Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 31/10/2015 10:03:01
-
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second
c=299 792 458 m / s
299 792 458 / 46.3491072=*6468138.7865 faster than time
-
This is my opinion on the matter.
According to Special Relativity, as velocity reaches the speed of light, space-time contracts to a point instant. At the speed of light reference, time appears to stop in all inertial references and space appears to contract to a point.
If I am not mistaking, Einstein once said (paraphrase) that time is there so everything does not occur at once. At the speed of light, since inertial time has contracted to an instant, everything in the seen universe appears to occur at once, since instant is the smallest time unit. The concept of time breaks down in the sense there is not enough time; only an instant, for anything to occur separately. Since the speed of light is the same in all references and time has stopped in the speed of light reference, the speed of light exceeds time. The means new types of things can happen.
Let me extrapolate these new things, beginning with the analogy of the fabric of space-time. At the speed of light, when the speed of light exceeds time and space (no sense of separate in space or time) the fabric of space-time begins to unravel into separated threads of time and separated threads of space. This is like a hole in blue jean material where white and blue threads will separate.
If we follow a time thread, since this is now detached from any junction with space threads, we can follow this time line, everywhere, simultaneously. If we follow a thread of distance that is not dependent on time; detached from time threads, we can be anywhere in the universe in zero time. Traditionally these states were called omniscience and omnipresence, respectively.
To reform space-time, we need to cross a thread of time with a thread of space. This will cause single space-time unit to appear; point-instant, Since each thread is now limiting the other, time becomes constrained to a point in space, so only the local history is evidence, and space becomes constrained to the point in time so position becomes limited; primordial atom.
The modern fabric of space-time is similar to any modern fabric in that the weave is not solid under the microscope, but has air holes between the fibers of the weave. This is where distinct thread pieces of time and thread pieces of space continue to exist; speed of light is the same in all references.
Particle pairs, for example, can coordinate in ways that appear to exceed the speed of light in terms of information transmission. They work in the gaps and make use of the separated threads pieces of time and space. These gaps between the weave is also why we have a quantum universe.
If you look at our modern universe, we observe a net a conversion of matter to energy. Or inertial (matter) is returning to the speed of light reference (energy). The potential of the universe is moving from the fabric of space-time into the gaps of the fabric where separated threads of time and space appear.
One further consideration is embroidery. This is where you weave extra fibers onto a base fabric to create designs. Once such embroidery is connected to weaving extra time into space-time. This is called acceleration; d/t/t, which is connected to force. This can pucker the fabric of space-time; gravity.
This analysis is different and unique because it works under the assumption C is the ground state of the universe. Space-time an anomaly that lingers at the junctions of the fabric. These junctions are ultimately connected to inertial matter since matter can't move at the speed of light, thereby allowing a persistence in the fabric.
-
This is my opinion on the matter.
According to Special Relativity, as velocity reaches the speed of light, space-time contracts to a point instant. At the speed of light reference, time appears to stop in all inertial references and space appears to contract to a point.
If I am not mistaking, Einstein once said (paraphrase) that time is there so everything does not occur at once. At the speed of light, since inertial time has contracted to an instant, everything in the seen universe appears to occur at once, since instant is the smallest time unit. The concept of time breaks down in the sense there is not enough time; only an instant, for anything to occur separately. Since the speed of light is the same in all references and time has stopped in the speed of light reference, the speed of light exceeds time. The means new types of things can happen.
Let me extrapolate these new things, beginning with the analogy of the fabric of space-time. At the speed of light, when the speed of light exceeds time and space (no sense of separate in space or time) the fabric of space-time begins to unravel into separated threads of time and separated threads of space. This is like a hole in blue jean material where white and blue threads will separate.
If we follow a time thread, since this is now detached from any junction with space threads, we can follow this time line, everywhere, simultaneously. If we follow a thread of distance that is not dependent on time; detached from time threads, we can be anywhere in the universe in zero time. Traditionally these states were called omniscience and omnipresence, respectively.
To reform space-time, we need to cross a thread of time with a thread of space. This will cause single space-time unit to appear; point-instant, Since each thread is now limiting the other, time becomes constrained to a point in space, so only the local history is evidence, and space becomes constrained to the point in time so position becomes limited; primordial atom.
