Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 11/03/2015 10:20:21
-
The value of 1 second is presently defined using an atomic clock based on the rate of a Caesium atom .
A 1 second value that is equal to 1 second of before 1960 that was based on Sun rise and Sunset.
Sun rise and Sunset being relative to motion of the Earth relative to the Sun.
A value that could only represent a distance of motion travelled.
I propose that presently 1 second is equal to a distance, a value of 1 second is equal to 0.2875 miles per second of the Earth's rotation.
I have researched looking for variants to this for purpose of eliminating my idea, and I am unable to find variants, I am only able to find invariants confirming my conferred thoughts.
-
You've made a lot of proposals in this forum. Why? You can't get anywhere by posting it here since you need to get physicists in the field of standards to listen to you.
-
I found here, no one elsewhere wants to listen, apparently I talk gibberish and science can not understand my ideas, according to science my ideas have no merit and just about everywhere banned me.
-
... a value of 1 second is equal to 0.2875 miles per second...
I think I found the problem, the units don't match up. 1 second cannot be equal to any number of miles per second. One is a unit of time, the other is a unit of speed.
I also don't see the value in changing our definition of second. True, it is currently an arbitrary definition, but any definition of a unit of time will be arbitrary. The important thing is that it can be agreed upon and remeasured as needed to serve as a ruler for other high-accuracy measurements.
-
I found here, no one elsewhere wants to listen, apparently I talk gibberish and science can not understand my ideas, according to science my ideas have no merit and just about everywhere banned me.
If you are getting banned from everywhere, there might be a problem with your approach that requires some reconsideration on your part...
-
''1 second cannot be equal to any number of miles per second. One is a unit of time, the other is a unit of speed''
Yes 1 second cannot be equal to a distance, it should not be equal to a distance , but the answers science gave me confirms that the arbitrary meaning of 1 second is equal to a distance by the way time was recorded in the origin of time recorded by night and day.
I understand the situation of uses , however an arbitrary use of time based on motion of a distance travelled will not give us an accurate age to anything.
Speed is defined by time, time is defined by a distance travelled, science have the speed of light faster than arbitrary time based on motion.
My approach may be not of scientific presentation, but I am not a scientist or a Shakespeare.
The maths is simple,
1035 mph * 24 hrs = 24840 miles
24840 miles / 86400 seconds = 0.2875 mile per second
The speed of light is 299792458 m/s
0.2875 miles per second converted to meters is 462.69 m per second, I asked science how can the speed of light be faster than time
647933.731008 times faster than time,
To me it makes relatively no sense.
-
These numbers do not imply that light is faster than time, only that light is faster than the rotation of the Earth.
-
That would be a fare and true assessment if it were not for the origin of recording time.
Do you personally know any other way of the origin of time recording other than night and day and relative motion of the Earth to the Sun?
Time is based on the rotation of the Earth.
-
Added history of time , notice the parts I have put in bold.
''Ever since man first noticed the regular movement of the Sun and the stars, we have wondered about the passage of time. Prehistoric people first recorded the phases of the Moon some 30,000 years ago, and recording time has been a way by which humanity has observed the heavens and represented the progress of civilization.
Natural Events
The earliest natural events to be recognised were in the heavens, but during the course of the year there were many other events that indicated significant changes in the environment. Seasonal winds and rains, the flooding of rivers, the flowering of trees and plants, and the breeding cycles or migration of animals and birds, all led to natural divisions of the year, and further observation and local customs led to the recognition of the seasons.
Measuring time by the Sun, the Moon and the Stars
As the sun moves across the sky, shadows change in direction and length, so a simple sundial can measure the length of a day. It was quickly noticed that the length of the day varies at different times of the year. The reasons for this difference were not discovered until after astronomers accepted the fact that the earth travels round the sun in an elliptic orbit, and that the earth's axis is tilted at about 26 degrees. This variation from a circular orbit leads to the Equation of Time (see 'Note 2' below) which allows us to work out the difference between 'clock' time and 'sundial time'.
Another discovery was that sundials had to be specially made for different latitudes because the Sun's altitude in the sky decreases at higher latitudes, producing longer shadows than at lower latitudes. Today, artists and astronomers find many ways of creating modern sundials.''
http://nrich.maths.org/6070
google best answer -'' The Egyptians were (possibly) the first to realize that the shortest shadow cast by an obelisk would always point in the same direction, regardless of the season. Starting from there, they managed to determine the time of day based on the length and direction of the shadow cast by an obelisk.
Since it was inconvenient to build huge stone pillars everywhere, they eventually realized that even a tiny version, a stick in the ground, could accomplish the same. This was really the origin of the first sundial, which, contrary to popular belief, was not invented by the Romans.
As to why there are 24 hours in the day, well no one is sure who developed this system of measurement. It was probably the Egyptians again, because if you have to build pyramids that huge, you can be damn sure you'll care about the time. If you look on Wikipedia, it will tell you the 12 hour system was invented sometime between 2 BC and 1500 AD. ''
The length of one day being equal to one cycle of motion and one cycle of a set distance, a value of time being the same as motion distance travelled, a sun dial and shadow is based on relative motion to the sun, a sundial based on 360 degrees.
Speed came after time, the orbital spin speed was not known at the time.
-
If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. To determine that you simply need to do what Max Planck did and find the fundamental units that do not vary. Forget the second as it is arbitrary. This is fundamental. People will not tolerate views that do not make scientific sense. Get a book on mechanics out of your local library and start reading that.
-
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point, 15 degrees on a sundial is equal to 1 hour.
15 degrees on a sundial is also equal to an amount of distance travelled relative to the Sun and of the sun, the shadow on the sundial is moving a distance.
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
Also do not forget in history when a recording of time was first derived, they thought is was a flat earth, sun rise and sunset and did not know about rotation of the Earth.
A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion. A synchronization of timing of motion.
When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.
299792458 m/s , a second based on a distance.
How can that be accurate?
it reads c=299792458 m per 462.69 m
-
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point .........
Have you considered that it might be yourself who is missing the point. Read the previous post
If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period.
What you are saying is already well understood, as jefferyH says it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.
-
I think you must be misunderstanding or missing the entire point .........
Have you considered that it might be yourself who is missing the point. Read the previous post
If the solar system had been configured differently then we wouldn't be measuring in seconds. It would be something else. Maybe still based on the period of rotation of the earth but with a different rotational period.
What you are saying is already well understood, as jefferyH says it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.
I read the previous post and it is not me missing the point when it is my point.
''it is an arbitrary measurement and history is irrelevant. We use it and it works.''
You really think it is irrelevant that 1 second is equal to 462.69 m a distance and not time, and the said speed of light being faster than time devised by Humanity ?
What happened to science?
-
You really think it is irrelevant that 1 second is equal to 462.69 m a distance and not time, and the said speed of light being faster than time devised by Humanity ?
As has been pointed out before 1 second is not equal to any distance, the speed of light is not faster than time devised by humanity.
You are confusing yourself in this and the other posts. You are unlikely to be banned from this forum, but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.
What happened to science?
Science is doing very well, thank you.
-
What happened to science?
The greater question here is: What has happened to paying attention to those who are trying to help?
-
but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.
And listening to those who are trying to help!
-
My posts are not confusing, you are avoiding discussion. The evidence has been presented, true evidence of the history of time .
I have presented the maths to go with it.
I have presented truths about sundials and how time was not been measured.
You have not pointed out anything, you have just denied it and said it is wrong by presumption the present information is correct and in noway have shown anything contradicting or discourse of my statements that show factual truths about history and time keeping origin.
History is irrelevant according to you, yet all our knowledge comes from history and the past scientists.
Time came before science and was accepted without contradiction by science.
-
but in order for people to spend time answering your posts, you need to start making sense.
And listening to those who are trying to help!
This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.
I am disputing the present information is incorrect, I will not accept present information unless showed just cause, you saying it does not prove my science to be false, my statements are quite falsifiable.
P.s it is I trying to help you
-
This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.
You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.
-
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion. A synchronization of timing of motion.
Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)
The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).
Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.
When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.
299792458 m/s , a second based on a distance.
How can that be accurate?
it reads c=299792458 m per 462.69 m
Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.
in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"
-
This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.
You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.
Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.
I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.
-
Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.
I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.
Check out the latest post #19. This member has some interesting points you should consider.
-
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion. A synchronization of timing of motion.
Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)
The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).
Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.
When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.
299792458 m/s , a second based on a distance.
How can that be accurate?
it reads c=299792458 m per 462.69 m
Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.
in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"
In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
-
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
-
In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.
-
....... my statements are quite falsifiable.
That is a true statement
I am disputing the present information is incorrect
We are also disputing it
......in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.
In that case, I'm out
-
In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.
I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.
The first paragraph destroys the rest of the post
edit - Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day,one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance) any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)
-
....... my statements are quite falsifiable.
That is a true statement
I am disputing the present information is incorrect
We are also disputing it
......in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.
In that case, I'm out
I apologise if you were for my idea.
-
In that case, I'm out
I'm right behind you,................and speaking of time, this thread has become a waste of it.
-
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you have just agreed with? A history we still use today.
-
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you have just agreed with? A history we still use today.
My dispute is not with the history, but your interpretation of it. The science of it, if you will.
one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance)
Does it also matter how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or how fast the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, or how fast the whole galaxy is moving?
Please read the rest of my previous post:
Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.
in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"
Can you find any merit in any of my questions or points?
-
I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.
How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you have just agreed with? A history we still use today.
My dispute is not with the history, but your interpretation of it. The science of it, if you will.
one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance)
Does it also matter how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or how fast the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, or how fast the whole galaxy is moving?
Please read the rest of my previous post:
Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.
in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"
Can you find any merit in any of my questions or points?
My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time, science is agreeing with me.
Regardless whether my account of rotational 1 second equals a Earth surface point travelled distance, science is agrees that the origin of time is based on motion which makes an inevitable 1 second would always equal a distance and timing of relative motion would be achieved but not timing of time.
I understand the points you are trying to make and I am not confusing time and space or space-time (see space-time thread).
The complete idea involves more than just motion, it involves a Unified theory of everything including the value of numbers.
If you go over my other threads you can see how it all links together.
Let me try to explain something - If you are recording time 1 must equal 1, time is instant,
1 can not equal the word one, the one is 3 digits and not 1 digit. One=3 three=5 and so on.
1 must equal 1.
The meaning of 0 is one. 0=1
the meaning of 0 is also ................ the dots been points of space , I call it zero point space, you call it a dimension of space.
