Post by: guest39538 on 13/10/2017 13:49:58
P.s All you readers who do not reply to my posts, get involved and answer this one question. (I don't bite)
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2017 22:25:24
My take is that time is a smooth continuum, and time simply passes; that is a theoretical, and even a philosophical, take on time. In actual practice though, we have no clocks that I know of, not even atomic clocks, that are capable of measuring all points on the time continuum. The best measurements of the most accurate clocks are only capable of measuring the passing of time in tiny increments related the the frequency of the atom.
So my answer is that the next moment in time will be the next point after the current moment in time as measured on a smooth continuum. That should be interpreted as saying that time itself is not a physical aspect of the universe, it is a physical measurement of the rate that those tiny physical atomic frequencies occur on a designated clock in the local environment.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/10/2017 22:38:45
My take is that time is a smooth continuum, and time simply passes;I would be in total agreement with that .
So my answer is that the next moment in time will be the next point after the current moment in time as measured on a smooth continuum.I would also be in agreement with that. So if we labelled a point ''now'' ( the present moment of time) and labelled a second point '''future''(the next moment of time), how far away or what length of duration do you consider the future point is away from the now point?
In a smooth time continuum I would personally think that the now point is adjoined to the future point!
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2017 22:46:26
Post by: guest39538 on 13/10/2017 22:57:11
Further, there is only the "now", so the passing of time on the time continuum is a history of the past "nows"; .Then I think our opinions of time would be in relative agreement. (What is relative between two observers).
I agree that there is only the now point, history points being recorded now points. I say recorded because I feel we record time rather than measure it.
Thank you for your replies and proper discussion.
Do you think if considering the adjoined points of the now and future point, that there is any way time could contract in this situation?
Do you think that if we could expand time from being adjoined, so the points have a length between them, this would add any value or purpose to recording time?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/10/2017 23:52:50
I would answer both questions the same way. I consider the "relativity of simultaneity" to be the operative concept from which to base speculations on the relative passing of time:Further, there is only the "now", so the passing of time on the time continuum is a history of the past "nows"; .Then I think our opinions of time would be in relative agreement. (What is relative between two observers).
I agree that there is only the now point, history points being recorded now points. I say recorded because I feel we record time rather than measure it.
Thank you for your replies and proper discussion.
Do you think if considering the adjoined points of the now and future point, that there is any way time could contract in this situation?
Do you think that if we could expand time from being adjoined, so the points have a length between them, this would add any value or purpose to recording time?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity)
Relative motion can be used to craft various relationships between observers, and you can add as many independent observers as you like, in different frames or local environments that are in motion relative to each other. It allows for some creativity in talking about compressing or expanding time, but my take on it is that you can’t change the fact the no matter where you are, time simply passes, and it is only when you record the passing of time on clocks, in two local environments, moving in relation to each other, that any of those scenarios can be thought of as compressing or expanding time.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 00:12:39
, but my take on it is that you can’t change the fact the no matter where you are, time simply passes, and it is only when you record the passing of time on clocks, in two local environments, moving in relation to each other, that any of those scenarios can be thought of as compressing or expanding time.I also think time just passes. However I do not think the Physics would allow a smooth continuum time to contract, there being no spacing between now point and future point. I feel relativity only works if we consider time is discrete where there is spacing between now and future points, a spacing of 1 second. Only if we expand time from the now point to a future point is there a length to contract.
What are your thoughts on this thought?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/10/2017 00:17:37
How far/long away is my next moment of now, away from now?This may explain to you why your question has no meaning.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra/units-in-modeling/rate-conversion/v/dimensional-analysis-units-algebraically
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 00:32:52
I also think time just passes. However I do not think the Physics would allow a smooth continuum time to contract …Agreed.
Quote
… there being no spacing between now point and future point.Agreed.
Quote
I feel relativity only works if we consider time is discrete where there is spacing between now and future points, a spacing of 1 second. Only if we expand time from the now point to a future point is there a length to contract.That sounds a little awkward, but I don’t want to claim that my take on what you said appreciates precisely how you meant it.
What are your thoughts on this thought?
