Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 02/07/2017 16:09:32

Title: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/07/2017 16:09:32
Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) . 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 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 fascinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn. An education that was to be aided by various science internet forums.
The fascination 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 me being stubborn in not accepting the discipline that at times forums were trying to ''force'' me to accept. Accept or be banned was often the ''calls'' on the forums agenda.
I am a nobody, but I write this paper in the aim of achieving relative correctness and the correct interpretation of process. Before I move onto discussing relative correctness, I feel it is important we should be clear in our understanding of certain things.

Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more solid than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

The meaning of math and math use dependency.

We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.

It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and the realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the solid boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.

Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Postulate two: Light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: light and dark do not exist of free space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being obejective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between increments, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/07/2017 17:15:43
This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across  a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.   It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two.  Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth.  Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

 If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Colin2B on 02/07/2017 17:45:04
q is not consequent on p, p is not antecedent to q.
Try another logic book.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/07/2017 17:54:40
q is not consequent on p, p is not antecedent to q.
Try another logic book.
Oh, that is what google put me to, could you please provide another logic book?   that must mean something different to what I thought it meant.
antecedent
ˌantɪˈsiːd(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that existed before or logically precedes another.
"some antecedents to the African novel might exist in Africa's oral traditions"
synonyms:   precursor, forerunner, predecessor
"music composed for vihuela (the guitar's lute-like antecedent)"
2.
a person's ancestors or family and social background.
"her early life and antecedents have been traced"
synonyms:   ancestor, forefather, forebear, predecessor, progenitor; More
adjective
1.
preceding in time or order; previous or pre-existing.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/07/2017 18:04:10
(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, p=q?

is that better?

or

{\mathcal {L}} ={\mathcal {L}}     that was a constant that did not post correctly

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=q∀
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/07/2017 18:17:53
This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across  a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.   It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two.  Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth.  Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

 If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical  proofs.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Colin2B on 03/07/2017 11:00:30

synonyms:   ancestor, forefather, forebear, predecessor, progenitor; More
adjective
1.
preceding in time or order; previous or pre-existing.

Yes, I follow your thinking and it's a good attempt, but q could have thought first and p follow so there is no defined cause effect order, that is nothing that says "if p then q" - which is what the antecedent, consequent is all about.

I think you should keep up looking at logic but remember Aristotelian logic has some serious limitations and you won't find the proof you are looking for in it.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/07/2017 16:32:10
 If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical  proofs.
Thank you Colin, if i changed it slightly defining an order, then would it be correct?

 If twin one accepts firstly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts secondly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical  proofs.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/07/2017 21:55:27
Now for those who so far might think my paper is some form of attack on science, I have now added my next part which I assume you would not expect, a sort of twist.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.



Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) . 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 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 fascinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn. An education that was to be aided by various science internet forums.
The fascination 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 me being stubborn in not accepting the discipline that at times forums were trying to ''force'' me to accept. Accept or be banned was often the ''calls'' on the forums agenda.
I am a nobody, but I write this paper in the aim of achieving relative correctness and the correct interpretation of process. Before I move onto discussing relative correctness, I feel it is important we should be clear in our understanding of certain things.

Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evident merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

The meaning of math and math use dependency.

We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.

It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and the realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the solid boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.

Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Postulate two:
Light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: light and dark do not exist of free space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being obejective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immeadiately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immmedaitely with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuos flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

If twin one firstly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

twin two seondly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is then objectively accepted, →p=q∀

This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.

However in my mind this was still not enough, I needed to think even more. My thoughts were on the present , the ''now' moment. If twin one was on Earth and twin two was on earth in each others present, twin two could of never experienced less time to return back to the present of twin one. The significance of this being that the twins would occupy two different points on the time line, twin two being further back in time on the measurement of the time line than twins one measurement.

Thus completely explaining the first postulate:

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Now let us look at the consequence of this on the present information, this certaintly shows that time dilation has no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner when concerning time travel or travelling twins and the speed of time.

However I found something else was amiss, all the forums of the land telling me I was incorrect and there was a time dilation and time slowed down, proving it without doubt by explaining time dilation was used in satellite systems in space to retain accuracy , this seemingly undistupatable. My thoughts were I was going crazy or they were just really not very clever people, because how could they not understand?
Then the thought occured to me, what if in some way they were being ambiguos about time and what they was defining as time, was not really time but something else?
Thus leading to a discussion about the mechanics of relativity, the mechanics of relativity being timing. Semantics causing misinterpretation worldwide of what a time dilation actually is, a timing dilation as it should be appropriately redefined too, is simply agreeable without ambiguity.

However we must archive any thoughts on time slowing down or speeding up , twin paradox's , time travel and simultaneity these been literally useless content , borderline compared to religion and subjective thoughts based on timing mechanism and synchronous of that mechanism , an offset in timing is not a change in the speed of time.
Thus I propose Newton to be correct and time is absolute, relative time being relative timing .


I know I need to add some citations, but an honest opinion would be nice of how it reads so far?  Is it really worth me continuing with it?  Do you think it is garbage?  Do you think it is truthful?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 04/07/2017 15:38:06
If both twins think they are synchronous then both twins would be incorrect according to relativity. If you do not accept relativity your logic is based on ideas other than relativity. That's ok but proof is a non existent process. We can only follow observations and suggest causes. Math can follow a theory and the theory still be incorrect. There are no proofs. Time is like cars on the road the faster clocks go the slower they tick. The available energy is a ratio between kinetic (speed) used and available energy c left. You are a biological clock that slows down its tick rate with more kinetic (speed) energy being used. This is observed. p and q have the same use of energy (direction) but not always the same rate of energy used vs. available. There is no such thing as energy reverse so we have a time arrow. The electron cycles with angular momentum at c. Moving through space increases the path the electron has to travel slowing the tick of the cycle in SR. In GR its the dilation of space that increases the distance traveled and causes equivalence. Dilated space in GR increases the measuring stick in a confounded way with distance for light to travel. This insures the measurement of the speed of light the same in every frame

colin2b is giving you good advice. Your logic is based on your own understanding as is every ones.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/07/2017 18:31:33
If both twins think they are synchronous then both twins would be incorrect according to relativity. If you do not accept relativity your logic is based on ideas other than relativity. That's ok but proof is a non existent process. We can only follow observations and suggest causes. Math can follow a theory and the theory still be incorrect. There are no proofs. Time is like cars on the road the faster clocks go the slower they tick. The available energy is a ratio between kinetic (speed) used and available energy c left. You are a biological clock that slows down its tick rate with more kinetic (speed) energy being used. This is observed. p and q have the same use of energy (direction) but not always the same rate of energy used vs. available. There is no such thing as energy reverse so we have a time arrow. The electron cycles with angular momentum at c. Moving through space increases the path the electron has to travel slowing the tick of the cycle in SR. In GR its the dilation of space that increases the distance traveled and causes equivalence. Dilated space in GR increases the measuring stick in a confounded way with distance for light to travel. This insures the measurement of the speed of light the same in every frame

colin2b is giving you good advice. Your logic is based on your own understanding as is every ones.
According to me , relativity is incorrect and I believe I have showed this to be true by a very simple axiom. My paper is of course not finished or a final edit, so we will just have to wait and see.  Here is one of my edits:

If twin one firstly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them or a Planck length away
 [​IMG]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length (p),

twin two secondly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them or a Planck length away[​IMG] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length (q),

It does not post the same on here, perhaps you can view it here :

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/i-need-some-advice-on-writing-a-scientific-paper-please-help.508739/page-5  #88

I have not added the lorentz length contraction either yet, here is the rough diagram.


* carriage.jpg (20.61 kB . 985x507 - viewed 3355 times)
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/07/2017 18:38:16
Here is another edit.

Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form of argument, consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) based on these premises. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's that looks at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.




Introduction.

Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we are in on the action and can look at the intrinsic details, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science, looking to achieve relative correctness and the correct semantics of the thinking.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2017 03:12:28
I am just practising some different styles of presenting citations, does this look ok?

An axiom {Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28.} is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory {Davidson Reynolds, Paul (1971). A primer in theory construction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.} or hypothesis {Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopædia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.}. There is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism { Ben Dov, Y. Local Realism and the Crucial experiment}. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 05/07/2017 14:47:34
Before you use a term you need to define the term in the context that you are using the term. In this case you have to define time. If you define time as c being always constant then you are correct. But that is not the way physics defines time in relativity. Physics defines time as the reaction rate used vs. energy c left that is available to mass.

The logic of relativity: c is constant if you can agree on that we can proceed. The cycle of the electron is how physics measures time. The electron cycle with the proton at rest cycles at its fastest tick rate in its frame. As you move the proton through space there is an accepted limit of c which is agreed cannot be passed. If mass could go c the electron could not cycle and time would be frozen as we measure time for its reaction rate. So complete rest of the proton has the fastest reaction rate of reaction as time while c has no reaction time. Physics measures time as its reaction rate as I explained. There is a non linear relationship from rest reaction rate to c non reaction rate. This is the focus of relativity twin paradox which is not a paradox at all. Your body has a reaction rate that slows down with increased velocity moving towards c.

So if you define time as c only than you are correct. But if you want to discuss time as relativity cycles of the electron, than time reaction is the amount of space the proton moves through for its cycle. Cycle time decreases as the proton moves faster through space. This is directly related to reaction time of say your synapsis. So you think slower relative to your sense of time and your time is slower. You do not recognize any difference. Even if your second is relative to a year of someone else.

So your logic for c as time is correct for your logic the rest of science moved on to relativities definition of relative cycle times of the electron.

So define time you are discussing.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2017 15:16:26
Before you use a term you need to define the term in the context that you are using the term. In this case you have to define time. If you define time as c being always constant then you are correct. But that is not the way physics defines time in relativity. Physics defines time as the reaction rate used vs. energy c left that is available to mass.

The logic of relativity: c is constant if you can agree on that we can proceed. The cycle of the electron is how physics measures time. The electron cycle with the proton at rest cycles at its fastest tick rate in its frame. As you move the proton through space there is an accepted limit of c which is agreed cannot be passed. If mass could go c the electron could not cycle and time would be frozen as we measure time for its reaction rate. So complete rest of the proton has the fastest reaction rate of reaction as time while c has no reaction time. Physics measures time as its reaction rate as I explained. There is a non linear relationship from rest reaction rate to c non reaction rate. This is the focus of relativity twin paradox which is not a paradox at all. Your body has a reaction rate that slows down with increased velocity moving towards c.

