0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You've gone to a lot of trouble with diagrams, but I can't work out what they're trying to show. Your main problem is with explaining what your ideas are, so that's something you need to work on. Maybe there is a hidden genius underlying it, but it can't make itself visible until you develop the ability to explain your ideas clearly.The only part I've managed to get so far is that you think empty space doesn't do time, but you haven't explained why time can't be there even though there's no matter in that region of empty space. All you've done is assert that there's no time there because there's no matter there to show up the existence of time, and that's just like me claiming a tree doesn't exist when there's no one actively detecting its existence - it's a pointless assertion which proposes something of absolutely no importance. A universe in which things continue to exist when there's no one observing them is simpler than a universe in which things temporarily cease to exist when they're not being observed. A universe in which time disappears when it can't be seen acting on matter is more complex than a universe in which time continues to exist regardless of whether matter is present to show its presence, so what you're doing is proposing some pointless additional complexity which provides no useful explanation of anything.Perhaps I've missed something though, as I haven't been able to work out what the rest of your argument is. Maybe you've tied the non-existence of time in empty space to some useful property of empty space which allows it to behave in a way that explains something that mainstream science has not managed to understand. Your biggest problem is communication - you need to work on improving your explanations so that you can set out a clear theory for people to comment on. Until you do that, your brilliance will remain hidden from sight and no one will realise that it exists.
You seem to think that empty space is nothing, but it can't be. If it was nothing, it would provide no separation between objects which are far apart - they would have to be right next to each other if there is literally nothing between them. Empty space is not nothing - it has a structure to it, and time continues to pass for that structure (LET) or to be tied into it in some way (SR). Empty space merely has no material content, but its properties are maintained.
If I was made of nothing how would you end my time?
if i was made of energy how would you destroy me?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/03/2015 19:56:49If I was made of nothing how would you end my time?If you were made of nothing, you would simply not be - there would be no question of ending anything for you.Quoteif i was made of energy how would you destroy me?How can you destroy energy? Things can be changed in form and composite objects can be broken up or reassembled, but the fundamental components cannot be destroyed, or created. Everything fundamental that exists is eternal - it would require magic for something to be created out of nothing or to be turned back into nothing.Space is not nothing, and there's no reaon why it should lose its time property. Think about a clock moving through space at the speed of light - time stops for the clock (it won't tick at all) and yet it moves through space, so there is no passage of time for the clock and yet the clock is moving along in such a way that it is displaying the existence of time. That shows that time is maintained by space rather than by matter. Of course, a clock cannot reach the speed of light, but a photon can - it does not register the passage of time, but space registers time for it by allowing the photon to travel through it.
''If you were made of nothing, you would simply not be '' space is made of nothing with something in it.
a clock is not relative to time.
Is this approach understood?The Theory of Everything.The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.''Where does the experiment idea originate from in the first place? The experiment itself helps us to produce laws that we can add a quantifiable measurement too, but also needed is imagination to create these experiments in the origination of the idea. These great visualisations are to guess at the wonderful unique workings of a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. A particular end aiming at finding a conclusion by experiment and unifying the process by the function of maths.That style of writing?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/03/2015 21:11:24''If you were made of nothing, you would simply not be '' space is made of nothing with something in it.No, space is something. If it was nothing it would lack the capacity to hold any content.Quotea clock is not relative to time.If a clock is not able to move and matter has time while space is nothing, how can a clock fail to measure time? It would also be impossible to for anything to move through nothing, so you can't use that as a mechanism to slow a clock.QuoteIs this approach understood?The Theory of Everything.The principle of science, the test of all knowledge is experiment, experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.''Where does the experiment idea originate from in the first place? The experiment itself helps us to produce laws that we can add a quantifiable measurement too, but also needed is imagination to create these experiments in the origination of the idea. These great visualisations are to guess at the wonderful unique workings of a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. A particular end aiming at finding a conclusion by experiment and unifying the process by the function of maths.That style of writing?I wouldn't aim at copying that. No, you just need to work out what your ideas are and then work out how to describe them clearly. What is your native language (I do hope it isn't English) - maybe you can express your ideas better in that? It might be a language that I can read easily.
