Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 08/12/2016 15:12:34

Title: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 08/12/2016 15:12:34


Well this one is quite simple to discourse and show the error in thought.


The space twin returns some years later to the present of the Earth twin, quite obviously they are both now in the present and time ran at the same rate for both twins.

Todays date 08/12/2016

time 15..13 pm

the present when the space twin returns.


The twin did not arrive back at 15.00pm because time ran slower for them.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 08/12/2016 16:07:26
thebox

   If you do not believe relativity you are welcome to believe anything you like.

Frame time is reaction rate relative to the tick rate of the frame. Our bodies reaction rate of aging including synapsis firing rate are tied to the frame we occupy. Space travel at relativistic speeds while still in the present reduce your reaction rate there by slowing your aging process. All reactions are in the present there is no time travel. Its all being done in the reaction rate.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 08/12/2016 23:05:47
Perhaps the "physical" answer for the question, lies on nature itself...
  Animals with slower metabolism usually are those who live longer...
  Surely the brains entity are not self aware of that, but DNA and time are in correlation to, resulting in evolution when in correlation with an environment...
  If speed up anything/synapses "on" any living being, would result in a longer longevity "in time", everything would be pre-conditioned to do so, those would than live longer...
  May sound silly but DNA is amazing, it's capabilities seems to be able to with time, surpass any environment, by learning the rules, otherwise we would not have come to live...

  They talk about the twin paradox, which is clearly untested "yet", for now every single time I tend to picture the metabolism of an prehistoric being that barely evolved since than, and compared it to a still evolving species... My irrational clue to the twin paradox also stick with relativity, if not for the explanation it provides, than for the very fact that reptiles whe compared to many mamals live much longer...
  A alligator cannot travel at C, nor a human, but surely looks like that those species, had time to find a way to work around that limitation, by reducing their own synapses...
 If the speeding up was a viable way to counterpart time and aging, DNA would have already found a way use that...
  Than subjection and fantasy comes to mind, and also the visualization of a Dolphin with a self-developed sonar, along with an persistent Eal that have developed means to produce high voltage current on itself, tardigrades and more...
   If speed and kinetic energy, that surrounds us, would be of any use to an environment being as humans, since day one we would have evolved to absolve energy from space itself trough our skin to feed our bodies, but we did not, anything did not... 
 We may not knew that earth is traveling on a space that is at C, but DNA surely did, even evolved eyes that psychically calculate light and C, something that we do not even understand yet... For so if something sounds to good to be true as counterpart age by existing within an accelerate frame, is most likely that is not...   
   I believe that the most simple and practical answer for the paradox is:
  The traveling twin(for the earthling perspective) aged too fast and died from complications just after the beginning of it's journey(even if for himself that journey had take years)...
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 09/12/2016 01:13:02
The confusion over the meaning of time is understandable. Time is a man made concept of ratios to c. So time is just motion. Total reaction time is frame dependent for all spices and all clocks. Physics is the same in every frame relative to your clock for reaction time.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 09/12/2016 08:29:34
Perhaps the "physical" answer for the question, lies on nature itself...
  Animals with slower metabolism usually are those who live longer...
  Surely the brains entity are not self aware of that, but DNA and time are in correlation to, resulting in evolution when in correlation with an environment...
  If speed up anything/synapses "on" any living being, would result in a longer longevity "in time", everything would be pre-conditioned to do so, those would than live longer...
  May sound silly but DNA is amazing, it's capabilities seems to be able to with time, surpass any environment, by learning the rules, otherwise we would not have come to live...

  They talk about the twin paradox, which is clearly untested "yet", for now every single time I tend to picture the metabolism of an prehistoric being that barely evolved since than, and compared it to a still evolving species... My irrational clue to the twin paradox also stick with relativity, if not for the explanation it provides, than for the very fact that reptiles whe compared to many mamals live much longer...
  A alligator cannot travel at C, nor a human, but surely looks like that those species, had time to find a way to work around that limitation, by reducing their own synapses...
 If the speeding up was a viable way to counterpart time and aging, DNA would have already found a way use that...
  Than subjection and fantasy comes to mind, and also the visualization of a Dolphin with a self-developed sonar, along with an persistent Eal that have developed means to produce high voltage current on itself, tardigrades and more...
   If speed and kinetic energy, that surrounds us, would be of any use to an environment being as humans, since day one we would have evolved to absolve energy from space itself trough our skin to feed our bodies, but we did not, anything did not... 
 We may not knew that earth is traveling on a space that is at C, but DNA surely did, even evolved eyes that psychically calculate light and C, something that we do not even understand yet... For so if something sounds to good to be true as counterpart age by existing within an accelerate frame, is most likely that is not...   
   I believe that the most simple and practical answer for the paradox is:
  The traveling twin(for the earthling perspective) aged too fast and died from complications just after the beginning of it's journey(even if for himself that journey had take years)...