So if you define time as c only than you are correct. But if you want to discuss time as relativity cycles of the electron, than time reaction is the amount of space the proton moves through for its cycle. Cycle time decreases as the proton moves faster through space. This is directly related to reaction time of say your synapsis. So you think slower relative to your sense of time and your time is slower. You do not recognize any difference. Even if your second is relative to a year of someone else.

So your logic for c as time is correct for your logic the rest of science moved on to relativities definition of relative cycle times of the electron.

So define time you are discussing.
I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact,  without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.   Bare in  mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help.
I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest4091 on 05/07/2017 16:51:11
Thebox #7

Quote
If twin one accepts firstly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts secondly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

What is "their moment of time"?
We don/t know unless you define it.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 05/07/2017 17:52:37
I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact,  without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.   Bare in  mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help. I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .


What would you want Wiki to say? thebox is lost in his understanding of how physics relates time to physics? Are there others that are lost in the same place?

If you want to discuss relativity you need to have the correct understanding of defined terms or predefine your own definition of time as phyti suggested.

If you want to discuss Newton's pre-Einstein work you need to explain that. Your understanding is back with Newton. Physics as moved on and for good reason. Observed phenomenon follow Einstein closer than Newton. There may actually be different Plank's length in GR so you may not even have that as a standard.

If you look at fundamental energy as c and kinetic energy as a ratio of conserved energy c you might bridge the gap between Newton and Einstein. Your clock measures available energy left in fundamental c of your frame.

It does not matter how fast light images hit your peeps it's your process time in the brain for the images. Your brain's clock follows the clock in your frame. The same with your aging process.

Try not to let your pride believe you have a deeper insight than Einstein. That is a block to learning. If you get to the point where you can understand relativity beyond the mathematics its a beautiful relationship. Sort of like life is more than just the body.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2017 21:40:55


What is "their moment of time"?
.
Now

added- sorry for the blunt answer, your next increment of now, how long away is it?

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2017 21:46:41
I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact,  without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.   Bare in  mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help. I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .


What would you want Wiki to say? thebox is lost in his understanding of how physics relates time to physics?




I understand time better than you my friend, I could quite easily talk about time in a manner of how presently physics perceives it, however it still wouldn't change the facts that the semantics are totally wrong in the thinking of time dilation , simultaneity etc.
Perhaps you should ask yourself if you understand?  to me it is obvious you don't.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2017 22:06:45
The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immeadiately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immmedaitely with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuos flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .



This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck  ahead of them (p),

If  twin two  accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.


* model of relativity twins.jpg (28.11 kB . 985x507 - viewed 3121 times)




Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/07/2017 22:24:47
Well I think it is starting to come together as a scientific theory , what do you think ?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 06/07/2017 04:29:42
Well I think it is starting to come together as a scientific theory , what do you think ?

You need to define your understanding of how time is defined.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/07/2017 13:53:36
Well I think it is starting to come together as a scientific theory , what do you think ?

You need to define your understanding of how time is defined.


If i am using tP I am defining the time the same way you would.  C energy = time=entropy

If c is constant time remains constant, time could only be a variate if c was a variant.

It was not a good idea though by Einsteins to say ignore true time and we will define time as the fingers on a clock.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/07/2017 18:03:59
Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.

Abstract-
This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form of argument, consisting of a function which takes premises, analyses present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) based on these premises. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's that looks at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.

Introduction.
Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.

Theory and Hypothesis
An axiom {Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28.} is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory {Davidson Reynolds, Paul (1971). A primer in theory construction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.} or hypothesis {Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopedia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.}. There is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism { Ben Dov, Y. Local Realism and the Crucial experiment}. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies..
An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evident merit.
We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

The meaning of math and math use dependency.
We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.
It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.
It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the unreachable boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.
Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed or the length of measurement is.

Postulate two:Visible light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: Visible light and dark do not exist of  space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being objective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.
Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity.

I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic
 '' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''.

I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity
''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''.


This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.

I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety.

In brief description I quote :Citation:Wikipedia Simultaneity
''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''

I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

If twin two accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is then objectively accepted,then subsequently →p=q∀


* model of relativity twins.jpg (29.22 kB . 985x507 - viewed 2672 times)

This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.

Thus explaining the first postulate:

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Let us now look for further evidence of falsifiable statement and we will look at the statement of  {Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity)} from our earlier quote and citation of Albert Einstein on relativity.

Let us consider the train carriage in respect to the embankment, the carriage  begins at rest relative to the embankment and the clock on the embankment is at relative rest in respect of the embankment.  The clock on the carriage in respect to the embankment is synchronous to begin with.  Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the rate of the clock on the carriage in relative motion is now different to the rate of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.
In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.   
This is the error in thinking  by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.  If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tP), I conclude from the earlier shown evident results, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidently if twin two was to travel aboard the carriage, relative too twin one,  twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them  and synchronous too twin one regardless of motion.

t1=t2

Δt1=(tP)

Δt2=(tP)



 The unit of a Planck length used in (tP) being fractionally zero and having no negligible length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation mythology and the ostensibly involved.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 06/07/2017 19:37:40
thebox,

   Some of what you say hurts my head. You seem to be missing some of the subtleties of language. Have you defined time? If not than how can you discuss time?

 
Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the rate of the clock on the carriage in relative motion is now different to the rate of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.

True.


In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.   

Also true. The same meaning as before.



This is the error in thinking  by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.

You created a straw man argument. The two clocks, one on the train and one on the embankment are no longer synchronous. There was no value given to either clock. The one on the embankment could be running slower or faster depending on the direction of the train being east or west. North or south the trains clock would be slower of course.
On the equator your clock would speed up in the east to west direction up to about 1,000 m/h. Then slow down as you increased your speed past 1,000 m/h. At ~2,000 m/h your clock would be synchronous again with the stationary clock on the equator. One caveat is it all being at the same level from gravitational center like sea level.

You are confusing the present, being where everybody remains with the measurement of the energy state of your frame. The electron counts every portion of space it travels between its cycle. Stationary allows the fastest cycle. Movement through space registers as increased length for the electron to travel in completing its cycle. The speed of time is c. The electron motion is in a helix like DNA. So the electron speed is measured to be slower than the photon. Time and energy are the same thing motion. Plank time and Plank motion are indistinguishable.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/07/2017 19:45:55
thebox,

   Some of what you say hurts my head. You seem to be missing some of the subtleties of language. Have you defined time? If not than how can you discuss time?

 
Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the rate of the clock on the carriage in relative motion is now different to the rate of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.

True.


In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.   

Also true. The same meaning as before.



This is the error in thinking  by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.

You created a straw man argument. The two clocks, one on the train and one on the embankment are no longer synchronous. There was no value given to either clock. The one on the embankment could be running slower or faster depending on the direction of the train being east or west. North or south the trains clock would be slower of course.
On the equator your clock would speed up in the east to west direction up to about 1,000 m/h. Then slow down as you increased your speed past 1,000 m/h. At ~2,000 m/h your clock would be synchronous again with the stationary clock on the equator. One caveat is it all being at the same level from gravitational center like sea level.

You are confusing the present, being where everybody remains with the measurement of the energy state of your frame. The electron counts every portion of space it travels between its cycle. Stationary allows the fastest cycle. Movement through space registers as increased length for the electron to travel in completing its cycle. The speed of time is c. The electron motion is in a helix like DNA. So the electron speed is measured to be slower than the photon. Time and energy are the same thing motion. Plank time and Plank motion are indistinguishable.

I am not confused in the slightest, you are, sorry to say GOC, do agree in a time line?  how far away is your next position on the time line?
  Hint a second is ''far way''

There no fallacy in my argument.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 07/07/2017 13:50:38

I am not confused in the slightest, you are, sorry to say GOC, do agree in a time line?

I am sure we are all confused sometime in our lives.


far away is your next position on the time line?   Hint a second is ''far way''

While you can divide a second into infinite slices a second is not infinite. Math can go where reality can not. Once again in science it is generally accepted that Plank's distance is the lowest level of motion. Plank's time relates to Planks distance through c. A second relative to the electron cycle is far away but to my consciousness it is relatively short.

 
There no fallacy in my argument.

Certainly not by the author. But each of us has a certain depth of understanding the limits of an argument. You have not really defined the parameters of your argument. What is your definition of time?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/07/2017 14:23:22

I am not confused in the slightest, you are, sorry to say GOC, do agree in a time line?

I am sure we are all confused sometime in our lives.


far away is your next position on the time line?   Hint a second is ''far way''

While you can divide a second into infinite slices a second is not infinite. Math can go where reality can not. Once again in science it is generally accepted that Plank's distance is the lowest level of motion. Plank's time relates to Planks distance through c. A second relative to the electron cycle is far away but to my consciousness it is relatively short.

 
There no fallacy in my argument.

Certainly not by the author. But each of us has a certain depth of understanding the limits of an argument. You have not really defined the parameters of your argument. What is your definition of time?
Time at the moment and ''hearing'' what Einstein had to say, time is ''these time-values can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements) capable of observation''.

I have mentioned before my definition of time,

Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0

added- I also never said a second was infinite, I said the speed of time was infinite for the simple reason of counting at any speed and the time goes past equally and directional proportional to the speed/rate of counting.

A second is far away compared to (tP), I am glad you recognise the difference.

Counting slow or counting fast does not change the speed/rate of time.   That is what the time dilation Keating experiment is doing , counting slow then by the ''illusion'' think that time is slowing down.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest4091 on 07/07/2017 17:53:50
Thebox

Quote
The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.
 

By definition, the 'second' is just over 9 billion wave lengths of light in the microwave freq. range, i.e. a distance. These can be counted and used as a measure of time.

If time is a continuous flow of instants, as you suggest, how do you measure time?
An instant is an interval of zero, and n x 0 = 0.

Quote
I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.

Your brain requires a few milliseconds to process an image.
If you are watching a strobe light, there are spaces between the intermittent signals.

Quote
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.

Here you're defining motion. Position is distance and direction relative to a reference object M. Motion is changing position relative to M. Speed is rate of change of position relative to M.
It's logical that you can't get to a new position without leaving the previous position.
It's logical that you can't be in two positions at the same time.
So what's new?

Quote
If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck  ahead of them (p),

If  twin two  accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q

If twin2 rejects (statement for time line), then (if p then q) is false.
You can't select the ones in your favor and exclude the others.
How would you show the difference in velocities with your timeline graphic?

