0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 14/10/2017 13:14:52Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 12:38:10The paradox is that multiple systems, side by side, operating in the tiny Plank increments of time and distance, can be out of sync with each other,How can time be out of sync if we used a time Planck, surely the constant of light over such a negligible distance would be constant for all observers?Solely from my perspective, if two systems are separated by some distance, my take on the relativity of simultaneity says that the same increment of time can’t occur simultaneously for both systems.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 12:38:10The paradox is that multiple systems, side by side, operating in the tiny Plank increments of time and distance, can be out of sync with each other,How can time be out of sync if we used a time Planck, surely the constant of light over such a negligible distance would be constant for all observers?
The paradox is that multiple systems, side by side, operating in the tiny Plank increments of time and distance, can be out of sync with each other,
The relativity of simultaneity fails if time dilation is explained away. The only simultaneity I have found is the difference in timing of seeing things. If an observer on Earth was using a Planck light clock and an observer on planet x was using an identical clock, I would be pretty confident that our relative timing would be synchronous at rest or in motion. But in all honestly I do not think I fully understand simultaneity. What are they saying by this?
Quote from: Thebox on 14/10/2017 14:10:54The relativity of simultaneity fails if time dilation is explained away. The only simultaneity I have found is the difference in timing of seeing things. If an observer on Earth was using a Planck light clock and an observer on planet x was using an identical clock, I would be pretty confident that our relative timing would be synchronous at rest or in motion. But in all honestly I do not think I fully understand simultaneity. What are they saying by this? I understand it to mean that no two events happen simultaneously for any two observers in relative motion with each other.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 14/10/2017 00:58:07π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.I am not totally sure what you mean by that, I worked out the PI constant part, but circles have curves and curves are a longer path than a linear. I am not sure how circular could calculate a linear?
π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.
That is roughly what I thought. Yes if we used tP (time Planck) I can show simultaneous. The simultaneity they mention I refer to sight related. If the Sun was to explode for example, a person on Mercury would see it happen before a person on Earth. (Dependent to sight working like we think it works). It is interesting that if we look at the Lorentz length contractions and remove the length of the carriage replacing it with tP, it shows no length contraction. What are you thoughts on the thought experiment of the Lorentz contractions?In the original , the observe sees the light to angle , this only because of the imaginary discrete time. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eqBE1ksAEsNow if we were to use tP removing the added distance of future time, the observer observes a linearity of the light.
Quote from: Thebox on 14/10/2017 01:03:29Quote from: Petrochemicals on 14/10/2017 00:58:07π is the standard next moment colculated from this one.I am not totally sure what you mean by that, I worked out the PI constant part, but circles have curves and curves are a longer path than a linear. I am not sure how circular could calculate a linear? Well its the rate of change ? The unmeasurable analogue difference. Why is the need for linear time so accepted, if space can be curved why not time ? Infact it must be curved to allow time to progress if time dilation relativity etc are true ?. If you where a twin orbiting the planet you may want to turn around every now and again so the right side of you does not end up looking alot different in age than the left !
My view is that the length of the arms is not affected by length contraction as the gravitational wave passes, but instead, the wave energy density of the space along the arm’s paths changes as the gravitational wave passes. The premise is that the speed of light varies relative to the wave energy density of the space it is traversing, and if the wave energy density is different along each LIGO arm as a result of the passing high energy gravitational wave, then the light speed will be different along each arm, and the alarm is activated, and a LIGO event is recorded.
I am finding it hard to comment on this because I do not really understand LIGO or do I think there is a gravitational wave .
Quote from: Thebox on 15/10/2017 14:36:39I am finding it hard to comment on this because I do not really understand LIGO or do I think there is a gravitational wave . Not understanding LIGO can be remedied using your favorite search engine. If you study the instrument and the theory behind why it works, you will begin to gain knowledge about gravitational waves at the same time.As for not being ready to comment on my views, I understand, because my views go way beyond the point that a person just in the process of making sense out of generally accepted physics and cosmology is ready for. It is a long slow process to go beyond the boundary of known science and get into speculations about the “as yet” unknowns. Just remember some advice from me, that learning science works best if you see it as being made up of a set of invariant natural laws, and as yet, we only know or understand some portion of them.
What are your thoughts on the mechanics of the workings of gravity?
I had stated my axioms, including the three infinities of space, time, and energy,
that in my view the universe has always existed. That means that there has always been matter and energy,
I do no think that you could possibly have axioms when concerning infinite space, time and energy. The reason would be you could never reach an end point to prove it was infinite, the boundary could be just that little bit further.
I would agree that space has always existed and just is.
As for matter and energy , I would have some doubts in my mind of always existing. My question would be though , how to make something out of nothing?
Now in reality it is hard to think of a Physical process from nothing to something. But it is not hard to imagine something out of nothing in a sense of that we could just make things up . i.e The Big Bang.So in respect to that, is it only imagination that imagines nothing to begin with? Why could we not imagine there was always something?
I am not sure you will understand this, but could you imagine compared to an infinite universe , everything has 0 dimensions?
Imagine looking at any size object and traveling away from it . The eventually is the object will have 0 dimensions to your observation regardless the size of object.
You are holding out against the spatial infinity based of the lowest possibility that some boundary could be discovered
1) God did it, which is not scientific. 2) Something from nothing, which is not scientific. 3) Always existed, which is my choice.
so our distancing ourselves from it is only creating an illusion that its dimensions are shrinking toward 0, agreed?
There is a few other options and we can look at your number 1 option with a difference. It depends on how you define God. God could well be a scientist who creating an intelligent design. Like my friend said we could be no more than a snow globe sitting in the bottom of some kids closet from some kids school science project.
p.s Maybe that is the T.O.E answer, that everything is relatively nothing to an infinite space. It as if we exist and do not exist at the same time. I only exist to you if you can see me or hear me and at a distance away you could not see or hear me. I would have 0 dimensions, although I might be detected as being a ''black hole''.
. If the explanation from the scientific community is that the human mind just can’t understand the universe, then the pursuit of science is a fools game, and I don’t think that for an instant, do you?
Understanding something within boundaries ( As far as we can see) is not the same as things we can't see. When it comes to things we can't see it becomes pretty much a guessing game. Do our own answers of things that we can not see even add up to a suitable explanation of the Universe? Not really in my opinion. To me anything that is discussed that can not be seen , is subjective to a degree. Do I think that the pursuit of science is a worthy thing? Yes we do know a lot of definite facts.I think the answers of the Universe could be locally. The big question of why the Earth, what is the purpose of humanity. To me we are prisoners on a rock and science is our escape plan . The Earth would be the perfect prison as the moon if it had atmosphere. The imagination can make lots of things up, I try to avoid imagining but instead being that thing. It may sound bonkers but when I discuss time I am time, when I discuss space I am space, when I discuss the Universe I am the Universe. To be or not be is looking at yourself in the mirror and being you or ''him''.
If you don’t make any specific arguments against what I say, how can I learn and improve the model?
Ok, let us discuss your model, it involves time so why not.