Time

  • 130 Replies
  • 18140 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #50 on: 14/03/2015 10:36:46 »
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. .......
Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.

That was funny I couldn't stop laughing.

Like you I find the OP's ideas and arguments impossibly confused. A central assumption concerns the measurement of time. The OP consistently misreports history as showing that time=distance. To set the record straight:

A brief history of time (mmm, might use that as title of my next book)

Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance.
Variable hours based on the seasons were used until the invention of mechanical clocks in 16C when small units of time could be measured. At that stage units were borrowed from the Greeks who had devised the method of measuring angles in degrees, dividing the degree into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds, a system we still use today in timekeeping.
Along the way to our modern system there have been many ways of measuring time and it is possible that today we might easily be measuring time in litres of water, cubits of sand, length of a pendulum or, the one I really like, the standard candle. Think of the light physicists measuring the speed of light in meters/candle! Is light faster than a candle?
At no point in history did we ever measure time as distance, this is a fabrication by the OP and all his consequential fabrications fall as a result (to use his own 'logic').

There are many other fabrications, that 0=1, he claims there is no spacetime and no time dilation, but offers no proof. He falsely believes "the obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable" , which shows a poor understanding of how this forum works.

I have toyed with the idea that the OP is a troll, someone on TNS or another forum having a laugh and intending to reveal themselves on April 1st. It makes more sense to me than any of the 'theories' propounded here!


Space is not expanding this is the misconception and illusion created by poor logic.

I am banned from most forums, TNS never heard of,


See all my threads , put it together, I did ,

I have provided maths, rational argument and logical truths, this is evidence.   


''Early people viewed the sun going around the earth and could measure midday using a simple stick in the ground. From there the sundial was firmly established by the Egyptians as a method of measuring time by means of angular movement. They divided day and night each into 12 parts (their duodecimal system). The sundial was never able to measure seconds and did not relate time to distance. '''


A shadow travels a distance, why do you agree then disagree in the same statement?


Dividing 360 degrees into equal parts of distance travelled by a shadow is relative to distance.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 10:41:42 by Thebox »

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #51 on: 14/03/2015 10:53:17 »
Well, if you've got any brilliant ideas in your head, you need to learn to express them more clearly so that you don't confuse everyone to the point that they can't work out what your argument is. Your first post didn't set things up very well.

Now you say that there's no time in empty space, so time only exists in that space when matter passes through it. This means that if we take an empty chunk of space called Jimmy, we can throw an elephant through it today, then leave it empty for a year before throwing a tiger through it. From the point of view of Jimmy, there is no time between the two events. What does this mean for the chunks of space on either side of it? Let's say we throw the elephant and tiger into Jimmy from a chunk of space called Sandy and they are caught by a friend in another chunk of space on the other side of Jimmy called Hamish. We throw the elephant through Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish. We then wait a year and leave Jimmy empty, but time does not exist in Jimmy while it's empty. We then throw the tiger into Jimmy from Sandy and it arrives in Hamish just after the elephant, a whole year before we threw it. This would happen if no time has passed at all in Jimmy between the elephant and the tiger.

However, you can argue that the tiger takes its own time with it and that its time is tied to the time of the elephant across the timeless void of Jimmy, so the separation of a year is maintained when it arrives in Hamish. What this reveals then is that space doesn't have time in it at all, but time is held solely in matter like elephants and tigers - the space these animals occupy has no time, but they (the animals) have time. An empty space of one size has no time and an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either, so an empty region of space can expand over time without having any time in it - it expands by magic without increasing in size moment by moment through a progression controlled under time.

Your new theory will be a magnificent manifestation of witchcraft.

I am not a Shakespeare or a Scientist.   

''an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either''


Poor logic - You do not observe empty space, you observe only matter or a medium occupying a space.


You observe red shift by matter observation, you do not observe a red shift of empty space.

Science shows us that firing an arrow through the air does not expand the space the arrow is travelling through, the arrow travels through space and not with space,

Science by poor logic has changed the Physics involved in the same process as an arrow flying through space.


It is science inventing the Unicorns and not I,
« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 10:56:37 by Thebox »

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #52 on: 14/03/2015 11:05:15 »
I will try it another way to get you to understand

me- hello science, in using a sundial to measure time do I give an increment of time period to an increment of distance the shadow has travelled?

science - well yes there is no other way

me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it not?

science - errrr, oh ek yes it does what a blunder in history.

From 0 degrees to 180 degrees is movement, movement that convertibility equals a distance travelled of observer or device relative to angular movement of the Sun relative to orbital earth motion.

So if you define 15 degrees of the shadow movement to be 1 hr, we get our 24 hour day. A 15 degree of movement still equalling a distance of motion.  An up scaling of the sun dials 360 degrees.




« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 11:33:40 by Thebox »

*

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #53 on: 14/03/2015 12:57:00 »

me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it

No, and I'm beginning to think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?

However, let's try a different tack.

If you believe science measures time incorrectly, how do you propose to measure it?

« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 13:23:32 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #54 on: 14/03/2015 13:21:08 »
Quote from: Thebox
I can promise you that yourself and your colleagues accepted time without question of afterthought.
[/quote
Nonsense and incorrect. You know nothing about how I think and what leads us to define time that way. We all challenge everything we learn when we learn it and throughout our professional careers. On the other hand its clear to me that you don't even know how physicists define time. And you erroneously think that you can change a definition if you don't like it which is quite incorrect. Clearly you've given very little thought into the subject. I've read some of your posts above and can't find one that's correct.

People like you think about these things for a very short period of time and think that they've put an enormous amount of thought into it. How long have you thought about this and what is your educational background in physics? Where did you learn how physicists define time in the first place? Let me guess - You never did learn it and you don't know what it is. You also never formally studied physics either, have you?

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #55 on: 14/03/2015 13:41:27 »
Quote from: Thebox
I can promise you that yourself and your colleagues accepted time without question of afterthought.
[/quote
Nonsense and incorrect. You know nothing about how I think and what leads us to define time that way. We all challenge everything we learn when we learn it and throughout our professional careers. On the other hand its clear to me that you don't even know how physicists define time. And you erroneously think that you can change a definition if you don't like it which is quite incorrect. Clearly you've given very little thought into the subject. I've read some of your posts above and can't find one that's correct.

People like you think about these things for a very short period of time and think that they've put an enormous amount of thought into it. How long have you thought about this and what is your educational background in physics? Where did you learn how physicists define time in the first place? Let me guess - You never did learn it and you don't know what it is. You also never formally studied physics either, have you?

try 4 years of thinking about it.

I made you a video to show you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=751emfoCneM

*

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #56 on: 14/03/2015 13:56:06 »

I made you a video to show you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=751emfoCneM

There is little point in us watching your video or answering your other posts if you are starting from false assumptions.

I still think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?

To me a thermometer measures differences in temperature, a barometer measures differences in pressure and a clock measures differences in time.

I think you need to go back to basics and study the theory of measurement.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #57 on: 14/03/2015 14:06:29 »

I made you a video to show you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=751emfoCneM

There is little point in us watching your video or answering your other posts if you are starting from false assumptions.

I still think you fail to understand the whole class of things called measurements. By your logic we have to say that a thermometer measures distance not temperature, and a barometer measures distance not pressure. Are you saying that time, temperature and pressure are all the same?