Quote
If c is constant time remains constant, time could only be a variate if c was a variant.
Light speed c is constant in space, but not within/relative to a moving light clock. That's why there is time dilation. If c was constant relative to a moving light clock, observers watching the clock go by would see light speed >c. The first has been experimentally observed, the second has not.

Quote
It was not a good idea though by Einsteins to say ignore true time and we will define time as the fingers on a clock.
In early history, the speed of light was thought to be instantaneous and time was universal. Experiment has shown that both ideas are incorrect.
Time is relative to a defined standard, like all measurements.

Time does not move, thus it has no speed. It's just an historical record keeping process, an ordering of events, a gage of activity. It is not a thing or party planner as you would have if taking a cruise.

After reading your ideas, I would suggest reading a book on special relativity, without any complicated math.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/07/2017 18:15:14


Quote
If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck  ahead of them (p),

If  twin two  accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q

If twin2 rejects (statement for time line), then (if p then q) is false.
You can't select the ones in your favor and exclude the others.
How would you show the difference in velocities with your timeline graphic?


Twin Two can not reject the statement, there is no more I need to say about it , the only thing I need to do in my paper is correct the rules of logic to:
If twin one objectively accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

If twin two objectively accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, then subsequently p↔q

From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence
In logic, statements {\displaystyle p}[​IMG] and {\displaystyle q}[​IMG] are logically equivalent if they have the same logical content. This is a semantic concept; two statements are equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model (Mendelson 1979:56). The logical equivalence of {\displaystyle p}[​IMG] and {\displaystyle q}[​IMG] is sometimes expressed as {\displaystyle p\equiv q}[​IMG], {\displaystyle {\textsf {E}}pq}[​IMG], or {\displaystyle p\iff q}[​IMG].

Quote
By definition, the 'second' is just over 9 billion wave lengths of light in the microwave freq. range, i.e. a distance. These can be counted and used as a measure of time.

If time is a continuous flow of instants, as you suggest, how do you measure time?
An instant is an interval of zero, and n x 0 = 0.

We measure time ''one step'' at a time to be accurate, we do not do ''daddy'' steps we do ''baby'' steps.   

Quote
Here you're defining motion. Position is distance and direction relative to a reference object M. Motion is changing position relative to M. Speed is rate of change of position relative to M.
It's logical that you can't get to a new position without leaving the previous position.
It's logical that you can't be in two positions at the same time.
So what's new?

Try to displace a point without it leaving a past position, try to measure time without leaving a past chronological position.  You can imagine the point is 0t and try to displace it any rate/speed without leaving an equal and proportional past. I have not yet explained this part in my paper fully.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 08/07/2017 13:39:58
Twin Two can not reject the statement, there is no more I need to say about it , the only thing I need to do in my paper is correct the rules of logic to:If twin one objectively accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

Lets accept that time and timing are two different things as you suggest. I also tend to agree with that assessment with some caveats related to relativity. Lets also accept a second is ~9 billion wave cycles. ~9 billion wave cycles will equal a second. First we will consider the proton at rest with 9 billion wave cycles at c rotation through space. We know the electron and photon are always confounded in every frame. So energy c and electron w are always in step with each other. Energy (measured by the photon) c is what's always available. Now we start at relative rest and move the electron through space towards velocity c. As we move the proton through space the electron reduces its cycle relative to its cycle at rest reducing the relative tick rate. Again this is timing vs. energy c as time. The electron is as constant as the photon is in distance traveled through space. The electron has to count the volume of space it travels through as conserved energy c. Reaction rate, aging and cycle timing are all affected the same while total energy c (time energy) remains constant. In this scenario planks length has nothing to do with time but twin two has everything to do with timing.

 
If twin two objectively accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, then subsequently p↔q

Yes but if reaction rate is based on tick rate of the duration of the 9 billion cycles for aging p can =q for the photon c in SR. While aging is not based on total time (energy) available from p to q timing of cycles does affect aging and reaction rates.

This is why I keep asking you to define your time. Then we can relate it to what is observed.



Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0


Time is energy and energy allows motion. Total energy is c. Then we have c used vs. c available which is measured by our clocks tick duration.

Timeless space = a photon at 0 ft/s. This is not what is observed. Time limit is c. Distance of c relative to ~9 billion cycles of the electron is your second. There is no preferred second in timing but total available is c.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/07/2017 13:49:56
Twin Two can not reject the statement, there is no more I need to say about it , the only thing I need to do in my paper is correct the rules of logic to:If twin one objectively accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

Lets accept that time and timing are two different things as you suggest. I also tend to agree with that assessment with some caveats related to relativity. Lets also accept a second is ~9 billion wave cycles. ~9 billion wave cycles will equal a second. First we will consider the proton at rest with 9 billion wave cycles at c rotation through space. We know the electron and photon are always confounded in every frame. So energy c and electron w are always in step with each other. Energy (measured by the photon) c is what's always available. Now we start at relative rest and move the electron through space towards velocity c. As we move the proton through space the electron reduces its cycle relative to its cycle at rest reducing the relative tick rate. Again this is timing vs. energy c as time. The electron is as constant as the photon is in distance traveled through space. The electron has to count the volume of space it travels through as conserved energy c. Reaction rate, aging and cycle timing are all affected the same while total energy c (time energy) remains constant. In this scenario planks length has nothing to do with time but twin two has everything to do with timing.

 
If twin two objectively accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, then subsequently p↔q

Yes but if reaction rate is based on tick rate of the duration of the 9 billion cycles for aging p can =q for the photon c in SR. While aging is not based on total time (energy) available from p to q timing of cycles does affect aging and reaction rates.

This is why I keep asking you to define your time. Then we can relate it to what is observed.



Time=timing relative to absolute timeless space. i.e 0


Time is energy and energy allows motion. Total energy is c. Then we have c used vs. c available which is measured by our clocks tick duration.

Timeless space = a photon at 0 ft/s. This is not what is observed. Time limit is c. Distance of c relative to ~9 billion cycles of the electron is your second. There is no preferred second in timing but total available is c.
You understand it , :D.

That is all I ever wanted is for somebody with better knowledge and better writing skills than me to understand me.  You can now explain all this to your science friends, science will then be accurate, change the definition on wiki from time dilation to timing dilation, FIXED.


Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/07/2017 13:55:10
Quote
Timeless space = a photon at 0 ft/s. This is not what is observed.

You observe 0 frequency , you do not observe Photons traversing through space, There is nothing to time to obtain timing. i.e ''timingless''

This does not say there is no photons,

Observe and detect being two different things
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 08/07/2017 16:39:53
You understand it , . That is all I ever wanted is for somebody with better knowledge and better writing skills than me to understand me.  You can now explain all this to your science friends, science will then be accurate, change the definition on wiki from time dilation to timing dilation, FIXED.

Most here already understand. I have nothing to really add. This is relativity. I just changed the wording to your understanding format as I recognized it.

You observe 0 frequency , you do not observe Photons traversing through space, There is nothing to time to obtain timing. i.e ''timingless''

Unfortunately you are following the standard model of virtual photons and virtual energy. If something can be measured it exists. Virtual is used because photon mass would invalidate relativity. The MMX was used to disregard a stationary Aether that we travel through. While the MMX disproves a stationary unmoving Aether it was taken beyond the limits of the test to say there is no type of matrix. The test did not disprove all Aether types. There is one that the test did not disprove. Its fundamental energy c itself that causes relativity. A particle spin (Aether) rotating with the Earth and all bodies with mass in the universe except BH's. All clocks tick at the same rate at sea level The direction of gravity attraction is a straight line to the gravitational center not a curve with rotation of the Earth. Light, gravity, magnetism, weak and strong force are different affects of that energy matrix.

We know photons travel through space. It is a wave on the energy matrix which is separate from macro mass and allows waves to be real and not just virtual. Independent from mass, causing relativity. c spin is time motion for distance measurements of the wave form photon. Transfer energy? Certainly.  Time and energy are the same thing. Motion.

Observe and detect being two different things
Except they do not need to be observed to realize they traverse space. Our eyes are detectors of photons.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/07/2017 17:06:53
[quote author=GoC link=topic=70844.msg518217#msg518217 date=1499528393
Unfortunately you are following the standard model of virtual photons and virtual energy. If something can be measured it exists.
[/quote]

I am not using any model other than my own thinking when concerning the nature of light. We can detect EMR, which we can measure, however the only visible photons you observe are the results on the device you are using to measure. When considering sight the only results we observe are the visible photons in their exact geometrical position, to say photons exist in space is like saying when it rains the ground does not get wet.


factual -emr exists in space

unproven -photons exist in space

factual - no visible photons in space

factual-visible photons exist of ''substance''

Conclusion -Emr has to enter your eyes to allow you to observe visible photons
of substance

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/07/2017 01:42:56

twin one's  next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p)
twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q)

(p→q)Λ(q→p)⇒(p⇐⇒ q)   

any better?


Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 09/07/2017 16:07:47

No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/07/2017 16:45:49

No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1
Of course not, because if we measured time correctly to begin with instead of  having 3.26 cm = 1 second of the atomic clock, the twins experience no time dilation, the illusion being the construct of the measurement of 1 second which is not there to begin with.
We are simply measuring time wrongly and our semantics of the time dilation are greatly misinterpreted.

Think of it this way,

Twin one is relatively stationary , twin two is in motion, consider the two statements below, do the logical test on the statements.

Twin one experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (p)

Twin two experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (q)

The truth of both statements being true.

p implies q is true and  the converse  q implies p to be true.

Added - One (tP) on the timeline is directly proportional to the amount of history recorded.

