We normally think of time as moving forwards and backwards, as a line, or possibly just a ray...but as we can only experience time in the "now" as a moment, could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?Well, time is an interesting subject that can be discussed in some depth. If we were to define time as a ''singularity'' point, then I suppose we could say that time was any given points measure of change. My definition of time is: Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.
What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?
:)
Also a possibility - that we are in a "time" black hole, where time is the singularity and all of 3-dimensional space is bound somehow with that singularity as the information spread out over the event horizon?
What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?
Though I have read and heard about many conceptions and constructions and speculations of 'Time', I have never had any reason to accept anything other than those five words.I have chosen "non possibility" for the reason that the only conception of time known to use with certainty is some physical process, three of which are:
To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start hereWho are "we"?
Who are "we"?
To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here:From the book Essays in Science, published 1934, by Albert Einstein, Clerk Maxwell's Influence On The Evolution Of The Idea Of Physical Reality, page 45:
The last and most successful creation of theoretical
physics, namely quantum-mechanics differs fundamentally
from both the schemes which we will for the sake of
brevity call the Newtownian and the Maxwellian. For the
quantities which figure in its laws, make no claim to
physical reality itself, but only the probabilities
of the occurence of the physical reality that we have in view.
Dirac, to whom, in my opinion we owe the most logically
complete exposition of this theory, rightly points out that it
would probably be difficult, for example, to give a theoretical
despcription of a photon such as would give enough information
to enable one to decide whether it will pass a polarizer
placed (obliquely) in its way or not.
I am still inclined to the view that physicists will not
in the long run content themselves with that sort of indirect
description of the real, even if the theory can eventually
be adapted to the postulate of general relativity in a
satisfactory manner. We shall then, I feel sure, have to return
to the attempt to carry out the program which may properly be
described as the Maxwellian--nameley, the description of
physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial
differential equations without singularities.
could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?
To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Physical_definition That's appropriate "non-active"Let's get one thing straight. I consider a link to wikee-pee-D-uh to be an insult.
In a black hole there is no energy so there is no time within a black hole. There is only kinetic energy 100% in a black hole. Energy is extremely dilated by the inverse square law causing mass to stretch when entering a black hole. Out in space between galaxies energy has the greatest density and clocks tick rate is the greatest because the energy particles are closest. Mass dilates energy by causing the energy to move electrons.There is no time without some physical process. Is there time without matter? I think not: what is the object of discussion (subject) when there is no matter? Further, what would the temporal qualities of inert matter?
We normally think of time as moving forwards and backwards, as a line, or possibly just a ray...but as we can only experience time in the "now" as a moment, could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?
I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1".
absolute time t=Δ→0I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1".
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.
If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).
... is a continuous variable.Do you want to reconsider your "is a" equivalence? The left-most part is omitted for clarity.
I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1".
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.
If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).
Strangely the Box is pretty close.What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.absolute time t=Δ→0
It is a continuous constant
You're absolutely right. To talk about time as a singularity as a "moment" can only work talking about the parameters within which that singularity exists, like in between time-before and time-after, both of which would represent a "relativity" cradling the time-now singularity....somehow..
You're absolutely right. To talk about time as a singularity as a "moment" can only work talking about the parameters within which that singularity exists, like in between time-before and time-after, both of which would represent a "relativity" cradling the time-now singularity....somehow..
You lost me after the first three words. (Two and five-sevenths of a word, to be precise--this being a forum for scientists.)
You give them an answer and they ignore it lol.Strangely the Box is pretty close.What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.absolute time t=Δ→0
It is a continuous constant
The question you are trying to answer is similar to asking where am i on a distance line. A point on a line is defined as having zero width. If it has any value eg 0.000....1 then it is no longer a point but a range.
A singularity is a mathematical term that refers to a point at which a mathematical object is undefined, either because it is infinite or degenerate. A simple example is the function 1/x. This function has a singularity at x = 0 because the fraction 1/0 is undefined.
Individual ‘moments’ of distance or time are points having 0 width. If you wish to redefine those points as being a range that’s up to you.
You give them an answer and they ignore it lol.Strangely the Box is pretty close.What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.absolute time t=Δ→0
It is a continuous constant
The question you are trying to answer is similar to asking where am i on a distance line. A point on a line is defined as having zero width. If it has any value eg 0.000....1 then it is no longer a point but a range.