The modern fabric of space-time is similar to any modern fabric in that the weave is not solid under the microscope, but has air holes between the fibers of the weave. This is where distinct thread pieces of time and thread pieces of space continue to exist; speed of light is the same in all references.
Particle pairs, for example, can coordinate in ways that appear to exceed the speed of light in terms of information transmission. They work in the gaps and make use of the separated threads pieces of time and space. These gaps between the weave is also why we have a quantum universe.
If you look at our modern universe, we observe a net a conversion of matter to energy. Or inertial (matter) is returning to the speed of light reference (energy). The potential of the universe is moving from the fabric of space-time into the gaps of the fabric where separated threads of time and space appear.
One further consideration is embroidery. This is where you weave extra fibers onto a base fabric to create designs. Once such embroidery is connected to weaving extra time into space-time. This is called acceleration; d/t/t, which is connected to force. This can pucker the fabric of space-time; gravity.
This analysis is different and unique because it works under the assumption C is the ground state of the universe. Space-time an anomaly that lingers at the junctions of the fabric. These junctions are ultimately connected to inertial matter since matter can't move at the speed of light, thereby allowing a persistence in the fabric.
I can not understand what you have just said sorry, also as soon as someone says according to someone else, I consider that is not thinking for yourself, although I may be wrong because I can not understand what you just said.
-
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second
c=299 792 458 m / s
299 792 458 / 46.3491072=*6468138.7865 faster than time
You can't equate different units of measure the way you did, so the calculations are not sensible.
Conceptually, it doesn't work either. Time is not something that moves. There is no "speed of time," so the speed of light can neither be faster nor slower than it.
-
You can't equate different units of measure the way you did, so the calculations are not sensible.
Conceptually, it doesn't work either. Time is not something that moves. There is no "speed of time," so the speed of light can neither be faster nor slower than it.
Consequently you should of told history this. The calculations are accurate and true, science messed up.
-
Thebox, are you saying that anything that travels faster than 103.68 mph is travelling faster than time?
What does travelling faster than time mean?
-
Faster than time?
Maybe this will help...
Imagine spacetime as a 2 dimensional graph (suppressing 2 space dimensions... dealing only with motion back and forth in one direction) with the horizontal axis measuring distance in space and the vertical axis the passage of time. The equal angle between space and time corresponds to the speed of light.
In this model, any event can be assigned to a point: a specific place at a specific time.
The simplest interpretation (the only one that makes sense to me) is that all observers perspectives change location in spacetime at the speed of light. Always.
For a stationary observer their point of view will be coincident with their time axis. They will be "traveling" up their time axis at the maximum rate.
Note: Any observer not under acceleration will have the same perspective.
However for two observers moving relative to each other, their spacetime axes will be rotated. Because the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter how these axes are shifted, the angle in spacetime corresponding to the speed of light will be the same for all.
By playing with diagrams you can see how rotating the space dimension(s) will cause objects in motion to appear smaller. Likewise, while it's more difficult to visualize, time for the moving object will be seen to slow.
Oh, forgot to mention that light beams are used to measure distance and time... given two mirrors separated by a known length, the time required to bounce light back and forth between them will be fixed.
It works out that, since the speed of light is a constant, as an object approaches the speed of light, as its space and time axes rotate together toward the light-speed diagonal, for it, time flow approaches zero and its length approaches zero.
I can look for examples but basically, an x,y graph with the stationary observer's time axis vertical (y) and space axis (x) horizontal. Speed of light is any 45 degree line. Suppose another observer is moving at speed v meters/second... that will define a line, the path of the object through spacetime WRT the observer.
Imagine sending light pulses from the observer to the front and back of the moving object. The more the space axis is tipped, the shorter the object will appear. Next, send a series of light pulses from the observer to the object... these pulses will be farther apart from the perspective of the object. If the object sends out light pulses toward the observer, they will intersect the observer's time axis farther apart than from the perspective of the object sending them. In this way you can see how speed contracts objects physically and slows them temporally.
I hope this helps.
-
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second
Utter, meaningless drivel. Why waste your time writing such obvious tosh?
-
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second
Utter, meaningless drivel. Why waste your time writing such obvious tosh?
You are wasting your time with frivolous litigation, there is no defence for the error. My explanation is accurate, other people seem to understand it no problem.
