Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: guest39538 on 02/02/2016 09:47:17
-
Now I am not sure your imagination will imagine this, but can you imagine a ''nothing particle''?
The particle is negative by all means, and the particle is mass itself, but without physical body or structure, more like a Ghost, so can we call it the Ghost particle just for discussion purposes?
The maths that shows the existence of the Ghost particle is this
4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ =
answer left blank
But also the Ghost particle is infinite in volume V=∞
Now let us consider the entirety of space is made from the Ghost particles, and all Ghost particles are attracted to Ghost particles, making the existing fabric of space . (At this stage we have an infinite void made up of negative Ghost particles).
OK so far?
Add on - Ghost particles are a ''zero point'' of any reference point of the entirety of space that adjoins the ghost particles together. (explaining the whole)
Ghost particles have isotropic centripetal force of their adjoining selves and hold a stationary existence that can never be displaced where time and motion stand still always holding the value of an absolute stationary reference frame.
To express the dimension's of the Ghost particle is to leave the dimensions blank, to express the whole of the ghost particles is to leave the value infinite.
Defining the value of ''nothing'' to be 0 to ∞
So when we now consider before the big bang there was nothing, 0 to ∞ expresses to be true.
In present terms you could define the ghost particles as ''distance'' or no ''distance'' or maybe dark energy.
Ghost particles are indestructible, immortal if you like, they are also inseparable.
So jumping forward slightly this takes me to the Higgs bosson, a denser concrete existence of the ghost particles.
The Higgs a negative that is denser than the ghost particle , a greater mass than the ghost mass, so these Higgs are attracted to other Higgs, to make up a Quark, that then make up a proton.
Only positive can expand the mass, positive being anti-mass, but the mass of the ghost particles is never affected by positive, the bond is to tight. Only the concrete existence of the Ghost particles can be affected.
This might sound strange,
If we could remove all the positive energy from matter, all the matter would reside in a singularity, everything would be reversed, the expansion would contract, we would have one big negative rock at the center of the universe.
-
For space flow
Why?
-
For space flow
Why?
I recognise your mind is open, I recognise you can think for yourself , I recognise you do not just rely on present information, I think you would understand me and vice versus if we had a serious discussion.
p.s I am not asking you to be my friend , I want your honest opinions.
-
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?
definition I am using of repel
''repel
rɪˈpɛl/Submit
verb
1.
drive or force (an attack or attacker) back or away.''
''repulse
rɪˈpʌls/Submit
verb
1.
drive back (an attack or attacker) by force.''
-
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?
Hahaha...
I can relate to almost nothing in your original post.
As to the above statement;
It would depend on what the statement is applied to. It can be said that positive thoughts attract positive thoughts, and negative thoughts likewise can attract more negative thoughts.
Without defining what the statement is to be applied to it is too general to be always true.
So no. As stated I can not agree with it.
-
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?
Hahaha...
I can relate to almost nothing in your original post.
As to the above statement;
It would depend on what the statement is applied to. It can be said that positive thoughts attract positive thoughts, and negative thoughts likewise can attract more negative thoughts.
Without defining what the statement is to be applied to it is too general to be always true.
So no. As stated I can not agree with it.
Ok, let me define for discussion positive and negative polarity.
definition
polarity
pə(ʊ)ˈlarɪti/Submit
noun
the property of having poles or being polar.
"it exhibits polarity when presented to a magnetic needle"
the relative orientation of poles; the direction of a magnetic or electric field.
plural noun: polarities
"the magnetic field peaks in strength immediately after switching polarity"
-
bedtime for me tonight, but I'll play for as long as it makes sense to me.
Yes I agree that where magnetic fields are concerned, opposite polarities attract, and like polarities repel.
-
bedtime for me tonight, but I'll play for as long as it makes sense to me.
Yes I agree that where magnetic fields are concerned, opposite polarities attract, and like polarities repel.