Interesting you relate ''time'' to metabolism. I  believe in decay, things decay and degrade over ''time''.

I do believe in reality the Caesium has any relationship with real ''time'' , arbitrary time is quite meaningless.  So when the rate of the caesium slows down, I do not believe this is relative to the human metabolism or ageing process.
To me it is on par to saying that if a dripping tap slowed down the drip, time slows down, again it would be unrelated.  I do not think we are made of Caesium atoms.
However I do believe that space and time are interwoven , I would even be so bold and say that space and time, is ''god''.
My premise is that nothing can exist without a space to exist in, there can be no motion if there is no space and time. There can be no events without space and time.



Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 09/12/2016 08:31:25
thebox

   If you do not believe relativity you are welcome to believe anything you like.

Frame time is reaction rate relative to the tick rate of the frame. Our bodies reaction rate of aging including synapsis firing rate are tied to the frame we occupy. Space travel at relativistic speeds while still in the present reduce your reaction rate there by slowing your aging process. All reactions are in the present there is no time travel. Its all being done in the reaction rate.
So what do you consider the Caesium /human relationship is?

I do not ''see'' humans been anything like a Caesium.

There is no evidence that a slowed down Caesium rate alters our ages , the Caesium is independent of humans and the rate has no affect on humans.

Humans do not have this rate?

Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 09/12/2016 09:52:57
Perhaps the "physical" answer for the question, lies on nature itself...
  Animals with slower metabolism usually are those who live longer...
  Surely the brains entity are not self aware of that, but DNA and time are in correlation to, resulting in evolution when in correlation with an environment...
  If speed up anything/synapses "on" any living being, would result in a longer longevity "in time", everything would be pre-conditioned to do so, those would than live longer...
  May sound silly but DNA is amazing, it's capabilities seems to be able to with time, surpass any environment, by learning the rules, otherwise we would not have come to live...

  They talk about the twin paradox, which is clearly untested "yet", for now every single time I tend to picture the metabolism of an prehistoric being that barely evolved since than, and compared it to a still evolving species... My irrational clue to the twin paradox also stick with relativity, if not for the explanation it provides, than for the very fact that reptiles whe compared to many mamals live much longer...
  A alligator cannot travel at C, nor a human, but surely looks like that those species, had time to find a way to work around that limitation, by reducing their own synapses...
 If the speeding up was a viable way to counterpart time and aging, DNA would have already found a way use that...
  Than subjection and fantasy comes to mind, and also the visualization of a Dolphin with a self-developed sonar, along with an persistent Eal that have developed means to produce high voltage current on itself, tardigrades and more...
   If speed and kinetic energy, that surrounds us, would be of any use to an environment being as humans, since day one we would have evolved to absolve energy from space itself trough our skin to feed our bodies, but we did not, anything did not... 
 We may not knew that earth is traveling on a space that is at C, but DNA surely did, even evolved eyes that psychically calculate light and C, something that we do not even understand yet... For so if something sounds to good to be true as counterpart age by existing within an accelerate frame, is most likely that is not...   
   I believe that the most simple and practical answer for the paradox is:
  The traveling twin(for the earthling perspective) aged too fast and died from complications just after the beginning of it's journey(even if for himself that journey had take years)...

Interesting you relate ''time'' to metabolism. I  believe in decay, things decay and degrade over ''time''.

I do believe in reality the Caesium has any relationship with real ''time'' , arbitrary time is quite meaningless.  So when the rate of the caesium slows down, I do not believe this is relative to the human metabolism or ageing process.
To me it is on par to saying that if a dripping tap slowed down the drip, time slows down, again it would be unrelated.  I do not think we are made of Caesium atoms.
However I do believe that space and time are interwoven , I would even be so bold and say that space and time, is ''god''.
My premise is that nothing can exist without a space to exist in, there can be no motion if there is no space and time. There can be no events without space and time.

 Surely, I relate time with anything that exists, on the case of DNA even more, for it evolve to deal with the environment, and the environment is also submitted to time...
   The same reason behind the development of any organ on any living creature...

 I'm relating the existence of "this" metabolism "now" as a product that emerge from a constant experience of time... That's why I suggested that if acceleration of anything was good to longevity, we would have also developed an organ to absorb that, or bypass it...  If one believes to be impossible to DNA to achieve a "necessity", just stop and look at all living creatures, anything seeks to slow down...
  I'm just suggesting, that the twin traveling would die at a faster rate, and will come back to earth only to rotten at an usual speed, along with his brother...
  We "happen" at the frame we encounter ourselves, but there is "threshold" on everything there is, the paradox seems to be ignoring any possible threshold to achieve a virtual result, not possible....
  Decay, is the key factor on the proposition, and the reason why something decays(time, any time being it faster or slower, doesn't matter)...
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 09/12/2016 14:28:39
Quote
So what do you consider the Caesium /human relationship is?