More inference logic, do the logic test on that statement to. Look at my provided model. Think about geometric positions and chronological positions . 
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 09/07/2017 19:22:39
Lets say you have an electrical line of 120 volts. How many amps are delivered?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/07/2017 20:16:40
Lets say you have an electrical line of 120 volts. How many amps are delivered?
0.5A or 500 mA and I think I know where you are leading with this but I await your unrelated effort.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 09/07/2017 21:28:01
Volts are like Planks length and Planks time. Volts are useless without amps. You have a wire that carries 10 amps. If you use 5 amps for motion you only have 5 amps energy available. All motion uses amps Your clock measures the remaining amps after you have motion. When you were at the 10 amp potential your aging clock ran fast. Now your amps available are only 5 amps of potential your aging clock runs slower. Volts are the same. You have to think in terms of energy used and energy available.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/07/2017 22:03:41
Volts are like Planks length and Planks time. Volts are useless without amps. You have a wire that carries 10 amps. If you use 5 amps for motion you only have 5 amps energy available. All motion uses amps Your clock measures the remaining amps after you have motion. When you were at the 10 amp potential your aging clock ran fast. Now your amps available are only 5 amps of potential your aging clock runs slower. Volts are the same. You have to think in terms of energy used and energy available.
Scratches head a bit with identifying the relevance, I will have to think your post over to try to understand it.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest4091 on 10/07/2017 17:51:51

No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1
Of course not, because if we measured time correctly to begin with instead of  having 3.26 cm = 1 second of the atomic clock, the twins experience no time dilation, the illusion being the construct of the measurement of 1 second which is not there to begin with.
We are simply measuring time wrongly and our semantics of the time dilation are greatly misinterpreted.

Think of it this way,

Twin one is relatively stationary , twin two is in motion, consider the two statements below, do the logical test on the statements.

Twin one experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (p)

Twin two experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (q)

The truth of both statements being true.

p implies q is true and  the converse  q implies p to be true.

Added - One (tP) on the timeline is directly proportional to the amount of history recorded.

More inference logic, do the logic test on that statement to. Look at my provided model. Think about geometric positions and chronological positions . 
The essence of your statement is 'if two people agree on a idea,it's true'.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 18:05:45

No because Planks length and Planks time has nothing to do with the change of reaction rate for twin 2 or twin 1
Of course not, because if we measured time correctly to begin with instead of  having 3.26 cm = 1 second of the atomic clock, the twins experience no time dilation, the illusion being the construct of the measurement of 1 second which is not there to begin with.
We are simply measuring time wrongly and our semantics of the time dilation are greatly misinterpreted.

Think of it this way,

Twin one is relatively stationary , twin two is in motion, consider the two statements below, do the logical test on the statements.

Twin one experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (p)

Twin two experiences time passing one (tP) per tick. (q)

The truth of both statements being true.

p implies q is true and  the converse  q implies p to be true.

Added - One (tP) on the timeline is directly proportional to the amount of history recorded.

More inference logic, do the logic test on that statement to. Look at my provided model. Think about geometric positions and chronological positions . 
The essence of your statement is 'if two people agree on a idea,it's true'.

If both objectively accept that which is shown in measurement, moving forward in time is directly proportional to the history created. 

By both, it simply means I and the reader agreeing objectively.  The reality is I am correct about this and have just disproved Einstein. There is no possible argument anyone could give, it is a 100% axiom logically and ''physically'' by measurement.

Nobody can displace 0 chronologically or geometrically without creating an equal and proportional past.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 10/07/2017 18:44:53
Your thinking is one dimensional. c is time energy available while kinetic is a reduction in timing. Timing is recorded with your clock based on energy available (aging). Einstein was a master with multiple dimensional thinking. Your proofs are shallow thinking. And are a block for deeper understanding. Einstein felt only 10 % of the population could understand relativity. Once you understand a realization that relativity is the only course possible to follow observations.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 18:52:46
Your thinking is one dimensional. c is time energy available while kinetic is a reduction in timing. Timing is recorded with your clock based on energy available (aging). Einstein was a master with multiple dimensional thinking. Your proofs are shallow thinking. And are a block for deeper understanding. Einstein felt only 10 % of the population could understand relativity. Once you understand a realization that relativity is the only course possible to follow observations.
Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand .  Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.

Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.
It is quite clear the premise can not be broken by anyone. Objectively, subjectively, theoretical, relative correctness. 

3.26 cm or 1 second is not there, you are believing the illusion that is constructed.  I have deconstructed the illusion to observe the true values and the truth.
100% certainty , P=1, I do not believe in fairies so do not present them before me in imagination.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 18:59:16
Understand what ''you'' are saying.  If I count time , and count slowly, time runs slowly, if I count time faster, time runs faster.

Try counting if you don't believe me, your count could never be equal to the speed of time , you can't count fast enough.

Do it in words per second if you like

John writes :  bd0b1b179550c4da95d79901550c9a85.gif


Alice writes : d3534f1f09cfd7a818ef67e543fcc9bc.gif

The speed of time does not '''CARE'' about John or Alice.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 19:11:25
added-

d19ccce4c9b7f5a4b723261a7fd1a664.gif


f66cbb538f35b5e825130d3832da25db.gif

1 is equal to 1, 1 does not change.

1=3.26cm

added :
9ba7575be9b55a4be6bd593ba09835d6.gif=t

cfccf1b7dc4271bb68e63bca18a9eaa3.gif=t

This is what you are doing.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 10/07/2017 19:14:17
Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand .  Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.

Define time? It took me a long time for my current understanding. ~ 40 years. I might be a slow learner.


Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.

I am not trying to break your rocks. Volts and amps. Two dimensions.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 19:16:49
Nice try GOC I understand relativity it is easy to understand .  Einstein is wrong and time does not slow down or speed up.

Define time? It took me a long time for my current understanding. ~ 40 years. I might be a slow learner.


Quite clearly I have shown the bundle of errors. To show me wrong GOC, you or anybody else will have to ''break'' my ''rock solid'' premise.

I am not trying to break your rocks. Volts and amps. Two dimensions.


I define time:  A quantifiable measurement that is directly proportional to change.

adding - The universe changes at the rate of (tP), that is the best we can hope for.
added -
t=Δ(tP)

and there's the maths

added: and here is the counter argument maths

t≠Δ1.s
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 19:35:26
 Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency  of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is  different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.
In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.  
This is the error in thinking  by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.  If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidently if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one,  twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them  and synchronous too twin one.  The unit of a Planck length being fractionally zero and having no negligible length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation ideology.

I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock

''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 20:22:20
In the below diagram we observe a carriage in relative motion and observe a light beam travelling between two points vertically.  However this diagram differs from the original light clock thought in that our cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif points are a Planck length apart. The observer clearly observes the light  travelling  a linearity, as opposed to the angled paths in the original thought experiment.  Although one might conclude the linearity objectively looked a bit wave like but not perceivable by the eye and negligible when considering time dilation.


* tp.jpg (14.7 kB . 985x507 - viewed 2294 times)

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/07/2017 23:52:10
In the below diagram we can observe the difference in thought experiment of the Lorentz length contraction if we were to substitute the length of carriage with  a Planck Length.   A ''Photon'' is emitted from point (A) and is reflected by point (B) back to point (A) in a continuous manner while the carriage travels left to right.
We can observe from the diagram that the substitute shows no length contraction or said time dilation.


* lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 2316 times)

The converse of this diagram also remaining true.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 11/07/2017 12:36:26
Your plank argument is relative to my volts argument. Plank is based on c which is available volts. Your frames are based on amps. In SR you have velocity using some amps. Your total available amps is limited by c volts like a motor. You have a speed limit for your motor. Lets look at it backwards. Total amps is c at 100 volts. The more volts being used the less are available. Your clock measures your volts available in a frame relative to c as a reduction in the electron cycle. Planks energy is the ratio of volts and amps per frame.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2017 16:41:08
Your plank argument is relative to my volts argument. Plank is based on c which is available volts. Your frames are based on amps. In SR you have velocity using some amps. Your total available amps is limited by c volts like a motor. You have a speed limit for your motor. Lets look at it backwards. Total amps is c at 100 volts. The more volts being used the less are available. Your clock measures your volts available in a frame relative to c as a reduction in the electron cycle. Planks energy is the ratio of volts and amps per frame.
There is no comparison to the argument, I am measuring time not measuring volts although it may be my understanding of what you are saying, having no idea of what you are saying to be honest because I know very little about volts.
I don't know everything, I only know a few things in good detail because them are the things out of science I hand picked in being not quite right .
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 11/07/2017 17:01:35
Thank you God
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2017 17:06:07
Thank you God
Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either, I think you are proper scientist GOC?

It is not on me to sort out the difficulties, I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved.  I have invented nothing, created nothing, it is on science to do all the small details.

All I want is for science say yes we understand now and will look in to it, then I can go back to my normal everyday life and stop thinking.

added- For several years now science forums have had me thinking I was loosing my ''marbles'', caused me a break down , anxiety and all sorts.   I got stronger inside and then tried harder to produce the paper I have produced so far, a paper I don't even want to write in reality.   I don't want to be known as the guy who ''wrecked'' science but it has got to be done to achieve relative correctness.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 13/07/2017 17:31:40
I think you are proper scientist GOC?

You would need to define proper scientist before I could give you my opinion.


Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either,

Not that I am one of the faithful but how would we know?


I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved

And there lies the problem.

Lets go through one of your logic loops of undeniable truths.
1. You need to understand relativity to believe it.
2. Once you believe in relativity you find it to be true.

Where are you on the logic loop?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2017 17:39:52
I think you are proper scientist GOC?

You would need to define proper scientist before I could give you my opinion.


Lol thanking the sky above your head really doesn't help either,

Not that I am one of the faithful but how would we know?


I can only point to the errors and show the errors in semantics and the thinking involved

And there lies the problem.

Lets go through one of your logic loops of undeniable truths.
1. You need to understand relativity to believe it.
2. Once you believe in relativity you find it to be true.

Where are you on the logic loop?

By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist  and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.
 
Where am I on the logic loop.


1. You need to prove relativity to accept it.
2. Once you objectively accept the proof  in relativity you will find it to be true.

i.e  Time=A quantifiable measurement that is directly proportional to change

Δt=(tP)

Objectively true by the measurements showing it to be true.

added- I have said before, if it is not 100% true then it is not true it is subjective and belief.  It is not a belief that my next ''now'' is immediate ahead of me, a very small increment of time. My moments of now, do not jump in 1 second increments.





Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 13/07/2017 18:43:58
By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist  and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.

Then yes. Analytical chemistry.

Your answer to the logic loop was a Donald Trump answer. Meaningless to the question of relativity.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2017 19:39:47
By proper scientist, I mean you have qualifications in it, probably a professional scientist  and get paid for it as a job in some section of science.

Then yes. Analytical chemistry.

Your answer to the logic loop was a Donald Trump answer. Meaningless to the question of relativity.

I quite like chemistry, use to know a little about it, chair formations etc.   I think chemistry is more depth than physics.  I never have had an argument about chemistry, I could not find one.