A singularity is a mathematical term that refers to a point at which a mathematical object is undefined, either because it is infinite or degenerate. A simple example is the function 1/x. This function has a singularity at x = 0 because the fraction 1/0 is undefined.
Individual ‘moments’ of distance or time are points having 0 width. If you wish to redefine those points as being a range that’s up to you.
0+0=1x is the smallest measurement. 0 being a 0 point, by specifying +0 we are specifying there is 2 , 0 points .
So 0 point plus a 0 point is a really really small dimension of 1x and describes a continuous change.
So I suppose we can say Δt=0+0 which is also about the time is takes for the second photon of a stream to arrive at object or your eyes.
There is no actual arrow of time, there is only an arrow of history and an arrow of past geometrical position and future geometrical position. ←0 You cannot displace 0 without creating a directly and proportional past, however this is relative timing and not relative time which is a the rate of entropy change Δt=ΔSYou give them an answer and they ignore it lol.Strangely the Box is pretty close.What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.absolute time t=Δ→0
It is a continuous constant
The question you are trying to answer is similar to asking where am i on a distance line. A point on a line is defined as having zero width. If it has any value eg 0.000....1 then it is no longer a point but a range.
A singularity is a mathematical term that refers to a point at which a mathematical object is undefined, either because it is infinite or degenerate. A simple example is the function 1/x. This function has a singularity at x = 0 because the fraction 1/0 is undefined.
Individual ‘moments’ of distance or time are points having 0 width. If you wish to redefine those points as being a range that’s up to you.
0+0=1x is the smallest measurement. 0 being a 0 point, by specifying +0 we are specifying there is 2 , 0 points .
So 0 point plus a 0 point is a really really small dimension of 1x and describes a continuous change.
So I suppose we can say Δt=0+0 which is also about the time is takes for the second photon of a stream to arrive at object or your eyes.
...it collapses.
3-d space....it makes sense.
It could-be 50-d space but without the algorithms of Pythagoras it is 3-d.
Stuff seems to happen as we observe between different points in space.
The big question is how each space reference of "event" is warranted as an event......"enter the idea of time, a type of cause and effect of each reference of space and its own peculiarity effecting the other".
Is it because of a fundamental feature of the idea of cause and effect, an arrow of time for each spatial reference?
You give them an answer and they ignore it lol..
I'm ok with answers days after. These are big subjects and take thought. I look back on one of my answers and know it took days to put simply. This is a big field.Time is not a big field lol, it is quite simple.
Once again apologies for not making that clearer. Just wondering therefore if you have another way of approaching the time-singularity issue? It’s a hard one given the Planck-scale space-time singularity dogma..
Do not like constructive criticism? You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity ignoring the moderators content of his post.You give them an answer and they ignore it lol..
I am NOT ignoring anything, I am in the middle of composing my reply, which is near completion. While I'm doing that, I will determine whether this forum has an "ignore" or "block" feature.
Do not like constructive criticism? You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity ignoring the moderators content of his post..
a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread.
............................................................... society has(Bold is mine.)
an indisputable right to protect itelf against arrant subjectiv-
ism, but, in so far as society is itself composed of de-individual-
ized human beings, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless
individualists. Let it band together into groups and organiza-
tions as much as it likes--it is just this banding together and the
resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it
succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros together
do not, unfortunately add up to one. ...
Your question of does time exist had been answered , seems to be the point you have completely ignored. Time exists is the answer.Do not like constructive criticism? You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity ignoring the moderators content of his post..
Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.
For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things?Every point in space is timeless and without time, it is absolute and arbitrary. Time begins at a point in space when the point space gains dimensions and mass. Time begins for you from moment you are conceived, relative to you, when you are dead and decayed , time stops.
How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time?Well, I’ve always thought we must be moving backward through time. Consider a train, you are on a backwards facing seat, you can see where you are and where you’ve been, but not where you are going. ;)
For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things?Every point in space is timeless and without time, it is absolute and arbitrary. Time begins at a point in space when the point space gains dimensions and mass. Time begins for you from moment you are conceived, relative to you, when you are dead and decayed , time stops.
how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.Intersting idea, but does it have to be all quantum scale?
For every point in space as we perceive it, time is shape of change. How do we know exactly if we are moving ahead in time? Where's a start point of time and an end point to qualify that? Sounds stupid, but its not. Can we assume our ability to recall things?Every point in space is timeless and without time, it is absolute and arbitrary. Time begins at a point in space when the point space gains dimensions and mass. Time begins for you from moment you are conceived, relative to you, when you are dead and decayed , time stops.