The earth clock ticks at 46m a second , the maths does not then work for light, human error
-
Thebox, are you saying that anything that travels faster than 103.68 mph is travelling faster than time?
What does travelling faster than time mean?
1035 mph so I believe where do you get 103mph from Bill?
And travelling faster than time means that light travels faster than how time was derived and travels.
-
1035 mph so I believe where do you get 103mph from Bill?
Just trying to follow your maths; but I guess Alan has pointed out why that might not work. [:)]
-
1035 mph so I believe where do you get 103mph from Bill?
Just trying to follow your maths; but I guess Alan has pointed out why that might not work. [:)]
It is not wrong my maths is accurate unless the calculator on google is broken,
24901ec/86400t(s)=0.288206019mile / s
where (ec) is equator circumference and t(s) is time in seconds
added - my apologies bill I put a zero in to many in a earlier post you would of been correct with 103 mph. Its actually ten times that 1035 mph approx.
-
Box, we've been over this is a previous thread. Earth's rotation has nothing to do with the definition of time. How geocentric that would be!
You are ignoring units again, and leading to some absolutely ludicrous conclusions. Do you really think there is no difference between m/s and s?
-
. Do you really think there is no difference between m/s and s?
Not the way it was originated no. It is not me ignoring anything it is you ignoring history and the denotion of time. Time came well before 17th century science began. It was accepted without really questioning the origin of what denoted time.
The origin of time is denoted by relative motion of the earth relative to the suns movement, sticks in the ground and sun dials, hence 24 hrs equals one rotation,
So by defining a second in the origin to be equal to a geometric position shift of a body relative to a body was a fatal mistake that without realisation defined time equal to a distance of the displacement. A displacement caused by rotation and an equivalent to 48m a second of rotation relative to the second body of the sun.
Your only possible argument is if you can define a different way time was denoted? but I think you will find it is well known that is what we did in history to measure time by using the constant rate of spin of the earth, we then had to swap this when we realised the earth is not a constant rate of spin, we swapped to the caesium clock and defined a second based on the old second.
My topic question stands, it is not theory it is fact, and the maths does not lie like science told me. The speed of light is denoted faster than time, someone got it wrong somewhere. Can you explain other than this?
-
someone got it wrong somewhere.
that someone is you
Time came well before 17th century science began
Time came well before the Earth and Sun existed. So how can "the speed of time" be determined by the Earth? The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets has no bearing on the fundamental nature of time itself.
Also, please note that time cannot have a speed because it is not a thing, and the notion of speed itself is built on the more fundamental concepts of time and space.
-
Time came well before the Earth and Sun existed. So how can "the speed of time" be determined by the Earth? The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets has no bearing on the fundamental nature of time itself.
and there you go, the argument is not of time itself is it, the topic title says how can the speed of light be faster than time itself, when time is denoted from history by motion. I do not mean in any context to light being faster than real time, I mean you have the speed of light being faster than arbitrary time so it is not me whom is wrong is it, and it is not me who denotes a second based on a distance for arbitrary time.
-
Einstein once said (paraphrase) that time is there so everything does not occur at once. At
Wasn’t that John Wheeler?
At the speed of light, since inertial time has contracted to an instant, everything in the seen universe appears to occur at once, since instant is the smallest time unit.
Does “an instant” have duration?
Since the speed of light is the same in all references and time has stopped in the speed of light reference, the speed of light exceeds time.
You do realise you are extending SR beyond its remit?
The means new types of things can happen.
How can anything happen if time has stopped?
Let me extrapolate these new things, beginning with the analogy of the fabric of space-time. At the speed of light, when the speed of light exceeds time and space (no sense of separate in space or time) the fabric of space-time begins to unravel into separated threads of time and separated threads of space. This is like a hole in blue jean material where white and blue threads will separate.
Imaginative, but how do you get here from stopping time; and, again, how can these things happen without time?
Since each thread is now limiting the other, time becomes constrained to a point in space, so only the local history is evidence, and space becomes constrained to the point in time so position becomes limited; primordial atom.
You lost me there. In fact, I am largely lost beyond this point, so one step at a time, perhaps.
-
Terms like clocks running slower or time slowing down, due to relativity, creates the mental impression of time being something in motion; time can go faster or slower. At the speed of light, time stops, while the speed of light remains the same, in all references. If you stay literal to the language, if time has stopped and the speed of light is still the same, then the speed of light can pass time by.