I think I have answered the question of relativity , Einsteins thoughts are not entirely correct.   Maybe I am not  quite understanding the question?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 14/07/2017 16:54:17
I quite like chemistry, use to know a little about it, chair formations

Yea, I used to sit on the left rather than the right in meetings. I could never figure out why.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Greylorn on 20/07/2017 02:09:47
Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite,
Kindly define the speed of time in mathematical terms.   E.g: the speed of a bag of nicely packaged horse droppings flung in your direction or mine might be, let's say, a constant 30 kilometers per hour.  Mathematically, the speed or vectored speed, velocity, would be expressed as v=x/t, or v=30_kilometers/3600_seconds.  That would define the movement of something, typically something definable enough to possess the property of mass (like the aforementioned bag of poo), with respect to time. 

But a mathematical expression for the movement of time would have to be t/t, which = 1.  Makes no sense to me, but hey, I didn't have to pass an exam to get on this forum and neither did anyone else. 
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/07/2017 10:49:10
Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite,
Kindly define the speed of time in mathematical terms.   E.g: the speed of a bag of nicely packaged horse droppings flung in your direction or mine might be, let's say, a constant 30 kilometers per hour.  Mathematically, the speed or vectored speed, velocity, would be expressed as v=x/t, or v=30_kilometers/3600_seconds.  That would define the movement of something, typically something definable enough to possess the property of mass (like the aforementioned bag of poo), with respect to time. 

But a mathematical expression for the movement of time would have to be t/t, which = 1.  Makes no sense to me, but hey, I didn't have to pass an exam to get on this forum and neither did anyone else. 

I have defined the speed of time as infinitely fast.  Time passes you by faster than you could ever count or measure.

vt=Δ∞

That about summons it up.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 22/07/2017 13:15:27
But a mathematical expression for the movement of time would have to be t/t, which = 1.  Makes no sense to me, but hey, I didn't have to pass an exam to get on this forum and neither did anyone else.

You passed the test. All other speeds are some fraction of one. We usually express 1 as c. If you want to go deeper e=c so time is energy of available motion. E=mcc if we could define a rest state which we cannot would have the fastest completed cycle for the electron. All other frames are a fraction of the fastest cycle of the electron. mc is the cycle of total motion through the sea of c energy. You need to subtract the distance through c for all frames. This means velocity of a frame is counted within the electron cycle for distance with in a cycle. This is necessary for understanding relativity. You can never measure your energy use between at rest and c with a clock. A clock measures energy available but not the energy being used in your frame. An atom at velocity c would = 0 energy and 0 time because there would be no energy left for cycling motion. So c=e=motion.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Greylorn on 23/07/2017 01:37:00
You passed the test. All other speeds are some fraction of one. We usually express 1 as c. If you want to go deeper e=c so time is energy of available motion. E=mcc if we could define a rest state which we cannot would have the fastest completed cycle for the electron. All other frames are a fraction of the fastest cycle of the electron. mc is the cycle of total motion through the sea of c energy. You need to subtract the distance through c for all frames. This means velocity of a frame is counted within the electron cycle for distance with in a cycle. This is necessary for understanding relativity. You can never measure your energy use between at rest and c with a clock. A clock measures energy available but not the energy being used in your frame. An atom at velocity c would = 0 energy and 0 time because there would be no energy left for cycling motion. So c=e=motion.
    There's an interesting mathematical divergence from physics called "dimensional analysis."  Put simply, the dimensions on both sides of an equation must balance.   If when all operations are performed on the left side of an equation, and the dimensions end up being mass x velocity ÷ distance, reduction of all operations on the right side of that equation must come out with the same dimensions. 

E=mcc balances dimensionally; E=c does not, and is therefore meaningless.  Velocity is not equivalent to energy.

I suppose that means I've actually flunked the test.  Alas.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/07/2017 03:02:00
You passed the test. All other speeds are some fraction of one. We usually express 1 as c. If you want to go deeper e=c so time is energy of available motion. E=mcc if we could define a rest state which we cannot would have the fastest completed cycle for the electron. All other frames are a fraction of the fastest cycle of the electron. mc is the cycle of total motion through the sea of c energy. You need to subtract the distance through c for all frames. This means velocity of a frame is counted within the electron cycle for distance with in a cycle. This is necessary for understanding relativity. You can never measure your energy use between at rest and c with a clock. A clock measures energy available but not the energy being used in your frame. An atom at velocity c would = 0 energy and 0 time because there would be no energy left for cycling motion. So c=e=motion.
    There's an interesting mathematical divergence from physics called "dimensional analysis."  Put simply, the dimensions on both sides of an equation must balance.   If when all operations are performed on the left side of an equation, and the dimensions end up being mass x velocity ÷ distance, reduction of all operations on the right side of that equation must come out with the same dimensions. 

E=mcc balances dimensionally; E=c does not, and is therefore meaningless.  Velocity is not equivalent to energy.

I suppose that means I've actually flunked the test.  Alas.

c is the rate of change of entropy , E=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif Δtc

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Greylorn on 23/07/2017 05:06:52
 :(
c is the rate of change of entropy , E=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif Δtc
I'm accustomed to using "c" to represent the velocity of light.  In the equation you provided, I don't see E=c anywhere.  I don't know the equation or the meaning of its right-side terms, except for the Planck constant.  I see a little subscript c that does not tell me squat, relate to, or refute my comment.  What kind of pseudo-scientists am I dealing with here?  Can't anyone either admit a screw-up or honestly explain an element of confusion?   Don't take this personally, but please Help! :(

BTW, please tell me where to go to construct well-formatted equations as you've done.  Is there a way to use TeX or LaTeX on this site?   Thanks!
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/07/2017 12:42:33
:(
c is the rate of change of entropy , E=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif Δtc
I'm accustomed to using "c" to represent the velocity of light.  In the equation you provided, I don't see E=c anywhere.  I don't know the equation or the meaning of its right-side terms, except for the Planck constant.  I see a little subscript c that does not tell me squat, relate to, or refute my comment.  What kind of pseudo-scientists am I dealing with here?  Can't anyone either admit a screw-up or honestly explain an element of confusion?   Don't take this personally, but please Help! :(

BTW, please tell me where to go to construct well-formatted equations as you've done.  Is there a way to use TeX or LaTeX on this site?   Thanks!
Don't expect math to be anything you know or have seen on google in a new theory section. 

Imagine a rock, it changes it's entropy at a rate that is equal to gain , it gains hf at c.  E=c is not correct, E is retained and processed in a system, Photons being potential (pE). 

We can say Energy max of a system is hf/S . Which is high frequency divided by the entropy volume.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: GoC on 23/07/2017 19:19:41
E=c and the distance energy can travel is ~ 186,000 miles a second. It is a constant in space. Mass is not needed for this constant. You can accept it or not your choice. Just because no one explained it to you does not mean it's not true. This is an observed fact relativity is correct by observation while there is no way for proof.

What are you trying to balance? You need to define the players of that balance you seek.

Here is the balance in terms of fundamental c (energy). Absolute rest is an impossible state. So we have an energy of c in space which in a vacuum does not slow down or speed up. It's a constant. Now lets add Mass. What moves the electrons of mass? c of course. Now lets look at how c balances the electron movement with available energy of c. First we will define maximum rest for mass. That would be the fastest cycle in the least amount of added space used. Ok now we travel through space and here is where the equation of energy use becomes a balancing act. We are balancing the energy c as delivered to the electron. The energy delivered to the electron is a constant c. But with velocity we travel through space which takes more energy per cycle of the electron because of the increase in distance traveled per cycle. Everything is related to distance and the energy of distance c is constant.

We measure time as cycles of the electron. At c an atoms electron would not cycle. So we can add E=time as we measure it.

Most everyone reads with an eye to falsify. It's unusual to find one with an eye to understand first.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/07/2017 22:43:08
E=c and the distance energy can travel is ~ 186,000 miles a second. It is a constant in space. Mass is not needed for this constant. You can accept it or not your choice. Just because no one explained it to you does not mean it's not true. This is an observed fact relativity is correct by observation while there is no way for proof.

What are you trying to balance? You need to define the players of that balance you seek.

Here is the balance in terms of fundamental c (energy). Absolute rest is an impossible state. So we have an energy of c in space which in a vacuum does not slow down or speed up. It's a constant. Now lets add Mass. What moves the electrons of mass? c of course. Now lets look at how c balances the electron movement with available energy of c. First we will define maximum rest for mass. That would be the fastest cycle in the least amount of added space used. Ok now we travel through space and here is where the equation of energy use becomes a balancing act. We are balancing the energy c as delivered to the electron. The energy delivered to the electron is a constant c. But with velocity we travel through space which takes more energy per cycle of the electron because of the increase in distance traveled per cycle. Everything is related to distance and the energy of distance c is constant.

We measure time as cycles of the electron. At c an atoms electron would not cycle. So we can add E=time as we measure it.

Most everyone reads with an eye to falsify. It's unusual to find one with an eye to understand first.
There is no absolute rest , but there is certainly relative rest and relative retention. 
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:48:40
My  new abstract, I am going to concentrate my first paper on time rather than trying to have too many ideas in one basket.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.


Abstract-

This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics  in a primary respect to time.  Using a dialectic approach and presenting  logical arguments and supporting evidence that opposes the present information.  Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking  at the true values of the  relativity of time that humanity has quantified.  Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.


Is that a reasonable abstract? peer away all opinions welcome.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 23:13:31
Introduction.

Most people from an early age understand the concept of time and that time passes by for all observers.  Whether you are a human, other species or even a rock there is no escaping the passing of time.
Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first heard time slowed down or can speed up and wondered how much of this was fact and how much of this was mythology. The more I looked at the intrinsic details of relativity and time, the more I realised the mythology involved  and the great error that was being made in the semantics of time.
This lead me to researching into the error and looking to explain the error in a way everyone could understand.   Thus  leading into our first discussion of the nature of time.


Does the introduction pass?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 23:49:12
The Nature of time.

For human's , the very need of time is to synchronise our everyday existences.  We believe time can be measured and is quantifiable.  Many years have passed and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts.
Newton believed time was absolute and absolute time exists independently  and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.
However this was later ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein's notions and that time was relative, who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity and special relativity.  This later being proven to be true by various experiment such as the Hafele–Keating experiment.