I do not ''see'' humans been anything like a Caesium.

There is no evidence that a slowed down Caesium rate alters our ages , the Caesium is independent of humans and the rate has no affect on humans.

Humans do not have this rate?

Time=energy c=motion.

The electron cycle motion is related to the electron cycle motion in our bodies. If you are in a frame where the cesium clock slows down its tick cycle your body also slows down its tick cycle. Your body is a biological clock. Your telomeres unwind once about every 7 years and we have about 17 possible unwinding's to remain alive. Dolly the sheep only had the amount of winding left to her mother so they died around the same time. c being the zero point energy decreases with speed by the amount necessary to move the electrons a different distance then the relative rest distance. This slows down the cycle of the electron in the atom. c is a limit of energy and you have to account for the relative motion through space in conservation of energy c.

Its you lack of understanding time itself that stops your understanding of the twin paradox. Which is not really a paradox when you understand relativity correctly.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2016 00:13:34
Quote
So what do you consider the Caesium /human relationship is?

I do not ''see'' humans been anything like a Caesium.

There is no evidence that a slowed down Caesium rate alters our ages , the Caesium is independent of humans and the rate has no affect on humans.

Humans do not have this rate?

Time=energy c=motion.

The electron cycle motion is related to the electron cycle motion in our bodies. If you are in a frame where the cesium clock slows down its tick cycle your body also slows down its tick cycle. Your body is a biological clock. Your telomeres unwind once about every 7 years and we have about 17 possible unwinding's to remain alive. Dolly the sheep only had the amount of winding left to her mother so they died around the same time. c being the zero point energy decreases with speed by the amount necessary to move the electrons a different distance then the relative rest distance. This slows down the cycle of the electron in the atom. c is a limit of energy and you have to account for the relative motion through space in conservation of energy c.

Its you lack of understanding time itself that stops your understanding of the twin paradox. Which is not really a paradox when you understand relativity correctly.
I am sorry to tell you, but it is you that does not understand time and continue with this time/light relationship.  All things exist in time, including light, dna any anything else you may persist in thinking is relational to time.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2016 00:17:59
Perhaps the "physical" answer for the question, lies on nature itself...
  Animals with slower metabolism usually are those who live longer...
  Surely the brains entity are not self aware of that, but DNA and time are in correlation to, resulting in evolution when in correlation with an environment...
  If speed up anything/synapses "on" any living being, would result in a longer longevity "in time", everything would be pre-conditioned to do so, those would than live longer...
  May sound silly but DNA is amazing, it's capabilities seems to be able to with time, surpass any environment, by learning the rules, otherwise we would not have come to live...

  They talk about the twin paradox, which is clearly untested "yet", for now every single time I tend to picture the metabolism of an prehistoric being that barely evolved since than, and compared it to a still evolving species... My irrational clue to the twin paradox also stick with relativity, if not for the explanation it provides, than for the very fact that reptiles whe compared to many mamals live much longer...
  A alligator cannot travel at C, nor a human, but surely looks like that those species, had time to find a way to work around that limitation, by reducing their own synapses...
 If the speeding up was a viable way to counterpart time and aging, DNA would have already found a way use that...
  Than subjection and fantasy comes to mind, and also the visualization of a Dolphin with a self-developed sonar, along with an persistent Eal that have developed means to produce high voltage current on itself, tardigrades and more...
   If speed and kinetic energy, that surrounds us, would be of any use to an environment being as humans, since day one we would have evolved to absolve energy from space itself trough our skin to feed our bodies, but we did not, anything did not... 
 We may not knew that earth is traveling on a space that is at C, but DNA surely did, even evolved eyes that psychically calculate light and C, something that we do not even understand yet... For so if something sounds to good to be true as counterpart age by existing within an accelerate frame, is most likely that is not...   
   I believe that the most simple and practical answer for the paradox is:
  The traveling twin(for the earthling perspective) aged too fast and died from complications just after the beginning of it's journey(even if for himself that journey had take years)...

Interesting you relate ''time'' to metabolism. I  believe in decay, things decay and degrade over ''time''.

I do believe in reality the Caesium has any relationship with real ''time'' , arbitrary time is quite meaningless.  So when the rate of the caesium slows down, I do not believe this is relative to the human metabolism or ageing process.
To me it is on par to saying that if a dripping tap slowed down the drip, time slows down, again it would be unrelated.  I do not think we are made of Caesium atoms.
However I do believe that space and time are interwoven , I would even be so bold and say that space and time, is ''god''.
My premise is that nothing can exist without a space to exist in, there can be no motion if there is no space and time. There can be no events without space and time.

 Surely, I relate time with anything that exists, on the case of DNA even more, for it evolve to deal with the environment, and the environment is also submitted to time...
   The same reason behind the development of any organ on any living creature...