Empty space between your eyes and an object (not accounting for air etc) is unseen, a point nothing of/in space is timeless, observe space and you only observing your time watching space, there is no space-time only your time filling a dimension of shapeless space or moving through a shapeless space.
It is complex to understand, I hope you understand after this post.
-
I have just give it some more thought and it does not matter about the suns movement , we timed timing points by rotation and lining up the timing points.
If I spun a childs round about at a constant speed and I walked around the round about as it was revolving at a constant speed, the timing points would be the same every time.
If you were on the round about timing the exchange of relative motion, you are travelling a circular distance relative to your timing.
The distance and speed would always equal your time recorded and in essence be the same thing.
If you travelled away from me at 1035 mph into space and I did not move from my place on Earth at the great Pyramid, in 24 hrs we both travel the same distance.
-
I only bothered to read this thread because it had a lot of posts in it, so I wondered if there was anything worth reading in it. It was no surprise to find that there isn't - there never is when someone new creates an avalanche of new threads. What we have here is someone proposing that time is equal to distance. He/she is obsessed with the idea that this should involve an arbitrary unit of time tied to an arbitrary size of planet and an arbitrary point on the surface of that planet at an arbitrary altitude and the distance that point will move in terms of rotation based on a daily rotation of 361 degrees and arbitrary ways of slicing up rotation into units. What an absolute pile of pants!
If you want to relate time to distance, that can be indeed be done, but the sensible way to do it is to link it directly to the speed of light and the distance it covers in an amount of time. You still have to choose an arbitrary unit of time or length, but then you can derive the other unit from it. This does not at any point mean that time = distance, but merely that these two distinct things can be related in some way. I have described a direct relationship between the two, but the OP describes one with an intermediate step which is a rotation angle, so if he thinks time = distance, he should be claiming that time = rotation = distance because that logically follows from his argument, or rather should come in the middle of his argument. And now that we have rotation = distance, I think that ought to wrap things up neatly.
-
I only bothered to read this thread because it had a lot of posts in it, so I wondered if there was anything worth reading in it. It was no surprise to find that there isn't - there never is when someone new creates an avalanche of new threads. What we have here is someone proposing that time is equal to distance. He/she is obsessed with the idea that this should involve an arbitrary unit of time tied to an arbitrary size of planet and an arbitrary point on the surface of that planet at an arbitrary altitude and the distance that point will move in terms of rotation based on a daily rotation of 361 degrees and arbitrary ways of slicing up rotation into units. What an absolute pile of pants!
If you want to relate time to distance, that can be indeed be done, but the sensible way to do it is to link it directly to the speed of light and the distance it covers in an amount of time. You still have to choose an arbitrary unit of time or length, but then you can derive the other unit from it. This does not at any point mean that time = distance, but merely that these two distinct things can be related in some way. I have described a direct relationship between the two, but the OP describes one with an intermediate step which is a rotation angle, so if he thinks time = distance, he should be claiming that time = rotation = distance because that logically follows from his argument, or rather should come in the middle of his argument. And now that we have rotation = distance, I think that ought to wrap things up neatly.
A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against? I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.
You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.
The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason , they are the truths.
space time = 0
space time dilation = 0
A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.
-
History does not make something true or untrue scientifically. We used to think the Earth was flat, but now we know better--this doesn't automatically invalidate other scientific advances made when this false knowledge was held to be true. It doesn't invalidate scientific advances based on repeated refinement of false ideas either--that's how all science works.
The reason your threads are "unarguable" has nothing to do with their truth, and everything to do with the fact that you are unable to understand our arguments and we are unable to understand yours.
Given this obvious disconnect and your inability to grasp the difference between units, ratios and values, we are at an impasse.
Do not be surprised if we completely stop replying to your posts.
-
History does not make something true or untrue scientifically. We used to think the Earth was flat, but now we know better--this doesn't automatically invalidate other scientific advances made when this false knowledge was held to be true. It doesn't invalidate scientific advances based on repeated refinement of false ideas either--that's how all science works.
The reason your threads are "unarguable" has nothing to do with their truth, and everything to do with the fact that you are unable to understand our arguments and we are unable to understand yours.
Given this obvious disconnect and your inability to grasp the difference between units, ratios and values, we are at an impasse.
Do not be surprised if we completely stop replying to your posts.
They are unarguable because they are the scientific proofs from your very own science.
My observations and discourse of science present information and all the internet forums answers leave no other possible conclusions.
I have already heard all the opposing argument and all of it tries to deflect away from the issues being stated in question that is sated by good logic and having very reasonable doubt of present information to its falsifiable statement.
I can show and have already shown that there is no space time and no dilation of time,
Why do you insist on deflecting from the truth's?
-
You only have to understand ''this''
Well actually ''this'' has dimensions, it is also 4 singular constants, it also occupies different dimensional pixel placement on your monitoring device, ''this'' occupies the volume of pixels within its dimensions, while you observe ''this'' you are not observing ''this'' time, you are monitoring your own time pass by.
''this'' has 4 constants and a ''vowel'', a ''vowel'' being its own dependant time. ''this'' is now a ''blank space'' , blank space has a greater dimension than ''this'', ''blank space'' has 10 constants and a ''vowel'' occupying the volume of pixels contained.
''Blank space'' has more dimensional points than ''this'', ''blank space'' has more dimensions of space covered with time, a time that does not alter, a blank space is infinite in time with no beginning until occupied.
In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The space-time of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
By combining matter and time into a single manifold called occupied space, , time is treated as moving with an object, time being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or the object and dependent relative to gravitational fields for the object or observer relative to the observers time dependency to gravitational fields. Time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of the object or observer, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object or observer occupying and moving through space is equal to the object or observers own time observed rate of occupying and moving through space,
-
A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.
If you can't follow something when it's set out properly, there's really no hope for you. If you want to talk about time and to discuss its relationship to distance, don't get bogged down in the origin of the second which is merely an arbitrary unit of time. There is nothing magically special about the second that makes how its length was chosen important when looking at time itself, so all the stuff about planets going round and the distance some parts of one planet cover as they rotate is utterly irrelevant. If you want to tie time to distance, you need to do it via light.
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against? I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.
There is nothing to defend against here - I was just trying to point you in a better direction than the one you're going in because you're thinking is horribly muddled.
You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.
History of the origin of the second is not the same thing as the issue of time. If you're obsessed with an unimportant measure of time to the point that you can't separate it from the idea of time itself, you aren't going to get any further.
The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason , they are the truths.
They are not attracting attention because they say nothing of any value. This thread would have gone the same way, but people have been using it to explore your mind as it's always interesting to study how people think, or fail to.
A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.
It's hard to work out what you're trying to attack there. Time dilation is a term from one theory, while other theories have other descriptions relating to how clocks run at different speeds. I don't know if you're trying to attack relativity or what your aim is there, but clocks certainly do get out of sync with each other when located at different altitudes in a gravity well or when moving relative to each other.
-
A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.
If you can't follow something when it's set out properly, there's really no hope for you. If you want to talk about time and to discuss its relationship to distance, don't get bogged down in the origin of the second which is merely an arbitrary unit of time. There is nothing magically special about the second that makes how its length was chosen important when looking at time itself, so all the stuff about planets going round and the distance some parts of one planet cover as they rotate is utterly irrelevant. If you want to tie time to distance, you need to do it via light.
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against? I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.
There is nothing to defend against here - I was just trying to point you in a better direction than the one you're going in because you're thinking is horribly muddled.
You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.
History of the origin of the second is not the same thing as the issue of time. If you're obsessed with an unimportant measure of time to the point that you can't separate it from the idea of time itself, you aren't going to get any further.
The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason , they are the truths.
They are not attracting attention because they say nothing of any value. This thread would have gone the same way, but people have been using it to explore your mind as it's always interesting to study how people think, or fail to.
A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.
It's hard to work out what you're trying to attack there. Time dilation is a term from one theory, while other theories have other descriptions relating to how clocks run at different speeds. I don't know if you're trying to attack relativity or what your aim is there, but clocks certainly do get out of sync with each other when located at different altitudes in a gravity well or when moving relative to each other.
Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation. A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.
You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.
It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.
I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.
-
Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation. A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.
When discussing things within the theory of relativity, time dilation is the correct term. When discussing things withing your alternative theory, you are fully entitled to reject the terms and mechanisms of other theories, so that's fine.
You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.
I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.
It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.
What arbitrary device does SR use?
I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.
So why do you want to equate it to distance in such a messy way?
-
How do you define Earth?
Are Earth mass and rotation rate constant?
How do you define the rotation of Earth?
-
How do you define Earth?
Are Earth mass and rotation rate constant?
How do you define the rotation of Earth?
The Earths rotation was found to fluctuate, so we had to change to a Caesium clock, another said constant that is not a constant.
-
Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation. A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.
When discussing things within the theory of relativity, time dilation is the correct term. When discussing things withing your alternative theory, you are fully entitled to reject the terms and mechanisms of other theories, so that's fine.
You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.
I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.
It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.
What arbitrary device does SR use?
I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.
So why do you want to equate it to distance in such a messy way?
I do not equate it to a distance, science already has done this, this is the mistake I am showing, I know a distance cannot be time, history did not.
''I'm trying to get to an understanding of what your theory is. It started out with the assertion that time is distance, and for some reason you wanted to equate the two via the rotation of a planet and the movement of part of that planet. That isn't a good place to start.''
The other way around, this is what history did not me or what I want to do.
My theory is simple., my theory shows that even today science has time and distance being the same, a measuring of timing and not time.
I will put it simple -
Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality, in a primary respect to science process, and to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to present and presenting naive set theories.
A reality that looks at the true values of reality, that humanity has quantified, and showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
This is to show, tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action that something is the case meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science to construct a true reality based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true values that humanity has quantified.
-
My argument is of simplicity that is the truth, space-time or time in and of a space is none existent.
Time in an absolute void has no value unless the empty space is occupied by matter or a medium.
Time is dependent only of the matter or medium and space has no independent time because time in a space is infinite and can never change whilst empty of matter or a medium.
You can not and do not observe an empty space that is transparent and see through, you are in affect seeing ''time'' through space by observation of matter or a medium.
Space-time = 0 to infinite always with no start unless occupied by matter or a medium.
Science accepts without little afterthought, I am an improver with a whole lot of after thought.
When you are recording a race cars lap time, you are not recording the race cars time, you are using the car and marker points to record your own time watching the car. Using a velocity to mark a length in time of your own time.