To me a thermometer measures differences in temperature, a barometer measures differences in pressure and a clock measures differences in time.

I think you need to go back to basics and study the theory of measurement.

I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.


I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.

Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?

A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.








*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1910
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #58 on: 14/03/2015 14:38:07 »


I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.


I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.


I think drawing the comparison of a sundial to a thermometer or barometer is very much on point--all three are instruments that are used to display something that is hard to visualize (time, temperature or pressure) in terms of a distance scale, which is easy to visualize. None of them equates what they measure with distance, they just use a distance which changes in a predictable way with the change in what they measure.

Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?

A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.


I assure you, we are all astounded. Never before have I seen such incredible graphics design, and to be done in only five minutes (how many miles is that?) you MUST be a genius.

Sorry for the lapse into sarcasm, but honestly, making a video of a circle that changes size in a linear fashion and doesn't even move, doesn't seem like evidence of anything other than novice familiarity of the program used to generate the video. Beating your chest over such accomplishments will not earn you any respect in this forum or  others. And if you think the content of said video is "proof" that "clearly shows that space is not expanding" then there is little more to say.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #59 on: 14/03/2015 14:47:56 »


I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.


I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.


I think drawing the comparison of a sundial to a thermometer or barometer is very much on point--all three are instruments that are used to display something that is hard to visualize (time, temperature or pressure) in terms of a distance scale, which is easy to visualize. None of them equates what they measure with distance, they just use a distance which changes in a predictable way with the change in what they measure.

Does someone who can knock a CGI example up in 5 minutes look stupid to you?

A CGi video that certainly shows that space is not expanding and it is observed matter moving through space.


I assure you, we are all astounded. Never before have I seen such incredible graphics design, and to be done in only five minutes (how many miles is that?) you MUST be a genius.

Sorry for the lapse into sarcasm, but honestly, making a video of a circle that changes size in a linear fashion and doesn't even move, doesn't seem like evidence of anything other than novice familiarity of the program used to generate the video. Beating your chest over such accomplishments will not earn you any respect in this forum or  others. And if you think the content of said video is "proof" that "clearly shows that space is not expanding" then there is little more to say.

It is a sphere and not a circle, and it is a contracting sphere to give the illusion of movement through space.

The video shows vanishing points of matter over distance.  I could add relative movement if I wanted to.

Again you ignore your own science and the perception of an object vanishes at distance to sight.

My video clearly shows the perception of the blackness background of space and vanishing points of the matter .

The illusion of an expanding space is just that, an illusion by poor logic.


*

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #60 on: 14/03/2015 17:39:34 »
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.


I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.

You misunderstand me.  I do not judge you as stupid, you will be judged on the quality of your answers and explanations. I am not trying to make you look stupid or deflect anything towards you or away from your ideas. I know you did not raise the subject of temperature and pressure. I am sure you understand units, but this is not a question of units, but of measurement.

My question was aimed at improving my understanding of your idea and I hoped you would be keen to answer and help me understand.

I was directly addressing your idea that the history of science measures time as distance. If your idea is true then by your own logic, as expressed in this thread, you have to accept that the history of thermometers and barometers also shows that they measure distance.

Is it possible for you to explain why you view these measurements as invalid?
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #61 on: 14/03/2015 17:53:22 »
I know very well the difference in units, an attempt at deflecting away from what is being said, deflecting towards me and not my ideas.


I do not mention temperature or a barometer this is seemingly something you are trying to add to confuse the thread in some vain attempt to try to make myself look stupid.

You misunderstand me.  I do not judge you as stupid, you will be judged on the quality of your answers and explanations. I am not trying to make you look stupid or deflect anything towards you or away from your ideas. I know you did not raise the subject of temperature and pressure. I am sure you understand units, but this is not a question of units, but of measurement.

My question was aimed at improving my understanding of your idea and I hoped you would be keen to answer and help me understand.

I was directly addressing your idea that the history of science measures time as distance. If your idea is true then by your own logic, as expressed in this thread, you have to accept that the history of thermometers and barometers also shows that they measure distance.

Is it possible for you to explain why you view these measurements as invalid?

My apologies I see now what you were saying.  Temperature and a Barometer do not require a constant so using a distance to measure a value of a process and the actions of the process is ok, temperature and a pressure being random so require an increment of distance scaling to show the  difference in increased or decreased action,

Anything with a ''spring like'' property, or an ''ebb and flow'' are variables so require a top end and a low end scale.


It is not really a distance but rather increase or decrease in numbers. The distance in this case represents a number difference.




Time is an invariant with no ebb and flow so requires a constant that does not even tick.









« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 18:04:40 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #62 on: 14/03/2015 19:20:53 »
''an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either''

Poor logic - You do not observe empty space, you observe only matter or a medium occupying a space.

We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. Unless the universe is virtual, space is not nothing - it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether. This fabric makes the distances between different objects in space have distances between each other which don't change randomly from moment to moment, but either maintain a constant separation or a change in separation that itself does not change randomly in extreme ways. You can try to decouple time from space altogether and claim that time has no impact on it at all, but all that will ever be is a pointless philosophical assertion which can never be proved, but in reality there is not a cubic nanometre of space that doesn't have light passing through it all the time, so it's a doubly pointless assertion.

Quote
You observe red shift by matter observation, you do not observe a red shift of empty space.

Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. Sometimes the crackpots are right, of course, but your reason for denying the expansion ought to be based more on reasoned argument rather than basing it on what you want to believe.

Quote
Science shows us that firing an arrow through the air does not expand the space the arrow is travelling through, the arrow travels through space and not with space,

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that shooting an arrow through air would expand space.

Quote
Science by poor logic has changed the Physics involved in the same process as an arrow flying through space.

The expansion of space is not understood and science has not claimed to understand it. Science has merely detected the expansion.

Quote
It is science inventing the Unicorns and not I,

I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much? You want time to exist for matter, but not for the fabric of space upon which matter plays. You appear to be the person suggesting something outlandish here by denying space any connection with time, all based on zero evidence.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #63 on: 14/03/2015 19:37:29 »
I will try it another way to get you to understand

me- hello science, in using a sundial to measure time do I give an increment of time period to an increment of distance the shadow has travelled?

science - well yes there is no other way

You are obsessed with ancient ways of measuring time based on the Earth's rotation, and you then assert that this is how scientists measure time. They don't. We still stick with units of time that suit the way we live on this planet, but the length of a second is now measured by more accurate means involving atomic clocks.

Quote
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it not?

Time can certainly be tied to distance through the relationship of distance travelled by something in an amount of time. There is such a thing as a light clock (at least in thought experiments) where light travels to and fro between two points, each round trip counting as a tick. You could use something more primitive like a sound clock or the rotation of a planet, but those methods introduce large random errors.

Quote
science - errrr, oh ek yes it does what a blunder in history.

Science hunts out the most accurate ways to measure time and then uses them. It doesn't stick with inaccurate methods handed down by the ancients.

Quote
From 0 degrees to 180 degrees is movement, movement that convertibility equals a distance travelled of observer or device relative to angular movement of the Sun relative to orbital earth motion.

The Earth rotates on average apx. 361 degrees in 24 hours, so it's already very messy. It's rotation is also slowing, so it's not a good clock. That is why science ditched it.