I’m not an expert on relativity, or anything else (except the ISU, lol), but let me try to state what you said in my own words and see if I have it or not:
You feel relativity incorporates a discrete time increment, and logically there is a duration between each “now” (if you are trying to take the perspective of special and/or general relativity). Now if you want to talk about time contracting or expanding from the perspective of SR or GR, what you are considering is that by changing the duration between discrete “nows”, you are considering the contraction or expansion of time
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 00:48:05
You feel relativity incorporates a discrete time increment, and logically there is a duration between each “now” (if you are trying to take the perspective of special and/or general relativity). Now if you want to talk about time contracting or expanding from the perspective of SR or GR, what you are considering is that by changing the duration between discrete “nows”, you are considering the contraction or expansion of timeMore or less yes. What relativity does is take a now point (0) and extends this now point to a future point (1.s) . This allows for time dilation and length contraction. Without this added ''space'' between points, there could be no time dilation or length contraction as there would be no length of space/time to contract.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 00:50:11
That is strange you say my question has no meaning, Bogie understood the meaning and is discussing it very accurately.How far/long away is my next moment of now, away from now?This may explain to you why your question has no meaning.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra/units-in-modeling/rate-conversion/v/dimensional-analysis-units-algebraically
Δt=d0
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/10/2017 00:58:07
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 01:03:29
π 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?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 01:23:08
What do you think of this definition ?
OR
A record-able measurement directly proportional to the past?
Post by: jeffreyH on 14/10/2017 01:27:57
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 01:41:25
The change of a system from one state to another is the important thing. The change in state may be a change in physical position. This does have a limit at the Planck scale. If distance has a lower limit beyond which measurements can't be made then this also must be true for time.That is all true.
This speculative discussion is in the New Theories sub-forum for that reason. We wouldn’t venture into the hard science forums with this kind of discussion, for the reasons you point out. What we are saying is not in accord with generally accepted science.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 01:45:34
If distance has a lower limit beyond which measurements can't be made then this also must be true for time.Indeed Jeffrey, so we would have to use the closest possible measurement, the smallest measurement we could conceive. That is why I came up with:
Δt=
I had already considered the smallest conceivable measurement we could use to measure time.
There is a big difference in
Δt=1.s
and
Δt=
Would you agree?
LP being Planck length, I could not get the symbol post.
Time Planck being as close to continuous time as we could hope for?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 12:38:10
I find a paradox in the conclusion that distance and time must have a lower limit because there is a lower limit to our ability to measure distance and time in the Planck regime. Think of all of the individual systems operating independently, all at the same time.If distance has a lower limit beyond which measurements can't be made then this also must be true for time.
Indeed Jeffrey, so we would have to use the closest possible measurement, the smallest measurement we could conceive. That is why I came up with:
Δt=
I had already considered the smallest conceivable measurement we could use to measure time.
There is a big difference in
Δt=1.s
and
Δt=
Would you agree?
LP being Planck length, I could not get the symbol post.
Time Planck being as close to continuous time as we could hope for?
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, making the time differential between the points in time occurring among the multiple systems combined to become a fraction of an increment on the Planck scale.
If you construct the time continuum from each occurrence of the change in any of the multiple systems at the Planck scale, wouldn’t you be adding new “nows” to the time continuum as any of the systems, not in sync with an other system, changed in Planck increments?
If so, why wouldn’t a time continuum based on all of the multiple system changes approach the smooth continuum we started out imagining? The more individual systems considered to be operating in the multiple group of systems, the closer the points on the time continuum would approach the theoretical smoothness of the time continuum.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 13:14:52
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,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?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 13:55:10
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.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,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?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 14:10:54
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.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.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,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?
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?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 14:38:11
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.I understand it to mean that no event happens simultaneously for any two observers in relative motion with each other.
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?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 14:46:39
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).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.I understand it to mean that no two events happen simultaneously for any two observers in relative motion with each other.
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?
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?
tp.jpg (14.7 kB . 985x507 - viewed 4499 times)In the original , the observe sees the light to angle , this only because of the imaginary discrete time.
Now if we were to use tP removing the added distance of future time, the observer observes a linearity of the light.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/10/2017 15:27:13
tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4370 times)In the above example the observer observes the light/dot moving in respect to the carriage. If the carriage was moving at 5 mph, the observer would observe the light to be travelling at 5 mph. Would you agree with that?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/10/2017 15:35:09
π 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 !
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 14/10/2017 16:07:37
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.
Now if we were to use tP removing the added distance of future time, the observer observes a linearity of the light.