To quote Wikipedia: ''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Presently the measure of time is defined as the electronic transitions between the two hyper-fine ground states of caesium-133 atoms at precisely  9,192,631,770 Hz.  That value was chosen to be equal too and replace the previous second's way of measurement. The  Hafele–Keating experiment measuring a change in Hz , effectively a change in time.
Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and indisputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.


Anything else I may need to add?

What do I need to put for my next chapter title?

I want to start explaining the errors.

Does the above show I understand time dilation to the present understanding?

Should I put about the below next before pointing out the errors showing my further understanding. Showing my understanding of the lorentz contractions?

The light clock illusion and illusion of length contraction.

''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/11/2017 00:18:07
The Nature of time.

For human's , the very need of time is to synchronise our everyday existences.  We believe time can be measured and is quantifiable.  Many years have passed and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts.
Newton believed time was absolute and absolute time exists independently  and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.
However this was later ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein's notions and that time was relative, who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity and special relativity.
To quote: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity
''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time''.

This later being proven to be true by various experiment such as the Hafele–Keating experiment.

To quote : Wikipedia:''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Presently the measure of time is defined as the electronic transitions between the two hyper-fine ground states of caesium-133 atoms at precisely  9,192,631,770 Hz.  That value was chosen to be equal too and replace the previous second's way of measurement. The  Hafele–Keating experiment measuring a change in Hz , effectively a change in time.
Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and indisputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.

In support of this there is also a thought experiment and the Lorentz length contraction which we will look at in a new chapter.

The light clock  and  length contraction.

To quote Wikipedia ''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''


Does that look right?  Not to sure . not much help see what i mean.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/11/2017 00:27:02
Mr Chemist, Mr Spoon, Kryt

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/11/2017 02:16:04
I'm peeking in on the thread, and want to offer you some encouragement. It is not only a learning experience, what you are doing, but it keeps your mind active in the the right way.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/11/2017 09:17:42
The light clock  and  length contraction.

To quote Wikipedia''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''


This thought experiment has been shown to be true, as the quotation suggests, it is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a light clock , would see the light clock to tick relatively slower than their own clock.

Deduction

Hopefully ladies and gentlemen thus far, I have shown you I understand the present information.   However, if we look at some of the more finer details involved in time and time dilation, there is seemingly a problem. 
Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time, how fast does time pass?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between. A continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly passed as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
The reason for my uncertainty being,  when considering the next ''now'' moment being immediately ahead , there quite obviously would be no length/distance to contract.
In respect to this thought,  I then considered the smallest possible conceivable measurements available, which lead me to Max Planck, Planck time and a Planck length.
I then returned to the original thought experiment of the light clock aboard a spaceship and the observer on Earth observing the light clock. I then added time Planck to the thought and did the relative diagrams of the thought that also is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock using time Planck would see it ticking simultaneously in time with their own clock .

In the below diagram we can observe the difference in thought experiment of the Lorentz length contraction if we were to substitute the length of carriage with  a Planck Length.   A ''Photon'' is emitted from point (A) and is reflected by point (B) back to point (A) in a continuous manner while the carriage travels left to right.
We can observe from the diagram that the substitute shows no length contraction or said time dilation.


* tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1813 times)

Quite clearly the observer on Earth would just observe a light dot that travelled in respect with the carriage.

In the below diagram we observe a carriage in relative motion and observe a light beam travelling between two points vertically.  However this diagram differs from the original light clock thought in that our cdca247f7994f232db1fb4da88755518.gif points are a Planck length apart. The observer clearly observes the light  travelling  a linearity, as opposed to the angled paths in the original thought experiment.  Although one might conclude the linearity objectively looked a bit wave like but not perceivable by the eye and negligible when considering time dilation.


* tp.jpg (14.7 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1805 times)

This deduction so far shows that the original light clock thought experiment is flawed and does not show with ease a time dilation to people observing on Earth.  However this deductive proof itself does not explain the Caesium clock dilation in which we will look at in the next chapter showing more deductive proofs that show no time dilation.

Anyone wish to argue about anything?






Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/11/2017 12:31:00
To me, it is not about the rate that time passes, its about what the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. That measurement is a constant rate to an observer in the same location as the clock, and the same to an observer who is moving with the clock. That observer with just one clock will not be able to detect any difference in rate of time passing on that clock in either the at rest measurement or in the measurement made when moving together with the clock.


The only time you can detect a difference between clocks is when you have two clocks, and you leave one at home and take the other one traveling with you. Then when you bring the clocks back together and compare the amount of time that has passed on each, the difference in the amount of time that is measured to have passed is the amount of time dilation. It is said to be caused by the fact that there has been relative motion between the two clocks.

However, it does not tell you what the mechanical cause is of the two clocks operating at different velocities due to relative motion. An accelerated clock measures the passing of time at a slower rate, but why? Is it that there is a physical effect on the atoms in the clocks, and in our bodies, in all atoms, that caused them to run slower when they operating in higher energy density environments like those energy densities when being accelerated? I say yes, what do you say?

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/11/2017 12:54:05
An accelerated clock measures the passing of time at a slower rate,
Because it has  a difference of acceleration than the constant acceleration of the clock at rest.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/11/2017 12:55:58
To me, it is not about the rate that time passes, its about what the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. That measurement is a constant rate to an observer in the same location as the clock, and the same to an observer who is moving with the clock. That observer with just one clock will not be able to detect any difference in rate of time passing on that clock in either the at rest measurement or in the measurement made when moving together with the clock.
That would be untrue also, I will explain in my paper why it is untrue.

edited:  On second thought it would be true, but ......the reason it is false for the reason you mention :

''That observer with just one clock will not be able to detect any difference in rate of time passing on that clock in either the at rest measurement or in the measurement made when moving together with the clock.''

One clock being the problem of course.   If we put the above time Planck clock aboard with a caesium clock, we already know the tP clock is synchronous and constant in  motion or at rest.   This will be explained when I continue my next my part of the paper.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/11/2017 11:19:50
Is there anybody who thinks I am incorrect this far on anything I have said?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/11/2017 18:44:41
The Caesium clock time dilation

Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a Caesium clock that is identical to a Caesium clock on the carriage.   When the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency  of the Caesium clock on the carriage in relative motion is  different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment.  This we all know to be true and experiment as confirmed this .
However in respect to the earlier diagrams and the light clock  that used time Planck that were simultaneous, let us now consider that the train carriage and the embankment both have two clocks.  A Caesium clock and the light clock that uses time Planck.   

Aboard the carriage

A)Clock one light clock :  1.855e+43 tP = 1.s

B)Clock two caesium:  9,192,631,770 Hz. = 1.s

On the embankment


C)Clock one light clock :  1.855e+43 tP = 1.s

D)Clock two caesium:  9,192,631,770 Hz. = 1.s


Now in this scenario only one of the 4 clocks would measure a slower tick.   That clock being the caesium clock that was in motion.

A is equal to C,D but not equal to B

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/11/2017 23:07:47
 :o When you are not sure of what people are thinking about your notions.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2017 16:23:49
I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/12/2017 19:01:33
I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?
The amount of time dilation does not matter.   By using time Planck my clocks are always synchronous, showing no time dilation and overwhelmingly destroying the original light clock thought experiment.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/12/2017 23:43:31
I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?
The amount of time dilation does not matter.   By using time Planck my clocks are always synchronous, showing no time dilation and overwhelmingly destroying the original light clock thought experiment.

Are they real, i.e., is patent pending?


If you say they are synchronous, then I am wondering if they are communicating with each other to continually synchronize, and if so, by what means are they in communication. How do they avoid the time dilation that normally results from relative motion?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/12/2017 00:36:44
I'm not sure I understand the tP clock. Are you making an adjustment to the light clock to neutralize the time dilation between a light clock on the spaceship passing earth, and the earthly observer? The adjustment would have to vary depending on the relative velocities involved. How do you adjust the light clock unless you know the amount of dilation you have to adjust for?
The amount of time dilation does not matter.   By using time Planck my clocks are always synchronous, showing no time dilation and overwhelmingly destroying the original light clock thought experiment.

Are they real, i.e., is patent pending?


If you say they are synchronous, then I am wondering if they are communicating with each other to continually synchronize, and if so, by what means are they in communication. How do they avoid the time dilation that normally results from relative motion?
They are real but there is no patent or applied for patent.  I believe sharing is caring and have no problem giving my notions away for free.
I am not 100% sure but I think because I have posted in this forum I get some rights protection such as the intellectual rights.

Quote
How do they avoid the time dilation that normally results from relative motion?

A simple answer, they don't use the illusion of the distance used between light clock points that creates the illusion of a time dilation.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/12/2017 01:29:35

They are real but there is no patent or applied for patent.  I believe sharing is caring and have no problem giving my notions away for free.
Playing Santa?
Quote
I am not 100% sure but I think because I have posted in this forum I get some rights protection such as the intellectual rights.
Probably true, if someone were to use your idea for profit. Still, there has to be something to steal in order to have some rights to invoke against its theft. That is what you didn't yet reveal, I don't think. How do these tP clocks stay synchronized?


Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/12/2017 10:46:27
Playing Santa?
It's in my nature,

Quote
How do these tP clocks stay synchronized?


There is no distance to dilate, any affect would be so small, it would be imperceptible.

Quote
there has to be something to steal in order to have some rights to invoke against its theft.

The something is that it makes Einstein and science look like a bunch of fools in their thoughts. Science will never accept this because it makes relativity a joke and a laughing ''stock''.

One thing I do know is that I am an expert on time and what I have created is flawless.

Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the amount of period past. There is no time travel or likes, that is all make believe and subjective parlour tricks that I sore right through.

It is so easy to 'see' , why the Caesium is in flight and the Caesium is at rest, time passes constantly independently of the clocks.
A way of recording time can not affect the time it is recording.

The correct semantics of relativity would be a timing dilation rather than a time dilation, i.e relative correctness


Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/12/2017 11:47:19
The something is that it makes Einstein and science look like a bunch of fools in their thoughts. Science will never accept this because it makes relativity a joke and a laughing ''stock''.

One thing I do know is that I am an expert on time and what I have created is flawless.

Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to the amount of period past. There is no time travel or likes, that is all make believe and subjective parlour tricks that I sore right through.

It is so easy to 'see' , why the Caesium is in flight and the Caesium is at rest, time passes constantly independently of the clocks.
A way of recording time can not affect the time it is recording.