You can take away the car and observe a static track , your time is the same.
-
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.
Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.
However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
-
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.
Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.
However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.
-
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. .......
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.
Like you I find the OP's ideas and arguments impossibly confused. A central assumption concerns the measurement of time. The OP consistently misreports history as showing that time=distance. To set the record straight:
A brief history of time (mmm, might use that as title of my next book)
Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance.
Variable hours based on the seasons were used until the invention of mechanical clocks in 16C when small units of time could be measured. At that stage units were borrowed from the Greeks who had devised the method of measuring angles in degrees, dividing the degree into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds, a system we still use today in timekeeping.
Along the way to our modern system there have been many ways of measuring time and it is possible that today we might easily be measuring time in litres of water, cubits of sand, length of a pendulum or, the one I really like, the standard candle. Think of the light physicists measuring the speed of light in meters/candle! Is light faster than a candle?
At no point in history did we ever measure time as distance, this is a fabrication by the OP and all his consequential fabrications fall as a result (to use his own 'logic').
There are many other fabrications, that 0=1, he claims there is no spacetime and no time dilation, but offers no proof. He falsely believes "the obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable" , which shows a poor understanding of how this forum works.
I have toyed with the idea that the OP is a troll, someone on TNS or another forum having a laugh and intending to reveal themselves on April 1st. It makes more sense to me than any of the 'theories' propounded here!
-
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.
Read and learn: http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time, science is agreeing with me.
I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.
Where you got the idea that you're correct is beyond me. You most certainly never provided a reference to a textbook where any respectable physicist describes it in the same way you do.
-
A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.
Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.
Read and learn: http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time, science is agreeing with me.
I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.
Where you got the idea that you're correct is beyond me. You most certainly never provided a reference to a textbook where any respectable physicist describes it in the same way you do.
''consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space''
The ball rolling down a hill's speed and distance travelled defines your time watching the ball.
If you are a Physicist you know very well on a sundial there is relative movement of the shadow.
''I can promise you that's not true. Science is what scientists do and since I'm a scientist (a physicist to be exact) I can tell you how myself and all of my colleagues all over the world think of time and its as described in the above link.''
I can promise you that yourself and your colleagues accepted time without question of afterthought.
-
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. .......
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.
Like you I find the OP's ideas and arguments impossibly confused. A central assumption concerns the measurement of time. The OP consistently misreports history as showing that time=distance. To set the record straight:
A brief history of time (mmm, might use that as title of my next book)
Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance.
Variable hours based on the seasons were used until the invention of mechanical clocks in 16C when small units of time could be measured. At that stage units were borrowed from the Greeks who had devised the method of measuring angles in degrees, dividing the degree into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds, a system we still use today in timekeeping.
Along the way to our modern system there have been many ways of measuring time and it is possible that today we might easily be measuring time in litres of water, cubits of sand, length of a pendulum or, the one I really like, the standard candle. Think of the light physicists measuring the speed of light in meters/candle! Is light faster than a candle?
At no point in history did we ever measure time as distance, this is a fabrication by the OP and all his consequential fabrications fall as a result (to use his own 'logic').
There are many other fabrications, that 0=1, he claims there is no spacetime and no time dilation, but offers no proof. He falsely believes "the obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable" , which shows a poor understanding of how this forum works.
I have toyed with the idea that the OP is a troll, someone on TNS or another forum having a laugh and intending to reveal themselves on April 1st. It makes more sense to me than any of the 'theories' propounded here!
Space is not expanding this is the misconception and illusion created by poor logic.
I am banned from most forums, TNS never heard of,
See all my threads , put it together, I did ,
I have provided maths, rational argument and logical truths, this is evidence.
''Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance. '''
A shadow travels a distance, why do you agree then disagree in the same statement?
Dividing 360 degrees into equal parts of distance travelled by a shadow is relative to distance.
-
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.
Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.
However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.
I am not a Shakespeare or a Scientist.
''an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either''
Poor logic - You do not observe empty space, you observe only matter or a medium occupying a space.
You observe red shift by matter observation, you do not observe a red shift of empty space.
Science shows us that firing an arrow through the air does not expand the space the arrow is travelling through, the arrow travels through space and not with space,
Science by poor logic has changed the Physics involved in the same process as an arrow flying through space.
It is science inventing the Unicorns and not I,
-
I will try it another way to get you to understand
me- hello science, in using a sundial to measure time do I give an increment of time period to an increment of distance the shadow has travelled?
science - well yes there is no other way
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it not?
science - errrr, oh ek yes it does what a blunder in history.
From 0 degrees to 180 degrees is movement, movement that convertibility equals a distance travelled of observer or device relative to angular movement of the Sun relative to orbital earth motion.
So if you define 15 degrees of the shadow movement to be 1 hr, we get our 24 hour day. A 15 degree of movement still equalling a distance of motion. An up scaling of the sun dials 360 degrees.
-
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it
No, and I'm beginning to think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?
However, let's try a different tack.
If you believe science measures time incorrectly, how do you propose to measure it?
-
Nonsense and incorrect. You know nothing about how I think and what leads us to define time that way. We all challenge everything we learn when we learn it and throughout our professional careers. On the other hand its clear to me that you don't even know how physicists define time. And you erroneously think that you can change a definition if you don't like it which is quite incorrect. Clearly you've given very little thought into the subject. I've read some of your posts above and can't find one that's correct.
People like you think about these things for a very short period of time and think that they've put an enormous amount of thought into it. How long have you thought about this and what is your educational background in physics? Where did you learn how physicists define time in the first place? Let me guess - You never did learn it and you don't know what it is. You also never formally studied physics either, have you?
-
Nonsense and incorrect. You know nothing about how I think and what leads us to define time that way. We all challenge everything we learn when we learn it and throughout our professional careers. On the other hand its clear to me that you don't even know how physicists define time. And you erroneously think that you can change a definition if you don't like it which is quite incorrect. Clearly you've given very little thought into the subject. I've read some of your posts above and can't find one that's correct.
People like you think about these things for a very short period of time and think that they've put an enormous amount of thought into it. How long have you thought about this and what is your educational background in physics? Where did you learn how physicists define time in the first place? Let me guess - You never did learn it and you don't know what it is. You also never formally studied physics either, have you?
try 4 years of thinking about it.
I made you a video to show you
-
I made you a video to show you
There is little point in us watching your video or answering your other posts if you are starting from false assumptions.
I still think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?
To me a thermometer measures differences in temperature, a barometer measures differences in pressure and a clock measures differences in time.
I think you need to go back to basics and study the theory of measurement.
-
I made you a video to show you
There is little point in us watching your video or answering your other posts if you are starting from false assumptions.
I still think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?
To me a thermometer measures differences in temperature, a barometer measures differences in pressure and a clock measures differences in time.
I think you need to go back to basics and study the theory of measurement.
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.
I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.
Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?
A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.
-
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.
I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.
I think drawing the comparison of a sundial to a thermometer or barometer is very much on point--all three are instruments that are used to display something that is hard to visualize (time, temperature or pressure) in terms of a distance scale, which is easy to visualize. None of them equates what they measure with distance, they just use a distance which changes in a predictable way with the change in what they measure.
Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?
A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.
I assure you, we are all astounded. Never before have I seen such incredible graphics design, and to be done in only five minutes (how many miles is that?) you MUST be a genius.
Sorry for the lapse into sarcasm, but honestly, making a video of a circle that changes size in a linear fashion and doesn't even move, doesn't seem like evidence of anything other than novice familiarity of the program used to generate the video. Beating your chest over such accomplishments will not earn you any respect in this forum or others. And if you think the content of said video is "proof" that "clearly shows that space is not expanding" then there is little more to say.
-
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.
I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.
I think drawing the comparison of a sundial to a thermometer or barometer is very much on point--all three are instruments that are used to display something that is hard to visualize (time, temperature or pressure) in terms of a distance scale, which is easy to visualize. None of them equates what they measure with distance, they just use a distance which changes in a predictable way with the change in what they measure.
Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?
A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.
I assure you, we are all astounded. Never before have I seen such incredible graphics design, and to be done in only five minutes (how many miles is that?) you MUST be a genius.
Sorry for the lapse into sarcasm, but honestly, making a video of a circle that changes size in a linear fashion and doesn't even move, doesn't seem like evidence of anything other than novice familiarity of the program used to generate the video. Beating your chest over such accomplishments will not earn you any respect in this forum or others. And if you think the content of said video is "proof" that "clearly shows that space is not expanding" then there is little more to say.
It is a sphere and not a circle, and it is a contracting sphere to give the illusion of movement through space.
The video shows vanishing points of matter over distance. I could add relative movement if I wanted to.
Again you ignore your own science and the perception of an object vanishes at distance to sight.
My video clearly shows the perception of the blackness background of space and vanishing points of the matter .
The illusion of an expanding space is just that, an illusion by poor logic.
-
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.
I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.
You misunderstand me. I do not judge you as stupid, you will be judged on the quality of your answers and explanations. I am not trying to make you look stupid or deflect anything towards you or away from your ideas. I know you did not raise the subject of temperature and pressure. I am sure you understand units, but this is not a question of units, but of measurement.
My question was aimed at improving my understanding of your idea and I hoped you would be keen to answer and help me understand.
I was directly addressing your idea that the history of science measures time as distance. If your idea is true then by your own logic, as expressed in this thread, you have to accept that the history of thermometers and barometers also shows that they measure distance.
Is it possible for you to explain why you view these measurements as invalid?
-
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.
I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.
You misunderstand me. I do not judge you as stupid, you will be judged on the quality of your answers and explanations. I am not trying to make you look stupid or deflect anything towards you or away from your ideas. I know you did not raise the subject of temperature and pressure. I am sure you understand units, but this is not a question of units, but of measurement.
My question was aimed at improving my understanding of your idea and I hoped you would be keen to answer and help me understand.
I was directly addressing your idea that the history of science measures time as distance. If your idea is true then by your own logic, as expressed in this thread, you have to accept that the history of thermometers and barometers also shows that they measure distance.
Is it possible for you to explain why you view these measurements as invalid?
My apologies I see now what you were saying. Temperature and a Barometer do not require a constant so using a distance to measure a value of a process and the actions of the process is ok, temperature and a pressure being random so require an increment of distance scaling to show the difference in increased or decreased action,
Anything with a ''spring like'' property, or an ''ebb and flow'' are variables so require a top end and a low end scale.