Also this is true for electrical fields? and thank you for your time
-
Also this is true for electrical fields?
I would have to see proof of that before I agreed.
I have a background in electrical engineering. Although I changed career paths and have not actively participate in the field for 30 or so years, I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.
I'll try and look into it.
-
I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.
I'll try and look into it.
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal and has to be applied with situation properly defined. Magnetic and electrical fields are geometry sensitive and a force at right angles can end up being applied which is neither attractive nor repulsive.
I have to even withdraw my earlier consent that magnetic fields behave in the manner of your statement.
It is too much of a generalisation.
The statement would have to be presented with all extenuating circumstances involved before an analysis of its validity can properly be made.
It is in other words situation sensitive.
-
I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.
I'll try and look into it.
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal and has to be applied with situation properly defined. Magnetic and electrical fields are geometry sensitive and a force at right angles can end up being applied which is neither attractive nor repulsive.
I have to even withdraw my earlier consent that magnetic fields behave in the manner of your statement.
It is too much of a generalisation.
The statement would have to be presented with all extenuating circumstances involved before an analysis of its validity can properly be made.
It is in other words situation sensitive.
Thank you , your answers are very wisely put and thought was put into the answers. Ok, so after your answers and the realisation that I am being too general , I will try to think about something more specific - (pauses for a while)
I think the easiest thing to consider may be air,
I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)
And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)
Do we agree?
P.s - I am taking it slow step by step
-
I think the easiest thing to consider may be air,
I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)
And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)
Do we agree?
Again too general. Air in a sealed space will increase in temp and pressure but will not change in density. You will find that generalisations are always difficult.
The only things that I have found to be constants, are the defined constants that make our description of nature work. Everything else is relative. It is situation dependent and should be presented with the specific situation that it is being applied to. Otherwise we fall into the trap of belief systems.
Can you see why none of your statements can be applied to all possible situations?
You change the situation and you can change the validity of the statement.
So unfortunately we have not reached consensus on anything yet. But you are trying to think about the obstacles I am putting in your way, so to me that is movement in the right direction.
-
I think the easiest thing to consider may be air,
I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)
And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)
Do we agree?
Again too general. Air in a sealed space will increase in temp and pressure but will not change in density. You will find that generalisations are always difficult.
The only things that I have found to be constants, are the defined constants that make our description of nature work. Everything else is relative. It is situation dependent and should be presented with the specific situation that it is being applied to. Otherwise we fall into the trap of belief systems.
Can you see why none of your statements can be applied to all possible situations?
You change the situation and you can change the validity of the statement.
So unfortunately we have not reached consensus on anything yet. But you are trying to think about the obstacles I am putting in your way, so to me that is movement in the right direction.
These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok,
Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
-
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
-
Quote from: Space Flow on 03 February 2016, 14:05:19
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
Colin you are of course right.
I only offered it up to show that the statement that like fields are Geometrically sensitive, and the generalisation that opposites attract and like repel is not general and has to be made within the context that it is applied to.
These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok,
Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
Just remember that you invited this interchange.
I have been called annally retentive all my life, and take a certain amount of pride in the title.
For me it has always been and always will be about the attention to detail.
Those are the rules I play by.
And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...
Next...
-
Quote from: Space Flow on 03 February 2016, 14:05:19
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
Colin you are of course right.
I only offered it up to show that the statement that like fields are Geometrically sensitive, and the generalisation that opposites attract and like repel is not general and has to be made within the context that it is applied to.
These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok,
Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
Just remember that you invited this interchange.
I have been called annally retentive all my life, and take a certain amount of pride in the title.
For me it has always been and always will be about the attention to detail.
Those are the rules I play by.
And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...
Next...
Ok, so if we had two bodies that were equally positive charged, do we agree that the bodies would repel each other?
-
Yes. If their charge is all that is taken into consideration.
-
Yes. If their charge is all that is taken into consideration.
Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ?
Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
-
Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ?
Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
First your single object that has a positive charge. Lets look at the iconic and original positive charge.
The first stage of complexity of fundamental particles that at the moment we are aware off is when 3 Quarks get together in the right combination to form a neutron.
The Quarks are seen to have partial charge so that 3 together make up a balanced system of equal positive and negative potential (neutral).
Now a neutron on its own is no fun and it gets bored so after a short amount of time it organises its internal balance so that it can separate part of the electroweak force that is its inheritance from the Quark combination, and so form polarity. There is now an imbalance. A negative part of the Electroweak force is now separate from what was a neutral system, leaving behind a positive proton and a separate negative electron. Together they are the basis of the EM force.
Now we can apply an amount of energy to this balanced EM system and knock that electron out of that orbital, leaving behind your positive charge in the form of that proton.
What holds that charge in place? Nothing. Nothing has to as there is nowhere it can go and no way it can be separated from that proton.
It exists only because it doesn't have the electron around to balance it. As long as that situation continues to exist that proton will remain in the unbalanced state that we call a +ion.
Seeing as we have never managed to show proton decay this situation can last for the lifetime of the Universe. Off course it is more likely that at some stage it will manage to couple to another electron and so balance itself again.
So no I do not agree that a positive charge is held in place by a negative. It exists because of the absence of a negative.
No I do not agree that the positive charge can disperse without the presence of a negative. There exists no mechanism by which this can be achieved.
And I certainly don't understand where you could possibly get such a concept that a positive charge has any quality like its own repulsiveness. It will repel other positive charges as we agreed. Not itself.
-
Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ?
Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
First your single object that has a positive charge. Lets look at the iconic and original positive charge.
The first stage of complexity of fundamental particles that at the moment we are aware off is when 3 Quarks get together in the right combination to form a neutron.
The Quarks are seen to have partial charge so that 3 together make up a balanced system of equal positive and negative potential (neutral).
Now a neutron on its own is no fun and it gets bored so after a short amount of time it organises its internal balance so that it can separate part of the electroweak force that is its inheritance from the Quark combination, and so form polarity. There is now an imbalance. A negative part of the Electroweak force is now separate from what was a neutral system, leaving behind a positive proton and a separate negative electron. Together they are the basis of the EM force.
Now we can apply an amount of energy to this balanced EM system and knock that electron out of that orbital, leaving behind your positive charge in the form of that proton.
What holds that charge in place? Nothing. Nothing has to as there is nowhere it can go and no way it can be separated from that proton.
It exists only because it doesn't have the electron around to balance it. As long as that situation continues to exist that proton will remain in the unbalanced state that we call a +ion.
Seeing as we have never managed to show proton decay this situation can last for the lifetime of the Universe. Off course it is more likely that at some stage it will manage to couple to another electron and so balance itself again.
So no I do not agree that a positive charge is held in place by a negative. It exists because of the absence of a negative.
No I do not agree that the positive charge can disperse without the presence of a negative. There exists no mechanism by which this can be achieved.
And I certainly don't understand where you could possibly get such a concept that a positive charge has any quality like its own repulsiveness. It will repel other positive charges as we agreed. Not itself.
The proton is negative that holds a positive charge giving science a false account. The electron is a positive neutralised output.
A+B=C
Quarks are attracted to Quarks by their negativity, it is impossible for a positive charge to hold in situe, positive always expands.
A quark can not adjoin a quark if it was positive charged, as you already admitted positive charges repel.
+→←+
That above can not happen
-→←-
the above has to happen or else things don't work
Mass is certainly negative, because if it were positive then things would simply not stick together to form things.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the opposite to repel is attract, the opposite to + is neg. These ARE AXIOMS.
gravity is this +←→+ and -→←-
The whole universe is this.
-→←-
-→←+
+→←-
+←→+
in order from nothing
In red is what science is missing, the missing link as such.
P.s we are talking about forces of attraction and repulsive, I should not need to explain that the arrows represent the work.