I agree. I think what I was presenting was a case for how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.
Quote from: scherado on 08/02/2018 19:58:16.
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2018 14:37:34
Do not like constructive criticism? You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity ignoring the moderators content of his post.
.
Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.
Your question of does time exist had been answered , seems to be the point you have completely ignored. Time exists is the answer.
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second..
how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.Intersting idea, but does it have to be all quantum scale?
Einstien used energy/mometum to modify spacetime such that increase in mass/energy slows time processes, (but does not offer a causation) so that should be part of the before after equation. The problem is what other elements - variable and constant - would you consider for your algorithm.
how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.Intersting idea, but does it have to be all quantum scale?
Einstien used energy/mometum to modify spacetime such that increase in mass/energy slows time processes, (but does not offer a causation) so that should be part of the before after equation. The problem is what other elements - variable and constant - would you consider for your algorithm.
Hi Colin, apologies for not replying sooner owing to being out of town.
The way I approached the algorithm was to be as basic as possible with the following considerations:
- Time “now” was considered as a value of “1”, as a reference marker (tN = 1), which pegs the rate of time as a constant.
- Associated to tN would be time-before (tB), and time-after (tA).
I then suggested that tA – tB = tN (1), which keeps the arrow of time intact, making the value of tA greater than tB.
Further to this, I suggested that as the future is relatively unknown, and that tN ≠ tA, that therefore tA must be a factor of tB (not a multiple, yet a factor of tB with tB), and thus most simply as tB².
I thus proposed tB² – tB = 1.
This then derived two values of tB as the golden ratio.
I wasn’t immediately looking to plug in ideas of entropy, mass, momentum, and so on, just yet. My next step was to somehow tag 3-d space with this new algorithm for time. It’s in my paper, first few pages of section 2, please see the relevant post in the “new theories” section (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72250.0).
To answer your question, the ideas relevant to relativity began to develop after explaining how time could be tagged with (different) coordinates of 3-d space. The most basic feature that became apparent in using tN as 1 was that time would run along a spherical wave-front in space, and this implied the need for features of the axes of time to concur with a value of π along an incremental ruler of “1” for each step of a hypothetical time-front. In developing that wave-function, “errors” presented themselves in not properly fitting the value for π, which then proposed inherent flaws in each wave-function for time, that each spatial reference for the time-algorithm would need to resolve somehow through quantum wave-function “building” with a variety of other references of 3-d space. This then lead to a neat explanation for the uncertainty principle for light, together with the idea of time being associated to “energy” in the new developed explanation, and then how mass could be associated to this upon further quantum wave-function development (takes a few pages to explain, but I’ll leave it to the post I made in the new theories section).
Are you sure its as simple as that?I am sure it is that simple. Time does not exist without matter because space cannot age , it has no mechanism.
I understand you're point, yet if you were to take your a-priori from another aspect, "time" could influence how matter behaves based on how "time" forces its own agenda as opposed to space through a new "way" of consdering "time"? It sounds wonky, yet, it is a matter of perspective, and I do see yours.
why would space resolve itself if not for the idea of time?I am not sure I understand your question correctly, could you emphasise please?
Well, we have space and time.Matter = time
Either space is responsible for mass.
Or, time is responsible for mass.
I will try to explain more although I am giving away info I could put in a book.
The Universe is not holographic objectively, for a hologram would need space to exist in , the space would prove the Universe existed beyond the illusion of the holograph. In other words , even if we were all holograms (which we are definitely not), there would be an exterior to the interior.I will try to explain more although I am giving away info I could put in a book.
My book is going nowhere: http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0368
I'm upset by the idea of a hologrpahic universe. No one will like that.
the golden ratio algorithm effecting a unified theory of time and space,
I'm cautious about how planets and stars are sold as images to the general public without stating that the images are Disneyland images. I knew that though many years pre-animation sales-pitch.Its not animated , what we see is real, we can measure it with a tape measure to be in its exact location. Animations don't feel.
It's better to know whats real and whats not.
We either know what we are actually seeing or we don't. Bigger is how we can predict variations in observations pre-research with better theory.
The "golen-ratio" thing....? Even to me it's just a feature, not the hard theory.