It is not really a distance but rather increase or decrease in numbers. The distance in this case represents a number difference.
Time is an invariant with no ebb and flow so requires a constant that does not even tick.
-
''an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either''
Poor logic - You do not observe empty space, you observe only matter or a medium occupying a space.
We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. Unless the universe is virtual, space is not nothing - it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether. This fabric makes the distances between different objects in space have distances between each other which don't change randomly from moment to moment, but either maintain a constant separation or a change in separation that itself does not change randomly in extreme ways. You can try to decouple time from space altogether and claim that time has no impact on it at all, but all that will ever be is a pointless philosophical assertion which can never be proved, but in reality there is not a cubic nanometre of space that doesn't have light passing through it all the time, so it's a doubly pointless assertion.
You observe red shift by matter observation, you do not observe a red shift of empty space.
Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. Sometimes the crackpots are right, of course, but your reason for denying the expansion ought to be based more on reasoned argument rather than basing it on what you want to believe.
Science shows us that firing an arrow through the air does not expand the space the arrow is travelling through, the arrow travels through space and not with space,
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that shooting an arrow through air would expand space.
Science by poor logic has changed the Physics involved in the same process as an arrow flying through space.
The expansion of space is not understood and science has not claimed to understand it. Science has merely detected the expansion.
It is science inventing the Unicorns and not I,
I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much? You want time to exist for matter, but not for the fabric of space upon which matter plays. You appear to be the person suggesting something outlandish here by denying space any connection with time, all based on zero evidence.
-
I will try it another way to get you to understand
me- hello science, in using a sundial to measure time do I give an increment of time period to an increment of distance the shadow has travelled?
science - well yes there is no other way
You are obsessed with ancient ways of measuring time based on the Earth's rotation, and you then assert that this is how scientists measure time. They don't. We still stick with units of time that suit the way we live on this planet, but the length of a second is now measured by more accurate means involving atomic clocks.
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it not?
Time can certainly be tied to distance through the relationship of distance travelled by something in an amount of time. There is such a thing as a light clock (at least in thought experiments) where light travels to and fro between two points, each round trip counting as a tick. You could use something more primitive like a sound clock or the rotation of a planet, but those methods introduce large random errors.
science - errrr, oh ek yes it does what a blunder in history.
Science hunts out the most accurate ways to measure time and then uses them. It doesn't stick with inaccurate methods handed down by the ancients.
From 0 degrees to 180 degrees is movement, movement that convertibility equals a distance travelled of observer or device relative to angular movement of the Sun relative to orbital earth motion.
The Earth rotates on average apx. 361 degrees in 24 hours, so it's already very messy. It's rotation is also slowing, so it's not a good clock. That is why science ditched it.
So if you define 15 degrees of the shadow movement to be 1 hr, we get our 24 hour day. A 15 degree of movement still equalling a distance of motion. An up scaling of the sun dials 360 degrees.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that the Earth is not an accurate clock. Please try to move on.
-
''an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either''
Poor logic - You do not observe empty space, you observe only matter or a medium occupying a space.
We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. Unless the universe is virtual, space is not nothing - it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether. This fabric makes the distances between different objects in space have distances between each other which don't change randomly from moment to moment, but either maintain a constant separation or a change in separation that itself does not change randomly in extreme ways. You can try to decouple time from space altogether and claim that time has no impact on it at all, but all that will ever be is a pointless philosophical assertion which can never be proved, but in reality there is not a cubic nanometre of space that doesn't have light passing through it all the time, so it's a doubly pointless assertion.
You observe red shift by matter observation, you do not observe a red shift of empty space.
Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. Sometimes the crackpots are right, of course, but your reason for denying the expansion ought to be based more on reasoned argument rather than basing it on what you want to believe.
Science shows us that firing an arrow through the air does not expand the space the arrow is travelling through, the arrow travels through space and not with space,
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that shooting an arrow through air would expand space.
Science by poor logic has changed the Physics involved in the same process as an arrow flying through space.
The expansion of space is not understood and science has not claimed to understand it. Science has merely detected the expansion.
It is science inventing the Unicorns and not I,
I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much? You want time to exist for matter, but not for the fabric of space upon which matter plays. You appear to be the person suggesting something outlandish here by denying space any connection with time, all based on zero evidence.
What?...............
Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''
Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''
A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''
[V] Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.
Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''
There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge. Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.
-
I will try it another way to get you to understand
me- hello science, in using a sundial to measure time do I give an increment of time period to an increment of distance the shadow has travelled?
science - well yes there is no other way
You are obsessed with ancient ways of measuring time based on the Earth's rotation, and you then assert that this is how scientists measure time. They don't. We still stick with units of time that suit the way we live on this planet, but the length of a second is now measured by more accurate means involving atomic clocks.
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it not?
Time can certainly be tied to distance through the relationship of distance travelled by something in an amount of time. There is such a thing as a light clock (at least in thought experiments) where light travels to and fro between two points, each round trip counting as a tick. You could use something more primitive like a sound clock or the rotation of a planet, but those methods introduce large random errors.
science - errrr, oh ek yes it does what a blunder in history.
Science hunts out the most accurate ways to measure time and then uses them. It doesn't stick with inaccurate methods handed down by the ancients.
From 0 degrees to 180 degrees is movement, movement that convertibility equals a distance travelled of observer or device relative to angular movement of the Sun relative to orbital earth motion.
The Earth rotates on average apx. 361 degrees in 24 hours, so it's already very messy. It's rotation is also slowing, so it's not a good clock. That is why science ditched it.
So if you define 15 degrees of the shadow movement to be 1 hr, we get our 24 hour day. A 15 degree of movement still equalling a distance of motion. An up scaling of the sun dials 360 degrees.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that the Earth is not an accurate clock. Please try to move on.
Again no, when you changed over in 1960 to a Caesium clock you used the old value of the old second meaning it is the same still. I understand the Earth is not an accurate clock , neither is the Caesium clock which is not a constant.
-
(a) = us
(b) = the last matter we can see
....= space
a...........b........................................................................................
(b) is moving away from (a) (expanding) through space into more space.
Space does not end at (b) and have nothing after it.
-
I can see from your replies that you have not really understood what we are saying. I see no merit in continuing this as you have offered no proof of your ideas and even your video offers no explanation.
You will find that TNS is more forgiving than the other forums you have been banned from. Folks here do not judge you by other's opinions, but on the merit of the arguments you present. If your idea is judged to be incorrect you will find that replies to your posts tend to peter out, this is not a sign that your argument is won, but that folks are tired of your inability to make a convincing presentation of your ideas.
You are unlikely to be flamed, banned, or locked out unless you makes nuisance of yourself. The worst that will happen is that you are ignored.
It is, however, easy to see why you would have been banned from other forums, I wish you luck with finding one which accepts your ideas.
-
I can see from your replies that you have not really understood what we are saying. I see no merit in continuing this as you have offered no proof of your ideas and even your video offers no explanation.
You will find that TNS is more forgiving than the other forums you have been banned from. Folks here do not judge you by other's opinions, but on the merit of the arguments you present. If your idea is judged to be incorrect you will find that replies to your posts tend to peter out, this is not a sign that your argument is won, but that folks are tired of your inability to make a convincing presentation of your ideas.
You are unlikely to be flamed, banned, or locked out unless you makes nuisance of yourself. The worst that will happen is that you are ignored.
It is, however, easy to see why you would have been banned from other forums, I wish you luck with finding one which accepts your ideas.
Thank you for your kind words, I have no idea why you can not ''see'' the evidence I have provided.
I feel I have pointed it out has plain as day.
Science can not observe space they only observe matter occupying space , I do not understand why that is hard to understand. There is also no denial of the origin of time and the processes in which time was recorded.
There is also no denial that the new second on a Caesium clock is exactly the same as the old second.
I am confused, why does the world seemingly not care as if it did not matter any more?
-
What?...............
Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.
I'm not trying to distort anything you said, but am merely responding to what you appear to be saying. If you're saying something different, you need to state things more clearly to avoid being misunderstood.
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''
Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.
Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''
A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR
The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''
[V] Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?
Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.
Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.
Aether is not a gaseous or liquid kind of beast - it's a fabric of some kind, although we can't reach out and feel it, so it's only reason that tells us it is there. If you reject reason, you can call it nothing if you wish, but that will cause you no end of trouble in explaining how things work.
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''
There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge. Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.
So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.
There is time travel, but it all goes forwards. There is arguably no time dilation - in LET there is an absolute time which always ticks at the same rate everywhere, but clocks can run slow due to increased communication distances in clocks when they move through space or due to a local lower speed of light. If you want that with your theory though, you're going to need an aether to control the way clocks run slow - without it you're stuffed. Without it you can't even have a consistent speed of light as no two photons will be able to keep pace with each other accurately due to the fact they'd be moving through absolutely nothing, having no way of determining how long it should take them to pass through the same length of nothing.
-
Again no, when you changed over in 1960 to a Caesium clock you used the old value of the old second meaning it is the same still. I understand the Earth is not an accurate clock , neither is the Caesium clock which is not a constant.
A second is merely a unit of time. We have to use some unit, so we've stuck with one that was handed down to us by the ancients because it's still a very convenient length, but there's nothing special about it, and that means the method used to define a second is unimportant. What matters is time, and you have to think about time without dragging in any of the irrelevant junk associated with the second.
-
What?...............
Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.
I'm not trying to distort anything you said, but am merely responding to what you appear to be saying. If you're saying something different, you need to state things more clearly to avoid being misunderstood.
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''
Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.
Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''
A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR
The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''
[V] Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?
Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.
Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.
Aether is not a gaseous or liquid kind of beast - it's a fabric of some kind, although we can't reach out and feel it, so it's only reason that tells us it is there. If you reject reason, you can call it nothing if you wish, but that will cause you no end of trouble in explaining how things work.
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''
There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge. Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.
So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.
There is time travel, but it all goes forwards. There is arguably no time dilation - in LET there is an absolute time which always ticks at the same rate everywhere, but clocks can run slow due to increased communication distances in clocks when they move through space or due to a local lower speed of light. If you want that with your theory though, you're going to need an aether to control the way clocks run slow - without it you're stuffed. Without it you can't even have a consistent speed of light as no two photons will be able to keep pace with each other accurately due to the fact they'd be moving through absolutely nothing, having no way of determining how long it should take them to pass through the same length of nothing.
Thank you for sticking with this. I will just remind everyone that it took Maxwell 15 years after Faraday's thoughts to fit the maths.