-
Off we go into la-la land again.
And you were doing so well...
Pity.
-
Off we go into la-la land again.
And you were doing so well...
Pity.
Space Flow are you even reading and thinking about what I have put? try to forget what you know, try to think why neg must me attracted to neg.
It is very obvious if you ask me,
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?
To quote your earlier comment
''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
-
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?
To quote your earlier comment
''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.
-
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?
To quote your earlier comment
''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.
You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.
However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel.
-
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?
To quote your earlier comment
''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.
You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.
However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel.
Positively charged particles do push apart from each other, but at very, very close ranges, the strong force can overcome the electrostatic repulsion. But only to a point. Up and down quarks have different charges (+2/3 and –1/3), a neutron contains 2/3–1/3–1/3 = 0 charge and protons contain 2/3+2/3–1/3 = 1 charge. I am unaware of any particles made of three positively or three negatively charged quarks.
Also atomic nuclei containing more than one proton must have at least one neutron for the strong force to win over the electrostatic repulsion.
Can you at least try to do some research about what scientists say before saying that they are wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
I know that wikipedia uses a lot of jargon, so I also highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015EL0QRG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
-
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?
To quote your earlier comment
''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.
You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.
However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel.
Positively charged particles do push apart from each other, but at very, very close ranges, the strong force can overcome the electrostatic repulsion. But only to a point. Up and down quarks have different charges (+2/3 and –1/3), a neutron contains 2/3–1/3–1/3 = 0 charge and protons contain 2/3+2/3–1/3 = 1 charge. I am unaware of any particles made of three positively or three negatively charged quarks.
Also atomic nuclei containing more than one proton must have at least one neutron for the strong force to win over the electrostatic repulsion.
Can you at least try to do some research about what scientists say before saying that they are wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
I know that wikipedia uses a lot of jargon, so I also highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015EL0QRG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
I have done my research, the strong force is a negative force.
The small distance of work done you mention is a small distance because of the positive is also attracted to a negative. The negative holds the positive and stops the positive expanding. Add more energy and watch the positive break its negative bond and expand.
The strong nuclear force is negative
This is getting worse than being on a religion forum, they have the same sort of arrogance and think they know it all.
A proton is negative that holds a positive charge,
repeat these words, a Proton has a positive charge , (has being the clue there).
A battery has a charge, think , think, think!!!!!!!
The Proton has a positive charge, the proton is not a positive charge. !!!!!
All negativity attracts a kind of positivity, spooky action at a distance but really it is just simplicity. A positive Cat in a negative box, can you hear the cat's screams emitting from the box.
OH how the duality of the Proton can be so misleading at a spooky distance. ''I am'' positive energy inside of a negative kernel, the more friends that arrive the more overcrowding there is, I push my neighbours away.
All that exists of a concrete existence is particle X, particle X is a negativity that is attracted to other particle x's. Particle X is special, particle X and particle X colliding makes a convertual particle Y . However particle X absorbs Y and becomes particle XY , Particle X likes parties, particle X is attracted to particle Y, and likewise Y is affectionate back. However Y does not like Y, so if Y comes close to XY, Y kicks off at Y and pushes Y away. Two make a couple , three is over crowding. Cause particle XY has a love entanglement. Who goes first decides what the partner is doing.
Now particle XY decide to leave the mass party, so of they go at the near speed of light, but X was dragging his feet slightly because he could not go quite as fast as y.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
OK I admit defeat. You sir have an impregnable force field against facts, logic and common sense.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
OK I admit defeat. You sir have an impregnable force field against facts, logic and common sense.
Have you ever considered the firmament of the mind is in your head?
Open minded is an open door,
-
A positive Cat in a negative box, can you hear the cat's screams emitting from the box.
Nope,..........All I can hear is you screaming at the rest of us because we won't buy into your garbage. If you continue to hear that cat screaming, you may want to have your ears checked. If that doesn't remedy the situation, you might need to have what lies between your ears examined.