Anything the public sees is not hard data but animated. Why? Whhhhy? Who's you're favorite cartoon character?
Ok, with the WEBB telescope, they're using a new adaptive lens, because they don't want any recalibration. Like, right.....you want to focus if you're not sure what you're looking for.Sorry I am not sure I understood that or if there was a question there?
This is not conspiracy theory, this is not knowing what the nature of the light we're seeing from the stars "could" be beyond big-bang theory.
No question.Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.
Webb is not Hubble.
Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.
That's good.
No question.Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.
Webb is not Hubble.
Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.
That's good.
The problem I have got is that the size of the Universe is relative to the magnification of the telescope, the Universe is size n in reality because we can nether know. Light intensity stops us seeing beyond a spherical boundary.No question.Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.
Webb is not Hubble.
Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.
That's good.
I think it will. They're aiming to see the most distant stars and thus arrive at an ultimate value for the red shift effect factor. My writing work says it will be a value of z = ~20.8. Those results are expected late next year.
The problem I have got is that the size of the Universe is relative to the magnification of the telescope, the Universe is size n in reality because we can nether know. Light intensity stops us seeing beyond a spherical boundary.No question.Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.
Webb is not Hubble.
Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.
That's good.
I think it will. They're aiming to see the most distant stars and thus arrive at an ultimate value for the red shift effect factor. My writing work says it will be a value of z = ~20.8. Those results are expected late next year.
rtunity onI watched something on it last night, apparently it is a very late launch ? It should of been sent up years ago?
Really? Any links for that? We can only ask what the investors hope to achieve with these launches.It took 20 years to build and the launch got delayed a few times. Would 20 years not make it old technology now lol ?
I know the data is available late 2019.
Doing a satellite beyond Hubble with the ability to change the focus is a good idea; bad if they tooled it right this time and got it wrong.It is a brilliant idea, hopefully it removes the transverse red shift affect.
We are waiting long; late 2019 and then add problems.Hopefully it works. However there could be still a problem that the nearest body in the non-observable Universe could still be too far away too see. If the observable Universe is expanding , then it is very likely that things in the non-observable Universe are also in expansion , cause and affect.
Long enough for us to calculate before what they're trying to see....sounds bad, but who was happy going to get glasses the first time?
Tesla fanfare
Tesla fanfare
I am sorry that is a question I did not understand, Tesla fanfare?
Tesla was just unorthodox , sometimes unorthodox gives answers. I am rather unorthodox myself. I quite like Tesla and respect his mind.Tesla fanfare
I am sorry that is a question I did not understand, Tesla fanfare?
Tesla as a story is not something I'd be using if not for doing what he wanted to achieve.....which was an absolute fail......
I'm surprised his name is being used today......very surprised....
I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.
I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.
I didn't really understand the rest of the post but I did understand this sentence. A notion I have mentioned before,
That λ is directly proportional to the invert force. So you was close .
λ = F_{1} + F_{2}
F_{1} = c
F_{2}= u where c is Photons and u is permeability.
Yet I like yor use of the permeability, because "there" we can suggest how "space" can be factored in on a Planck scale of consderation, and as you suggest with an equation regarding permeability. Am I right in thinking that?
I think I understand. By temporal compression you're suggesting a "blue-shift" effect?Or ''red-shift'', any wave length that is a compression of linear light.
Of course as per the logic of what you're suggesting; you gave the example of why we see the sky as blue, and so presumably the same could be suggested regarding the red-shift of stars?It is the same logic as red-shift really. But using my logic red-shift shows contraction of c, but what I have gathered they are viewing the red shift our end which is natural to the inverse of the receding objects light .
Doing a blue shift or red shift requires on a basic level a contraction or extension of a wavelength of light. That mechanism on a grand scale such as the planet has to abide by a whole host of other observed factors on a planetary scale. Can your theory accommodate likewise?This is my point, a ''red-shift'' is an expansion of ''blue'' but a contraction of c.
Do you have a paper on this?I have not written a paper on this, I am not sure about Cartesian mode, I use simple logic such as :
"0" as time or space? What Cartesian mode is being used?
Have you had any feedback yet with this? I just don't know how to criticise. It's hard to judge your point without a solid field of response on this.I have solved gravity mechanics and don't really get any feedback, to be honest ''they'' think I am an idiot, being honest again I think I am a natural born scientist who can think about anything and put it into reality context.