There is no reason to believe that you saw my post on my ISU thread about the difference between the cause of a LIGO event between General Relativity Theory, and some layman science enthusiast’s ideas (my ideas), but my answer to your post about the thought experiment of the Lorentz contractions is along the same lines, so forgive me for mentioning it.
If an event like the sun exploding were to occur, I would say that it occurred at a point in time. But the early discussion on this thread suggests the thinking that time is not a real physical characteristic of the universe, since it is always “now” for each observer, and those nows all feature different locations of the observation, like seeing the sun explode would.
Any past event has already happened on the time continuum. The operative thinking we run into is that events that occur on the time continuum are recorded relative to an individual observer, and so there are as many different on-going time continuums as there are observers.
In SR/GR, and I’m no expert and wouldn’t argue very hard to defend this position, LIGO detects an event when the time elapsed between the two lasers pointed down and back each arm differs. GR says the difference is due to length contraction caused by the gravitational wave affecting the length of the arms, and when the first arm is length contracted, before the other arm, the alarm is activated, and a LIGO event is recorded.
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.
In the first case the gravitational wave changed the length of the arms relative to each other as it passed, one arm and then the next. In the second case, the gravitational wave changed the speed of light along the two arms respectively as it passed, one arm and then the other.
Lorentz transformations are theory specific, and if you move from SR/GR, to some other version that you may come up with, tP or contraction vs. light speed, or any other idea, you will get different explanations for the same observation.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/10/2017 14:32:51
A curved time would be always dilated relative to a linear time. We would make ourselves problems if we used a constant dilation.π 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 !
Post by: guest39538 on 15/10/2017 14:36:39
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 .
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/10/2017 16:24:34
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 .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.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/10/2017 17:43:08
My notions on gravity do extend beyond mainstream physics. Like yourself I look for answers to questions that have no real answer. In sense it is ironic to say we do not know the mechanism of gravity but then explain it as a gravitational wave or gravitational field. I think a gravitational field explains gravity mechanism exactly except not exact. I tend to unify fields in to a single polarity field that I call the N-field, N standing for neutral. However the neutral is not the true measurement , we in affect are measuring two independent things at the same time that gives a null result, one cancelling the other out to measure N. However I believe the individual properties of the N-field remain individual properties. Likewise polarity repelling and opposite polarities attracting to create orbital radius an din essence a Quantum field that has solidity to other Quantum fields.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 .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.
I will though look up the LIG0 and try to get my head around it.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/10/2017 17:53:46
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/10/2017 18:52:28
What are your thoughts on the mechanics of the workings of gravity?I’m always careful not to hijack people’s threads, so stop me when you have had enough. My ISU thread covers my views, but if you search the thread for the word “gravity”, you get well over 100 hits, :) . You may recall getting into that thread with me; it is the “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs" thread. Reply #31, for example. I had stated my axioms, including the three infinities of space, time, and energy, and had made a statement that in my view the universe has always existed. That means that there has always been matter and energy, hospitable environments to host life, and intelligent life forms inhabiting planets, around suns, in galaxies, in Big Bang arenas, across the arena landscape of the greater universe. A steady state cosmology in an infinite, eternal, and dynamic single universe, full of life, and featuring on-going Big Bang arena action that defeats entropy, and quantum action that establishes the presence of wave-particles and maintains quantum gravity. Remember?
Matter and energy go through processes that can negate existing matter into wave energy, and where wave energy then establishes the presence of wave-particles of matter. Quantum gravity is one of two major forces in my model, the other is energy density equalization (expansion for short). The influence of both forces is always present at all points in space, but the balance between them varies according limits and thresholds of energy density. That balance is orchestrated by the wave energy density profile of the local space, which changes while the dynamic process of arena action and quantum action perpetually are playing out.
Wave-particles are described in detail, and the process of quantum action is explained, which describes my view of the wave mechanics of quantum gravity.