Quote
So if you define 15 degrees of the shadow movement to be 1 hr, we get our 24 hour day. A 15 degree of movement still equalling a distance of motion.  An up scaling of the sun dials 360 degrees.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that the Earth is not an accurate clock. Please try to move on.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #64 on: 14/03/2015 21:01:44 »
''an empty inflated area of space later on has no time either''

Poor logic - You do not observe empty space, you observe only matter or a medium occupying a space.

We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. Unless the universe is virtual, space is not nothing - it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether. This fabric makes the distances between different objects in space have distances between each other which don't change randomly from moment to moment, but either maintain a constant separation or a change in separation that itself does not change randomly in extreme ways. You can try to decouple time from space altogether and claim that time has no impact on it at all, but all that will ever be is a pointless philosophical assertion which can never be proved, but in reality there is not a cubic nanometre of space that doesn't have light passing through it all the time, so it's a doubly pointless assertion.

Quote
You observe red shift by matter observation, you do not observe a red shift of empty space.

Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. Sometimes the crackpots are right, of course, but your reason for denying the expansion ought to be based more on reasoned argument rather than basing it on what you want to believe.

Quote
Science shows us that firing an arrow through the air does not expand the space the arrow is travelling through, the arrow travels through space and not with space,

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that shooting an arrow through air would expand space.

Quote
Science by poor logic has changed the Physics involved in the same process as an arrow flying through space.

The expansion of space is not understood and science has not claimed to understand it. Science has merely detected the expansion.

Quote
It is science inventing the Unicorns and not I,

I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much? You want time to exist for matter, but not for the fabric of space upon which matter plays. You appear to be the person suggesting something outlandish here by denying space any connection with time, all based on zero evidence.


What?...............

Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.


''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''


Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.

'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''

A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR


''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''

 [V]   Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?

nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.


Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.


''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''

There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge.  Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.

What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.







« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 21:10:08 by Thebox »

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #65 on: 14/03/2015 21:04:44 »
I will try it another way to get you to understand

me- hello science, in using a sundial to measure time do I give an increment of time period to an increment of distance the shadow has travelled?

science - well yes there is no other way

You are obsessed with ancient ways of measuring time based on the Earth's rotation, and you then assert that this is how scientists measure time. They don't. We still stick with units of time that suit the way we live on this planet, but the length of a second is now measured by more accurate means involving atomic clocks.

Quote
me- that would mean a period of time was always equal to a period of distance would it not?

Time can certainly be tied to distance through the relationship of distance travelled by something in an amount of time. There is such a thing as a light clock (at least in thought experiments) where light travels to and fro between two points, each round trip counting as a tick. You could use something more primitive like a sound clock or the rotation of a planet, but those methods introduce large random errors.

Quote
science - errrr, oh ek yes it does what a blunder in history.

Science hunts out the most accurate ways to measure time and then uses them. It doesn't stick with inaccurate methods handed down by the ancients.

Quote
From 0 degrees to 180 degrees is movement, movement that convertibility equals a distance travelled of observer or device relative to angular movement of the Sun relative to orbital earth motion.

The Earth rotates on average apx. 361 degrees in 24 hours, so it's already very messy. It's rotation is also slowing, so it's not a good clock. That is why science ditched it.

Quote
So if you define 15 degrees of the shadow movement to be 1 hr, we get our 24 hour day. A 15 degree of movement still equalling a distance of motion.  An up scaling of the sun dials 360 degrees.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that the Earth is not an accurate clock. Please try to move on.

Again no, when you changed over in 1960 to a Caesium clock you used the old value of the old second meaning it is the same still.  I understand the Earth is not an accurate clock , neither is the Caesium clock which is not a constant.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #66 on: 14/03/2015 21:19:11 »
(a) = us

(b) = the last matter we can see

....= space


a...........b........................................................................................



(b) is moving away from (a) (expanding)  through space into more space.

Space does not end at (b) and have nothing after it.



« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 21:20:43 by Thebox »

*

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #67 on: 14/03/2015 22:48:53 »
I can see from your replies that you have not really understood what we are saying. I see no merit in continuing this as you have offered no proof of your ideas and even your video offers no explanation.

You will find that TNS is more forgiving than the other forums you have been banned from. Folks here do not judge you by other's opinions, but on the merit of the arguments you present. If your idea is judged to be incorrect you will find that replies to your posts tend to peter out, this is not a sign that your argument is won, but that folks are tired of your inability to make a convincing presentation of your ideas.
You are unlikely to be flamed, banned, or locked out unless you makes nuisance of yourself. The worst that will happen is that you are ignored.

It is, however, easy to see why you would have been banned from other forums, I wish you luck with finding one which accepts your ideas.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 23:02:40 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #68 on: 14/03/2015 23:39:09 »
I can see from your replies that you have not really understood what we are saying. I see no merit in continuing this as you have offered no proof of your ideas and even your video offers no explanation.

You will find that TNS is more forgiving than the other forums you have been banned from. Folks here do not judge you by other's opinions, but on the merit of the arguments you present. If your idea is judged to be incorrect you will find that replies to your posts tend to peter out, this is not a sign that your argument is won, but that folks are tired of your inability to make a convincing presentation of your ideas.
You are unlikely to be flamed, banned, or locked out unless you makes nuisance of yourself. The worst that will happen is that you are ignored.

It is, however, easy to see why you would have been banned from other forums, I wish you luck with finding one which accepts your ideas.

Thank you for your kind words, I have no idea why you can not ''see'' the evidence I have provided.

I feel I have pointed it out has plain as day.

Science can not observe space they only observe matter occupying space , I do not understand why that is hard to understand. There is also no denial of the origin of time and the processes in which time was recorded.
There is also no denial that the new second on a Caesium clock is exactly the same as the old second.

I am confused, why does the world seemingly not care as if it did not matter any more?





« Last Edit: 14/03/2015 23:44:24 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #69 on: 15/03/2015 00:40:39 »
What?...............

Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.

I'm not trying to distort anything you said, but am merely responding to what you appear to be saying. If you're saying something different, you need to state things more clearly to avoid being misunderstood.

Quote
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''

Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.

Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.

Quote
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''

A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR

The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?

Quote
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''

 [V]   Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?

Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.

Quote
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.

Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.

Aether is not a gaseous or liquid kind of beast - it's a fabric of some kind, although we can't reach out and feel it, so it's only reason that tells us it is there. If you reject reason, you can call it nothing if you wish, but that will cause you no end of trouble in explaining how things work.


Quote
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''

There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge.  Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.

So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.

Quote
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.

There is time travel, but it all goes forwards. There is arguably no time dilation - in LET there is an absolute time which always ticks at the same rate everywhere, but clocks can run slow due to increased communication distances in clocks when they move through space or due to a local lower speed of light. If you want that with your theory though, you're going to need an aether to control the way clocks run slow - without it you're stuffed. Without it you can't even have a consistent speed of light as no two photons will be able to keep pace with each other accurately due to the fact they'd be moving through absolutely nothing, having no way of determining how long it should take them to pass through the same length of nothing.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #70 on: 15/03/2015 00:46:15 »
Again no, when you changed over in 1960 to a Caesium clock you used the old value of the old second meaning it is the same still.  I understand the Earth is not an accurate clock , neither is the Caesium clock which is not a constant.