Before trying to explain the unraveling of the fabric of space-time into separate threads of space and time, there is something that needs to be clarified. Time is not considered a thing. Time is not considered a potential, a form of energy, a type of force, nor does it contain substance, makes waves, or have inertia, etc. We can't save time in a bottle or beaker. Rather time is considered a reference variable and a mental construct to show how things relate in terms of math. That being said, when space-time contracts or expands, nothing tangible is actually changing, since time is not a thing of any substance. When time is changing due to relativity, what changes is in the mental construct in the imagination.
This ambiguity confuses people, since bold assertions of the changes in universal space-time, as the universe expands, is spoken of as a tangible thing, even though space is a void and time is not part of substance. We could substitute space-time for leprechauns riding unicorns as our mental constructs since these are not tangible either. If we did do that, we would need to give this new mental construct, better properties, if the goal was utility.
The reason this ambiguity; giving a non thing properties like a thing, is because a mental construct is based on a conditioning of the mind val the imagination. Space-time as a thing, that is not a thing, is an affect similar to the fable of the Emperors new clothes.
In that fable, the emperor is naked of tangible clothes made of earth based substances like cloth. What he has on instead are the finest garments made of non tangible things; an abstraction and mental construct. To get along, like in the fable, one has to go along, until one is finally able to acquire the sharpness of mind to see how the sun shimmers off this fine non tangible fabric, fir for a king. When the summer breeze blows, the fabric waves like the rowboat ripples in a calm sea.
People become confused about space-time by the way we/science describes how space-time behaves under different conditions, as though this is tangible fabric made of real thread. The layman assumes science will not treat invisible clothes as real. They assume time and space have to be tangible at some deep level, the layman may not understand.
Naked science wrapped in space-time clothes, can look stylish, if we all agree to look at this the same way. We only need to be careful about the young pups who have not yet learn to go along with the convention.
-
Time can dilate. This means that the passage of time in one frame of reference can be at a different rate than that in another frame of reference. In which case we can say that the rate of time changes. This has nothing to do with speed which is a function of distance over time. Rates of change and speed are entirely separate. You can have a rate of change of speed which is acceleration. This can be both positive and negative. Unless these simple definitions are grasped you may as well be talking Klingon.
-
Thebox, are you saying that anything that travels faster than (1035) mph is travelling faster than time?
What does travelling faster than time mean?
So it seems that this question is not about Einstein's relativity, but it's all about the speed of the Terminator: the day/night dividing line (not the time-traveling cyborg).
So with the deduction that the speed of the terminator at the equator is 1035 mph, this means you could get in a rocket, and travel faster than the terminator, and make the Sun "rise" in the west!
This has already been done. But they cheated, because at high latitudes, the terminator moves slower - and at the equinox at the North and South Poles, it does not move at all!
On one occasion, the Concorde supersonic passenger jet picked up passengers after their midnight New Years Eve celebrations in London, and delivered them to New York just in time to do it all again! They did not turn inside out, become frozen, become gods, or even zombies (although they may have felt like the latter the next morning).
In the extreme, a polar explorer could easily do a quick jog around the South Pole in 5 minutes, but its not like they will get any younger, or can change the future or anything.
-
By the way, every astronaut in Earth orbit travels faster than the Terminator.
Astronauts on the ISS go through a day/night cycle about every 90 minutes.
One day, if we ever have astronauts repairing and refueling satellites in geosynchronous orbit, they will be traveling at roughly the same speed as the terminator.
-
Time can dilate. This means that the passage of time in one frame of reference can be at a different rate than that in another frame of reference. In which case we can say that the rate of time changes. This has nothing to do with speed which is a function of distance over time. Rates of change and speed are entirely separate. You can have a rate of change of speed which is acceleration. This can be both positive and negative. Unless these simple definitions are grasped you may as well be talking Klingon.
You are correct that can time can dilate according to mathematical equations. But if you now try to define, what is time, time is not defined as a thing, substance or potential. Something that lacks substance, can't do anything, except in the imagination.