 I'm relating the existence of "this" metabolism "now" as a product that emerge from a constant experience of time... That's why I suggested that if acceleration of anything was good to longevity, we would have also developed an organ to absorb that, or bypass it...  If one believes to be impossible to DNA to achieve a "necessity", just stop and look at all living creatures, anything seeks to slow down...
  I'm just suggesting, that the twin traveling would die at a faster rate, and will come back to earth only to rotten at an usual speed, along with his brother...
  We "happen" at the frame we encounter ourselves, but there is "threshold" on everything there is, the paradox seems to be ignoring any possible threshold to achieve a virtual result, not possible....
  Decay, is the key factor on the proposition, and the reason why something decays(time, any time being it faster or slower, doesn't matter)...
Well surely you should only consider time to be an everlasting entity that allows things to exist within ''her''.Dna exists in time. metabolism exist in time.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2016 00:19:31
The rate of the caesium atom passes through time .
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 15/12/2016 12:48:01
Quote
The rate of the caesium atom passes through time .

Yes and time is c energy. Velocity of the clock through space takes some of that energy for vector velocity. The hypothetical clock at c would stop electron cycling. Every speed reduces the electron cycling from a more rested position. The rate of electron cycle relates to the reaction time of a frame. The reaction of aging is also affected.

Time = motion = energy c
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 22/12/2016 01:43:26
Quote
The rate of the caesium atom passes through time .

Yes and time is c energy. Velocity of the clock through space takes some of that energy for vector velocity. The hypothetical clock at c would stop electron cycling. Every speed reduces the electron cycling from a more rested position. The rate of electron cycle relates to the reaction time of a frame. The reaction of aging is also affected.

Time = motion = energy c


Time is not c energy, energy exists in time, c exists in time, without energy in free space exists a spacial void which is time.  The Minkowski relationship of space-time is more exact than he or we realise.  Space is time, time is space, all things exist in space, all things exist in time, without space/time things can not exist including energy. 

A lonely fisherman sat staring at the time void, it was indistinguishable from space and had no rate.   The lonely fisherman observed energy passing through time, planets and stars, he could see light that could contract and dilate, but the fisherman knows the spacial void of time was timeless and a constant. Constant in any direction from an observer, constant beyond the distant stars that were observed relative to local points and the magnitude of light.



A  ''Photon'' leaves the sun travelling to Earth. The ''Photon'' does not take 8 minutes to get here, the ''Photon'' passes through 8 minutes of time. The Earth, the Sun and the ''Photon'' all experience the passing through 8 minutes of time, regardless of velocity.



Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 22/12/2016 14:22:51
Quote
but the fisherman knows the spacial void of time was timeless and a constant.

I would prefer physics over the fisherman for my understanding. Time is measured by the electron and photon. Each are confounded by the same amount of motion to measure time the same in every frame. This turns out to be geometry between SR and GR. So we can consider it coincidence or some energy is causing the electron and photon motion. I favor Time =motion =energy c for electron and photon motion. If your fisherman is energy c then we agree if not well we do not agree.

You have not given cause for time. As a realest every action has a cause. As a non realest you can invoke the fisherman as proof time and energy c are not the same. I do not allow myself that luxury.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 24/12/2016 04:02:42
Quote
but the fisherman knows the spacial void of time was timeless and a constant.

I would prefer physics over the fisherman for my understanding. Time is measured by the electron and photon. Each are confounded by the same amount of motion to measure time the same in every frame. This turns out to be geometry between SR and GR. So we can consider it coincidence or some energy is causing the electron and photon motion. I favor Time =motion =energy c for electron and photon motion. If your fisherman is energy c then we agree if not well we do not agree.

You have not given cause for time. As a realest every action has a cause. As a non realest you can invoke the fisherman as proof time and energy c are not the same. I do not allow myself that luxury.
I did reply with such elegance, however seemingly the post as disappeared.   I will try again with perhaps less brilliance .


You say time is measured by the electron and photon, a more realistic mind would realise that both the photon and electron exist in time .
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 24/12/2016 14:20:49
Quote
I did reply with such elegance, however seemingly the post as disappeared.   I will try again with perhaps less brilliance .
Straight speaking is more my style. I might not recognize brilliance.

Quote
You say time is measured by the electron and photon, a more realistic mind would realise that both the photon and electron exist in time .

Obviously you do not want to define time and would rather it remain a mystery. c is time, Electrons rotate through the sea of c. Photons propagate through the sea of c. So we finally agree.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 24/12/2016 15:03:14
Quote
I did reply with such elegance, however seemingly the post as disappeared.   I will try again with perhaps less brilliance .
Straight speaking is more my style. I might not recognize brilliance.