Tesla was misunderstood and I am probably the original instigator of my ideas with 4 years of trying to express those ideas and in this time have seen echoes of my ideas across the net by other people.
''Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.''
I do not really imagine anything, I base my ideas on present science and try to extend those ideas rather than a complacent acceptance.
I do not really consider that we are at the center of the Universe, I consider we are at the center of our own observations.
The CBMR could of been present before the expansion and there is nothing to say that CBMR is not from an external source such as maybe a black hole or similar that causes a centripetal force/pressure to maintain our observation point in space.
Today's visual universe is finite by limited observation means, the visual Universe is matter and space, the Universe is empty infinite space, matter by observation occupies the Universe.
You call it a Universe and science tries to define a shape of/to the points of matter used for observation.
To be honest science plays dot to dot putting it bluntly, there is no sauce pans in space the same has the visual Universe has no shape either.
A defined pattern of matter by x force(s) does not change the shape of space itself, science is under the illusion of doing this and defines shape in a shapeless Universe by using points of matter.
''The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?''
My opinion is that your ''Aether'' is the CBMR, a low energy in the ''dark'' that is a conduit for EM radiation.
Another opinion is why would energy need a medium of some sort to travel through ?
I see the CBMR as a transmission energy medium which explains the dark areas on the cosmological model of CBMR.
''So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.''
The facts of infinite do obey your wishes, a box in a box in a box shows only one logical conclusion.
You can place a small box in a larger box then into another larger box for infinite times.
It is endless with only two options.
You either occupy a space within a solid within a space or you occupy a space within a space within space.
Very simple truths that show infinite for a certainty.
-
Again no, when you changed over in 1960 to a Caesium clock you used the old value of the old second meaning it is the same still. I understand the Earth is not an accurate clock , neither is the Caesium clock which is not a constant.
A second is merely a unit of time. We have to use some unit, so we've stuck with one that was handed down to us by the ancients because it's still a very convenient length, but there's nothing special about it, and that means the method used to define a second is unimportant. What matters is time, and you have to think about time without dragging in any of the irrelevant junk associated with the second.
Time itself without arbitrary use does not exist.
-
What?...............
Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.
I'm not trying to distort anything you said, but am merely responding to what you appear to be saying. If you're saying something different, you need to state things more clearly to avoid being misunderstood.
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''
Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.
Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''
A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR
The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''
[V] Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?
Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.
Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.
Aether is not a gaseous or liquid kind of beast - it's a fabric of some kind, although we can't reach out and feel it, so it's only reason that tells us it is there. If you reject reason, you can call it nothing if you wish, but that will cause you no end of trouble in explaining how things work.
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''
There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge. Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.
So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.
There is time travel, but it all goes forwards. There is arguably no time dilation - in LET there is an absolute time which always ticks at the same rate everywhere, but clocks can run slow due to increased communication distances in clocks when they move through space or due to a local lower speed of light. If you want that with your theory though, you're going to need an aether to control the way clocks run slow - without it you're stuffed. Without it you can't even have a consistent speed of light as no two photons will be able to keep pace with each other accurately due to the fact they'd be moving through absolutely nothing, having no way of determining how long it should take them to pass through the same length of nothing.
''Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.''
I pulled this to one side, think about what you said , you agree with me.
edit - Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and the object increases in distance,
not effecting space or expanding space.
A rocket travels through space.
The video also shows vanishing points, when an object is to far away it ''vanishes'' to sight, light can not be seen reflecting of it, even the same effect for light emitters.
In my video the object is still there but to small to see any more , you see a blackness background for this very reason.
I made another video, we have travelled level to the furthest away observed matter in the visual Universe, science says there is an imaginary wall, this is by a blankness in logic and none existence in reality.
Time can not be observed, all values are zero until matter passes by,
at the edge of space we fire an infra red missile at the wall, what do you think we would observe?
The perception science has about the Universe is a flat earth theory, there is no wall or an edge to fall off, it continues to be space.
-
Maybe I should of just posted what I have done so far.
Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality, in a primary respect to science process and to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting present naive set theories, by using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Po-den of arguments that opposes the present information by using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyses their information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) by showing construction of deductive proof's and falsifiable statement, a reality that looks at the true values of reality that humanity has quantified, showing by logical axioms, use of Armstrong axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
Introduction.
I accidentally fell into science with little prior knowledge and poor literate ability, but quickly became fasinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn, an education that was to be aided by various science interent forums.
The fasination soon became a passion and within time I was learning and understanding the knowledge.
However in certain aspects of Physics and process the information I was learning did not seem to make logical sense to myself and often resulted in forum bans by being stubborn in not accepting the discipline and by reason of myself poorly explaining my ideas, and I was at the time effectively still unclear of my own ideas and unable to put the ideas into a context that anyone else could understand.
I feel I have now achieved a better standard of literacy and I am able to express my ideas with clear intent.
Content
Part 1 - A theorist space Paradox opposing space time .
Part 2 - Light is a state Paradox.
Part 3 - Conclusion
Part 1- A Theorist space Paradox
Present information suggests -In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The space-time of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
I postulate that combining matter and time into a single manifold called ''Matter time in space'', that time is treated as moving with an object and time being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or an object and relatively dependent to gravitational fields as opposed to an object or observers motion in space time and a said space time dilation and space time curvature.
Time is not based on the movement of the Earth through a space time, the origin of time is the recorded rotation cycle of the Earth relative to the Sun's motion . Time exists with or with out the Earth in space but has no value that is measurable as a time period value unless that space is occupied by matter. We used the regular motion of the Earth to define an increment of time that matter occupies a space. The regular movement of the Earth was essentially our first 'ruler' to measure the passage of time. We now have much more accurate clocks to measure the passage of time that matter occupies a space, a device that uses an electronic transition frequency and the corresponding beats that are equal to one second of the original motion of a surface point on Earth that was taken, and made has close as possible to the original second based on motion..
Time is based by humanity on rotation of the planet, , based on movement of matter through space and occupying space and only when matter occupies a space does time accumulate in the occupied space, and once the space is then unoccupied, the value of the now unoccupied space resets back to a zero value.
Time in 3 dimensional space does not change and does not have direction or a value, it is infinite like space with no beginning or end unless occupied by matter creating a time accumulation in every dimension of space the matter occupies within the none moving time, we are the cause of time and time does not exist without our presence or the presence of matter but exists at the same time in a none value state.
Analogy 1- Point A and Point B , 100 miles distance between them. Point A has a velocity of 100 mph travelling towards Point B that has a 0 velocity. When Point A reaches Point B the journey took exactly 1 hour relative to the observer.
Throughout the entire journey relative to you , you observe the object and not the space, you observe time moving with the object, your focus is not of the space but on the object relative to you and relative to your time and reference frame.
Analogy 2- Observe any object in a stationary reference frame relative to you , the object you are observing occupies a space, the object you are observing occupies a dimension of space equal to the objects dimensions for the same accumulated time as you occupy your own dimensions in space observing the object.
Move the object you are observing to a different place a different dimension of space.
You will observe that the now unoccupied space from where you displaced the object that time now has no value, the value of time of the object is now displaced to another dimension of space you are observing.
Part 2.- Information processing by EM radiation-Paradox
Present information -Light usually refers to visible light, which is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight.
I postulate that light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, each of which content is capable of transmitting messages modulated onto light waves in their perceived spectral content that travel through the constant equilibrium of light to sight, a carrier signal to the brain, a communications protocol that is a system of digital rules for data exchange between light interactions with matter and within itself to the brain. Communicating systems use well-defined formats (protocol) for exchanging messages.
The information exchanged through a constant, the main means of mass communication—that is governed by rules and conventions that can be set out in technical specifications called communication protocol standards. The nature of a communication, the actual data exchanged and any state-dependent behaviours, is defined by its specification and the brains ability to interpret this information.
The basic difference between a parallel and a serial communication channel is the number of electrical conductors used at the physical layer to convey bits, this effect can be attributed to the transfer of energy from the light to an electron in the matter. From this perspective, an alteration in either the amplitude or wavelength of light would induce changes in the rate of emission of electrons from the matter.
A parallel communication is a method of conveying multiple binary digits (bits) simultaneously. It contrasts with serial communication, which conveys only a single bit at a time; this distinction is one way of characterizing a communications link to the brain that also becomes a duplicate transfer by mirrored properties, a period of changing from one state or condition to another by receivership.
A communication channel or channel, that refers to a physical transmission medium such as the constant of light in passive dark space, or to a logical connection over a multiplexed medium such as light. A Synchronization of the coordination of events to operate a system in unison to sight. The familiar conductor of an orchestra that serves to keep the orchestra in ''time''.
-
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.
-
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.
Ditto.
-
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.
When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach. Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.
Where am I going with time?
zero point space like I have mentioned before, to you a dimensional point of and in space, timeless points of nothing.
What is time ?
time is nothing.
What is arbitrary time?
Arbitrary time is an increment of observation of existence in a space, filling a dimension of dimensionless timeless space and making the space countable.
-
What is time ?
We already explained it to you. You chose not to learn.
-
When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach. Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.
You may prefer to operate with an empty head but what you are forgetting is all of the experimentation and effort expended by competent scientists to accumulate present day knowledge. And yes, we should be influenced by these great men of science because of the gain in knowledge mankind has accumulated.
If you prefer to start over and throw away everything we've learned over the past 100 years, you're disadvantaging your position. Do you really think you can do better with the few short years you've been given. You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge through the experience of others.
-
You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge by the experience of others.
Unless he is arrogant.
-
What is time ?
We already explained it to you. You chose not to learn.
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
-
When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach. Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.
You may prefer to operate with an empty head but what you are forgetting is all of the experimentation and effort expended by competent scientists to accumulate present day knowledge. And yes, we should be influenced by these great men of science because of the gain in knowledge mankind has accumulated.
If you prefer to start over and throw away everything we've learned over the past 100 years, you're disadvantaging your position. Do you really think you can do better with the few short years you've been given. You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge through the experience of others.
That is not what I was saying or said, that is your own mind interpreting something different to what I said.
-
You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge by the experience of others.
Unless he is arrogant.
Again name calling, deflection from the thread, one of the same persons from the other forum.
-
When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach. Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.