A good analogy that may be easier to see is to consider the grid that might appear on the windshield of a jet fighter. This grid is projected onto the windshield and does not actually exist in the sky. But it does add another layer, to tangible reality, to help the pilot organize the sky. After using this grid enough, the pilot's mind will begin to forget this grid is separate from the sky. This is when it is most useful and becomes second nature. He will begin to act as though this grid is a part of the sky and he may even begin to speak of the sky in term of the grid. If the grid flexes, the sky appear to move. If the grid was to shut off, he can become disoriented.
Time is part of a projected grid, we superimpose onto tangible things. This time grid has been used for centuries and is part of our training, beginning as children. In ancient times, Helios used to ride his chariot across the sky; movement of the sun. This was ancient grid. We can forget this is only a projection onto the screen of the imagination. If time had substance, so we could save time in a bottle, then projection would not be the case. Don't get me wrong, the grid is useful and has lots of utility, but since time is not defined as thing, it has to be a projection.
It is an interesting mental exercise to separate the two layers in your mind away from an unconscious and habitual merger, and then try to do the same things, using only tangible things. One way around this would be to reverse engineer the time grid, but in terms of the tangible things it represents. The pilot shuts off the windshield grid. He is disorientate at first but begins to go old school and look for physical markers that we all agree are tangible.
-
So it seems that this question is not about Einstein's relativity, but it's all about the speed of the Terminator: the day/night dividing line (not the time-traveling cyborg).
This is why I didn't respond to this question, as ChiralSPO says this has already been covered in new theories in a topic started by the box.
Not only does he confuse speed of terminator, speed of time and speed of light, he uses the frequency of the cesium clock without understanding that this is a microwave frequency and so travels at the speed of light - hence the calculation he offers is false.
I am somewhat tired of these attempts to introduce new theories into this section by posting a Trojan question. This is blatant troll behaviour.
I say new theory, but to be honest it is so laughable that it could only be posted under 'it can't be true'.
-
The meaningless phrase "the speed of time" was first uttered, at least in my hearing, by the loathsome Mandel, son of Frankenstein, to describe a fatuous display of firenotquiteworks he commissioned at your expense to celebrate the beginning of the the year 2000, along with massive queues of VIPs trying to get from an unfinished railway station to an overpriced dome containing nothing of interest.
-
Not only does he confuse speed of terminator, speed of time and speed of light, he uses the frequency of the cesium clock without understanding that this is a microwave frequency and so travels at the speed of light - hence the calculation he offers is false.
Again more frivolous litigation and no defence for the blunder, I am not confused in any sense of time or light or anything. The speed of light has nothing to do with ''beats'' of the Caesium atom . The amount of ''beats'' defining a second measured in accordance to an old second.
My calculation is falsifiable.
-
My calculation is falsifiable.
No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified. [:)]
-
My calculation is falsifiable.
No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified. [:)]
My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.
-
Maybe I should present things differently.
Bottom line, History did not realise that by using the sun and the earth to measure time they were setting arbitrary time equal to a distance and speed, a major fundamental mistake in thinking.
second mistake was to take a Caesium atom which is not a constant and define x amount of ''beats'' to an old second technically not changing anything from history and 1 second still being equal to a speed and distance.
1 second = 1035 mph= 46 m/s
crazy thinking by history
The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets has no bearing on the fundamental nature of time itself.
But it does have effect on the speed of light calculation and all that is similar .
-
Utter drivel.
You have "equated" reciprocal time (Hz) to time (s) and speed (m/s) which is illogical bunkum, then divided one arbitrary number by another to prove nothing at all.
But I like your method. If I drive at 70 mph (31 m/s) and listen to Test Match Special (198 kHz) I can calculate scoring rate as 198/31 = 6.39 runs per over, which is the expected value for the middle order on the Sharja wicket, and is actually falsifiable.
-
Utter drivel.
You have "equated" reciprocal time (Hz) to time (s) and speed (m/s) which is illogical bunkum, then divided one arbitrary number by another to prove nothing at all.
But I like your method. If I drive at 70 mph (31 m/s) and listen to Test Match Special (198 kHz) I can calculate scoring rate as 198/31 = 6.39 runs per over, which is the expected value for the middle order on the Sharja wicket, and is actually falsifiable.
I have no idea how cricket relates to this and have no idea why you would put this in new theories when it is not a new theory it is maths fact. I have not equated anything, I have used your measurements and worked out that presently you have the speed of light calculation and time and all involved in time based on a distance and not based on time at all . It is not me who is wrong, science told me this, Chiral agreed with it, ''The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets''.