Quote
You say time is measured by the electron and photon, a more realistic mind would realise that both the photon and electron exist in time .

Obviously you do not want to define time and would rather it remain a mystery. c is time, Electrons rotate through the sea of c. Photons propagate through the sea of c. So we finally agree.

Well I am not sure I should define time.

C is a speed , c is not time, photons propagate through the unbounded ocean of time.

Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 24/12/2016 15:24:16
Happy Holidays box.

Quote
Well I am not sure I should define time.

I am interested in defined knowledge that represents understanding of my environment.

Quote
C is a speed

Yes that is one dimension of time we recognize as a constant, total energy available and the cause of motion itself.

Quote
c is not time, photons propagate through the unbounded ocean of time.

What is the use of using a term (time) and not defining the term? The ocean of time to me is c and the cause of relativity.

Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 24/12/2016 16:36:19
Happy Holidays box.

Quote
Well I am not sure I should define time.

I am interested in defined knowledge that represents understanding of my environment.

Quote
C is a speed

Yes that is one dimension of time we recognize as a constant, total energy available and the cause of motion itself.

Quote
c is not time, photons propagate through the unbounded ocean of time.

What is the use of using a term (time) and not defining the term? The ocean of time to me is c and the cause of relativity.
happy holidays to you .

I Suppose with it being Xmas it will not hurt me to define time  .


Understand this my friend and you may just understand the univerise like I understand it .

Think really hard why the below is correct


Time = absolute unbounded dark space

Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 24/12/2016 18:53:46
Quote
Time = absolute unbounded dark space

That is just another way of not defining time. Time is always in a ratio with c as a constant of total zero point energy available to us in the void of space. Even in mass there is quite a void of space. The void is a uniform structure of energy. Mass causes the uniformity to stretch (dilate). This causes less energy per volume of space in GR. Mass expands (measuring stick) equal to the extra amount of distance light travels at c. This is what causes light and the electron to be confounded. Geometry is relative in every frame.

The twin paradoxs uses the energy dimension of time. The total energy minus vector energy used is the ratio of the speed of reaction rate of a frame. Electron cycle is reduced by the vector travel for energy ratio total c.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 24/12/2016 22:04:47
Quote
Time = absolute unbounded dark space

That is just another way of not defining time. Time is always in a ratio with c as a constant of total zero point energy available to us in the void of space. Even in mass there is quite a void of space. The void is a uniform structure of energy. Mass causes the uniformity to stretch (dilate). This causes less energy per volume of space in GR. Mass expands (measuring stick) equal to the extra amount of distance light travels at c. This is what causes light and the electron to be confounded. Geometry is relative in every frame.

The twin paradoxs uses the energy dimension of time. The total energy minus vector energy used is the ratio of the speed of reaction rate of a frame. Electron cycle is reduced by the vector travel for energy ratio total c.
timing is always in ratio with c , not time. 

I think you completely missed the definition.

Time is darkness .

All things exist in darkness , darkness is the spacial unbounded void of space that all things need to exist in.   Things need and have to have a volume of time to exist in, I. E.   Space.


XYZT-XYZ=T



Think about that xyz only works because of source points, remove all the points we are left in darkness in time .
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 25/12/2016 13:35:35
Quote
XYZT-XYZ=T
Think about that xyz only works because of source points, remove all the points we are left in darkness in time .

XYZ to me is the reason for time. XYZ is the grid structure of c energy the very cause of time. Until you come to the realization that electrons do not move themselves you will be stuck without a real definition of time. We measure time with the electron (and photon) realizing something is moving the electron (and photon) is the first step to understanding time is motion. A void does not move the electrons. here is no dimension of time only motion of time with a basis in c that move electrons (and photons).

By the way Merry Christmas.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 26/12/2016 04:27:21
Quote
XYZT-XYZ=T
Think about that xyz only works because of source points, remove all the points we are left in darkness in time .

XYZ to me is the reason for time. XYZ is the grid structure of c energy the very cause of time. Until you come to the realization that electrons do not move themselves you will be stuck without a real definition of time. We measure time with the electron (and photon) realizing something is moving the electron (and photon) is the first step to understanding time is motion. A void does not move the electrons. here is no dimension of time only motion of time with a basis in c that move electrons (and photons).

By the way Merry Christmas.
merry Xmas to you ,

Xyz is a  point source co-ordinate system and nothing to do with time. It is our way of attempting to navigate the cosmos.

Perhaps it may benefit the conversation if we rewind and take a look at some rudimentary logic.

Would you agree that if we removed all the matter,Emr and CMBR from a volume of space,  the volume of space would be in darkness or if you prefer a dark space?

Now although there is no longer any sort of energy  or  c energy in this dark space, do you agree that there is still time in this dark space?

The dark space exists behind/under the light/c energy.  Consider that c is timing light travelling through time. Try to imagine if you can that c is the gears in an engine space, the engine space being time ,  timing light relative to time.