The correct semantics of relativity would be a timing dilation rather than a time dilation, i.e relative correctness



So if you are correct, time simply passes everywhere at its own invariant pace (a basic idea I agree with). But you conclude that our attempts to measure it with clocks is misleading us because distance and motion are perceptions that are subjective to the individuals and have no effect on time that simply passes at the same rate everywhere.

Then you go on that time dilation is an observable, but misinterpreted by our subjectiveness that causes us to believe there is such a thing as relativity, but we are foolishly deceived to believe that something so subjective is anything more than a human misconception, if we take it to mean relativity has any affect on the rate time really passes.

We don’t share that conclusion.


Relativity is real. To me, time simply passes, but the rate that our clocks measure it to be passing is affected by the relative wave energy density of the location of the clock, because the rate that particles function is affected by the local wave energy density, which varies. The variance comes in because relative motion puts the clocks in different wave energy density environments. Different paths through space take them through different wave energy density environments, causing a difference in the rate that their particles function, and hence causing a variance between the amount of time each clock measures to have passed.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/12/2017 12:38:12
We don’t share that conclusion.
Sometimes facts are not conclusions, they just are.    It is a fact that when the Caesium is in flight and one is at rest, that time is independent of both atoms and does not really ''care'' what the Caesium's are doing. By stating that time changes in any way by the use of the Caesium atoms is subjective and denoting that the Caesium frequency is time itself rather than a measure of the time that is independent of the atoms.   
They have done this in my opinion to try to glam science up a bit by adding complete BS.  There is loads of different ways I can show time dilation thinking is garbage . It is a relative timing dilation which is very different in semantics to a time dilation which is an impossibility.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/12/2017 14:12:02

Sometimes facts are not conclusions, they just are.    It is a fact that when the Caesium is in flight and one is at rest, that time is independent of both atoms and does not really ''care'' what the Caesium's are doing. By stating that time changes in any way by the use of the Caesium atoms is subjective and denoting that the Caesium frequency is time itself rather than a measure of the time that is independent of the atoms.   
They have done this in my opinion to try to glam science up a bit by adding complete BS.  There is loads of different ways I can show time dilation thinking is garbage . It is a relative timing dilation which is very different in semantics to a time dilation which is an impossibility.

Ok, can we agree that time is not what atomic clocks are measuring unless you define that as what time is? If you use that definition of time, your clocks are measuring the rate that your clocks are measuring the passing of time, not time in the sense that it is an invariant feature of the universe.

If you define the passing of time as something that is happening in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe, then your clocks are experiencing the passing of time at an invariant natural rate, while they measure the passing of time at a variable rate. The variable rate is relative to some hidden variable that affects their local environment’s energy density, and the “hidden variable” might be right out in plain sight. For example, if you look at your clocks, they can be said to be measuring the local gravitational wave energy density, in my view. The relative local wave energy density can be observed as the time dilation between two clocks in relative motion; easy peasy.

There is a philosophical point that can be made from that: The passing of time, and the measurement of the passing of time are different, and you can adopt the philosophy that time simply passes at the same rate everywhere, while developing the scientific explanation for the observation of time dilation as a feature of the activity of measuring the passing of local time simultaneously in two local wave energy density environments.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/12/2017 15:17:49
Ok, can we agree that time is not what atomic clocks are measuring unless you define that as what time is?
Yes, we can agree, exactly that.
If you define the passing of time as something that is happening in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe, then your clocks are experiencing the passing of time at an invariant natural rate, while they measure the passing of time at a variable rate.
Correct, exactly that.
There is a philosophical point that can be made from that: The passing of time, and the measurement of the passing of time are different,
A physical point not only philosophy.
while developing the scientific explanation for the observation of time dilation as a feature of the activity of measuring the passing of local time simultaneously in two local wave energy density environments.
I don't know the reason why there is a timing dilation, but I do believe it is entropy related and maybe density related but also I think that could be acceleration related. 
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/12/2017 16:20:52
Yes, we can agree, exactly that.

Correct, exactly that.

A physical point not only philosophy.

I don't know the reason why there is a timing dilation, but I do believe it is entropy related and maybe density related but also I think that could be acceleration related. 
Well, think about it and let me know if you begin to see why I invoke wave mechanics as the explanation. In the mean time, this is one of my arguments in favor:

We observe time dilation when two clocks are at different altitudes relative to the surface of the earth.

We observe time dilation when two clocks are accelerated at different rates.

We observe time dilation when two clocks travel around the world in opposite directions.

All three examples can be explained if you attribute the dilation to the local wave energy density environment in which the clocks are operating.

There is a growing consensus based on evidence, in favor of the emission of gravitational waves from objects with mass (LIGO found gravitational waves traversing space over great distances and long periods, Einstein predicted it). The evidence, and some simple reasoning that says all mass emits and absorbs gravitational waves, leads to the conclusion that all space has some level of gravitational wave energy density. The local level of density is a factor of proximity, and relative motion, to surrounding massive objects.

Time dilation is observed. There is a simple scientific explanation for it that is logical, and it fits with the growing consensus of wave-particle duality.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/12/2017 03:54:45
We observe time dilation when two clocks are at different altitudes relative to the surface of the earth.
Well sometimes I think better when I am out of my head, like on xmas day where I am really drunk and have had a party and think very carefully about my spelling.

The problem is ''time'' dilation happens by relative motion rather than altitude playing a apart. The density of X remains constant at ground level in accordance to sphericalfication.

We observe time dilation when two clocks are accelerated at different rates.
That is the exact cause, from a constant rest acceleration of 9.81m/s2 to a variant of whatever.
We observe time dilation when two clocks travel around the world in opposite directions.
Direction not having any affect
All three examples can be explained if you attribute the dilation to the local wave energy density environment in which the clocks are operating.
I see your point in accordance with the inverse square law, but variance of density can only happen at altitude where ground level dilation due to motion is the same density and constant  which tends to drift to a conclusion that acceleration as a part to play.
There is a growing consensus based on evidence, in favor of the emission of gravitational waves from objects with mass (LIGO found gravitational waves traversing space over great distances and long periods, Einstein predicted it). The evidence, and some simple reasoning that says all mass emits and absorbs gravitational waves, leads to the conclusion that all space has some level of gravitational wave energy density. The local level of density is a factor of proximity, and relative motion, to surrounding massive objects.

Time dilation is observed. There is a simple scientific explanation for it that is logical, and it fits with the growing consensus of wave-particle duality.
Ok, let me try to clarify my understanding of this.

Imagine each and every particle emits a field that the characteristics are of a linear and isotropic  nature.
Now imagine these fields ''buckle'' (wave) as passing through a resistant field or wave if they are become ''pressured'' by other fields.   I do not believe it would be possible to have waves without a resistant force or pressured force. So to me, waves are quantum fluctuations that are created directly and proportionally to the opposing force, permitivity playing a role.
Gravitational waves being a myth, gravitation being polarity based.
Ligo did not detect gravitational waves, what it detected was actually quantum field fluctuations. A linear force feed back that seemed to be wavelike but mistakenly . (imagine a sheet of paper and causing it to wave).


eads to the conclusion that all space has some level of gravitational wave energy density.
Some level but only existing in space emanating from bodies
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/12/2017 04:05:58
For anyone whom may not be convinced , try this.

It does not matter how fast or slow you count or ''measure'' time, time is an independent constant and continuous while you count.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/12/2017 14:26:55

We observe time dilation when two clocks travel around the world in opposite directions.
Direction not having any affect …
I’ll respond to that by pointing out that very important sources of wave energy density as planes carrying atomic clocks in opposite directions around the earth, besides the earth itself, are the moon, and the sun, which rise in the East and set in the West.

A clock on a plane heading into the rising sun or moon will experience higher wave energy density than a clock on a plane heading away from the rising sun or moon. Thus the clock heading into the rising sun or moon will run slower than a clock heading away from the rising sun or moon.

Abstract
Four cesium beam clocks flown around the world on commercial jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward, recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 ± 10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273 ± 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.


Here is a Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment))
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/12/2017 16:17:41
A clock on a plane heading into the rising sun or moon will experience higher wave energy density than a clock on a plane heading away from the rising sun or moon. Thus the clock heading into the rising sun or moon will run slower than a clock heading away from the rising sun or moon.
I see your point, the inverse square law and the ''transverse-square law''.   Density increasing as you are heading towards the source , which can be also observed by the doppler blue-shift .

Density decreasing as you travel away as can be seen in red-shift.

Doppler may not be an exact explanation but I do understand what you are saying and kinda of agree in your notion.

I consider that the frequency of the Caesium atom is the rate of ''life'' cycle,  this rate being a variant dependent on the situation. So although there is no actual time dilation, there is an ageing dilation.
So when twin 2 returns to twin one, he as aged less but still experienced the same amount of time as twin 1.

It easy to explain by using two batteries that hold the same amount of charge, both batteries begin to be used, except one is outputting more power than the other so as a lesser life .
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2017 17:20:36

I see your point, the inverse square law and the ''transverse-square law''.   Density increasing as you are heading towards the source , which can be also observed by the doppler blue-shift .

Density decreasing as you travel away as can be seen in red-shift.

Doppler may not be an exact explanation but I do understand what you are saying and kinda of agree in your notion.
If one considers the possibility that space is filled with gravitational waves, and that they are absorbed and emitted by matter, then the density of the wave energy in space is related to the proximity of matter, quite like general relativity. Except spacetime doesn't have to stretch and curve; space just has to be filled with gravitational wave energy density at varying levels related to the ever changing motion of particles and objects (perhaps).
Quote

I consider that the frequency of the Caesium atom is the rate of ''life'' cycle,  this rate being a variant dependent on the situation. So although there is no actual time dilation, there is an ageing dilation.
Perhaps ...
Quote
So when twin 2 returns to twin one, he as aged less but still experienced the same amount of time as twin 1.
... the same amount of time relative to the invariant rate that time passes regardless of what our clocks might suggest.
Quote
It is easy to explain by using two batteries that hold the same amount of charge, both batteries begin to be used, except one is outputting more power than the other so as a lesser life .