It is not my blunder and now you argue your own facts and say I am wrong, contradiction galore and frivolous argument to your own facts.
Then you transfer a very reasonable question and premise for debate into the new theory section, or what I like to call the trash can......
Maybe that guy who kept mentioning conspiracies and government funding etc was correct. Why would you move this from the main when it is obvious I am correct and this is what history as done to us?
I have kept to topic, kept to facts, your very own facts, simple maths a 10 year old could do, yet you moved me, why, what reason this time apart from a hidden agenda?
Your facts and history clearly shows I am correct,
fact- the origin of arbitrary time was based on motion of the earth
fact-science used the same second to define a Caesium second
end of debate fACT YOUR FACTS
you have to measure movement to measure a second, think about it.
-
TheBox,
I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.
It comes down to this:
1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.
2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...
3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.
So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?
-
TheBox,
I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.
It comes down to this:
1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.
2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...
3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.
So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?
4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct.
arbitrary time equalling motion,
I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements. Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles? is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly? Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly? Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc? Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something? Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers?
I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science.
And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines.
I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.
-
My calculation is falsifiable.
No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified. [:)]
My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.
No surprise there Mr. Box. You seem to be traveling in reverse most of the time. Maybe you've traveled back in time, as in backwards?
-
TheBox,
I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.
It comes down to this:
1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.
2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...
3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.
So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?
I'm casting my vote for #3.
-
TheBox,
I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.
It comes down to this:
1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.
2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...
3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.
So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?
4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct.
arbitrary time equalling motion,
I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements. Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles? is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly? Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly? Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc? Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something? Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers?
I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science.
And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines.
I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.
......so number 2, then?
-
My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.
No surprise there Mr. Box. You seem to be traveling in reverse most of the time. Maybe you've traveled back in time, as in backwards?
[/quote]
Interesting thought, I have travelled back in time, but not in a way most people would consider, to learn science I had to start with history, I needed to know the history of science where I found 17th century Prague.
Then from there I looked at some of the scientists from history and their ideas etc and knowledge bringing me towards the future. Then I had to slingshot back in time before 17th Prague to a time that time did not exist. I was ''their'' when we made time and watched them do it(visualised in my head of cause). So after a prequel visit to the past I then travelled back to the future, and behold we even have a Doc on this forum.
I have had lots of teachers on forums with lots of opinions, so to get to some more than obvious conclusions was not that difficult.
-
TheBox,
I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.
It comes down to this:
1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.
2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...
3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.
So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?
4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct.
arbitrary time equalling motion,
I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements. Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles? is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly? Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly? Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc? Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something? Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers?
I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science.
And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines.
I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.
......so number 2, then?
Whether 2 or 3, it most certainly is not #1.
-
......so number 2, then?
No number 4.
-
I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room, a laser pen, a tub of mixed coloured balls
I could show you all this gibberish in minutes. I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.
-
I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room.
I could show you all this gibberish in minutes. I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.
Given your success rate over the last year, I don't think a few minutes would help anything...
-
I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room.
I could show you all this gibberish in minutes. I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.
Given your success rate over the last year, I don't think a few minutes would help anything...
My posts do not show physical expression with my hands etc, a post can be read wrongly to mean something else.
I could start off slow, on here, but will anyone even read it correctly?
start here this is correct
1-Time is an arbitrary creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities.
1.1- This state of time is denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such.
2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(space-time)
2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a constant speed of 1 mph. Albert Einstein created space-time and XYZ, virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.
3-Time is the independent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)
3.1- This state of time is all of existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence. Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency.
Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy all three states of time, at the same time.
Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.
Principle rule 3- principle 1 and 2 are unarguable axioms and this explained the full structure of what time is, the single manifold being all that is of matter occupying all three states of time instantaneously.
This is what science said.
-
science also said we see light between 400-700nm, this is called spectral content, the spectral content of light passing through air is zero, the spectral content is invisible to sight and equal to sight because it is not between 400-700nm. (me-A clear constant for all visual observers, 400nm-700nm being different than the constant and are seen through the constant of clear, all ''observers'' effecting the constant by being in the way of the flow).