-
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
What ever gave you the impression that you have right to insult me like this? Don't you know that when you joined this forum you agreed to follow the forum rules and one of those rules is that you are not allowed to post other members. In this case you're insulting my intelligence. You also mistakenly think that you can read minds. Let me educate you on that point. At least with me you can't read my mind. You therefore made a false accusation that I merely chose to accept the definition of time without questioning it and made the horrible mistake that you thought that you actually taught me something. Hint: You don't have enough knowledge or experience to correct anything I say or derive regarding physics. You're simply too ignorant in this area right now. Perhaps in 20 years that might change but today you're quite wrong. You never have taught me anything so you can't make a legitimate claim that you're teaching me. You know damn well, as do I and everyone else who is posting in this thread, that you're only making that claim to irritate me. The so-called "definition" of time that I showed you (actually it's impossible to define time for the reasons explained there) is as perfect as can be. My friend Alan Guth read it and agrees with me. He's a cosmologist at MIT and on the track to win a Nobel Prize in physics. He already won many other prizes in physics as well as the Kavli prize in Astrophysics:
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-kavli-prize
He's a renown physicist and a first rate physicist to boot. And he damn well knows more than you in physics. I know a damn well more than you in physics. But as long as you keep insulting and irritating people here with your accusations that you're so much smarter and more correct than everyone you're not going to learn or get any better and you'll be ignored.
Now it's time for me to tell you how I know that my understanding is better than yours. Yours makes no sense. You claim that there's only time where there is matter. But you haven't said what time is by this statement. All you've done is to describe a property of time. Here's why I know you don't know why yours is better than the old and thus it needed to be changed. You've demonstrated NO knowledge or understanding that you know anything about what time is "defined" by all mainstream physicists. You haven't even take on one statement or even a word from that description of time I gave you and tried to shoot it down. You can't make any claims that a definition is wrong if you have no knowledge of the definition.
What physicists call "time" is the parameter "t" that appears in equations and elsewhere. However its only differences in "t" that play a strong role in physics. It's analogous to the potential energy of a particle, V. V is defined only within an arbitrary additive constant. Kinetic energy K and rest energy E0 added to V forum the total energy E and it's E that is conserved. So "V" plays an important role in energy conservation just like time "t" plays a role in physics, especially when defining spacetime. In your crackpot definition of time, spacetime cannot be defined. You imply that such a thing is okay but don't prove it. Special and General Relativity are theories in which spacetime plays a large role. In fact it's spacetime curvature that replaces tidal gradients in general relativity.
So stop with your arrogant and ignorant attitude. You already appear to us as a crackpot so why make it worse for yourself?
-
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
What ever gave you the impression that you have right to insult me like this? Don't you know that when you joined this forum you agreed to follow the forum rules and one of those rules is that you are not allowed to post other members. In this case you're insulting my intelligence. You also mistakenly think that you can read minds. Let me educate you on that point. At least with me you can't read my mind. You therefore made a false accusation that I merely chose to accept the definition of time without questioning it and made the horrible mistake that you thought that you actually taught me something. Hint: You don't have enough knowledge or experience to correct anything I say or derive regarding physics. You're simply too ignorant in this area right now. Perhaps in 20 years that might change but today you're quite wrong. You never have taught me anything so you can't make a legitimate claim that you're teaching me. You know damn well, as do I and everyone else who is posting in this thread, that you're only making that claim to irritate me. The so-called "definition" of time that I showed you (actually it's impossible to define time for the reasons explained there) is as perfect as can be. My friend Alan Guth read it and agrees with me. He's a cosmologist at MIT and on the track to win a Nobel Prize in physics. He already won many other prizes in physics as well as the Kavli prize in Astrophysics:
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-kavli-prize
He's a renown physicist and a first rate physicist to boot. And he damn well knows more than you in physics. I know a damn well more than you in physics. But as long as you keep insulting and irritating people here with your accusations that you're so much smarter and more correct than everyone you're not going to learn or get any better and you'll be ignored.
Now it's time for me to tell you how I know that my understanding is better than yours. Yours makes no sense. You claim that there's only time where there is matter. But you haven't said what time is by this statement. All you've done is to describe a property of time. Here's why I know you don't know why yours is better than the old and thus it needed to be changed. You've demonstrated NO knowledge or understanding that you know anything about what time is "defined" by all mainstream physicists. You haven't even take on one statement or even a word from that description of time I gave you and tried to shoot it down. You can't make any claims that a definition is wrong if you have no knowledge of the definition.
What physicists call "time" is the parameter "t" that appears in equations and elsewhere. However its only differences in "t" that play a strong role in physics. It's analogous to the potential energy of a particle, V. V is defined only within an arbitrary additive constant. Kinetic energy K and rest energy E0 added to V forum the total energy E and it's E that is conserved. So "V" plays an important role in energy conservation just like time "t" plays a role in physics, especially when defining spacetime. In your crackpot definition of time, spacetime cannot be defined. You imply that such a thing is okay but don't prove it. Special and General Relativity are theories in which spacetime plays a large role. In fact it's spacetime curvature that replaces tidal gradients in general relativity.
So stop with your arrogant and ignorant attitude. You already appear to us as a crackpot so why make it worse for yourself?
That is not an insult, that is me being arrogant in response to sciences arrogance.
Let me correct this for you
''Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.''
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.
Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''
The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Measuring a casting of a shadows movement on a sundial is putting a period of ''time'' to a distance of movement, a timing and not a time. The time you observe whilst timing is your own time, timing the action.
The ball rolling down a hill from A-B is an increment equal to your time observing,
A block of ''time'' in a infinite timeless time.
-
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.
Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
Incorrect yet once again. Then again you didn't read the page I showed you nor my posts very well so this ignorance is to be expected. Changes might not take place relative to anything having to do with different places in space but could be with respect to a single location in space such as the shutting off or turning on of an LED which, according to an observer, takes place at a single place in space in a particular reference frame. That it has structure which means that it spans a small amount of space is unrelated to the fact that motion is not a factor here.
You also failed to understand that time cannot be defined like other concepts can. This is because its a fundamental concept. Any attempt to define it will lead to a circularity. The same thing happens with certain mathematical terms. You made the mistake over and over that you were at liberty to create your own definition of time. In reality all you were doing is choosing to use the term "time" in your own particular way when in fact the term was created to describe the phenomena relating to change in the universe
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''
The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Yet another mistake. First off that's an extremely sloppy sentence. This is why so many people keep saying that they don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is pure gibberish.
Please take at least one physics course and one course in writing before you come back here again. You're embarrassing yourself again.
It's for reasons like this that you're on the crackpot list. You're second only after jccc. It's a very close race though.
-
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.
Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
Incorrect yet once again. Then again you didn't read the page I showed you nor my posts very well so this ignorance is to be expected. Changes might not take place relative to anything having to do with different places in space but could be with respect to a single location in space such as the shutting off or turning on of an LED which, according to an observer, takes place at a single place in space in a particular reference frame. That it has structure which means that it spans a small amount of space is unrelated to the fact that motion is not a factor here.
You also failed to understand that time cannot be defined like other concepts can. This is because its a fundamental concept. Any attempt to define it will lead to a circularity. The same thing happens with certain mathematical terms. You made the mistake over and over that you were at liberty to create your own definition of time. In reality all you were doing is choosing to use the term "time" in your own particular way when in fact the term was created to describe the phenomena relating to change in the universe
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''
The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Yet another mistake. First off that's an extremely sloppy sentence. This is why so many people keep saying that they don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is pure gibberish.
Please take at least one physics course and one course in writing before you come back here again. You're embarrassing yourself again.
It's for reasons like this that you're on the crackpot list. You're second only after jccc. It's a very close race though.
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space. The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
-
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.
First of all your main problem is that you want to change what you think the term "time" refers to (which you really have no idea what it means) but you haven't even explained or proved that there is any problem with the meaning as it now stands. So you claim its wrong, huh? Fine! Then prove it!
There are four errors in this statement.
1) It's not my definition.
2) It's not even a definition (you keep ignoring that fact for some reason).
3) It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.
4) The description of time as given in the sources are the correct description
The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm, (1979).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_3/index.html
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time.html
The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
You sure can't write a meaningful sentence, can you? That makes no sense whatsoever! What do you mean by "you can record time in a space that is not your own time"???
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
Then if you're so cocksure of yourself then prove it! First prove that you know what "my" definition of "spacetime" is and then prove that it's "incorrect" and then prove what it means for someone else's definition to be incorrect.
You have absolutely no logic to your arguments. It has no meaning to say that someone's definition is incorrect. That you can't fathom that fact is the kind of thing that put you near the top of the crackpot list.
-
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.
First of all your main problem is that you want to change what you think the term "time" refers to (which you really have no idea what it means) but you haven't even explained or proved that there is any problem with the meaning as it now stands. So you claim its wrong, huh? Fine! Then prove it!
There are four errors in this statement.
1) It's not my definition.
2) It's not even a definition (you keep ignoring that fact for some reason).
3) It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.
4) The description of time as given in the sources are the correct description
The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm, (1979).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_3/index.html
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time.html
The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
You sure can't write a meaningful sentence, can you? That makes no sense whatsoever! What do you mean by "you can record time in a space that is not your own time"???
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
Then if you're so cocksure of yourself then prove it! First prove that you know what "my" definition of "spacetime" is and then prove that it's "incorrect" and then prove what it means for someone else's definition to be incorrect.
You have absolutely no logic to your arguments. It has no meaning to say that someone's definition is incorrect. That you can't fathom that fact is the kind of thing that put you near the top of the crackpot list.
Your links more or less say what I have been talking about. I can define time other than arbitrary use.
Space-time is 3 dimensions of space and a forth dimension of time, the problem is space has no dimensions .
try dimensions that fill a space that are timed occupying that space whilst travelling through space.
-
All I see is an uninteresting assertion that time doesn't exist in space when there's nothing in that space to show time passing. It's a bit like talking about there being no sound when a tree falls in a forest if there's no one there to hear it - it's something that cannot be proved either way and which is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Dull and trivial.
-
All I see is an uninteresting assertion that time doesn't exist in space when there's nothing in that space to show time passing. It's a bit like talking about there being no sound when a tree falls in a forest if there's no one there to hear it - it's something that cannot be proved either way and which is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Dull and trivial.
It proves the truth but you say it is uninteresting,
there is no sound from a falling tree, sound is a wave conversion, the actual wave makes no sound. You detect waves and covert it into a sound, your brain again I am afraid to say.
-
If sound is a wave compression, the sound is there even if no one is there to hear it, but if you consider sound to be the experience inside the head of a hearing creature like a human, then there is no sound where a tree falls out of range of the hearing of such creatures. However, there's also the philosophical argument that not only is the sound not there, but the tree might not exist when there's no one there looking at it. That is closer to what I actually had in mind when comparing this with your argument about empty space not having time.
