuming" black holes (neutron stars) as to be acting as ordinary innercores, but one that due it's composition can sustain itself (acceleration) even when in direct interaction with space(without the necessity of a crost), could be the case that the sppining of the neutron star is so fast that the acceleration of space surpases the speed of ligh (density of the medium), in other words, creating a "split" on a point of (minus -0 dilatation) AND since such dilatation should not be possible to exist, by convinience the neutron star able to still existing "isolated" from the whole? Something like, the neutron star, followed by a "spherical barrier of -1 dilatation"(witch means no space existing on that area, true emptiness), followed by the outherspace that we all know and see (enveloping it)?
The question is, something that surpasses the speed of light, would not leave this unverse, but simple coexist with it, but being completly apart of it, surrounded by it, but not submited to it and its energy, including time?

-0 dilatation could exist cause it could be represented by a "split" separating this universe we see into two pieces(external and internal, the whole exterior universe, and the interior beyond anything that reached and broke that very limit (speed of light)... Like a bubble of gas inside another bubble of the same gas, separated only by the acceleration happening inside of the secund bubble, so fast that it is compressing tge exteror towards it, and expanding anything on the interior "due acceleration' reaching 0(null), a little bit more energy, and it will unbalance between expansion and compression, but for all effects, -0 dilatation of space, is one correct into assume -0 dilation is represented by a rupture betwenn the exterior universe and the object that is accelerating?

Energy only becomes matter because of space and ''timeless''. I don't quite understand the rest of your post sorry it does not make sense to the discussion.

Place  a single dot on a piece of paper, the dot occupies time, the whole of the paper, the whole of the paper occupies time, space is time.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 259
• Thanked: 30 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #16 on: 08/10/2016 15:08:44 »
First you have to define time before you can describe time affects. The reason you do not understand Alex is because you are not using the same definition of time. Alex has a deeper understanding of time than just <it is>. You may be at the limit of your depth of understanding. As apparently I am also. We are each fixed in our unshakable opinion. I believe both Alex and I feel time is condition caused by space separate from macro mass. There is observation and subjective reasoning for observations it is in the form of theories. Relativity being the best theory because it has passed every test so far. This is a theory based on postulates and not mechanics. When mechanics are removed it opens the door to magical causes. The Copenhagen interpretation opened that door very wide. Multi verse, time travel, worm holes and even the big bang is the result. They are all something from nothing magic. Those that are smarter than I came up with it so it must be true. In the past the so called smartest men of their time voted on the big bang. There were 13 men and the vote was 12 to 1 in favor so it passed for the cause of the creation of mass. I might also remind you that it was a Catholic Priest who named it the Big Bang. He probably wanted to tell science it took 7 days to complete. Some one could have come up with a stat that would have confirmed it but then again the concept of a day would have to have been pre-defined.

I grew up with religion from my mother and science with my father. Obviously my father won my mind.

Back to proofs. There are no proofs period without a mechanical basis. Mathematicians believe math is mechanical. And yes it is mechanical. A theory has to follow math to be possible but impossible theories can also follow mathematics. Like Einstein I have faith in Relativity. Main stream fails the Relativity postulates. Main streams mechanical structure is non existent so it opens the door to not following the postulates. Lets take light going down a gravity well. Main stream will suggest light increases momentum to be blue shifted. Of course by their interpretation that is the only way the observation could be interpreted by their understanding of their standard model. They violated the constant speed of light postulate in order to maintain their model. That observation should have destroyed there standard model in favor of a model that included red shift without a SR velocity increase of light.
This red shift in GR is described in the gamma term for dilation. Space is being expanded by this gamma term (dilation). Than we have to ask what is being dilated? What ever is being dilated is directly affecting light propagation and electron cycle time in what is considered a frame. Mass is dilated to fill a larger volume of space so your measuring stick becomes larger.  A larger measuring stick will measure a meter longer than a smaller measuring stick. Your measure of time by either light distance or electron cycle ticks slower to match the measuring stick in your frame. The measured speed of light in every frame in a vacuum is measured to be the same. That the distance measured is not the same is what allows Euclidean mathematics to remain valid. Main stream suggests the magic of contraction of the universe and use the muon as proof. The muon has to slow down in order to react with its new environment of the mass on Earth rather than the energy of space. Space energy has to control the distance and propagation of light and cycle of the electron to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. Or you can maintain a belief in coincidence of magic.

When you move a standardized spectrum detector cell down a gravity well the standardization changes its size to the newly dilated frame. Light used for the standardization higher in less dilated space will appear blue shifted to the more dilated position of the detector. The reverse will be a red shifted detection. The speed of light remains the same because the spin of energy particles remain the same. Space energy is an organized pattern while mass is a disorganized pattern causing friction with fundamental energy. That friction is what we describe as energy. Our mass energy is just a conduit for space time energy, zero point energy or Dark mass energy. Name it anything you like other than main streams model of energy from magic.