-
Added Eureka explanation - You can't measure time in a void because there is no motion to set a rate, a void is timeless space and motion makes rate.
-
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second
.
I have not equated anything,
I think you will find the "=" sign has a commonly accepted meaning.
-
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second
.
edited
That is what history did without realising.
-
And there you go again!
Here is what earth people have defined
https://msl.irl.cri.nz
Length
metre, m: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.......
Time, Duration
second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....
When the physical metre held in Paris was abandoned as the standard length in 1983, the metre was defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a specific fraction of a second. This effectively assigned the speed of light as a constant value.
it may be different on your planet, buit the rest of the universe apears to obey the same laws of physics and arithmetic as apply in the New Zealand National Laboratory.
-
And there you go again!
What do you mean and there I go again, that is what history did. Break it down and look.
1 spin = 24 hrs
we will break this down into hours and then break down the hours and call it seconds and say there is 86400 seconds in 24 hrs.
Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.
but they did not realise measuring motion was measuring a distance spun. They never measured time, they measured motion and called it time in mistake.
-
Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.
Not until you have defined a unit of length.
-
Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.
Not until you have defined a unit of length.
They did using sun dials and circles , 86400/360=240 that is where 24 hrs comes from. One full circle divided up into increments. Even the hour clock finger travels a circle of distance equal to the earths spin.
-
second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....
second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....that was denoted by the old second based on motion so is equal to the motion just the same.
If A=B and B=C then C=A also
''When the physical metre held in Paris was abandoned as the standard length in 1983, the metre was defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a specific fraction of a second.''
error.
-
Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.
Not until you have defined a unit of length.
A yard stick is a yard stick and is a constant yard, light slows down in a medium, it is not a constant. A distance is a constant, a yard stick is constant, there is nothing wrong with the stick.
But to take into consideration, a yard stick is a yard relative to us, relative to a giant a yard is a dot.
If I was in a dense medium and you was in air we would measure two different values of light, there would be an inequality.
-
They did using sun dials and circles , 86400/360=240 that is where 24 hrs comes from. One full circle divided up into increments. Even the hour clock finger travels a circle of distance equal to the earths spin.
You are confusing yourself. Solar time is measured by angle, not distance. A person on the equator travels about 25,000 miles per day. A person in Oslo travels about 8000 miles in the same time, and a person at the North Pole doesn't move at all, but their solar clocks are identical because their angular velocities are identical.
-
They did using sun dials and circles , 86400/360=240 that is where 24 hrs comes from. One full circle divided up into increments. Even the hour clock finger travels a circle of distance equal to the earths spin.
You are confusing yourself. Solar time is measured by angle, not distance. A person on the equator travels about 25,000 miles per day. A person in Oslo travels about 8000 miles in the same time, and a person at the North Pole doesn't move at all, but their solar clocks are identical because their angular velocities are identical.
I am not confusing myself that a distance is used to measure time whether it be by angle or anything else, you have to have two points to measure to make ''time''.
So time how we have it will always be equal to a distance travelled rather than time.
Think of it this way, when we are measuring anything we are measuring it whilst we are moving through space.
-
distance is used to measure time whether it be by angle or anything else,
Nonsense. Distance and angle are not the same. Prehistoric Man knew this when he built Stonehenge and similar trade calendars around the world: it take exactly the same time (one year) for the dawn sun to reappear at a given angle, regardless of latitude, but the distance travelled in that time can vary from zero to 8,760,000 miles depending on where you are.
By your arithmetic, 8,760,000 = 0, but our neolithic ancestors had a better grip on reality.
-
distance is used to measure time whether it be by angle or anything else,
Nonsense. Distance and angle are not the same. Prehistoric Man knew this when he built Stonehenge and similar trade calendars around the world: it take exactly the same time (one year) for the dawn sun to reappear at a given angle, regardless of latitude, but the distance travelled in that time can vary from zero to 8,760,000 miles depending on where you are.
By your arithmetic, 8,760,000 = 0, but our neolithic ancestors had a better grip on reality.
You will find it quite factual that time is measured by a rate, a rate is set between two points, two points have a distance, a shadow moves, a shadow moves a distance, history did not know about angles etc, they only had night and day and a flat earth.
360/24=15 degrees per hr
look at a clock
3600*46=165600 meters = 15 degrees
But then when I do meters to miles
24*165600=3974400meters=2469.57767mile
somehow decimal points got displaced.