Can you send me a link for your gravity mechanics?It is in forum , just look at the polarity thread in new theories or the n-field thread. I am still working on the math, in short , neutral is attracted to neutral is gravity.
"neutral" what? Neutral as in space is self-attractive?I try to hold back some information, but over the years I have ''said'' most of it.
I think if anyone has a new idea, don't hide it. I've posted vast amounts of whatever. Papers and so on. The money shot is exactly that, "is it useful". I get the feeling you don't want to explain your idea completely?
If you think space is self-attractive, like a negative-energy matrix, maybe, I don't know, does that fit?, consider the post I offered in this new theories section: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72390.0
It's hard to define these forks in the road of scientific development.
Am I missing something? What you just said as an equation is what on what contemporary scientific level of congress?A set of pan scales.
Ok. Next question is papers, people, scientists, this built upon.....It isn't really based on one specific paper or scientist, it is based on science and all the work of science.
.not sure what to call that forum "section"?
.not sure what to call that forum "section"?
Challenging semantics?
So true, sometimes , the obvious is the answer and overthinking can only lead to subjective notions ..not sure what to call that forum "section"?
Challenging semantics?
"Stating the obvious" is how I call it.
Call a spade a spade. I agree.More like there is no uncertainty and it is an axiom of the likes of an object ''falls'' to the ground. I am certain it is 100% and there is no other answers or queries on the subject after this. It ''finishes'' off quantum theory and gives space-time it's ''fabric''.
So, how well is this theory of yours headed, like a ship in the stormy waters of scientific uncertainty?
How much money are you willing to spend on this? Cost doesn't seem to phase you? Why not make your ideas relevant to the scientific community first? They might help you out?Well, I am not rich, I was sort of hoping publishers pay out an advancement while I write the book. I have been explaining to science forums for several year in one way or another. However my use of language back then was not great, so admit-tingly I must of seemed like a troll and sometimes frustration got the better of me.
Are you sure you're on the right path? Money is one thing, understanding the atom is something else.I do not want to sound arrogant in anyway but I understand the Universe let alone an atom. There may be a few intricate details I am yet to discover, but my ''box'' of science tries to use strict axioms.
So where is the joy in knowledge?The Nobel prize, maybe even the turner prize, is a money shot so I believe?
We can propose the most complete of ideas, yet where is the money shot if we want money?
I agree.Yes exactly, so I am happily stepping on ''their'' stones, but I am polishing ''their'' stones for them.
Treading on that requires stepping on their stones...."their stones"....not something they don't register as a "being trodden on".
I had the impression you had a new "rock" for us to walk towards?A new rock that they do not have the answers too or misinterpret, by using ''their'' stones I have built a new mountain.
They just need to "get it" right?yes , many years ago they told me I was wrong on a Matrix I tried to present involving online poker. I knew then if they thought that was wrong, then they must be wrong on other things and just need to ''get it right''.
Find a way you can develop what they're doing.Hopefully , maybe when i have learnt their maths they will understand
Screw science, just play poker?No, don't play online poker, live poker is ok but you need a bank roll. Poker is not really important to me anymore, although poker taught me a lot about variation. Would you believe I can also sit on a roulette table, and when I am in the right mind and mood for it, sit there for nearly 3 days solid in a row starting with only £10.
when you've learn't their science?When I have learnt their language of maths to present my ideas in math also. I pretty much have my paradox maths sorted and correct, but ''they'' are not really confirming it is correct.
What link do you have with contemporary theory, your ideas and their ideas?
Fake news as we know is everywhere,. .. what's your protection?I have no copyright protection although forums give me intellectual right protection. My main protection is myself, I understand my own ideas better than anyone else could ever hope too. It needs me to explain everything.
Thumbs up. 8)I have part wrote some papers, it would take months to write the entire paper as one paper. But as yet I have not really had agreement with my notions and this put's me off the completion of the paper(s).
These ideas....when is this paper available?
Publish.Thanks, that looks interesting, does anyone read it though? I do have wordpress free blogging?
Digital footprint if you think its good enough.
"vixra" is something to consider if you're serious about taking your work to a pre-press level beyond not being able to secure peer review entry elsewhere.
Yeah, people read it. I know NASA looks at it.Cool, I might give it a go and complete one of my papers. I am on an american political forum with a science section, I have already had some discussion with a user who claims he is a well known scientist.
It has to challenge them......stand on their rocks.....at least propose something they can't work out in their field of ambition.....