Do I know why the spin energy for the motion of time exists? Absolutely not. That depth of understanding has to be relegated back to the God of the unknown.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #17 on: 08/10/2016 15:39:23 »
First you have to define time before you can describe time affects. The reason you do not understand Alex is because you are not using the same definition of time. Alex has a deeper understanding of time than just <it is>. You may be at the limit of your depth of understanding. As apparently I am also. We are each fixed in our unshakable opinion. I believe both Alex and I feel time is condition caused by space separate from macro mass. There is observation and subjective reasoning for observations it is in the form of theories. Relativity being the best theory because it has passed every test so far. This is a theory based on postulates and not mechanics. When mechanics are removed it opens the door to magical causes. The Copenhagen interpretation opened that door very wide. Multi verse, time travel, worm holes and even the big bang is the result. They are all something from nothing magic. Those that are smarter than I came up with it so it must be true. In the past the so called smartest men of their time voted on the big bang. There were 13 men and the vote was 12 to 1 in favor so it passed for the cause of the creation of mass. I might also remind you that it was a Catholic Priest who named it the Big Bang. He probably wanted to tell science it took 7 days to complete. Some one could have come up with a stat that would have confirmed it but then again the concept of a day would have to have been pre-defined.

I grew up with religion from my mother and science with my father. Obviously my father won my mind.

Back to proofs. There are no proofs period without a mechanical basis. Mathematicians believe math is mechanical. And yes it is mechanical. A theory has to follow math to be possible but impossible theories can also follow mathematics. Like Einstein I have faith in Relativity. Main stream fails the Relativity postulates. Main streams mechanical structure is non existent so it opens the door to not following the postulates. Lets take light going down a gravity well. Main stream will suggest light increases momentum to be blue shifted. Of course by their interpretation that is the only way the observation could be interpreted by their understanding of their standard model. They violated the constant speed of light postulate in order to maintain their model. That observation should have destroyed there standard model in favor of a model that included red shift without a SR velocity increase of light.
This red shift in GR is described in the gamma term for dilation. Space is being expanded by this gamma term (dilation). Than we have to ask what is being dilated? What ever is being dilated is directly affecting light propagation and electron cycle time in what is considered a frame. Mass is dilated to fill a larger volume of space so your measuring stick becomes larger.  A larger measuring stick will measure a meter longer than a smaller measuring stick. Your measure of time by either light distance or electron cycle ticks slower to match the measuring stick in your frame. The measured speed of light in every frame in a vacuum is measured to be the same. That the distance measured is not the same is what allows Euclidean mathematics to remain valid. Main stream suggests the magic of contraction of the universe and use the muon as proof. The muon has to slow down in order to react with its new environment of the mass on Earth rather than the energy of space. Space energy has to control the distance and propagation of light and cycle of the electron to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. Or you can maintain a belief in coincidence of magic.

When you move a standardized spectrum detector cell down a gravity well the standardization changes its size to the newly dilated frame. Light used for the standardization higher in less dilated space will appear blue shifted to the more dilated position of the detector. The reverse will be a red shifted detection. The speed of light remains the same because the spin of energy particles remain the same. Space energy is an organized pattern while mass is a disorganized pattern causing friction with fundamental energy. That friction is what we describe as energy. Our mass energy is just a conduit for space time energy, zero point energy or Dark mass energy. Name it anything you like other than main streams model of energy from magic.

Do I know why the spin energy for the motion of time exists? Absolutely not. That depth of understanding has to be relegated back to the God of the unknown.

In my opinion you can't really vote on whether something is correct is not, it is either  correct or not.  There is no fact that we could ever interpret a prequel event, it can only ever be speculation .

The big bang Fails in a few areas.

The big bang states that before the big bang nothing existed, not even time.

This can not be true. It is somewhat factual that for any event to take place there needs a volume of space to happen in.

It is also factual that nothing can be interpreted as empty free space.

It is also factual that ''time'' still exists in a void.

It is factual that space itself has no physicality such as an aether, so it must be also factual that space itself can not and does not expand.

The age of the Universe is defined from the central observer, ourselves,

There is no evidence that space is expanding , fact,

the redshift is not of space, space does not reflect or emit light, only things in space do that.

I wish I was there at the vote, I think the vote result would of changed.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 259
• Thanked: 30 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #18 on: 08/10/2016 16:27:08 »
Then there would be two votes against instead of one. You have not demonstrated a deep understanding of relativity and appear to be a denier of relativity. As such the lack of understanding the observations that agree with the postulates and none that do not agree would suggest your opinion on relativity is invalid.