A second is merely a unit of time. We have to use some unit, so we've stuck with one that was handed down to us by the ancients because it's still a very convenient length, but there's nothing special about it, and that means the method used to define a second is unimportant. What matters is time, and you have to think about time without dragging in any of the irrelevant junk associated with the second.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #71 on: 15/03/2015 11:03:01 »
What?...............

Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.

I'm not trying to distort anything you said, but am merely responding to what you appear to be saying. If you're saying something different, you need to state things more clearly to avoid being misunderstood.

Quote
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''

Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.

Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.

Quote
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''

A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR

The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?

Quote
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''

 [V]   Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?

Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.

Quote
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.

Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.

Aether is not a gaseous or liquid kind of beast - it's a fabric of some kind, although we can't reach out and feel it, so it's only reason that tells us it is there. If you reject reason, you can call it nothing if you wish, but that will cause you no end of trouble in explaining how things work.


Quote
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''

There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge.  Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.

So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.

Quote
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.

There is time travel, but it all goes forwards. There is arguably no time dilation - in LET there is an absolute time which always ticks at the same rate everywhere, but clocks can run slow due to increased communication distances in clocks when they move through space or due to a local lower speed of light. If you want that with your theory though, you're going to need an aether to control the way clocks run slow - without it you're stuffed. Without it you can't even have a consistent speed of light as no two photons will be able to keep pace with each other accurately due to the fact they'd be moving through absolutely nothing, having no way of determining how long it should take them to pass through the same length of nothing.

Thank you for sticking with this. I will just remind everyone that it took Maxwell 15 years after Faraday's thoughts to fit the maths.
Tesla was misunderstood and I am probably the original instigator of my ideas with 4 years of trying to express those ideas and in this time have seen echoes of my ideas across the net by other people.

''Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.''

I do not really imagine anything, I base my ideas on present science and try to extend those ideas rather than a complacent acceptance.


I do not really consider that we are at the center of the Universe, I consider we are at the center of our own observations.
The CBMR could of been present before the expansion and there is nothing to say that CBMR is not from an external source such as maybe a black hole or similar that causes a centripetal force/pressure to maintain our observation point in space.
Today's visual universe is finite by limited observation means, the visual Universe is matter and space, the Universe is empty infinite space, matter by observation occupies the Universe.

You call it a Universe and science tries to define a shape of/to the points of matter used for observation.
To be honest science plays dot to dot putting it bluntly, there is no sauce pans in space the same has the visual Universe has no shape either.
A defined pattern of matter by x force(s)  does not change the shape of space itself, science is under the illusion of doing this and defines shape in a shapeless Universe by using points of matter.


''The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?''

My opinion is that your ''Aether'' is the CBMR, a low energy in the ''dark'' that is a conduit for EM radiation.
Another opinion is why would energy need a medium of some sort to travel through ?

I see the CBMR as a transmission energy medium which explains the dark areas on the cosmological model of CBMR.



''So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.''

The facts of infinite do obey your wishes, a box in a box in a box shows only one logical conclusion.

You can place a small box in a larger box then into another larger box for infinite times.

It is endless with only two options.

You either occupy a space within a solid within a space or you occupy a space within a space within space.


Very simple truths that show infinite for a certainty.












*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #72 on: 15/03/2015 11:13:04 »
Again no, when you changed over in 1960 to a Caesium clock you used the old value of the old second meaning it is the same still.  I understand the Earth is not an accurate clock , neither is the Caesium clock which is not a constant.

A second is merely a unit of time. We have to use some unit, so we've stuck with one that was handed down to us by the ancients because it's still a very convenient length, but there's nothing special about it, and that means the method used to define a second is unimportant. What matters is time, and you have to think about time without dragging in any of the irrelevant junk associated with the second.

Time itself without arbitrary use does not exist.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #73 on: 15/03/2015 11:17:52 »
What?...............

Again changing the entire context of my points and re-wording science to suit the flaw.

I'm not trying to distort anything you said, but am merely responding to what you appear to be saying. If you're saying something different, you need to state things more clearly to avoid being misunderstood.

Quote
''We observe the way the matter moves and conclude that the space between galaxies appears to be expanding. ''

Re-worded from space is expanding with the matter, all you have said there is we observe a greater distance between galaxies.

Do you imagine that we are at the centre of the universe and that everything else is blasting away from us, or is one of those other galaxies out there at the centre while we are blasting away from it? Either way, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to consider, but the microwave background fits in with the idea of all the stuff we can see exploding from a single point in such a way that that point has spread out to become every point in today's universe - these microwaves are coming from all directions and that doesn't fit in with there being one single point in the universe now from which everything else is moving away. That's the key evidence which you need to take on board.

Quote
'' it has some kind of fabric to it which even Einstein referred to as an aether''

A misconception, the fabric of space is EM radiation and CBMR

The fabric is the Spacetime of relativity or the aether of LET. If you consider it to be nothing more than the content, what do you imagine it is that keeps it all in order such that a photon travelling along a path through "nothing" is able to maintain its course through that "nothing" when there is "nothing" there for it to travel through?

Quote
''Denying the expansion would put you into the crackpot category. ''

 [V]   Pfff, which part of matter moving away from us did you not understand in my video?

Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.

Quote
nothing is expanding, space is not a balloon or a gaseous medium.

Matter is moving through space and the seen distance between matter is getting greater.

Aether is not a gaseous or liquid kind of beast - it's a fabric of some kind, although we can't reach out and feel it, so it's only reason that tells us it is there. If you reject reason, you can call it nothing if you wish, but that will cause you no end of trouble in explaining how things work.


Quote
''I don't understand why you're comparing this to unicorns. What is it you're trying to attack that matters so much?''

There is no wall on the edge of space where visual matter ends, it is not a flat universe, there is no edge to nothing, it is continuous space, no edge.  Space continues way beyond the last matter you can observe.
space is infinite, space is timeless, light in space is zero to sight, F=P=f, force equals the pressure which equals the frequency which equals spectral content.

So how do you account for the microwave background? I would like space to be infinite too, but the facts do not obey my wishes.

Quote
What matters is there is no time travel, no time dilation, a complete misunderstanding about space.

There is time travel, but it all goes forwards. There is arguably no time dilation - in LET there is an absolute time which always ticks at the same rate everywhere, but clocks can run slow due to increased communication distances in clocks when they move through space or due to a local lower speed of light. If you want that with your theory though, you're going to need an aether to control the way clocks run slow - without it you're stuffed. Without it you can't even have a consistent speed of light as no two photons will be able to keep pace with each other accurately due to the fact they'd be moving through absolutely nothing, having no way of determining how long it should take them to pass through the same length of nothing.


''Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and it is expanding.''

I pulled this to one side, think about what you said , you agree with me.

edit - Your video merely illustrates what something looks like if it is moving away OR if the space between you and the object increases in distance,
not effecting space or expanding space.
A rocket travels through space.

The video also shows vanishing points, when an object is to far away it ''vanishes'' to sight, light can not be seen reflecting of it, even the same effect for light emitters.
In my video the object is still there but to small to see any more , you see a blackness background for this very reason.


I made another video, we have travelled level to the furthest away observed matter in the visual Universe, science says there is an imaginary wall, this is by a blankness in logic and none existence in reality.