-
Have you ever considered the firmament of the mind is in your head?
Open minded is an open door,
Ok young fella..
I assume you must be young as you appear to have a lot to learn.
One last try.
I have been going over all your past comments, and I'm not even sure you know what you believe.
Very confusing.
So.... You claim that the measurement of time has nothing to do with time itself. So please enlighten me.
What do all these measurements of time that we use and compare to each other, that consistently produce data that agrees with our theory of time, actually mean by your definition.
And if they are not related to time itself, then what are they related to.
Why do we consistently measure what we do measure. What is it that produces that data, if it isn't anything to do with time? And how do you support such a claim?
If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?
What evidence can you produce that refutes all the current observations and measurements and supports a different set of data, that apparently no one else on this planet is privy to but you?
I'm listening. Convince me.
-
Ok young fella..
I assume you must be young as you appear to have a lot to learn.
One last try.
I believe you're on to something there Space Flow. I will give Mr. Box a little credit even so, he certainly is persistent. If he would expend as much time and effort learning from our scientific giants of the past instead of assuming he could compete with their conclusions, he would no doubt become a very adept and knowledgeable young individual. He's certainly not stupid, just so very fixated on a couple false mental images that he becomes unable to reason with any other position.
While he continually demands answers from us, I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for him to answer those few you just asked of him.
Just saying...................................
-
He's certainly not stupid, just so very fixated on a couple false mental images that he becomes unable to reason with any other position.
Funny thing is Ethos, some of the things he says if taken in isolation can almost sound like he may be on to something. Unfortunately every-time I have thought that he tends to go and spoil it with the very next sentence. He could well have a revolutionary idea revolving around in that head and just not communicating it properly. Or it could all be the BS that we have all gotten into the habit of accusing him off. It is so hard to tell.
Not agreeing with the accepted view is not always a bad thing. But you have to be able to explain observations and experimental evidence rather than just insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
After all if people never disagreed with the accepted views we would never move forward.
Is he a genius that is misunderstood or a crank? I am not qualified to say. Even though I have called him the later on several occasions, I have only done it because I have fallen victim to frustrations with his method of not clearly explaining.
And if he isn't a genius than I feel I should be able to make him understand. Even though that has so far failed.
Surely it's possible that one of us can make the other understand.
-
While he continually demands answers from us, I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for him to answer those few you just asked of him.
Just saying...................................
I've asked a number of questions and get no answers, I can't see you getting any.
-
So please enlighten me.
What do all these measurements of time that we use and compare to each other, that consistently produce data that agrees with our theory of time, actually mean by your definition.
And if they are not related to time itself, then what are they related to.
I'm listening. Convince me.
I am 42 hardly young.
Ok, it is good that you are willing to listen and not just hear history .
Let us imagine we go back in time, to a period where we was going to measure time using a sundial.
You say, ''we will measure time using the shadow of the sun that seems consistent, and we will measure the shadow and see if this is consistent, and we will use this consistency to measure time which is consistent''.
me- ''but sir, ask yourself this, are you really measuring time ? are you not just relatively measuring the shadows motion relative to the suns motion relative to yourself?''
Now ask yourself sir, any time device measurer ever invented, what exactly are you measuring?
Each one you are measuring something relative to yourself and relative to the something. Neither being relative to time. Anything after 0 is history, there is no arrows of time.
-
Ok. A lot of new questions arrising from what you just said but I'll shelve those for now, so I can establish some first principles.
Remember that this is your story and I come into it with no preconceptions. That having been said, I can not ask myself anything. I have a bunch of data and I am dependent on you to turn that into a coherent picture for me.
All I have so far is your claim that all this data has nothing to do with time. I will have to get back to this later as it seems I have to understand what time is and how I can get real according to you data.
If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
-
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
-
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
Remember that I know nothing here.