Or if you like imagine it is dark, close your eyes, imagine a single photon is travelling from the sun to your eyes, can you now ''see'' the photon travelling through time?
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 26/12/2016 17:02:34
Quote
Perhaps it may benefit the conversation if we rewind and take a look at some rudimentary logic.

Would you agree that if we removed all the matter,Emr and CMBR from a volume of space,  the volume of space would be in darkness or if you prefer a dark space?

Interesting thought. I am not sure there would be space. Your messing with the very question of existence. Without something in space there would be no distance to create volume. If there is distance there is something causing distance. Our 3 dimensions being removed? We know mathematically we live in a point style universe because of Pi. Points can be closer together but a pure circle is not possible. This creates a xyz universe. Energy would be complimentary spin points in space for energy to move electrons and propagate the photon wave form.
So no we cannot agree on a volume of space.

Quote
Now although there is no longer any sort of energy  or  c energy in this dark space, do you agree that there is still time in this dark space?

No, If you take motion away for electrons to move everything would be frozen in place. Energy is from c not mass. Mass only has kinetic energy given to it by fundamental energy from the spectrum sea of energy c. Time is a measurement of relative motion to total energy c.

Quote
Or if you like imagine it is dark, close your eyes, imagine a single photon is travelling from the sun to your eyes, can you now ''see'' the photon travelling through time

You appear to believe a photon is a point moving through a void. I can see the waveform propagating on c spin particles (gears if you like). The particles ripple than go back into their stable relationship All wavelengths are a form of radiation. Some harmful others not. Time = motion = energy= organized c spin particles. Kind of like strings but strings are impossible because of Pi.

Lets go back to the twin paradox. You do not believe in different relative reactions to c as frames. This is relativity. If you do not agree with relativity you can believe anything. I am unfortunately stuck with relativity. So my view is always relative (to c).

Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 26/12/2016 21:46:48
Quote
Perhaps it may benefit the conversation if we rewind and take a look at some rudimentary logic.

Would you agree that if we removed all the matter,Emr and CMBR from a volume of space,  the volume of space would be in darkness or if you prefer a dark space?

Interesting thought. I am not sure there would be space. Your messing with the very question of existence. Without something in space there would be no distance to create volume. If there is distance there is something causing distance. Our 3 dimensions being removed? We know mathematically we live in a point style universe because of Pi. Points can be closer together but a pure circle is not possible. This creates a xyz universe. Energy would be complimentary spin points in space for energy to move electrons and propagate the photon wave form.
So no we cannot agree on a volume of space.

Almost correct, without matter reflecting light in space , there would be nothing to allow us to percleve distance in space and our visual universe would be 0 in distance, however by moving we could prove distance still exists in  the dark, I. E a volume of dark space.

 

Picture your spinning things, what do you think they are spinning in?

They are spinning in time .
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 26/12/2016 22:34:38
Quote
Picture your spinning things, what do you think they are spinning in?

They are spinning in time .

Their spinning is what we measure as time. They spin and move electrons by their spinning at c. Their spinning is what allows mass to move and clocks to tick. We think in terms of kinetic for energy but fundamental zero point energy is c. The energy of time is constant spin but different distances for tick rate of a frame. That matches relativity and observation.

To you time is a meta observation that just exists. To me all things have a mechanical cause. The basis of cause and affect so every effect has a cause. You never bring me a cause just an affect. Math is never a cause either.

We live in a sea of c.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 27/12/2016 05:04:30
Quote
Picture your spinning things, what do you think they are spinning in?

They are spinning in time .

Their spinning is what we measure as time. They spin and move electrons by their spinning at c. Their spinning is what allows mass to move and clocks to tick. We think in terms of kinetic for energy but fundamental zero point energy is c. The energy of time is constant spin but different distances for tick rate of a frame. That matches relativity and observation.

To you time is a meta observation that just exists. To me all things have a mechanical cause. The basis of cause and affect so every effect has a cause. You never bring me a cause just an affect. Math is never a cause either.

We live in a sea of c.
yes we live  within a sea of c, however the sea flows through time.
I believe your mistake in thinking is simply this, you try to get time to equal something else, where as I simply believe time=time  and has no equal.
I also think that things have a mechanical cause, however like I mentioned earlier, the mechanics need an engine space or the function of the mechanics become seazed.
Consider a perfect vacuum that was even empty of CBMR,  do you not think that time is still existent in the vacuum?
You ask me what is the cause of time, which in my context is asking me what is the cause of space  .  The cause of space is to allow motion, without space there can be no motion. Without space there can not be volume, I am unsure what you actually mean by cause. I think I might be mistaking purpose.

