« Last post by yor_on on Today at 15:05:16 »
No simple answer, is there?
I stopped at 4. I could not maintain the fictitious block of time. The subjective definition of time being something that you can travel through was ridicules. Everything is in the present as motion caused by energy which we label as time. Time is nothing more than distance of a cycle relative to distance traveled. c is the fixed frame of available energy. Clocks measure the available energy of a frame. Take the cycle of the electron. In SR velocity of the atom the electron goes through its cycle adding distance through space. The at rest space and the velocity space are two different distances through space so the clock slows by that extra distance. There is no such thing as a fixed dimension of time that is silly sci fi stuff.
I need to know which question number you had a problem with so that I can find out where this straw man argument was and whether it breaks the argument or if the argument needs to be modified to resolve whatever issue you have with it.
Time is tied tightly to the sequence of events in chains of causation with past events dictating the ability of future ones to occur, so how can that be tied into your definition?We are always in the present as motion. The idea of future and past is a man made concept to differentiate what has happened and what is expected to happen. A cycle distance related to the available energy state of a frame remains in the present no matter what that energy state reads on a clock.
The present motion affects the new present motion that is physics What is the issue?
Causation chains depend on befores and afters and must run through all in sequence. When running through those events in sequence,
there are points during the processing when future events have not happened yet while past events have happened, and the time that clocks measure can vary on different paths from the same starting point to the same end point. The big issue here is whether those clocks are all running time at the same speed (with some reaching a destination Spacetime location before others, leading to event-meshing failure)The failure is the definition you are using for time. Event meshing is always in the present no matter what value you put on a clock that measures the energy state of a frame.
or if some of them are being forced to run slow (which allows events to mesh correctly but requires the time of a preferred frame of reference to govern the slowing of clocks for all other frames). You need to show me how your definition relates to any of that.
Depending on which frame you pick to work with for your calculations, those energy levels are different and the tick rate of clocks will vary too, so whenever you change the frame you're using as the base for your calculations, you will then generate new numbers with contradict the previous ones, meaning that different frames produce accounts of events that contradict each other. Only one of those accounts can be true unless you can demonstrate that your system is somehow Lorentz invariant, and if you achieve that, you still need to show that it can avoid event-meshing failure. Just changing the definition of time into one that calls it "energy related to a measurement of distance" doesn't make the problems go away.
Everything was or will be in the present when it happened or happens, but from any position that is present, we can only have measurements of the past. But how does that add anything to the argument?
If you were taught when you were young that witches and warlocks were real you would go through life possibly believing in them. If you were taught there is a God once again you might believe. If you believe time is a dimension then you might believe in time travel. Subjective interpretations abound. How can I argue with you if you say God creates time and he created it this way so there is time travel?
What we need is clear description of what's what. All the objections that I make should be standard ones that everyone asks when learning about relativity and there should be standard answers available which clear them all up systematically. What I actually find though are people who claim to understand relativity who don't know how to handle those objections - they are unable to provide clear, rational explanations that show where those objections contain errors, and that's what leads me to believe that they have no answers. "You don't understand time!" is their usual response, but they never show where the faults are with my understanding of time, and their own understanding of time is shown by my argument to be an understanding which depends squarely on toleration of contradictions.
No because they are not equally invalid. They are invalid differently. Einstein had a deep understanding that may not be interpreted correctly. They can have equal validity because they are not valid.
I can't work out from that which part of what I said you're taking issue with, and I don't know if those sentences are meant to be representations of what I've said or if they're what you're claiming. What I say is this: where different accounts contradict each other, only one can be valid (though all of them are potentially valid so long as they can't be disproved). If none of them were valid, it would be correct to say that all of them are equally invalid
And there is the straw man argument.]
and that all of them are equally valid, but saying that they are equally valid wouldn't mean that any of them are valid, and saying that they are equally invalid wouldn't mean they are all invalid if they're all valid, but neither of those cases has anything to do with my argument where we're looking at a case where at least one account is true and wherever two accounts contradict each other, one of them must be wrong.
But with measured distances changing as you change frame, you're on shifting sands, which brings you up against all the points in my argument, and you aren't resolving any of them.I cannot resolve your subjective understanding. My subjective understanding is relativity being correct. Your creation of your relativity based on the subjective interpretations of others is the only thing in conflict.
If this relates to my argument, please show how it does it. How are you dealing with event-meshing failure?There is no event meshing failure.
How are you avoiding having a preferred frame?The preferred frame is total energy c never at rest. Clocks measure available energy state of a frame. There is no preferred energy state.
Thanks for raising my hopes that you might be able to find a place where my argument breaks (because I would like to see it destroyed if it's wrong), but you need to show me that point and explain what the error is with it.
Don't get too hung up on "observer". It's simply a generalised term for separating cause and effect, or source and detector. Doesn't imply any sentient beings.
There is no point in introducing any new hypotheses unless they explain something we already know but can't explain.
Wow! I never realised mixing was such an art!
The problem, IMHO isn't with the forum as a whole.
Do any of the people who supposedly ask these questions, ever respond?
It's almost as if these questions are just here as a topic of discussion and nothing else.
Chris receives many questions via email (many probably triggered by his phone-in question shows in various countries).
Most of these people won't have signed up for the forum, so Chris posts the question here on their behalf.
- The system sends them an email after a few days to tell them where to look for answers.
- If they want to progress the discussion, they may sign up and discuss it further.
Well virtually nobody signs up and continues any of these discussions. So these people take the time to ask all these questions.... only to never have them answered directly?
That doesn't make sense.
I get the impression that all of these questions have already been answered directly, and what you see posted on this forum are merely topics of discussion.
Cloud condensation nuclei promote water vapour into cloud droplets. Since water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas it may be a useful discussion topic. I have posted a link below to a description of CCN's.
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
And for your perusal here are the dissenters in the field.
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
The CHA2DS2-VASc score is for assessing the risk of additional ischaemic strokes due to the AF, the HASBLED score is for assessing the additional risk of haemorrhagic strokes due to anticoagulation. Comparison of the two tells you whether you're better off with or without anticoagulation.