You assign fact without enough observations to prove your point has validity.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #19 on: 08/10/2016 18:43:25 »
Then there would be two votes against instead of one. You have not demonstrated a deep understanding of relativity and appear to be a denier of relativity. As such the lack of understanding the observations that agree with the postulates and none that do not agree would suggest your opinion on relativity is invalid.

You assign fact without enough observations to prove your point has validity.

I have provided observations , it is a fact you can not observe free space has any sort of motion , it is a fact that no aether has been detected, it is fact that free space has no physicality, space is not an inflating balloon,  there is space beyond the distance galaxies that the galaxies are travelling into.
There is no evidence of expanding space, there is evidence of galaxies moving away from us, fact not fiction my friend.

The true and reality interpretation is that the length/distance between galaxies is expanding, not the space itself like some sort of stretchy balloon.

Next you will be telling me you think there is an edge of space that  is visual seen has darkness which would be quite laughable considering lights nature.

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 123
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #20 on: 08/10/2016 22:38:19 »
First you have to define time before you can describe time affects. The reason you do not understand Alex is because you are not using the same definition of time. Alex has a deeper understanding of time than just <it is>. You may be at the limit of your depth of understanding. As apparently I am also. We are each fixed in our unshakable opinion. I believe both Alex and I feel time is condition caused by space separate from macro mass. There is observation and subjective reasoning for observations it is in the form of theories. Relativity being the best theory because it has passed every test so far. This is a theory based on postulates and not mechanics. When mechanics are removed it opens the door to magical causes. The Copenhagen interpretation opened that door very wide. Multi verse, time travel, worm holes and even the big bang is the result. They are all something from nothing magic. Those that are smarter than I came up with it so it must be true. In the past the so called smartest men of their time voted on the big bang. There were 13 men and the vote was 12 to 1 in favor so it passed for the cause of the creation of mass. I might also remind you that it was a Catholic Priest who named it the Big Bang. He probably wanted to tell science it took 7 days to complete. Some one could have come up with a stat that would have confirmed it but then again the concept of a day would have to have been pre-defined.

I grew up with religion from my mother and science with my father. Obviously my father won my mind.

Back to proofs. There are no proofs period without a mechanical basis. Mathematicians believe math is mechanical. And yes it is mechanical. A theory has to follow math to be possible but impossible theories can also follow mathematics. Like Einstein I have faith in Relativity. Main stream fails the Relativity postulates. Main streams mechanical structure is non existent so it opens the door to not following the postulates. Lets take light going down a gravity well. Main stream will suggest light increases momentum to be blue shifted. Of course by their interpretation that is the only way the observation could be interpreted by their understanding of their standard model. They violated the constant speed of light postulate in order to maintain their model. That observation should have destroyed there standard model in favor of a model that included red shift without a SR velocity increase of light.
This red shift in GR is described in the gamma term for dilation. Space is being expanded by this gamma term (dilation). Than we have to ask what is being dilated? What ever is being dilated is directly affecting light propagation and electron cycle time in what is considered a frame. Mass is dilated to fill a larger volume of space so your measuring stick becomes larger.  A larger measuring stick will measure a meter longer than a smaller measuring stick. Your measure of time by either light distance or electron cycle ticks slower to match the measuring stick in your frame. The measured speed of light in every frame in a vacuum is measured to be the same. That the distance measured is not the same is what allows Euclidean mathematics to remain valid. Main stream suggests the magic of contraction of the universe and use the muon as proof. The muon has to slow down in order to react with its new environment of the mass on Earth rather than the energy of space. Space energy has to control the distance and propagation of light and cycle of the electron to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. Or you can maintain a belief in coincidence of magic.

When you move a standardized spectrum detector cell down a gravity well the standardization changes its size to the newly dilated frame. Light used for the standardization higher in less dilated space will appear blue shifted to the more dilated position of the detector. The reverse will be a red shifted detection. The speed of light remains the same because the spin of energy particles remain the same. Space energy is an organized pattern while mass is a disorganized pattern causing friction with fundamental energy. That friction is what we describe as energy. Our mass energy is just a conduit for space time energy, zero point energy or Dark mass energy. Name it anything you like other than main streams model of energy from magic.

Do I know why the spin energy for the motion of time exists? Absolutely not. That depth of understanding has to be relegated back to the God of the unknown.

I agree.
My true question is if there is "space" and a massive object is accelerating so fast that it reaches the limit speed of this very space, reaching 0 dilatation, a little bit more energy put into the system, would reach a point of -0 dilatation? To be more specific -0 dilatation of "wherever space-time", could be represented as a rupture of space?

Well you'll be surprised to eard that I do no't believe into half of what I try to come with, being subjection or not, I indeed reached the limit of my understanding, the logical awnser is constantly try to prove my settled concepts to be incorrec, for this I try many different possibilities based over the same different perspective, probably subjection of myown, but in purpose, for what matters, I'm with mathematicians all the way...