It is an audacious expression of layman science enthusiasm, evolving as time goes on over more than the past decade. It is like a hobby I do while I wait and watch as the professionals in the scientific community continue growing their improving consensus on all matters scientific.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/10/2017 00:13:45
I had stated my axioms, including the three infinities of space, time, 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.
that in my view the universe has always existed. That means that there has always been matter and energy,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 no t 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 travelling away from it . The eventually is the object will have 0 dimensions to your observation regardless the size of object.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2017 01:21:17
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.This is easy to answer, but it requires that you know what is meant when I invoke an axiom. Axioms are often invoked in theoretical physics, too, not just layman models. It means that I can’t prove it, and don’t even try to present proof. It is “axiomatic”, i.e., assumed to be true, or at least necessary to justify the rest of the model that is derived from the axioms. If it can ever be falsified, that would falsify the model.
So until we can look out and actually see that boundary, which I think has the lowest possible probability of being there, zero, I assume the infinity, and no boundary. My spatial axiom can be said to mean that the universe is boundless.
Quote
I would agree that space has always existed and just is.Let’s then agree that space has always existed, and “just is”. My axiom is that space has always existed and is infinite. You are holding out against the spatial infinity based of the lowest possibility that some boundary could be discovered. Not sure if I could ever be convinced, but we can’t agree on everything
Quote
As for matter and energy , I would have some doubts in my mind of always existing.That is one of the points I make in describing the alternatives for the existence of the universe. There are three logical explanations: 1) God did it, which is not scientific. 2) Something from nothing, which is not scientific. 3) Always existed, which is my choice.
My question would be though , how to make something out of nothing?
Quote
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.It sounds like the "something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe is growing on you.
So in respect to that, is it only imagination that imagines nothing to begin with? Why could we not imagine there was always something?
Quote
I am not sure you will understand this, but could you imagine compared to an infinite universe , everything has 0 dimensions?Yes, I have a good imagination, lol.
Quote
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.It sounds like you are brainstorming with yourself :) . Yes, the observed dimensions would approach 0, but the object will still be there, and will still have its original dimensions, so our distancing ourselves from it is only creating an illusion that its dimensions are shrinking toward 0, agreed?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/10/2017 14:47:08
You are holding out against the spatial infinity based of the lowest possibility that some boundary could be discoveredIn essence I believe logic can show space is infinite. Because even if a boundary was discovered, we than have a question is the boundary infinite or is there more space beyond the boundary.
1) God did it, which is not scientific. 2) Something from nothing, which is not scientific. 3) Always existed, which is my choice.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.
so our distancing ourselves from it is only creating an illusion that its dimensions are shrinking toward 0, agreed?Yes that's correct, it is a relative illusion to us. But from the infinite space perspective, it is not an illusion and everything is nothing.
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''.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 16/10/2017 20:06:28
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.And the universe could be an atom in a giants thumb.
In regard to modern science, anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. The standard cosmological model, GR and Inflation, doesn’t address the beginning because the math and theories break down going back from there.
If you invoke a creation on the one hand, or some boundary on the other, you face infinite regression, as you suggest; where did God come from, who created God, who made the boundary, what is beyond the boundary, etc. It is just a simple but hard to accept explanation that the universe has always existed, and is governed by invariant natural laws that feature processes that defeat entropy on a grand scale, like my view of Big Bang Arena Actqion, and that reestablish the presence of wave-particles within new arenas in the aftermath of every local Big Bang, like my view of Quantum Action in my personal model.
The simplicity of the “always existed” explanation suits me just fine.
Quote
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''.That is too contrived for me. 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?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/10/2017 13:54:35
. 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''.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/10/2017 14:26:55
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.It is always interesting getting other people’s view points.
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''.
What you call making things up, I call reasonable and responsible speculation based on known science, and questioning the “as yet” unknown.
When you ask, “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.” I say the ISU model is internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. You are waving the entire content of the ISU model off with one comment, and saying I’m “making it up”, but you haven’t presented any convincing argument against any of the many of points I share for the purposes of discussion. If you don’t make any specific arguments against what I say, how can I learn and improve the model?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/10/2017 14:35:32
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.
You say an infinite energy. The problem is you have to say what energy is or you are using a general approach of wording that could mean anything. So what do you mean when you say energy?
p.s because by saying infinite energy, you are saying infinite something.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/10/2017 15:14:30
Ok, let us discuss your model, it involves time so why not.I think if you are interested enough to discuss it on your thread, you should be interested enough to do so on my thread, where many questions you may have are already answered and are on topic.
As for doing the explaining on your thread, I try to stick to your topic, and not hijack it into my topic. “Go there or be square” as they say, lol.
If you decide to go there, I suggest you start with the content in reply #16.