I want to know and understand. I work in the film industry and am familiar with cameras. Your answer to my question did not make me understand.Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 08:09:43
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
How? What is the experiment you propose I do with a camcorder, and what predicted data do you say I will get to prove what?
Quote from: Space Flow on 10 February 2016, 14:10:07
If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
This is the question I as your student have posed. I need to get inside your head. I have to understand what time is and how it works. You are my teacher. So teach me.
-
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
Remember that I know nothing here.
I want to know and understand. I work in the film industry and am familiar with cameras. Your answer to my question did not make me understand.Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 08:09:43
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
How? What is the experiment you propose I do with a camcorder, and what predicted data do you say I will get to prove what?
Quote from: Space Flow on 10 February 2016, 14:10:07
If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
This is the question I as your student have posed. I need to get inside your head. I have to understand what time is and how it works. You are my teacher. So teach me.
Wow you are really good.
''Remember that I know nothing here.
I want to know and understand. I work in the film industry and am familiar with cameras. Your answer to my question did not make me understand.''
In understanding time , it is important to understand what time is and all the aspects of measuring time. Your brain records information of time in real time because of the constant speed of light information where as a clock does not record information it only gives an increment measurement of a period of history .
In recording information, our brains record information likewise to FPS( frames per second) , a frame as you know is a set distance and speed , frames per second of a constant nature is an ideal system if we wanted to use it for recording/measuring continuous time .
A camcorder records time in real time likewise to our brains, the camera never lies using the same principle of light as the brain uses, and FPS of the recording of the camera is an exact equal measurement of time as to the brain.
Now if you was to travel a journey at speed X away from me and away from the Earth to set distance B, and we calculated this journey took 1 gig of recording space . Both you and I with a synchronised recording start , will both fill the 1 gig simultaneously of the camcorder space. The frames per second remain simultaneous.
I may edit in a while got visitors sorry.
added - So when you reach destination B, the camera recording shows you both aged exactly 1 gig
-
How is this connected to
In understanding time , it is important to understand what time is and all the aspects of measuring time.
this.
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording
So what you are saying is that my camcorder which uses an atomic vibration rate for its timing of frames per second, will behave differently from another atomic device sitting next to it the whole time?
Teacher please explain. Why would one atomic process be effected and not another.
And how am I to come to your understanding of what time is.
See from where I am sitting at the moment, I am very confused. You are telling me to not trust one timing device but to trust another.
That would be OK if you gave me some good reason for your strange claim, but you haven't.
I am still totally ignorant as to what this concept you call time is and how it can be tested to show that your model is preferable to any other that might exist.
I am new to this Universe so don't attribute any knowledge of the way things work to me.
I have access to observation and you to explain it to me.
Now if you was to travel a journey at speed X away from me and away from the Earth to set distance B, and we calculated this journey took 1 gig of recording space . Both you and I with a synchronised recording start , will both fill the 1 gig simultaneously of the camcorder space. The frames per second remain simultaneous.
So teacher why is a camcorder a more accurate atomic clock than any other atomic clock?
Please help because all the evidence I can find points to that not being true.
-
How is this connected to
In understanding time , it is important to understand what time is and all the aspects of measuring time.
this.
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording
So what you are saying is that my camcorder which uses an atomic vibration rate for its timing of frames per second, will behave differently from another atomic device sitting next to it the whole time?
Teacher please explain. Why would one atomic process be effected and not another.
And how am I to come to your understanding of what time is.
See from where I am sitting at the moment, I am very confused. You are telling me to not trust one timing device but to trust another.
That would be OK if you gave me some good reason for your strange claim, but you haven't.
I am still totally ignorant as to what this concept you call time is and how it can be tested to show that your model is preferable to any other that might exist.
I am new to this Universe so don't attribute any knowledge of the way things work to me.
I have access to observation and you to explain it to me.
Now if you was to travel a journey at speed X away from me and away from the Earth to set distance B, and we calculated this journey took 1 gig of recording space . Both you and I with a synchronised recording start , will both fill the 1 gig simultaneously of the camcorder space. The frames per second remain simultaneous.