I would use a different analogy: It is easy to explain by using the difference in the rate that a marble falls in two fluids, say oil and water. A marble falls faster in water than in oil. The rate that time passes can be equated to the rate that the marble falls. For those in relative motion, the rate would be compared to the rate that the marble falls in oil, while the rate that time passes for the person at rest could be compared to the rate that the marble falls in water. The difference is that oil is denser than water, and so the marble falls further in water, much like more time passes for the twin who stays home. Though the same amount of "invariant universal time" passed for the marble that was falling in each fluid, the higher density of the oil fluid slowed the rate, as the higher wave energy density for a moving clock causes it to run slower. 
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/12/2017 17:09:25
If one considers the possibility that space is filled with gravitational waves, and that they are absorbed and emitted by matter, then the density of the wave energy in space is related to the proximity of matter, quite like general relativity. Except spacetime doesn't have to stretch and curve; space just has to be filled with gravitational wave energy density at varying levels related to the ever changing motion of particles and objects (perhaps).
I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .    The waves you mention I believe are field fluctuations due to permitting factors and oscillations of the field.
Consider how a pond is when there is no wind to disturb it.   It only waves when there is a force applied.  To me all waves are experiencing force.
... the same amount of time relative to the invariant rate that time passes regardless of what our clocks might suggest.
yes
Though the same amount of "invariant universal time" passed for the marble that was falling in each fluid, the higher density of the oil fluid slowed the rate, as the higher wave energy density for a moving clock causes it to run slower.
Yes, something like that.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2017 19:10:16
The crux of universal time is that time simply passes at some invariant universal rate, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is not invariant. The measurement of passing time is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the of the local environment of the clock, i.e., the local gravitational field points occupied by the clock, because the particles that make up the clock function at a variable rate governed by the local gravitational wave energy density at that location in the field.

I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .   
Here is a nice Wiki link to “Field”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics))

The Wiki on “Field” is quite complete for talking purposes. I don’t see much on linear fields, but I think I understand what you mean. When it comes to what “field” means in terms of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, the first line of the Wiki nails it:

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time” … and the term “physical quantity” means that the field establishes the structure of the physical values of each point of the field and the relationship between those points.

For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?

If so, then the field that is associated with the clock measurements of the passing of time is referred to as “the gravitational wave energy density profile of space”. That field is made up of points within that space that each have a specific physical quantity expressed as a value of wave energy density. The “Wave energy” part means that gravitational waves carry energy as they traverse space at the speed of light, so the quantity or value at each point is an amount of energy carried by all of the waves passing that point in space at the same time. The density at any point in the field is the net value of the peaks and valleys of the energy carried by all of the spherical waves converging at that point in space and time.

There is a back-history associated with each spherical wave that makes up the energy density of each and every point in the field. Therefore every point is constantly changing in value. However, the changes are not generally “jerky”, if you know what I mean, because there are so many individual waves converging at every point in space and time, that no one wave will generally dominate, but instead, the change in the moment-to-moment value of the net wave energy density of a point in space is more smooth than jerky.

An exception to that would be the relatively rare waves associated with extreme cosmic events like supernovae or the convergence of stellar black holes, as discovered recently by LIGO and the ESO.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/12/2017 01:44:12
For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?
Every point of space is connected to every point of space.  We can look at  any direction expanding away from any individual point and consider a linearity between the point and any distant point.   Now this linear can be also looked at isotropic from the point, that makes up a spherical field that is a linearity in all directions.   I mean for what reason as this field to wave?   Now to me,  if anything acts on the linear field, like a stationary jelly it wobbles (waves). 
But I suppose with space, there is something always acting on fields so fields always wave.

I imagine a carrier signal that travels in a linearity, but if it encounters resistance it waves.  I think the electromagnetic radiation traversing through space is not a wave but can wave. A 0 constant that allows slower signals to be detected as a wave.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/12/2017 03:34:55
Every point of space is connected to every point of space.  We can look at  any direction expanding away from any individual point and consider a linearity between the point and any distant point.   Now this linear can be also looked at isotropic from the point, that makes up a spherical field that is a linearity in all directions.   

Ok, we pretty much agree.
Quote
I mean for what reason [h]as this field to wave?
The field doesn’t wave. The field is a point by point set of values of the energy in the field at a point in time.
Quote
Now to me,  if anything acts on the linear field, like a stationary jelly it wobbles (waves).
The values of each point in the field continually change because the quantity of energy at each point is continually changing.
Quote
 
But I suppose with space, there is something always acting on fields so fields always wave.
The field doesn’t wave. Gravitational waves carry energy through the field, and the motion of those gravitational waves through the field are what makes the quantity of energy at each point continually change.
Quote
I imagine a carrier signal that travels in a linearity, but if it encounters resistance it waves.  I think the electromagnetic radiation traversing through space is not a wave but can wave. A 0 constant that allows slower signals to be detected as a wave.
Put that last paragraph out of your mind, lol.

Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/12/2017 03:51:30
I will move further discussion about my gravitational field ideas to my thread, since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper. To close out here, the gravitational field discussion is specific to my personal version of quantum gravity, lol, so by moving it over to my thread, I save you any connection with my musings.

Let me state here though, in conjunction with my posts about “field”, that when I said each point has a value in terms of the net energy carried by all of the gravitational waves passing through that point in space, at a point in time, I don’t mean to say that the value of the energy at any point in the field has ever been established, or even can be established, without specification of an appropriate unit of measure, without defining the spherical motion of the waves that carry that energy through the field, and without a reasoned approach to establishing a point by point energy value.

Einstein and Maxwell took on field theory over a hundred years ago, and general relativity is a pretty precise field theory of gravity featuring spacetime, and they work without ether. I’m happy with that, except to the extent that there is some logic involved in my perspective that suggests that the same effect that spacetime conveys, can be achieved by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space that I have mentioned to you in this thread.

I’ll leave you with that for now, and get back to my own territory.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/12/2017 17:55:29
Quote from: author=Bogie_smiles link=topic=70844.msg530512#msg530512 date=1514605890
since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper
Indeed, my paper is intended for relative correctness of semantics involved in time dilation and length contraction. Also to give time a definite structure and understanding.
My paper is not intended to give an answer to why the Caesium atom in motion changes frequency.  That would have to be a different paper in which I do have some notions.
However my paper is not really a paper because I have done nothing with it.  Perhaps somethings are best left alone rather than showing how naive the majority of the population of earth is.

P.s I do see your points on density, my N-field and n-field orbits rely on field density for their distance apart.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/12/2017 18:18:10
Silence is the acceptance of the truth.   I still do not understand why my paper is so ignored?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/12/2017 21:45:57
My advice is to post without expectations, and appreciate any response. Good luck.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/01/2018 21:27:21

* tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1464 times)


* lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1464 times)



Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 17/01/2018 09:26:11

* tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1464 times)


* lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1464 times)




Interesting. Reminds me of a very poor copy of Kandinsky.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/01/2018 12:29:55

* tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1464 times)


* lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1464 times)




Interesting. Reminds me of a very poor copy of Kandinsky.
Dirac was not very good at drawing too.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 22/01/2018 12:35:10
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/01/2018 12:53:15
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 22/01/2018 12:58:06
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/01/2018 13:08:41
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 22/01/2018 17:08:37
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/01/2018 09:26:14
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 23/01/2018 18:06:35
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.
'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/01/2018 00:12:13
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.
'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?
Have you never watched Uk customs programs or police programs?  There is no racism in the truth.

Anyway I assume you know what a chronological position is!

I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 24/01/2018 11:50:17
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.
'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?
Have you never watched Uk customs programs or police programs?  There is no racism in the truth.

Anyway I assume you know what a chronological position is!

I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?
Why don't you tell us all how you define a 'chronological position' pigeon?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/01/2018 13:59:06
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.
'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?
Have you never watched Uk customs programs or police programs?  There is no racism in the truth.

Anyway I assume you know what a chronological position is!

I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?
Why don't you tell us all how you define a 'chronological position' pigeon?
If we are using birds for analogies can I call you cxxk?

I look nothing like a pigeon I assure you.

I use the exact same definition of chronological as everyone else .

Quote
Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".


So if an event chronologically happens now, what amount of time until the next chronological  event?

What length on the time line is there?

Events in chronological order on a time line are continuous,  a line is adjoined.

You can not pass 0 without leaving a past position on the chronological line.




Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: The Spoon on 24/01/2018 18:56:27
No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.
So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?
If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.
Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.
I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.
Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.
'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?
Have you never watched Uk customs programs or police programs?  There is no racism in the truth.

Anyway I assume you know what a chronological position is!

I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?
Why don't you tell us all how you define a 'chronological position' pigeon?
If we are using birds for analogies can I call you cxxk?

I look nothing like a pigeon I assure you.

I use the exact same definition of chronological as everyone else .

Quote
Chronology (from Latin chronologia, from Ancient Greek χρόνος, chrónos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. Consider, for example, the use of a timeline or sequence of events. It is also "the determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events".


So if an event chronologically happens now, what amount of time until the next chronological  event?

What length on the time line is there?

Events in chronological order on a time line are continuous,  a line is adjoined.

You can not pass 0 without leaving a past position on the chronological line.





I know what chronology is you buffoon. What I am calling in to question is your term 'chronological position'. Not in common usage. It appears to be another thing you have chosen to define to suit yourself.
'I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?' is nonsense - even by your standards.

I dont mind you calling me a cock - I will wear the sobriquet with pride. I believe it refers to the male bird which has generally more beautiful plumage. The pigeon on the other hand is considered winged vermin that struts around pecking at the ground. Also, in my original naming of you it refers to one who knocks over the chess pieces and shits all over the board.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/01/2018 21:46:10
.

I dont mind you calling me a cock - I will wear the sobriquet with pride. I believe it refers to the male bird which has generally more beautiful plumage. The pigeon on the other hand is considered winged vermin that struts around pecking at the ground. Also, in my original naming of you it refers to one who knocks over the chess pieces and shits all over the board.
Ahah , quality , you got my respect for that one.

If you have a time line you have different positions on that time line yes?
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2018 08:19:58
Come on, children. If you start at x, your next position is x+ Δx.

If x is a continuous variable, then this is true for ∀(x) as Δx → 0.

Now please get on with the game before I show you both a yellow card. And don't argue with the referee.
Title: Re: A brief sample of my paper, with lots more to come.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/01/2018 12:11:40
Come on, children. If you start at x, your next position is x+ Δx.

If x is a continuous variable, then this is true for ∀(x) as Δx → 0.

Now please get on with the game before I show you both a yellow card. And don't argue with the referee.
What does the upside down (A) mean Alan please?

Added- and your maths looks good to me, I think your maths says that if t=x then it takes 0 length to change when it is a continuous variable?

Agreeing with me?