Sorry
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 27/12/2016 14:38:57
Quote
I believe your mistake in thinking is simply this, you try to get time to equal something else, where as I simply believe time=time

I believe in mechanics so to me everything has a cause even time. You keep claiming I am the one mistaken. I claim that time has a physical cause. You on the other hand believe in the meta physical of time just being.

Quote
The cause of space is to allow motion

Who or what is allowing motion? This is where your mind stops reaching for an answer. You think it is an impossible question to answer. It is not impossible but rather simple. That which moves the electron and photon waves is the cause of time. You need to define time in a physical context then you can realize the cause of time. Time is motion.

Quote
the mechanics need an engine space or the function of the mechanics become seazed.
Time is energy c. That move both the electrons and photon waves. Without energy c you are correct everything would be seized up.

Quote
Consider a perfect vacuum that was even empty of CBMR,  do you not think that time is still existent in the vacuum?


If you include energy c itself being removed than yes there would be no time. A BH is a prime example of no time inside and everything seized.

Your understanding hit a brick wall you were unable to penetrate. My thoughts are beyond your brick wall so naturally I must be mistaken.
 
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 27/12/2016 16:31:50
Quote
I believe your mistake in thinking is simply this, you try to get time to equal something else, where as I simply believe time=time

I believe in mechanics so to me everything has a cause even time. You keep claiming I am the one mistaken. I claim that time has a physical cause. You on the other hand believe in the meta physical of time just being.

Quote
The cause of space is to allow motion

Who or what is allowing motion? This is where your mind stops reaching for an answer. You think it is an impossible question to answer. It is not impossible but rather simple. That which moves the electron and photon waves is the cause of time. You need to define time in a physical context then you can realize the cause of time. Time is motion.

Quote
the mechanics need an engine space or the function of the mechanics become seazed.
Time is energy c. That move both the electrons and photon waves. Without energy c you are correct everything would be seized up.

Quote
Consider a perfect vacuum that was even empty of CBMR,  do you not think that time is still existent in the vacuum?


If you include energy c itself being removed than yes there would be no time. A BH is a prime example of no time inside and everything seized.

Your understanding hit a brick wall you were unable to penetrate. My thoughts are beyond your brick wall so naturally I must be mistaken.

I do not have a brick wall lol, I can think beyond the normal persons thinking ability.
You mention black holes and say there would be no time inside a black hole , that is rather outlandish when a black hole is in time along with everything else.

Your picture seems a rather small picture , based around c and electrons, where realistic they exist in time.
I look at the bigger picture.


Let me change the discussion slightly but I will lead to the relationship.


Do you consider that space is adjoined to space?

By this i mean space as in emptiness ,
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 27/12/2016 19:16:42
I do not believe space can be empty. If it were empty it would not be space. Its filled with the energy dimension of size to small to detect directly. We detect it indirectly with the photon.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 27/12/2016 19:35:25
I do not believe space can be empty. If it were empty it would not be space. Its filled with the energy dimension of size to small to detect directly. We detect it indirectly with the photon.
Why would you think that? Space is not made of anything, it is the rudiment of existence. If we remove things from space , I. E a perfect vacuum , the space remains . Light passes through space , all
 Things move through space , all things need a space to exist in, space has a ''viscosity'' of 0
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 27/12/2016 20:37:20
Quote
Why would you think that? Space is not made of anything, it is the rudiment of existence. If we remove things from space , I. E a perfect vacuum , the space remains . Light passes through space , all
 Things move through space , all things need a space to exist in, space has a ''viscosity'' of 0

Because I am a firm believer that you cannot get something for nothing. Apparently you believe in something for nothing.
1. Light slows down in air than speeds up in a vacuum.          Something for nothing?
2. Electrons move.                                                                          Something for nothing?
3. Electron and photon clocks match time in every frame.     Coincidence?
4. c is constant.                                                                                Regulates itself?

Space has 0 viscosity?  No, space has energy c viscosity. Something also created energy c. What I do not know. I only know it is organized, pervasive throughout the universe and equal in every direction.

For you the answer was it just is.
 For me that was not enough.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 30/12/2016 03:00:50
Quote
Why would you think that? Space is not made of anything, it is the rudiment of existence. If we remove things from space , I. E a perfect vacuum , the space remains . Light passes through space , all
 Things move through space , all things need a space to exist in, space has a ''viscosity'' of 0

Because I am a firm believer that you cannot get something for nothing. Apparently you believe in something for nothing.
1. Light slows down in air than speeds up in a vacuum.          Something for nothing?
2. Electrons move.                                                                          Something for nothing?
3. Electron and photon clocks match time in every frame.     Coincidence?
4. c is constant.                                                                                Regulates itself?

Space has 0 viscosity?  No, space has energy c viscosity. Something also created energy c. What I do not know. I only know it is organized, pervasive throughout the universe and equal in every direction.

For you the answer was it just is.
 For me that was not enough.
Not at all, I believe nothing can be something, I. E space/time.

