The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Golden ratio and Time
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Golden ratio and Time
3 Replies
2086 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
opportunity
(OP)
Naked Science Forum King!
1553
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 48 times
Naked Science Forum Newbie
Golden ratio and Time
«
on:
01/02/2018 06:33:21 »
The idea I was trying to convey about the golden ratio footprint is that current evidence (not all evidence) suggests that it represents a “growth” pattern in time, in that for each temporal frame of reference only one golden ratio value is expressed (as the article suggested with the idea of quantum entanglement). As an analogy, a footprint with a foot is the shape of the foot in sand for instance, yet how the footprint was made, well, depending on the walking style, I’m suggesting for instance the heel (one value for the golden ratio) hits the ground first, then the toes (another value for the golden ratio) in a later frame of temporal reference, one value of the golden ratio, and then another (just an analogy). Yet if we look at the whole footprint, it has two values of the golden ratio expressed, the heel and toes, two values of the golden ratio, yet as we would know via the description, the overall footprint is a growth pattern in time, beginning with the heel, then the toes in a later temporal reference. How would this work scientifically though, with all analogies aside?
Ok, so here is an example of how time can play out with more granularity while still considering it as an arrow, as for instance a golden-ratio algorithm. It’s a quick summary, so I’ll do my best to present just the key points:
One-dimensional time is simple enough to consider as an arrow (tried to put a diagram here, yet I'm sure we all know the arrow of time as a concept).
We’re still using the basic arrow, yet let’s add some more granularity.
Let’s say a historical time-point event is represented by time t_B (time before), and time after is t_A, time now as t_N.
If the future is unknown, we can suggest the following for time after:
t_A= ? (time after)
Now, consider the following as a standard for "now" time:
t_N = 1 (time now)
So now, if the future as t_A is unknown, and t_N is a value of "1", by the chosen definition here, the "play" of time after, t_A, can only use t_B or t_N. How?
To answer this question, let us also consider a standard for an arrow of time:
t_B + t_N = t_A or t_N = t_A - t_B
Let’s propose, arbitrarily, that time divides from a singularity in the “past” t_B to a duality in the “future” t_A, where t_A is two possibilities of t_B, representative as t_B^2:
t_A= t_B^2 (and “not” 2t_B, as technically we can only consider “1” outcome, and not two t_B past outcomes)
Note, this is an arbitrary determination for the sake of highlighting how the golden ratio can be a type of "time algorithm".
And so, t_B when applied to space (as 1, t_N) leads to t_A, as a proposed equation for “time”. Thus:
t_B+1= t_B^2
(t_B+ 1)/t_B = t_B
(t_B^2 + t_B)/(t_B^2 )=(t_B^2)/t_B
(t_A + t_B)/t_A = t_A/t_B
This equation is significant, for it represents the “golden ratio”, which is solved as a quadratic equation for t_B as -0.61803... or 1.61803...; for each scalar/vector event in space, each past event is divided as a “now” event into the future as a change in state/reference in time. Note each result for t_B can be 1.61803... or its negative inverse (-1/1.61803) as - 0.61803... (the quadratic solutions for t_B).
I have a paper written that explains this in a lot more detail, proper fonts with diagrams, (~105 pages), yet the point I’m trying to make here in this forum is merely asking the question if there is any contemporary work on the subject of “time” being a type of algorithm in its own right (without corrupting it as an “arrow”). The paper I have written combines this algorithm to the three dimensions of space, developing a new type of wave-function equation for light via that process.
I’m not sure how to add a link here, but the website with the paper can be found at www(dot)equusspace(dot)com < understandably use “.” for (dot), and it is the final paper link on the publications page)>. I’m merely looking to find someone to compare notes with on a new algorithm for time, and so I’m not trying to advertise in this forum, just looking for someone in that field of thought to maybe correspond with via email. Any leads would be fantastic.
Just as a post script, I understand that I'm not to post a new theory here, which technically I'm not, I was merely trying to understand what the contemporary constraints are on time being one dimensional, but to answer the question of how to make time more granular, the above is just a simple sumary, it's not a "theory". I provided a direction for the theory elsewhere in knowing I am only allowed to say so much. I'm not sure if I want to debate a new theory in a forum setting though, for as I said I would rather privately email someone direxcty who has the time to go through it with me (and I understand that could incur costs, which I'm no stranger to). I could start a new post in the "new theory" section but the paper I've written, well, I just don't have the time to debate every concept on every page, and I know how slowly that process goes.