All those interpretation of inner core expansion and compression, is because I'm testing something, and presume is the best way to be corrected by someone else who knows, more effective than questioning it, when I raise a question I recieve passive awnsers witch is very usefull to someone that already knew, with is not the case...

The think behind my interrest in BH and inner cores, is because, (and I'm not ready to state this), what is called big bang, for me is only the remainings of the nova expansion of what once was a star, (one that included on it most of our galaxy and pehaps all the others to). I do not follow this, nor even I believe without proof, but when I look up to sky and models, what I see is the same events in lower scale, back in time begining with a super massive star(universe) "one that had not emptyspace on it, only matter, when it colapsed the nova expanded most of it away, the center colapsed into one great atractor, caught up part of the matter, and before the same even in lower scale started to repeat itself in form of a super massive milkway object, andromeda, and any other galaxy outhere...
Hard to proof, but for now I'm not intending to find proof, just questioning myself, for me all this planets are already inside this twisted vortex, cause we where formed here...
Much speculation, but I look the milkway and I dont see much other options than a super massive object that enetered nova, inside the void left behind by another one, untill we finnaly reached the first spherical object without space at that moment, space is what is left behind by the decompossition of energy and mater (universe)...
Not a conception of another dimmensions or paralel universes, but simple the probabilitie of the universe has started from a nova of its own energy colapse, not from nothing, and asside of this universal star, possible many other star coexisting and orbiting one another....
As I said there is many things lefting, maybe one thing will anulate the whole perspective(I hope so), but as this far, we are loooking at space when we should be more focused on what is happening bellow our feets...

As for time, I'm just trying to rain on the wet over the elephant on the room, you describled it well the speed of light and the spining of the electron, witch none of us actually known, for this very reason, I'm questioning myself...

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 259
• Thanked: 30 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #21 on: 08/10/2016 23:06:39 »
the box

" it is a fact you can not observe free space has any sort of motion "

Can you observe gamma rays? That is unobservable yet a physical reality.

", it is a fact that no aether has been detected"

I would suggest light being detected proves a type of Ether.

"it is fact that free space has no physicality"

Again I consider light a wave on a type of aether. If light were a particle of mass suns would evaporate.

"There is no evidence of expanding space"

The slowing of the tick rate of a clock in GR

" there is evidence of galaxies moving away from us, fact not fiction my friend. "

If it is SR yes but if it is GR red shift not necessarily.

I do not have faith in the big bang and do not have an opinion on the size of the universe

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #22 on: 09/10/2016 14:36:41 »
the box

" it is a fact you can not observe free space has any sort of motion "

Can you observe gamma rays? That is unobservable yet a physical reality.

We can detect gamma rays?  But you are adding something to free space, you have to think the void of space that is ''behind''/''underneath'' everything.

Quote
", it is a fact that no aether has been detected"

I would suggest light being detected proves a type of Ether.

CBMR could be an ''aether'' but again adding to free space, see above.

Quote
"There is no evidence of expanding space"

The slowing of the tick rate of a clock in GR

Just no, a clock or rate has no relationship to free space.

Quote
I do not have faith in the big bang and do not have an opinion on the size of the universe

Interesting, you understand that distance is defined by the last ''piece'' of visual  matter?

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 259
• Thanked: 30 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #23 on: 10/10/2016 14:46:06 »
Quote\
We can detect gamma rays?  But you are adding something to free space, you have to think the void of space that is ''behind''/''underneath'' everything./Quote

I do not believe space is a true void.

Quote\
Just no, a clock or rate has no relationship to free space. /Quote  It has everything to do with space.

Quote\
Interesting, you understand that distance is defined by the last ''piece'' of visual  matter? /Quote
The last piece of a visual image measured through relativity for distance.

There is something you can explain to me. How do you frame quotes?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Proof
« Reply #24 on: 10/10/2016 15:42:33 »
Quote\
We can detect gamma rays?  But you are adding something to free space, you have to think the void of space that is ''behind''/''underneath'' everything./Quote

I do not believe space is a true void.

Quote\
Just no, a clock or rate has no relationship to free space. /Quote  It has everything to do with space.

Quote\
Interesting, you understand that distance is defined by the last ''piece'' of visual  matter? /Quote
The last piece of a visual image measured through relativity for distance.

There is something you can explain to me. How do you frame quotes?

To frame quotes Gog you simply pick out the section you want to frame/quote.  Type the word quote at the start of the section in brackets, using these brackets [] and the word quote being inside the brackets , then at the end of the section type the word quote in brackets with a closed quote [/]  the word quote after the slash.

For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Proof
« Reply #24 on: 10/10/2016 15:42:33 »