Made of nothing but exists as space.

Let us go back to the twins , twin one who stayed on earth , knew there was no time dilation because he was smart and realised the significant  of 3.26cm .
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: GoC on 30/12/2016 12:51:01
thebox

Time just represents the reaction rate of a frame. In an accelerated frame reaction rates are slower.
I can explain the geometry for why it is slower but you do not believe in Relativity so it would be pointless.
The necessity of mechanics are lost on you also for instance: what cases the electron to move? It just does
is not the depth of knowledge of which I am comfortable. So while your understanding is nothing my
 understanding will be different from yours. Yours is similar to main stream not having the tools to
understand why gravity exists.
Title: Re: video discourse 3 , the twin paradox
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 30/12/2016 21:09:07
That:
  A  ''Photon'' leaves the sun travelling to Earth. The ''Photon'' does not take 8 minutes to get here, the ''Photon'' passes through 8 minutes of time.
The Earth, the Sun and the ''Photon'' all experience the passing through 8 minutes of time, regardless of velocity.

 I do not believe that "Photon" is a "complete particle"/mass.
  Particles are born based on available energy/quanta, photon/spectrum, is not "enough" to become a particle, with mass of it's own...
  Seems more correct to assume that a photon of the sun does not take 8 minutes to arrive at earth...
  Seems logical that 8 minutes is a measurement of distance, and that C (the maximum speed in witch the photon attempt/quantification of light) happens...

I'm suggesting than that distance and time are always in correlation, resulting in different sizes and distances, but C is time..
  More precisely the "distance" in which C is happening from A to B, this case from Sun towards Earth...
  C is the speed, the constant speed in which void can quantification the energy, now we have a considerable distance between Sun and Earth...
 The photo traveling is bu a commodity, an useful and practical one, but the photon have not traveled, it was carried from A the B, in between the void...
  The self propagation of light, for me, seems to be related with the attempt of quantification the quanta of the photon, on a impossible shape(due size),
 the attempt is constantly falling and being restarted, the speed in witch this attempt happens seems to b C...
  I wondering photon does have mass, but it cannot achieve a center, so every time the photonic energy is about to receive mass the quantification fails,
the produced mass is left behind of the energy(open space).
 The gain and lost of mass of the photon being C, and also the same reason the self propagation of it at C. Light as being a warp engine...

 So when I think about 8 minutes to arrive on Earth, I wonder that "8 minutes" is a tool of measurement of time nothing more,
 the photon not traveling trough a distance, but time...
 The distance become real, when one consider that "C" is not instantaneous, so "SPACE" takes "time" to "C",
 void take time to (keep) "attempting" the photon...
  Now if you consider the "time" between Sun and Earth, that distance is resultant of the accumulation of a lot of "time"...
 Time allows distances to exist (physically). Our universe seems to behave point to point, but in terms of E=MC2,
 that is constant all trough the infinite "SPACE"...
  "SPACE" does not need A to B, that is a requirement of our "UNIVERSE"...

 Wondering that Photon wave/particle configuration as being a "impossible shape" is in fact the correct assumption.
 On a existence where a photon does not travel at C, but happens at C,
 is to assume that everything is happening on different states of the same constant C...
  For me "Photon" is happening at C, at the edge of letting being a wave and into become a electron/Proton, if it can accumulate it will become any
particle, but when on a perfect vacuum it's own point of reference (it's mass) is happening outside of it, it stays behind, self propagating the energy, it can be slowed down,
 but as soon the event that did that ends, it will reach C(on perfect vacuum) again...
  Is not that light is traveling at C, light is so fact for it cannot stop on it's own, something(wall) must disturb the "photonic attempt",
 and such wall, will determinate how much of light will accumulate to form new particles, and how much of that will temporarily remain as spectrum..
Light is not as fact as Space, cause light half warps itself in only one direction.
    Light uses the loss of it's achieved mass(instant) to bend space...
      Think about a sphere of 1 kilogram of iron on a perfect vacuum, now assume that the mass of that iron sphere is happening on the center, but different from a normal 1kg iron sphere, this one is not being able(due size) to form a center, the formed mass on this virtual center will stay beind as the energy that forms the sphere will be propagated in one dirrection, there you will have a 1kg iron sphere being moved at C...
       1kg iron sphere have energy enough to develop a center for it's own mass, form that point own the energy should keep doing the same think, but this time, a linear tragectory should be converted into sppining energy...
         Mass should be the reason of the spinning particles, but at the same time, mass is directly related with the energy...
         Time gives mass to energy, but mass is not static, mass is not permanent, mass of everything is constantly being gain and lost at C, great density results in different cotant C, as consequence different time(Frames), with differences in time(outside in) mass should be reduced in comparison to the previous frame, matter submited to less time become facter, fast matter becomes energy again...