«
Last Edit: 01/02/2018 18:20:48 by
Colin2B
»
Logged
What is physics without new ideas shed by the positive light of interest of others with new possible solutions to age old problems?
Colin2B
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6477
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 706 times
Re: Golden ratio and Time
«
Reply #1 on:
01/02/2018 09:31:47 »
@opportunity
you say “Just as a post script, I understand that I'm not to post a new theory here, which technically I'm not,”, however, you are posting a new theory under our forum usage guidance. Call the section, new ideas as most posters in that area do not understand the difference between an hypothesis and a theory.
What youve posted here is too much for a general discussion on the topic and ill extract your posts and move them when i have a moment.
Thanks
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
opportunity
(OP)
Naked Science Forum King!
1553
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 48 times
Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Golden ratio and Time
«
Reply #2 on:
01/02/2018 09:41:59 »
No worries, apologies for this oversight. The post was aimed at finding why time has been held at one-dimensional, hence the tile " why is time one-dimensional", yet I can now see how this has evolved via the Q and A. Thanks for taking a look though. It wasn't my intention to promote a theory, I was merely looking for all the historical constraints regarding time-theory that has kept time one-dimensional. I thought suggesting an alternative could promote a defence of the policy "why" time is one-dimensional. It didn't pan out that way though. Bear in mind that I really don't want to promote a new theory here. My interest is the historical analysis of how time has been played, and that will probably show up in my posts, doing what I can not to promote new theories. I'm 50 next year, so I'm not thinking I've hit any jackpot theory straight out of school; I'm more interested in why scientific norms are held the way they are, especially about "time". I have a paper, sure, its just a paper. What's more important are the bigger questions, such as stated, "how can we theorise "spooky action at a distance" using linear time"?
«
Last Edit: 01/02/2018 10:28:23 by
opportunity
»
Logged
What is physics without new ideas shed by the positive light of interest of others with new possible solutions to age old problems?
opportunity
(OP)
Naked Science Forum King!
1553
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 48 times
Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Golden ratio and Time
«
Reply #3 on:
13/02/2018 11:07:24 »
Ok, I'm doubling a reply here, hope that's ok.
I'm not good at promoting ideas, I think ideas need to speak for themselves.
I'm a bit hesitant in saying, "hey, wow, this is the new theory". It's like the phenomena of social media......"who represents a new advent in physics, a new theoretical discovery, and is that facebook stuff"?
If it did, I'm lost, and the universe or part there of is using advertising more than the idea itself of shoot first and explain later.
We should think about that; the big bang is all about shoot first and explain later, right? And we believe in that. That's amazing.
what if what's explained here is something between a rock and a hard place, philosophy being the child of bad science, that says to mum and dad they haven't worked it out yet?
So, who's "let nature do the bang for us to work out later"?
What if for a second; we could say there was no big bang but something else that made us more inclusive?
New theories aren't new theories without new ways to explain what we all already perceive.
Ok, it sounds like I'm trying to promote something. I agree. Although a new idea is being offered, and the new idea should speak for itself, while at the same time challenging the idea of a big bang that asks us to to work it out later in its time, live time in our time, labelling God with the big-bang for instance, if we can prove that's how it happened, is not tolling well in time.
Are there other ways to make us more inclusive without thinking God has ordained a major explosive event we have to come to terms with?
One of the hardest things I've encountered about presenting a new theory for time and space is that predecessor models have been upheld because those models don't challenge faith, the idea of thinking of a supernatarual force making all of this.
I think faith is not corrupted in not using using the big bang model.
That had to be said. The new theory here doesn't promote the big bang idea, yet it does use all the evidence for a big bang "in a new theory", without ideally challenging ideas of faith and science.
«
Last Edit: 13/02/2018 12:50:17 by
opportunity
»
Logged
What is physics without new ideas shed by the positive light of interest of others with new possible solutions to age old problems?
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...