24,901 mile
-
You are wrong. Henges, pyramids, pendulums and cesium atoms only have one reference point. Timekeeping is about repetition, not amplitude. (Unless you are a drummer - a joke as old as music itself.)
How you count or divide that repetition is entirely arbitrary. There are no degrees on a digital clock, and the markings on a sundial are not evenly spaced.
-
You are wrong. Henges, pyramids, pendulums and cesium atoms only have one reference point. Timekeeping is about repetition, not amplitude. (Unless you are a drummer - a joke as old as music itself.)
How you count or divide that repetition is entirely arbitrary. There are no degrees on a digital clock, and the markings on a sundial are not evenly spaced.
A sundial is a 180 degrees device, you are wrong, you can not measure time without two reference points, a digital clock does have distance, by time the digits change from 1 second to 2 seconds, the one second has travelled 299 792 568 meters.
You are not considering every detail.
Ancient Egyptian's were fascinated with time in the hope of prolonging life, that is why time was invented in the first place, we are self aware of death. The great pyramid makes a brilliant clock, looking up from the inside to align bodies to the ''funnel''
-
This or some sort of science experiment of a geometric nature,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
baptising babies or something in ''holy water'' or maybe they thought they were ingesting ''god'' a life giving potion.
-
or this
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
We build colliders they built pyramids to experiment with energy.
I did say anything in defence of science would be frivolous litigation, I did not say that lightly.
The' model of all models
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
An interesting affect, that appears to show the equivalence of time and distance, is found in photography. This is called motion blur. Motion blur is when the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the action speed. Since time is stopped in the final photo, and the speed difference is conserved; appears as the motion blur, time appears as uncertainty in distant. The motion blur or uncertainty in distance gives the brain the impression of motion, even with time stopped in the photo.
Heisenberg Uncertainty may be an example of more general affect based on the conversion of time potential to distance potential. This is not an artifact of measuring. In the photo below, if we look at the cycler we can see his position, but we can't tell his momentum, because he looks stationary. The scenery, on the other hand, appears to have momentum, but the motion blur make it hard to tell an exact position.
Since time is not considered a physical thing of tangible substance, when space-time contracts or expands only the imagination is moving. Since motion blur can trigger the imagination to give us the feeling of movement, with time=stopped, these two imaginary things are connected. In fact, motion blur suggests that space can stem from time; conservation.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2Fimages%2Fmotion-blur%2Fbiker.jpg&hash=f82dd6280bb12d9b83bdd9b1fd2b6456)
-
An interesting affect, that appears to show the equivalence of time and distance, is found in photography. This is called motion blur. Motion blur is when the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the action speed. Since time is stopped in the final photo, and the speed difference is conserved; appears as the motion blur, time appears as uncertainty in distant. The motion blur or uncertainty in distance gives the brain the impression of motion, even with time stopped in the photo.
Heisenberg Uncertainty may be an example of more general affect based on the conversion of time potential to distance potential. This is not an artifact of measuring. In the photo below, if we look at the cycler we can see his position, but we can't tell his momentum, because he looks stationary. The scenery, on the other hand, appears to have momentum, but the motion blur make it hard to tell an exact position.
Since time is not considered a physical thing of tangible substance, when space-time contracts or expands only the imagination is moving. Since motion blur can trigger the imagination to give us the feeling of movement, with time=stopped, these two imaginary things are connected. In fact, motion blur suggests that space can stem from time; conservation.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2Fimages%2Fmotion-blur%2Fbiker.jpg&hash=f82dd6280bb12d9b83bdd9b1fd2b6456)
Hmmm, motion blur is an observation difference of light relative to velocity and nothing to do with time. Try something if you do not believe me, give yourself a watery eye, use an onion that works well, then shut one eye , look at you rmonito or something similar from a distance, squint your eye, use your finger to move your eye lids, look how can you can mirror the object in fresh air.
Your actually slowing down the inverted neutralised signal off the matter.
-
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Life is actually a lot simpler than you want it to be. I'll leave you to wallow in selfinduced complexity.
-
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Life is actually a lot simpler than you want it to be. I'll leave you to wallow in selfinduced complexity.
I clearly know what I am talking about, and you clearly have no argument to the model, it is not me who has it wrong.