Time can not be observed, all values are zero until matter passes by,

at the edge of space we fire an infra red missile at the wall, what do you think we would observe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He20Q_DGbkY&feature=youtu.be

The perception science has about the Universe is a flat earth theory, there is no wall or an edge to fall off, it continues to be space.



« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 11:46:18 by Thebox »

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #74 on: 15/03/2015 12:32:14 »
Maybe I should of just posted what I have done so far.

Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality, in a primary respect to science process  and to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting present naive set theories,  by using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Po-den of arguments that  opposes the present information by using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyses their information  and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) by  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,  use of Armstrong 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 fasinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn, an education that was   to be aided  by various science interent forums.
The fasination 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 being stubborn in not accepting the discipline and by reason of myself poorly explaining my ideas, and I was at the time effectively still unclear of my own ideas and unable to put the ideas into  a context that anyone else could understand.
I feel I have now achieved a better standard of literacy and I am able to express my ideas with clear intent.

Content
Part 1 - A theorist space Paradox opposing space time .

Part 2 - Light is a state Paradox.

Part 3 - Conclusion

Part 1- A Theorist space Paradox

Present information suggests -In physics, space-time (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.  The space-time of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
I postulate that combining matter and time into a single manifold called  ''Matter time in space'',   that time is treated as moving with an object and time being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or an object and relatively dependent  to gravitational fields  as opposed to an object or observers motion in space time and a said space time dilation and space time curvature.
Time is not based on the movement of the Earth through a space time, the origin of time is the recorded  rotation cycle of the Earth  relative to the Sun's motion . Time exists with or with out the Earth in space but has no value that is measurable as a time period value unless that space is occupied by matter. We used the regular motion of the Earth to define an increment of time that matter occupies a space. The regular movement of the Earth was essentially our first 'ruler' to measure the passage of time. We now have much more accurate clocks to measure the passage of time that matter occupies a space, a device that uses an electronic transition frequency and the corresponding beats that are equal to one second of the original motion of a surface point on Earth that was taken, and made has close as possible to the original second based on motion..

Time is based by humanity on rotation of the planet, , based on movement of matter through space and occupying space and only when matter occupies a space does time accumulate in the occupied space, and once the space is then unoccupied,  the value of the now unoccupied space resets back to a zero value.
Time in 3 dimensional space does not change and does not have direction or a value, it is infinite like space with no beginning or end unless occupied by matter creating a time accumulation in every dimension of space the matter occupies within the none moving time, we are the cause of time and time does not exist without our presence or the presence of matter  but exists at the same time in a none value state.
Analogy 1- Point A and  Point B , 100 miles distance between them.   Point A has a velocity of 100 mph travelling towards Point B that has a 0 velocity.  When Point A reaches Point B the journey took exactly 1 hour relative to the observer.
Throughout the entire journey relative to you , you observe the object and not the space, you observe time moving with the object, your focus is not of the space but on the object relative to you and relative to your time and reference frame.
Analogy 2- Observe any object  in a stationary reference frame relative to you , the object you are observing occupies a space, the object you are observing occupies a dimension of space equal to the objects dimensions  for the same accumulated time as you occupy your own dimensions in space observing the object.
Move the object you are observing to a different place a different dimension of space.
You will observe that the now unoccupied space from where you displaced the object that time now has no value, the value of time of the object is now displaced to another dimension of space you are observing.

Part 2.- Information processing by EM radiation-Paradox

Present information -Light usually refers to visible light, which is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight.

I postulate that light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter , which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, each of which content is capable of transmitting messages modulated onto light waves in their perceived spectral content that travel through the constant equilibrium of light to sight, a carrier signal to the brain, a communications protocol that is a system of digital rules for data exchange between light interactions with matter and within itself to the brain. Communicating systems use well-defined formats (protocol) for exchanging messages.
The information exchanged through a constant, the main means of mass communication—that is governed by rules and conventions that can be set out in technical specifications called communication protocol standards. The nature of a communication, the actual data exchanged and any state-dependent behaviours, is defined by its specification and the brains ability to interpret this information.
The basic difference between a parallel and a serial communication channel is the number of electrical conductors used at the physical layer to convey bits, this effect can be attributed to the transfer of energy from the light to an electron in the matter. From this perspective, an alteration in either the amplitude or wavelength of light would induce changes in the rate of emission of electrons from the matter.
A parallel communication is a method of conveying multiple binary digits (bits) simultaneously. It contrasts with serial communication, which conveys only a single bit at a time; this distinction is one way of characterizing a communications link to the brain that also becomes a duplicate transfer by mirrored properties, a period of changing from one state or condition to another by receivership.
A communication channel or channel, that refers to a physical transmission medium such as the constant of light in passive dark space, or to a logical connection over a multiplexed medium such as light. A Synchronization of the coordination of events to operate a system in unison to sight. The familiar conductor of an orchestra that serves to keep the orchestra in ''time''.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2015 12:36:54 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #75 on: 15/03/2015 19:29:51 »
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #76 on: 19/03/2015 09:52:27 »
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.
Ditto.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #77 on: 20/03/2015 21:25:59 »
Well, I still can't work out where you're trying to go with this, but good luck with your journey. It's got to the point where all it does is empty my mind and make me want to jump off a cliff, so I'm going to leave you to it.

When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.

Where am I going with time?

zero point space like I have mentioned before, to you a dimensional point   of and in space, timeless points of nothing.

What is time ?

time is nothing.

  What is arbitrary time?

Arbitrary time is an increment of observation of existence in a space, filling a dimension of dimensionless timeless space and making the space countable.

« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 21:42:42 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #78 on: 20/03/2015 21:57:24 »
Quote from: Thebox
What is time ?
We already explained it to you. You chose not to learn.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #79 on: 20/03/2015 22:04:21 »


When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.


You may prefer to operate with an empty head but what you are forgetting is all of the experimentation and effort expended by competent scientists to accumulate present day knowledge. And yes, we should be influenced by these great men of science because of the gain in knowledge mankind has accumulated.

If you prefer to start over and throw away everything we've learned over the past 100 years, you're disadvantaging your position. Do you really think you can do better with the few short years you've been given. You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge through the experience of others.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2015 22:47:52 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #80 on: 20/03/2015 22:43:05 »
You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge by the experience of others.

Unless he is arrogant.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #81 on: 20/03/2015 23:32:20 »
Quote from: Thebox
What is time ?
We already explained it to you. You chose not to learn.

Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #82 on: 20/03/2015 23:34:20 »


When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.


You may prefer to operate with an empty head but what you are forgetting is all of the experimentation and effort expended by competent scientists to accumulate present day knowledge. And yes, we should be influenced by these great men of science because of the gain in knowledge mankind has accumulated.

If you prefer to start over and throw away everything we've learned over the past 100 years, you're disadvantaging your position. Do you really think you can do better with the few short years you've been given. You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge through the experience of others.

That is not what I was saying or said, that is your own mind interpreting something different to what I said.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #83 on: 20/03/2015 23:36:16 »
You might be willing to start from scratch but the wise man will always add to his knowledge by the experience of others.

Unless he is arrogant.