So teacher why is a camcorder a more accurate atomic clock than any other atomic clock?
Please help because all the evidence I can find points to that not being true.
Time is constant, it flows at a constant rate, to record time the recording also has to record at a constant rate. We are not using atomic camcorders, we are using standard camcorders.
Both our 1 gig hard drives start of at 0 and end at 0 until we start the journey.
you 0.....................0
me 0.....................0
The 1 gig of space is our frame, you will travel to B
you 0.....................B
I will remain stationary
me 0.....................A
We are going to use the constant rate of camcorders to time our journey, we are using the camcorder as a clock.
No matter what your speed or acceleration is at the end of the journey the results will show we both timed simultaneously time.
If you watched my footage and I watched your footage we would observe each other ageing at the same rate. If we both watched both footages at the same time, we would observe we both age simultaneous while watching the footage.
added- or try it this way, you are going on a aeroplane journey, you are going to watch a movie, the movie is exactly 2 hours long, I am watching the same movie awaiting your arrival, the trip takes exactly two hours, We start watching the movie simultaneously, you arrive, where is there any time/age difference?
-
Time is constant, it flows at a constant rate, to record time the recording also has to record at a constant rate. We are not using atomic camcorders, we are using standard camcorders.
Standard camcorders have electronic or crystal lock timing circuits to operate by otherwise they can not time a constant FPS rate. They are just another atomic clock. A timing device. The crystal vibrating at a set rate is divided down to give you your 24 exposures every second. If you went into the specs, it is quite likely that the timing accuracy is stated, in parts per trillion. Dependent on their own internal timing circuit.
They are just another clock.
So you predict that two timing mechanisms, properly calibrated running on exactly the same recording settings will take exactly the same observed time as observed by both frames of reference, even if one is accelerated to the almost the speed of light while recording.
Is that my lesson? Now that to me from my limited knowledge is the Newtonian view of time.
Is that what you want me to learn that time and therefore the Universe is Newtonian?
-
Time is constant, it flows at a constant rate, to record time the recording also has to record at a constant rate. We are not using atomic camcorders, we are using standard camcorders.
Standard camcorders have electronic or crystal lock timing circuits to operate by otherwise they can not time a constant FPS rate. They are just another atomic clock. A timing device. The crystal vibrating at a set rate is divided down to give you your 24 exposures every second. If you went into the specs, it is quite likely that the timing accuracy is stated, in parts per trillion. Dependent on their own internal timing circuit.
They are just another clock.
So you predict that two timing mechanisms, properly calibrated running on exactly the same recording settings will take exactly the same observed time as observed by both frames of reference, even if one is accelerated to the almost the speed of light while recording.
Is that my lesson? Now that to me from my limited knowledge is the Newtonian view of time.
Is that what you want me to learn that time and therefore the Universe is Newtonian?
I never knew Newton did time, but nether mind, if Newton says the rate of time can't change, then yes all good.
-
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.
Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.?
So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.
Good bye.
-
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.
Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".
Quote from: Thebox on 11 February 2016, 22:32:20
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.?
So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.
Good bye.
Gave you all the info you needed did I?
-
Gave you all the info you needed did I?
You gave him more than enough to enable an accurate judgement.
-
Gave you all the info you needed did I?
You gave him more than enough to enable an accurate judgement.
You could never make an accurate judgement without seeing my hand expressions and gestures. And people seem to forget that I do have a life and have to try to fit science in has fast as I can, I'm always rushing, sometimes I get word tied , a bit like tongue twisted.
-
You could never make an accurate judgement without seeing my hand expressions and gestures.
Send us a video...............................
-
You could never make an accurate judgement without seeing my hand expressions and gestures.
Send us a video...............................
Lol dude, I would gladly do a video if I had a narrative voice, I hate my own voice , accents is a killer.