0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thebox: Any point me continuing really? frivolous litigation is all that you can offer unless I am misunderstanding your intention and mistakenly going on the defensive. Time is never stretched
Demolitiondaley:I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. 'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. ' J. Robert Oppenheimer
zx16: Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?
Quote from: LB7 on 11/03/2017 15:05:22The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference. Would you suggest a clock , the clocks workings and the clocks motion, do not exist in time?
The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference.
I can't quite see what you're getting at. I mean when a composer uses standard musical notation, he or she can write a sustained musical note, lasting perhaps several seconds, on paper by a single symbol.This written symbol can be read by eye, in a split-second. The musical note takes longer to play. There's no necessary time correlation between the two.Therefore I don't yet understand the point of your diagram, and will grateful for clarification, thanks!
Quote Thebox: Any point me continuing really? frivolous litigation is all that you can offer unless I am misunderstanding your intention and mistakenly going on the defensive. Time is never stretched QuoteDemolitiondaley:I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. 'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. ' J. Robert Oppenheimer In this case I agree unequivocally with Thebox even though the majority believes otherwise. It is indeed an extremely frivolous and ridiculous argument very similar to the kindergarten, " yes it can, no it can't sort". The assertion that the time taken for light to travel a distance from A to B is the same as the time taken for the light to travel from A to B and back to A again, unsupported as it is by the slightest shred of proof is ridiculous in the extreme. It would be another thing altogether if a clock placed at A and one placed at B did in fact indicate that the time taken for light to travel from A to B was the same as that taken for the light to travel from A to B and back to A again. If that was the case yes all kinds of conjectures could be made about time dilation and the expansion and contraction of space. As things stand, keeping the speed of light constant and making both space and time variable is utterly ridiculous, you could do anything you wanted and still get the answer that was required. It is the ultimate tool with which to solve anything, including gravity and whatever other problems might crop up. It is amazing that this fact does not seem to enter into the calculations of people who constantly harp on the Twin paradox and travelling from east to west in order to reverse time! Think for your self for a change. Quotezx16: Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?An aether that exists throughout the Universe would automatically provide such a reference and also negate much of special relativity.What I am doing is only returning to the point of departure when all of these esoteric theories came into being and to examine whether alternatives more in keeping with classical physics exist. Very feasible alternative do exist that are completely in keeping with classical physics.Further to spare Thebox any rebuttal I will also state that apart from the above point there is nothing much we agree on.
The clock exist, the time not. What we called time is the frequency of a clock. Each tick of the clock allows a window of modification of the "thing". I called "thing" because it is something like a "particle" but it is not, it is more basic and control the characteristics of all particles. Change the velocity of translation and you change the clock (what others people called relativity). It is easy to understand how the clock works: the "live" of a basic "thing": the rotation. The "thing" rotates and the "thing" is like a point that moves at 'c' (speed of light), and each round of the thing can allow all characteristics to operate. When an atom moves in translation more and more, to reach 'c', the thing needs more and more time to make its turn and the characteristic of all particles, atoms, and at final our body seems the time is slowing. It is like our body (program) can change only when there is a tick of the clock, exactly like a program change when the processor receives a tick of the clock from the motherboard.
Premise Time passes by at an instant and constant rate for all observers proven by the axiom logic of that any measurement after the value 0 no matter how small of an increment or how fast of a rate of measurement becomes instantaneous history. added- it also shows simultaneity is not true.
What you call time is a clock but what you call time is actually timing , giving time physical representation where as time has no physicality.
QuoteWhat you call time is a clock but what you call time is actually timing , giving time physical representation where as time has no physicality. Time don't exist. The tick is a round. But it is possible to compare 2 clocks. We think time like a macroscopic "sensation". At least, the round must exist to have the "macroscopic" time and there is a limit: 'c' that the "thing" can't move faster. I don't say it is not possible to move faster than 'c' but a standard 'thing' can't. And I don't say the true time don't exist, not our sensation of time but something else and it is not what we called 'time'.
Time does exist but not in a way of normal thinking about time. Time is not a single dimension or a straight line, time is the whole mind experience that experiences the whole of space in a present state that changes from one instant to the next instant.
Not necessary, maybe time does not exist at all. I can't affirm real time exist or not. To take a representation of the different times in Universe, take all computers on Earth, big and small, embedded card, etc, => each processor works at its own velocity: it is the time we know.
However frequencies and wave-lengths always occupy the present.
Simply put the future might not even be ahead of us and the future could be some sort of ''self-writing program'' although I do not personally believe that and in any sort of holographic universe.
I don't understand
the box -Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by? One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time! However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
GoC: You do not believe in dilation of time but can you understand dilation of energy? The zero point energy state of space having more or less dense energy as the presence of mass changes. Actually the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space. Conservation of energy per volume of space to move the electrons. As the volume of mass increases the fundamental energy of space to move electrons dilate to less energy per volume of space. This is the basis of GR. The mass expands because the energy expands allowing the electron to travel further out into space reducing the cycle tick rate do to the increased electron travel distance. Reaction rates are based on electron cycle distance per cycle we measure as time.
but can you understand dilation of energy?
QuoteGoC: You do not believe in dilation of time but can you understand dilation of energy? The zero point energy state of space having more or less dense energy as the presence of mass changes. Actually the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space. Conservation of energy per volume of space to move the electrons. As the volume of mass increases the fundamental energy of space to move electrons dilate to less energy per volume of space. This is the basis of GR. The mass expands because the energy expands allowing the electron to travel further out into space reducing the cycle tick rate do to the increased electron travel distance. Reaction rates are based on electron cycle distance per cycle we measure as time. I am getting pretty mixed up reading this. For instance what part of physics exactly does the phrase: " the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space..." refer to ? Maybe it is time to return to basics. The virtual transition of an electron from E 2 to E1 and back ( the transition E 2 -> E1 ->E 2) can be considered as a process in which an electron absorbs and emits a photon of energy (E 2 - E1). Such a photon is called virtual. In contrast to the photons present in real transitions virtual photons cannot be observed experimentally. The creation of a virtual photon is not connected with an absorption of energy from outside and its annihilation is not connected with a release of energy. The Law of the conservation of energy is not violated since a virtual photon exists for a very short time (< 10 -15 seconds.). This is the process involved in the zero point energy of space. Obviously it is not possible to superimpose such transitions onto a whole theory governing the working of the Universe as it seems to me your post implies. As to your reference to frames of reference, GR and SR, my earlier objections stating that such different frames of reference would not be required in the presence of a universal aether that permeates the entire Universe still stand.
Time to me is motion caused by energy c of space and not mass.