Again name calling, deflection from the thread, one of the same persons from the other forum.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #84 on: 20/03/2015 23:37:53 »
When considering science emptying your head and considering the process with an empty head is the best approach.  Why be influenced by others decisions that came before us or when considering something not known.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #85 on: 21/03/2015 02:34:19 »
Quote from: Thebox
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
What ever gave you the impression that you have right to insult me like this? Don't you know that when you joined this forum you agreed to follow the forum rules and one of those rules is that you are not allowed to post other members. In this case you're insulting my intelligence. You also mistakenly think that you can read minds. Let me educate you on that point. At least with me you can't read my mind. You therefore made a false accusation that I merely chose to accept the definition of time without questioning it and made the horrible mistake that you thought that you actually taught me something. Hint: You don't have enough knowledge or experience to correct anything I say or derive regarding physics. You're simply too ignorant in this area right now. Perhaps in 20 years that might change but today you're quite wrong. You never have taught me anything so you can't make a legitimate claim that you're teaching me. You know damn well, as do I and everyone else who is posting in this thread, that you're only making that claim to irritate me. The so-called "definition" of time that I showed you (actually it's impossible to define time for the reasons explained there) is as perfect as can be. My friend Alan Guth read it and agrees with me. He's a cosmologist at MIT and on the track to win a Nobel Prize in physics. He already won many other prizes in physics as well as the Kavli prize in Astrophysics:
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-kavli-prize

He's a renown physicist and a first rate physicist to boot. And he damn well knows more than you in physics. I know a damn well more than you in physics. But as long as you keep insulting and irritating people here with your accusations that you're so much smarter and more correct than everyone you're not going to learn or get any better and you'll be ignored.

Now it's time for me to tell you how I know that my understanding is better than yours. Yours makes no sense. You claim that there's only time where there is matter. But you haven't said what time is by this statement. All you've done is to describe a property of time. Here's why I know you don't know why yours is better than the old and thus it needed to be changed. You've demonstrated NO knowledge or understanding that you know anything about what time is "defined" by all mainstream physicists. You haven't even take on one statement or even a word from that description of time I gave you and tried to shoot it down. You can't make any claims that a definition is wrong if you have no knowledge of the definition.

What physicists call "time" is the parameter "t" that appears in equations and elsewhere. However its only differences in "t" that play a strong role in physics. It's analogous to the potential energy of a particle, V. V is defined only within an arbitrary additive constant. Kinetic energy K and rest energy E0 added to V forum the total energy E and it's E that is conserved. So "V" plays an important role in energy conservation just like time "t" plays a role in physics, especially when defining spacetime. In your crackpot definition of time, spacetime cannot be defined. You imply that such a thing is okay but don't prove it. Special and General Relativity are theories in which spacetime plays a large role. In fact it's spacetime curvature that replaces tidal gradients in general relativity.

So stop with your arrogant and ignorant attitude. You already appear to us as a crackpot so why make it worse for yourself?
« Last Edit: 21/03/2015 03:03:19 by PmbPhy »

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #86 on: 21/03/2015 11:47:07 »
Quote from: Thebox
Actually you choose to accept without question and not to learn ,, It is I teaching you.
What ever gave you the impression that you have right to insult me like this? Don't you know that when you joined this forum you agreed to follow the forum rules and one of those rules is that you are not allowed to post other members. In this case you're insulting my intelligence. You also mistakenly think that you can read minds. Let me educate you on that point. At least with me you can't read my mind. You therefore made a false accusation that I merely chose to accept the definition of time without questioning it and made the horrible mistake that you thought that you actually taught me something. Hint: You don't have enough knowledge or experience to correct anything I say or derive regarding physics. You're simply too ignorant in this area right now. Perhaps in 20 years that might change but today you're quite wrong. You never have taught me anything so you can't make a legitimate claim that you're teaching me. You know damn well, as do I and everyone else who is posting in this thread, that you're only making that claim to irritate me. The so-called "definition" of time that I showed you (actually it's impossible to define time for the reasons explained there) is as perfect as can be. My friend Alan Guth read it and agrees with me. He's a cosmologist at MIT and on the track to win a Nobel Prize in physics. He already won many other prizes in physics as well as the Kavli prize in Astrophysics:
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/2014-kavli-prize

He's a renown physicist and a first rate physicist to boot. And he damn well knows more than you in physics. I know a damn well more than you in physics. But as long as you keep insulting and irritating people here with your accusations that you're so much smarter and more correct than everyone you're not going to learn or get any better and you'll be ignored.

Now it's time for me to tell you how I know that my understanding is better than yours. Yours makes no sense. You claim that there's only time where there is matter. But you haven't said what time is by this statement. All you've done is to describe a property of time. Here's why I know you don't know why yours is better than the old and thus it needed to be changed. You've demonstrated NO knowledge or understanding that you know anything about what time is "defined" by all mainstream physicists. You haven't even take on one statement or even a word from that description of time I gave you and tried to shoot it down. You can't make any claims that a definition is wrong if you have no knowledge of the definition.

What physicists call "time" is the parameter "t" that appears in equations and elsewhere. However its only differences in "t" that play a strong role in physics. It's analogous to the potential energy of a particle, V. V is defined only within an arbitrary additive constant. Kinetic energy K and rest energy E0 added to V forum the total energy E and it's E that is conserved. So "V" plays an important role in energy conservation just like time "t" plays a role in physics, especially when defining spacetime. In your crackpot definition of time, spacetime cannot be defined. You imply that such a thing is okay but don't prove it. Special and General Relativity are theories in which spacetime plays a large role. In fact it's spacetime curvature that replaces tidal gradients in general relativity.

So stop with your arrogant and ignorant attitude. You already appear to us as a crackpot so why make it worse for yourself?

That is not an insult, that is me being arrogant in response to sciences arrogance.


Let me correct this for you

''Not only is this quite wrong but it shows that you don't know how physicists "define" time. Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe. For example: consider a ball rolling down a hill. The role that time plays here is merely used to describe the location of the ball as it occupies different places in space. We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.''



Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.

Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.


''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''


The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.

Measuring a casting of a shadows movement on a sundial is putting a period of ''time'' to a distance of movement, a timing and  not a time.  The time you observe whilst timing is your own time, timing the action.

The ball rolling down a hill from A-B is an increment equal to your time observing,

A block of ''time'' in a infinite timeless time.




*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #87 on: 22/03/2015 04:18:06 »
Quote from: Thebox
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.

Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
Incorrect yet once again. Then again you didn't read the page I showed you nor my posts very well so this ignorance is to be expected. Changes might not take place relative to anything having to do with different places in space but could be with respect to a single location in space such as the shutting off or turning on of an LED which, according to an observer, takes place at a single place in space in a particular reference frame.  That it has structure which means that it spans a small amount of space is unrelated to the fact that motion is not a factor here.

You also failed to understand that time cannot be defined like other concepts can. This is because its a fundamental concept. Any attempt to define it will lead to a circularity. The same thing happens with certain mathematical terms. You made the mistake over and over that you were at liberty to create your own definition of time. In reality all you were doing is choosing to use the term "time" in your own particular way when in fact the term was created to describe the phenomena relating to change in the universe

Quote from: Thebox
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''


The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Yet another mistake. First off that's an extremely sloppy sentence. This is why so many people keep saying that they don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is pure gibberish.