-
If sound is a wave compression, the sound is there even if no one is there to hear it, but if you consider sound to be the experience inside the head of a hearing creature like a human, then there is no sound where a tree falls out of range of the hearing of such creatures. However, there's also the philosophical argument that not only is the sound not there, but the tree might not exist when there's no one there looking at it. That is closer to what I actually had in mind when comparing this with your argument about empty space not having time.
No the tree exists whether or not you can see it, tie a string around a tree and close your eyes and pull the string.
The tree is definitely there.
Anyone who mentions Holographic universe, do we really exist, are talking utter crap.
-
Try not to attack the point by distorting the analogy away from what it is there to illustrate. Analogies are almost always inadequate in a multitude of ways, but homing in on irrelevant points where they fail does nothing to rescue you from your hopeless position. I can keep modifying the analogy to eliminate any defect you spot in it, but all that happens is that the key issue is being avoided rather than being addressed.
Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't. Your argument that empty space has no time in it is equivalent to that - if you can't detect the passing of time in space which has no matter in it, there is no time there. But time could continue to be there regardless of your inability to detect it, so all you're doing is making an assertion that can't be proved by experiment (and which is also logically bankrupt). If empty space contains no time, there is no time in which that space is empty, so there is no such thing as an empty bit of space. But if you eliminate a chunk of space from the rest of space on the basis that it is empty, has no time and cannot exist, you will find all the parts of space that aren't empty compressing in together to eliminate all the empty voids such that two elephants a mile apart with nothing but empty space between them will suddenly find themselves right next to each other with all the separation irrecoverably lost.
-
Try not to attack the point by distorting the analogy away from what it is there to illustrate. Analogies are almost always inadequate in a multitude of ways, but homing in on irrelevant points where they fail does nothing to rescue you from your hopeless position. I can keep modifying the analogy to eliminate any defect you spot in it, but all that happens is that the key issue is being avoided rather than being addressed.
Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't. Your argument that empty space has no time in it is equivalent to that - if you can't detect the passing of time in space which has no matter in it, there is no time there. But time could continue to be there regardless of your inability to detect it, so all you're doing is making an assertion that can't be proved by experiment (and which is also logically bankrupt). If empty space contains no time, there is no time in which that space is empty, so there is no such thing as an empty bit of space. But if you eliminate a chunk of space from the rest of space on the basis that it is empty, has no time and cannot exist, you will find all the parts of space that aren't empty compressing in together to eliminate all the empty voids such that two elephants a mile apart with nothing but empty space between them will suddenly find themselves right next to each other with all the separation irrecoverably lost.
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''
What? there is no argument of the such, a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.
These are my thoughts you are hearing in your own voice in your head has you read this.
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own. Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.
I am simply stating fact and truths, science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?
-
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''
What? there is no argument of the such, a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.
But it's the same as your argument - if there's no means to measure the tree because there's nothing there to measure it, it doesn't exist.
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.
Science cannot record the existence of the tree when it isn't recording the existence of the tree.
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own. Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.
No, all you're doing is asserting that time is not there in empty space in the same way I'm asserting that the tree doesn't exist except when its existence is actively being measured in some way.
I am simply stating fact and truths,
No, you're simply pushing an unbacked assertion and calling it a fact when it is nothing of the kind.
science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.
I'm no fan of Spacetime, but why turn that into a denial of time in empty space? You have provided no proof whatsoever that time doesn't exist in empty space, and yet you assert that it's a fact that it doesn't exist there. You tie time to matter instead, but matter is merely revealing the existence of time by showing you that it can change in various ways.
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?
I don't find that a meaningful question. Space is an arena in which things can exist and move around. Time is something that enables movement and change. Spacetime is a concept from a particular theory which tries to treat time as a dimension like a space dimension rather than allowing time to run in the Newtonian way, leading to the idea of a block universe in which the past, present and future are eternal and time has an arrow rather than running or flowing. (I personally reject the Spacetime model on the basis that it destroys all possibility of cause and effect, but that's another issue).
-
I don't find that a meaningful question.
That's because it isn't. He does that a great deal of the time. That's why I had to stop bothering with him. He just can't see his mistakes.
-
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''
What? there is no argument of the such, a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.
But it's the same as your argument - if there's no means to measure the tree because there's nothing there to measure it, it doesn't exist.
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.
Science cannot record the existence of the tree when it isn't recording the existence of the tree.
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own. Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.
No, all you're doing is asserting that time is not there in empty space in the same way I'm asserting that the tree doesn't exist except when its existence is actively being measured in some way.
I am simply stating fact and truths,
No, you're simply pushing an unbacked assertion and calling it a fact when it is nothing of the kind.
science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.
I'm no fan of Spacetime, but why turn that into a denial of time in empty space? You have provided no proof whatsoever that time doesn't exist in empty space, and yet you assert that it's a fact that it doesn't exist there. You tie time to matter instead, but matter is merely revealing the existence of time by showing you that it can change in various ways.
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?
I don't find that a meaningful question. Space is an arena in which things can exist and move around. Time is something that enables movement and change. Spacetime is a concept from a particular theory which tries to treat time as a dimension like a space dimension rather than allowing time to run in the Newtonian way, leading to the idea of a block universe in which the past, present and future are eternal and time has an arrow rather than running or flowing. (I personally reject the Spacetime model on the basis that it destroys all possibility of cause and effect, but that's another issue).
You are missing the point, go look at a tree, you can see that tree, while you observing that tree observe the transparent space around the tree. You can never observe transparent space.
You observe your time and the tree's time, you do not observe any transparent time or space-time.
It just came to me,
What is time?
Time is observed timing increments of matter through a transparent time that has no values.
Analogy- You are observing nothing that travels from point (a) to point (b) , nothing's velocity is ? miles an hour, the distance between (a) and (b) is 5m.
How much time does it take for nothing to travel 5m?
(a)0.......................................................................................(b)0
do you see, nothing takes no time to arrive at (b)
Nothing is infinite and faster than the speed of the light, nothing is instant, nothing is never occupied for a very long increment of time, everything is moving in the universe.
XYZ are 3 imaginary lines in space, with an imaginary time added, it is none existence, xyz is to represent a cubic volume of space for the purpose of space travel or our boys would get lost.
trajectory and velocity, an arbitrary man made function.
Anyway my days and time on science will end soon, no one is bothered for sure or believes it. I need to go out and get a Job, waste my time on being some robot following commands.
At least I know I tried and if you do not get it after this post I really do not know what else to say.
I brought transparent space to science, a dark passive transparent space, I brought science that dark is not the absence of light but the absence of sight and brain function, a state of being, it is technically always light and there is always some form of light present even in pitch black.
(M1)0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(m2)
t=(M1)
t=(m2)
0=dDtv = distance of dependent time travelled relative to velocity
00000000000000(M1)000000000000000000000(m2)
00000000000000000000000000(M1)000000000(M2)
000000(m1)(M2)00000000000000
Maybe you will understand a zig zag better.
m1 m2 m1
m1 m2 m1
m1 m2 m1
m1 m2 m1
m1 m2 m1
m1 m2 m1
m1,2
...
c=>00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> m1 >m3 >0 >0
> 0 >0 >0 >0 >0 >0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 <=c
>0 >0 >0 >0 >0 >0
>0 > 0 >0 >0 >0
>m2 >m4
c=>000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
c=>00000>(m1)0000000000000000(m2)<0000000000000000000
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/assignment-discovery-shorts-black-hole-the-singularity/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=DiscoveryChannel
The space still exists, dependent time exists because ,
Whilst the probe is in a black hole relative to the probe time exists dependent of the probe. A dimension of space is still occupied by the probe.
-
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'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.
In the diagrams you will notice < and >, they are direction tags.
You will also notice c=000000000000000000000 with direction tags . c being the speed of light constant.
You will also notice colour coding, red being red shift relative to light and blue being blue shift.
You will also notice angled and curvature path.
''but you haven't explained why time can't be there even though there's no matter in that region of empty space''
Because real time is the atomic decay of something, you are a something, you are born and time starts for you when you occupy a space, to grow and then eventually to decay, a nothing can not decay, therefore there is no time in nothing. Nothing is infinite and immortal, something is mortal.
Complex is good, complex is real.
A star is born a star dies
''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 ''
I can snap a branch and walk away with the branch from a tree , I can observe the branch even though I can not observe the tree that exists from where I took the branch. You can go observe that tree if you wish, you will see a missing branch, a missing branch I turned into a sweeping brush.
A tree is not a comparison to nothing of an emptiness. Nothing surrounds me always .
You see a nothing between your eyes and an object except a distance.
The tree will have a perspective vanishing point, a pair of Bino's will show the tree is still there.
By your logic because I can not see other galaxies, they are not there.
''no one actively detecting its existence ''
You can not actively detect time in a space that is the difference.
-
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.
-
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.
The properties of space is energy within that space, remove the energy and there is still space.
We have matter within that space which is atoms which is energy, we also have a presence of EMR and CBR, a Physical presence of energy but without structure or form.
A presence that is see through to all observers, a dark passive space that is transparent to light and when light is present transparent to sight.
There is several constants and time not being one of them.
If there is nothing to decay then that nothing has no time. It is unarguable.
If I was made of nothing how would you end my time?
if i was made of energy how would you destroy me?
Maybe I should just write an essay type theory of everything.
-
If 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.
if 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 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.
if 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 aimed at finding a conclusion by experiment and unifying the process by the function of maths.
That style of writing?
-
''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.
a 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.
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?
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.
-
''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.
a 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.
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?
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.
I am English , and the writing is not a copy and paste, it is a mimic and alter to my wording from other peoples styles and wording.
My own work using other work as a guide.
Was it understood in that way?
-
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.
-
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. 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.
I certainly consider that time is decay for an object or observer. That is the truthful meaning relative to us. Even a fool knows that space can not decay, things in and of that space can decay, but the space is infinite in its existence.
Space can not be destroyed it can only be occupied, this alone shows no space time can exist.
3, Prove my definition works? science already uses my definition the maths does not alter just the understanding, the same with all my ideas. Maths that is invented and designed to fit the process because it fits the actions and can be repeated and can not alter unless at any stage in the process there is something different in the process happening.
I originally labelled my idea A Time Paradox.