Tell me something TB. Why do you keep on making assertions about what you think I have or have not considered? E.g. somewhere you claimed that I merely read the definition of time and then accepted it without thinking about it or questioning it or thinking about whether I could do better?In actuality physicists rarely look up the definition of time. First off it's hard to find. Second, we don't use regular dictionaries for definitions because they often give circular definitions and third, there is no definition because one cannot be created. It's a fundamental term and as such it can't be defined in terms of something simpler.When the time came for me to describe what time is I didn't go to a textbook as you really thought that I did. That's one of your problems. You make a large number of false assumptions. What I did was to attempt to describe the phenomena that the term "time" refers to and call that phenomena - time.It was at that point that I did a search on the internet to find out how physicists defined it. Like me they didn't define it for the same reason I don't. And also to my surprise they also describe the phenomena in almost the exact same way that I do.I always keep an open mind. Every time I get a new relativity text or mechanics text I see if they provide a section describing time. Most don't. However David Bohm's text Special Relativity seems to so I'll be reading that soon.I also want to know why you keep refusing to provide a proof that the current description of the phenomena we refer to as time is wrong and yours is right? That's a necessary part of a scientific argument, i.e. proving that the current way of doing things is wrong. So those are my questions for you:1) Why do you make assumptions about what I have or haven't studied and/or challenged in the past?2) Why do you keep refusing to provide proof that the current understanding of time by mainstream physicists are wrong.3) Prove that your "definition" of time works in all areas, theorems, theories and calculations in physics.4) When and where did you read/learn the current description of time.The last one, i.e. #4, is something I've wanted to know for some time now. I don't believe that you ever knew what it was to begin with.
I thank you for the great post, 1, I make assumptions you have a stereotypical learning style, the odds are in my favour of this being true.
In short you think on a normal level and feel uncomfortable with radical or extreme ideas and do not give them a second thought.
I do not presume you have not studied or do not know present information. I have no evidence that you have challenged any present ideas. In all honestly my experience of forum life has made me weary of science.
Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to:1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials;2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence. Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.
Often members telling me I am insane and wrong although the answers I look for presently have no right.
I apologise for trying to judge you by text alone when I have never met you in person.
2, The only proof in Physics of time is by thought, what we deem as time is for arbitrary use.
The proof I need is thought that is better than the present thought which I certainly feel I have provided in detail offering observation experiments and picking at all the small details.
The proof I need is thought that is better than the present ...
I certainly consider that time is decay for an object or observer.
3, Prove my definition works? science already uses my definition ..
I thought I creating great insight and all my thoughts were new, after the links provided here I am now not so sure of myself, or even sure I am saying anything new.
I thank you for the great post, 1, I make assumptions .....................................In all honesty though, what I say is my own thoughts about a process from thinking about the knowledge I now do possess.
I think you misjudge PmbPhy and the others on this forum.
I can understand your frustration with "stereotypical learning styles", I have had a number of frustrating arguments with physics teachers who were teaching our children false information, even one maths teacher who did not understand BOMDAS!
I think you will find some of that thinking here, but most of those trying to answer your questions do not fit that stereotype. In particular I know there are many who have answered your questions who do not deserve this label - "In short you think on a normal level and feel uncomfortable with radical or extreme ideas and do not give them a second thought."
In many areas I have absorbed standard teaching. I accept that the earth goes around the sun (counter to what I observe). I cannot prove it, and if you asked me to I would not be able to prove otherwise except by quoting those who have studied the problem.
The long history of science, and physics in particular, shows me that I cannot build that knowledge from scratch, I do not have the time and resources to perform every experiment and derive every theory, I have to accept much on faith.
But, whatever you do don't sell yourself short, learn some basic physics.
''However, anything that doesn't do time can't exist at all, so any region of empty space would simply cease to be anything and the rest of space would instantly close up to fill the void.''
Do you really mean "bodmas"? Before you mentioned this I never heard the term before. What does it mean?
Quote from: Colin2BIn many areas I have absorbed standard teaching. I accept that the earth goes around the sun (counter to what I observe). I cannot prove it, and if you asked me to I would not be able to prove otherwise except by quoting those who have studied the problem. I don't accept that as a fact. As a fact that's only from a particular frame of reference and Einstein showed us using general relativity that there are no absolute (aka right/correct) frames of reference so the Earth's frame is just as good as any.
My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.
Quote from: Thebox''However, anything that doesn't do time can't exist at all, so any region of empty space would simply cease to be anything and the rest of space would instantly close up to fill the void.''TB, buddy! Please do all of us a favor. When you post a quote like that please state whom you're quoting. Thanks.
Quote from: Thebox on 26/03/2015 18:53:36My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.RightThat's the end of that conversation then!
Sorry F.I.F.Y