Please take at least one physics course and one course in writing before you come back here again. You're embarrassing yourself again.

It's for reasons like this that you're on the crackpot list. You're second only after jccc. It's a very close race though.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 04:34:46 by PmbPhy »

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #88 on: 22/03/2015 12:04:02 »
Quote from: Thebox
Time is a description of the changes that occur in the universe.

Timing increments are a description of changes that occur in a space.
Incorrect yet once again. Then again you didn't read the page I showed you nor my posts very well so this ignorance is to be expected. Changes might not take place relative to anything having to do with different places in space but could be with respect to a single location in space such as the shutting off or turning on of an LED which, according to an observer, takes place at a single place in space in a particular reference frame.  That it has structure which means that it spans a small amount of space is unrelated to the fact that motion is not a factor here.

You also failed to understand that time cannot be defined like other concepts can. This is because its a fundamental concept. Any attempt to define it will lead to a circularity. The same thing happens with certain mathematical terms. You made the mistake over and over that you were at liberty to create your own definition of time. In reality all you were doing is choosing to use the term "time" in your own particular way when in fact the term was created to describe the phenomena relating to change in the universe

Quote from: Thebox
''We say that the position changes "with time." In the same way the shadow that a Sundial casts on a dial is exactly what it means to measure time.'''


The position changes compared to your position compared to your own time, the ball is not relative to your time, the ball is relative to its own time, the space is relative to passage of your time and we are not within time we are time.
Yet another mistake. First off that's an extremely sloppy sentence. This is why so many people keep saying that they don't understand what you're saying. That sentence is pure gibberish.

Please take at least one physics course and one course in writing before you come back here again. You're embarrassing yourself again.

It's for reasons like this that you're on the crackpot list. You're second only after jccc. It's a very close race though.

No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.  The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.

End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 12:06:11 by Thebox »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #89 on: 22/03/2015 17:53:35 »
Quote from: Thebox
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.
First of all your main problem is that you want to change what you think the term "time" refers to (which you really have no idea what it means) but you haven't even explained or proved that there is any problem with the meaning as it now stands. So you claim its wrong, huh? Fine! Then prove it!

There are four errors in this statement.

1) It's not my definition.

2) It's not even a definition (you keep ignoring that fact for some reason).

3) It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.

4) The description of time as given in the sources are the correct description

The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm, (1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_3/index.html
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time.html

Quote from: Thebox
  The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
You sure can't write a meaningful sentence, can you? That makes no sense whatsoever! What do you mean by "you can record time in a space that is not your own time"???

Quote from: Thebox
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
Then if you're so cocksure of yourself then prove it! First prove that you know what "my" definition of "spacetime" is and then prove that it's "incorrect" and then prove what it means for someone else's definition to be incorrect.

You have absolutely no logic to your arguments. It has no meaning to say that someone's definition is incorrect. That you can't fathom that fact is the kind of thing that put you near the top of the crackpot list.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #90 on: 22/03/2015 19:54:04 »
Quote from: Thebox
No, I am telling you that your definition is wrong, time is not observed in a space.
First of all your main problem is that you want to change what you think the term "time" refers to (which you really have no idea what it means) but you haven't even explained or proved that there is any problem with the meaning as it now stands. So you claim its wrong, huh? Fine! Then prove it!

There are four errors in this statement.

1) It's not my definition.

2) It's not even a definition (you keep ignoring that fact for some reason).

3) It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.

4) The description of time as given in the sources are the correct description

The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm, (1979).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_3/index.html
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time.html

Quote from: Thebox
  The burden of proof is on you to prove that you can record time in a space that is not your own time.
You sure can't write a meaningful sentence, can you? That makes no sense whatsoever! What do you mean by "you can record time in a space that is not your own time"???

Quote from: Thebox
End of , you can not, I am correct it is your definition and space-time that is incorrect.
Then if you're so cocksure of yourself then prove it! First prove that you know what "my" definition of "spacetime" is and then prove that it's "incorrect" and then prove what it means for someone else's definition to be incorrect.

You have absolutely no logic to your arguments. It has no meaning to say that someone's definition is incorrect. That you can't fathom that fact is the kind of thing that put you near the top of the crackpot list.

Your links more or less say what I have been talking about.  I can define time other than arbitrary use.


Space-time is 3 dimensions of space and a forth dimension of time, the problem is space has no dimensions .


try dimensions that fill a space that  are timed occupying that space whilst travelling through space.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 19:57:55 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #91 on: 22/03/2015 20:19:40 »
All I see is an uninteresting assertion that time doesn't exist in space when there's nothing in that space to show time passing. It's a bit like talking about there being no sound when a tree falls in a forest if there's no one there to hear it - it's something that cannot be proved either way and which is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Dull and trivial.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #92 on: 22/03/2015 20:28:10 »
All I see is an uninteresting assertion that time doesn't exist in space when there's nothing in that space to show time passing. It's a bit like talking about there being no sound when a tree falls in a forest if there's no one there to hear it - it's something that cannot be proved either way and which is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Dull and trivial.

It proves the truth but you say it is uninteresting,

there is no sound from a falling tree, sound is a wave conversion, the actual wave makes no sound.  You detect waves and covert it into a sound, your brain again I am afraid to say.




*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #93 on: 23/03/2015 00:58:43 »
If sound is a wave compression, the sound is there even if no one is there to hear it, but if you consider sound to be the experience inside the head of a hearing creature like a human, then there is no sound where a tree falls out of range of the hearing of such creatures. However, there's also the philosophical argument that not only is the sound not there, but the tree might not exist when there's no one there looking at it. That is closer to what I actually had in mind when comparing this with your argument about empty space not having time.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #94 on: 24/03/2015 00:11:37 »
If sound is a wave compression, the sound is there even if no one is there to hear it, but if you consider sound to be the experience inside the head of a hearing creature like a human, then there is no sound where a tree falls out of range of the hearing of such creatures. However, there's also the philosophical argument that not only is the sound not there, but the tree might not exist when there's no one there looking at it. That is closer to what I actually had in mind when comparing this with your argument about empty space not having time.

No the tree exists whether or not you can see it, tie a string around a tree and close your eyes and pull the string.

The tree is definitely there.

Anyone who mentions Holographic universe, do we really exist, are talking utter crap.

« Last Edit: 24/03/2015 00:39:19 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #95 on: 24/03/2015 17:54:06 »
Try not to attack the point by distorting the analogy away from what it is there to illustrate. Analogies are almost always inadequate in a multitude of ways, but homing in on irrelevant points where they fail does nothing to rescue you from your hopeless position. I can keep modifying the analogy to eliminate any defect you spot in it, but all that happens is that the key issue is being avoided rather than being addressed.

Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't. Your argument that empty space has no time in it is equivalent to that - if you can't detect the passing of time in space which has no matter in it, there is no time there. But time could continue to be there regardless of your inability to detect it, so all you're doing is making an assertion that can't be proved by experiment (and which is also logically bankrupt). If empty space contains no time, there is no time in which that space is empty, so there is no such thing as an empty bit of space. But if you eliminate a chunk of space from the rest of space on the basis that it is empty, has no time and cannot exist, you will find all the parts of space that aren't empty compressing in together to eliminate all the empty voids such that two elephants a mile apart with nothing but empty space between them will suddenly find themselves right next to each other with all the separation irrecoverably lost.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #96 on: 24/03/2015 20:57:51 »
Try not to attack the point by distorting the analogy away from what it is there to illustrate. Analogies are almost always inadequate in a multitude of ways, but homing in on irrelevant points where they fail does nothing to rescue you from your hopeless position. I can keep modifying the analogy to eliminate any defect you spot in it, but all that happens is that the key issue is being avoided rather than being addressed.

Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't. Your argument that empty space has no time in it is equivalent to that - if you can't detect the passing of time in space which has no matter in it, there is no time there. But time could continue to be there regardless of your inability to detect it, so all you're doing is making an assertion that can't be proved by experiment (and which is also logically bankrupt). If empty space contains no time, there is no time in which that space is empty, so there is no such thing as an empty bit of space. But if you eliminate a chunk of space from the rest of space on the basis that it is empty, has no time and cannot exist, you will find all the parts of space that aren't empty compressing in together to eliminate all the empty voids such that two elephants a mile apart with nothing but empty space between them will suddenly find themselves right next to each other with all the separation irrecoverably lost.


''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''

What? there is no argument of the such,  a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.

These are my thoughts you are hearing in your own voice in your head has you read this.

The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.

To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own.  Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.
I am simply stating fact and truths, science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.

Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?






« Last Edit: 24/03/2015 21:00:05 by Thebox »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #97 on: 24/03/2015 21:27:17 »
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''

What? there is no argument of the such,  a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.

But it's the same as your argument - if there's no means to measure the tree because there's nothing there to measure it, it doesn't exist.

Quote
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.

Science cannot record the existence of the tree when it isn't recording the existence of the tree.

Quote
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own.  Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.

No, all you're doing is asserting that time is not there in empty space in the same way I'm asserting that the tree doesn't exist except when its existence is actively being measured in some way.

Quote
I am simply stating fact and truths,

No, you're simply pushing an unbacked assertion and calling it a fact when it is nothing of the kind.

Quote
science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.

I'm no fan of Spacetime, but why turn that into a denial of time in empty space? You have provided no proof whatsoever that time doesn't exist in empty space, and yet you assert that it's a fact that it doesn't exist there. You tie time to matter instead, but matter is merely revealing the existence of time by showing you that it can change in various ways.

Quote
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?

I don't find that a meaningful question. Space is an arena in which things can exist and move around. Time is something that enables movement and change. Spacetime is a concept from a particular theory which tries to treat time as a dimension like a space dimension rather than allowing time to run in the Newtonian way, leading to the idea of a block universe in which the past, present and future are eternal and time has an arrow rather than running or flowing. (I personally reject the Spacetime model on the basis that it destroys all possibility of cause and effect, but that's another issue).

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #98 on: 24/03/2015 23:01:23 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I don't find that a meaningful question.
That's because it isn't. He does that a great deal of the time. That's why I had to stop bothering with him. He just can't see his mistakes.

*

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: Time
« Reply #99 on: 25/03/2015 10:09:35 »
''Does the tree still exist when you have no means to detect it? It is possible to argue that it doesn't.''

What? there is no argument of the such,  a tree exists whether you observe it or not, it is the equivalent of saying because I can not see you this very instance, you only exist in my mind.

But it's the same as your argument - if there's no means to measure the tree because there's nothing there to measure it, it doesn't exist.

Quote
The whole point is that science can not record time of an empty space , by empty I mean also transparent, unseen.

Science cannot record the existence of the tree when it isn't recording the existence of the tree.

Quote
To say a space-time exists with no evidence is about the same bad idea as my own.  Except my idea that it does not exist is evidential true by sciences lack of proof.

No, all you're doing is asserting that time is not there in empty space in the same way I'm asserting that the tree doesn't exist except when its existence is actively being measured in some way.

Quote
I am simply stating fact and truths,

No, you're simply pushing an unbacked assertion and calling it a fact when it is nothing of the kind.

Quote
science has no proof of a space-time therefore circumstantial garbage and hearsay proving itself there is no space-time and that is made up.

I'm no fan of Spacetime, but why turn that into a denial of time in empty space? You have provided no proof whatsoever that time doesn't exist in empty space, and yet you assert that it's a fact that it doesn't exist there. You tie time to matter instead, but matter is merely revealing the existence of time by showing you that it can change in various ways.

Quote
Just ask yourself , space-time is relative to what exactly?

I don't find that a meaningful question. Space is an arena in which things can exist and move around. Time is something that enables movement and change. Spacetime is a concept from a particular theory which tries to treat time as a dimension like a space dimension rather than allowing time to run in the Newtonian way, leading to the idea of a block universe in which the past, present and future are eternal and time has an arrow rather than running or flowing. (I personally reject the Spacetime model on the basis that it destroys all possibility of cause and effect, but that's another issue).

You are missing the point, go look at a tree, you can see that tree, while you observing that tree observe the transparent space around the tree.  You can never observe transparent space.

You observe your time and the tree's time, you do not observe any transparent time or space-time.


It just came to me,

What is time?

Time is observed timing increments of matter through a transparent time that has no values.

Analogy- You are observing nothing that travels from point (a) to point (b)  , nothing's velocity is ? miles an hour, the distance between (a) and (b) is 5m.

How much time does it take for nothing to travel 5m?



(a)0.......................................................................................(b)0


do you see, nothing takes no time to arrive at (b)

Nothing is infinite and faster than the speed of the light, nothing is instant, nothing is never occupied for a very long increment of time, everything is moving in the universe.

XYZ are 3 imaginary lines in space, with an imaginary time added, it is none existence, xyz is to represent a cubic volume of space for the purpose of space travel or our boys would get lost.

trajectory and velocity, an arbitrary man made function.

Anyway my days and time on science will end soon, no one is bothered for sure or believes it.  I need to go out and get a Job, waste my time on being some robot following commands.

At least I know I tried and if you do not get it after this post I really do not know what else to say.


I brought transparent space to science, a dark passive transparent space, I brought science that dark is not the absence of light but the absence of sight and brain function, a state of being, it is technically always light and there is always some form of light present even in pitch black.

(M1)0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(m2)

t=(M1)

t=(m2)

0=dDtv = distance of dependent time travelled relative to velocity



00000000000000(M1)000000000000000000000(m2)




00000000000000000000000000(M1)000000000(M2)


000000(m1)(M2)00000000000000
 

Maybe you will understand a zig zag better.

m1                            m2                             m1
     m1                       m2                       m1
          m1                  m2                  m1
               m1             m2             m1
                    m1        m2        m1
                         m1   m2  m1
                              m1,2
...

c=>00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
    > m1                     >m3          >0                                           >0
        > 0                 >0     >0 >0     >0                                      >0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000      <=c         
            >0          >0                            >0 >0 >0                   >0
               >0    > 0                                              >0 >0      >0
                 >m2                                                             >m4

c=>000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

c=>00000>(m1)0000000000000000(m2)<0000000000000000000


http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/assignment-discovery-shorts-black-hole-the-singularity/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=DiscoveryChannel

The space still exists, dependent time exists because , 

Whilst the probe is in a black hole relative to the probe time exists dependent of the probe.  A dimension of space is still occupied by the probe.









« Last Edit: 25/03/2015 14:11:37 by Thebox »