4, I do not know when I learnt about time, most forums insisted time was a clock as such, only by the links provided on this forum did I get a true understanding, I think at times I am saying the same thing as science maybe, by the links provided .
I have got a feeling this is why they called me a troll, I was saying stuff they already knew that I did not know they already knew.
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.
In all honesty though, what I say is my own thoughts about a process from thinking about the knowledge I now do possess.
-
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.
So you're stereotyping me and then you both judge and criticize me based on those invalid assumptions?? That's just plain bad juju!! Not only is that a logical fallacy but it's just plain rude. Why would you do something like that rather than merely directly asking me what I know or have done?
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 have no problem with radical or ideas. That's exactly what relativity and quantum mechanics is - radical and bizarre. What I have a problem with is logically inconsistent ideas, ideas which don't work and/or are in conflict with experimental observations. E.g. you went right ahead with your new "definition" of time without considering whether it would work in practice. I.e. does it make sense in the lab and so demonstrate how.
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.
Do you know what science is? For something to be called science it must follow something called The Scientific Method which is defined as follows:
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.
See? It's comments like this that make it hard to understand you. E.g. what does "presently have no right" mean?
I apologise for trying to judge you by text alone when I have never met you in person.
Thank you.
2, The only proof in Physics of time is by thought, what we deem as time is for arbitrary use.
The idea of "proof" does not belong in physics. A friend of mine is a famous cosmologist from MIT. His name is Alan Guth. I took a video of him talking on this point. Do yourself a favor and watch it. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/DSC_0002.MOV
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.
TB - That's certainly not how physics, or any science, works. We don't accept or reject something because it "feels" right.
Also you wrote yet again a confusing sentence. Do you carefully read what you're posting? E.g. what does the following mean?
The proof I need is thought that is better than the present ...
We can't make heads or tails out of your sentences when they're written like this. Please do me a favor and make your sentences readable and make sense in the future.
I certainly consider that time is decay for an object or observer.
Again, this makes no sense. What does "time is decay for an object" mean?
3, Prove my definition works? science already uses my definition ..
Since when? You define time only to exist where space isn't empty. However you haven't explained how that applies to, say, quantum mechanics. E.g. the definition of the wave function is that the square of the modulus is probability density of where a particle will be found. What does time only existing where space is not empty work in an example like this? Clearly we have no idea whether something is at a location or not until we observe it so how do we give meaning to the probability density if we use your concept of time? Then there's the flow of probability in and out of a region of space. And what does it mean for an object to be in a region of space? What about light or point particles like that found in particle physics?
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.
It's not useful to create ideas if they don't clearly improve on something. I don't see your ideas doing that. All I see is confusing statements. Frankly I see several people, myself included, saying that they can't understand what you're saying. Don't blame them, look at yourself in these cases.
Please understand that I'm certainly not trying to hurt you. I'm only trying to help you. Don't you think you could learn something from me given that I've been doing this for some 30 years now? What thoughts have I had during those 30 years considering the fact that most of my thoughts during the day, all day, for the last 30 years have been on physics. I've spent countless hours working out problems and reading journal articles during those 30 years in addition to my career work. I've seen people make all sorts of attempts to prove theories wrong for the last 15 years and not one of the thousands of them has ever come close. All of them has serious flaws in them.
In your case its hard to even see what you're saying because it's difficult to get passed the semantics. It seems as if you're trying to create new theories by changing the way something is worded.
-
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.
Thank you for your post. This is more coherent and understandable than most of your previous posts.
I stopped responding to your posts because I saw what I judged to be arrogance and a view that I was avoiding your questions even though I was trying my best to answer. Your post, however, shows more humility and understanding of yourself than previous posts, which might compensate for the sadness I have felt that you were preventing yourself achieving what you are fully capable of.
I will make a few comments based on the understandable and coherent sections:
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. And that faith is well placed, much of what I have learnt serves me well and allows me understand and to predict how the world around me (and beyond) works. If something works I will use it, I can use Newtons Laws and not worry that they are inaccurate because of something Einstein said. If I find something that doesn't work the way it is predicted I will question it and try to find out why.
In some areas however, we see through a glass darkly. We have glimpses, but they are like shadows or reflections. This is particularly true of fundamental concepts like space and time. In those cases we have to make some assumptions, test out those ideas, talk to others about them. This is the value of this forum. We can all learn, I know I am. I don't assume I know everything or that my view is always right.
I hope you will continue to explore. There are many false assumptions out there, but we need the humility to accept that some of those will be our own.
But, whatever you do don't sell yourself short, learn some basic physics.
PS when pressing Submit I see that a response has been posted, I will continue however ..
-
I think you misjudge PmbPhy and the others on this forum.
Thanks. He really is misjudging me, big time. It's very irritating when someone with hardly any real education and/or background in physics claims that I'm as ignorant and closed minded as he thinks I am.
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!
Do you really mean "bodmas"? Before you mentioned this I never heard the term before. What does it mean?
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."
Physicists simply do not think the way he is imaging them to think. Physicists are trained to question everything. We're corrected if we simply accepted something because the teacher says Because I said so, that's why! The exercise problems in texts are designed to make the student think about these things.
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.
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.
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.
That's a brilliant point to make and not one that most people understand. There simply isn't enough time to do that. What we do is learn the system and how it works and see how papers are peer reviewed and learn by experience how much to trust a paper.
But, whatever you do don't sell yourself short, learn some basic physics.
That's a great point. If only the people who started all these posts about new theories actually took the time to properly learn the theory that they're claiming is wrong.
-
''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.''
space is already filling the void why would it collapse?
space exists whether or not I and you exist, space is infinite and can never be destroyed.
Release has many nuclear weapons as you like and after the explosions the space will remain there unaltered in dimensions with the exception of a big crater displacing the ground.
My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.
-
Do you really mean "bodmas"? Before you mentioned this I never heard the term before. What does it mean?
There are various versions of it, just a mnemonic for remembering the order of arithmetic calculation. The teacher was marking children's arithmatic as wrong, when it was clearly right. Couldn't understand what I was talking about!! (but then neither can I half the time!)
Note: my fingers put D & M wrong way - that ole dyslexia coming on ag'n
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.
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.
Good point, I should have seen that coming [:)]. I had thought of saying that I often view the sun as going around the earth. The sun rises! Various calculations I make during a walk without a compass. Didn't want to confuse!!
Problem with many people is they claim to think outside the box, but don't know what's inside! How do you know you're thinking outside?
-
My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.
Right
That's the end of that conversation then!
-
''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.
-
''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.
Sorry F.I.F.Y
-
My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.
Right
That's the end of that conversation then!
Sorry meaning I know my own version of events and the why's .
-
Sorry F.I.F.Y
What does "F.I.F.Y" mean?
-
''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.
He did actually state who he was quoting - he took a little chunk out of one of my posts on another thread and quoted it here as shown below (note that the replies following at are directed to him and not to you):-
''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.''
space is already filling the void why would it collapse?
Your space is nothing, so it can't fill anything. It has no time, so it doesn't belong with anything else in the universe and simply cannot be there.
space exists whether or not I and you exist, space is infinite and can never be destroyed.
Your empty space has no time and is thereby destroyed.
Release has many nuclear weapons as you like and after the explosions the space will remain there unaltered in dimensions with the exception of a big crater displacing the ground.
But if space is nothing it isn't there for anything to exist in.
My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.
Well, get it written up as an ebook as I told you to and make some money with it.
-
He did actually state who he was quoting - he took a little chunk out of one of my posts on another thread and quoted it here as shown below (note that the replies following at are directed to him and not to you):-
Well, I'll be a son of a gun! I swear to you that I did a search using those terms and found nothing in this entire thread that matched. I swear that I feel like I'm in the twilight zone!
-
Sorry F.I.F.Y
What does "F.I.F.Y" mean?
fixed it for you.
-
He did actually state who he was quoting - he took a little chunk out of one of my posts on another thread and quoted it here as shown below (note that the replies following at are directed to him and not to you):-
Well, I'll be a son of a gun! I swear to you that I did a search using those terms and found nothing in this entire thread that matched. I swear that I feel like I'm in the twilight zone!
Oh, I see now - he added my name later to fix it, so it wasn't there originally. You won't find the original text that he quoted from in this thread though - he took it from another thread and responded to it here.
-
... I swear that I feel like I'm in the twilight zone!
I've felt like that for a long time in these posts. Duby, duby, duby, duby,,,,, Duby, duby, duby, duby.
-
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.
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
-
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain. It's you're assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified. It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."
-
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain. It's you're assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified. It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."
Be careful with this - ''It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."'
Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.
-
Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.
If you weren't so ignorant about physics then you'd know the problem with that assertion and why its so wrong. We've lost patience with you since you clearly have no wish to learn the correct physics and only want to go around claiming how wrong everyone including Einstein is. So we're not wasting our time with you anymore.
-
Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.
If you weren't so ignorant about physics then you'd know the problem with that assertion and why its so wrong. We've lost patience with you since you clearly have no wish to learn the correct physics and only want to go around claiming how wrong everyone including Einstein is. So we're not wasting our time with you anymore.
Can you honestly say that it is not you understanding me, and you being ignorant and set in your ways?
Nothing is absolute , proto-science always. I have said nobody is wrong, I am extending their thoughts, I know what time is exactly but I am saving that for a section in my everything theory. Where it will be explained and understood, and not in my quick reply standard notes.
-
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain.
It was most certainly not logically sound - that is the point I've been making in various threads where I show that it leads to infinite numbers of contradictions. (E.g. http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=65 (http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=65) - this link may not be accessible to everyone as it leads to your forum and you've been talking about making everything hidden to non-members, but it will take you through an argument which demonstrates that Einstein's claim is categorically false. It does this by showing that for his claim to be correct, 2 would have to be equal to 1/2.)
It's your assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified.
It is a claim which I have backed up with a logical argument that proves my claim to be correct. If you think it isn't, feel free to point to any part of the argument which you think goes against reason. If you don't want to accept that 2 = 1/2 and think the argument I linked to fails to tie that kind of contradiction to Einstein's claim, it ought to be dead easy for you to point to a place where my argument breaks down, but I can guarantee that you won't be able to do so.
It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."
That is no excuse for pushing assertions as logically sound when they are actually logically disproven. When you claim that Einstein's claim was logically sound, you are immediately stepping beyond the special language of physics by tagging it under logic, and under that tag your claim is completely unjustifiable. Please check my argument carefully and take the time to think this whole thing through for yourself.