[guest39538]

This thread is my thread and is discussing a theory from myself, in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

You may or may not request any help but don't expect us to just sit by and be force feed crackpot theories. Whether you've requested it or not, we have the right to disagree and explain why. To date, several members have tried to enlighten you about your misconceptions but to no avail. Don't count on any of us to just lay down and take what you say as science fact.

Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.

I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.

[Ethos_]

Please point out were members have talked about any of my points, quoted back present information is not discussing.

I await your first scientific post of the thread, I will not answer any more to flame attempts from my ex -forums members.

Check out the latest post #19. This member has some interesting points you should consider.

[guest39538]

A Sundial is not measuring time, it is measuring the relative movement of the shadow compared to the Suns position in the sky.

A sundial or using any form of motion to measure time is not measuring time but simply measuring relative timing of motion.  A synchronization of timing of motion.

Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day, any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

The absolute speed of the rotation is irrelevant, it is the frequency that matters (in this case, one revolution per day). For example, the 462 m/s "speed of the Earth is rotating at" is only accurate near the equator. Near the North or South pole, the day is just as long (just under 24 hours), but the distance traveled is much smaller (you can demonstrate this to yourself with a globe if it doesn't make sense at first).

Also, I will point out that the Earth is slowing down. On average, the day is getting longer by about 2.3 ms every century. This does not have any fundamental implications on the definitions of time or space, it only means that the Earth is slowing down.

When light speed was found, the scientist were under the perceived impression of time.   

299792458 m/s   , a second based on a distance. 
How can that be accurate?

it reads c=299792458 m  per  462.69 m

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"

In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.

[chiralSPO]

I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.

[Ethos_]

In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.

I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.

[Colin2B]

....... my statements are quite falsifiable.

That is a true statement

I am disputing the present information is incorrect

We are also disputing it

......in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

In that case, I'm out

[guest39538]

In your first paragraph you have just completely agreed with me.

I think you need to read all of his post, you will find several things which do not agree.

The first paragraph destroys the rest of the post


edit - Yes. This (above) makes perfect sense to me. Because the Earth rotates at a (fairly) constant rate this rotation can be used as a way of measuring time (one full rotation is a day,one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance) any other duration can be measured as a fraction or multiple of that rotation)

[guest39538]

....... my statements are quite falsifiable.

That is a true statement

I am disputing the present information is incorrect

We are also disputing it

......in none of my posts do I say I require any help in the present available information I am disputing.

In that case, I'm out

I apologise if you were for my idea.

[Ethos_]

In that case, I'm out

I'm right behind you,................and speaking of time, this thread has become a waste of it.

[guest39538]

I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.

How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you  have just agreed with?  A history we still use today.

[chiralSPO]

I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.

How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you  have just agreed with?  A history we still use today.

My dispute is not with the history, but your interpretation of it. The science of it, if you will.

one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance)

Does it also matter how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or how fast the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, or how fast the whole galaxy is moving?

Please read the rest of my previous post:

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"

Can you find any merit in any of my questions or points?

[guest39538]

I completely agreed with part of what you said. I accept your telling of history, but I disagree with your conclusion.

How can you agree with the history then deny a conclusion based on the history that you  have just agreed with?  A history we still use today.

My dispute is not with the history, but your interpretation of it. The science of it, if you will.

one full rotation is also my observation point travelling a circumference distance)

Does it also matter how fast the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or how fast the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, or how fast the whole galaxy is moving?

Please read the rest of my previous post:

Again, you are confusing time and space. 462.69 meters cannot be equal to any amount of time just as there is no number of dolphins equal to a rat. A car traveling at 5 meters per second does not imply that 5 = 462.69 just as a photon traveling at 299792458 meters per second does not imply that 299792458 = 462.69. This apparent paradox doesn't mean that our measurement of time is completely wrong, it means that yours is.

in summary:
seconds ≠ meters
dolphins ≠ rats
speed has units of meters per second, or miles per hour, or feet per minute, or whatever unit of length per unit time you want to use. There is nothing special about the "speed of Earth's rotation"

Can you find any merit in any of my questions or points?

My interpretation of time is not incorrect because when science keeps agreeing with me about the origin of time,  science is agreeing with me.

Regardless whether my account of rotational 1 second equals a Earth surface point travelled distance, science is agrees that the origin of time is based on motion which makes an inevitable 1 second would always equal a distance and timing of relative motion would be achieved but not timing of time.

I understand the points you are trying to make and I am not confusing time and space or space-time (see space-time thread).


The complete idea involves more than just motion, it involves a Unified theory of everything including the value of numbers.
If you go over my other threads you can see how it all links together. 


Let me try to explain something  -  If you are recording time 1 must equal 1, time is instant,

1 can not equal the word one, the one is 3 digits and not 1 digit.  One=3   three=5 and so on.

1 must equal 1.


The meaning of 0 is one.  0=1

the meaning of 0 is also ................     the dots been points of space  , I call it zero point space, you call it a dimension of space. 


Empty space between your eyes and an object (not accounting for air etc)  is unseen, a  point nothing of/in space is timeless, observe space and you only observing your time watching space, there is no space-time only your time filling a dimension of shapeless space or moving through a shapeless space.

It is complex to understand, I hope you understand after this post.

[guest39538]

I have just give it some more thought and it does not matter about the suns movement , we timed timing points by rotation and lining up the timing points.

If I spun a childs round about at a constant speed and I walked around the round about as it was revolving at a constant speed, the timing points would be the same every time.

If you were on the round about timing the exchange of relative motion, you are travelling a circular distance relative to your timing.

The distance and speed would always equal your time recorded and in essence be the same thing.

If you travelled away from me at 1035 mph into space and I did not move from my place on Earth at the great Pyramid, in 24 hrs we both travel the same distance.

[David Cooper]

I only bothered to read this thread because it had a lot of posts in it, so I wondered if there was anything worth reading in it. It was no surprise to find that there isn't - there never is when someone new creates an avalanche of new threads. What we have here is someone proposing that time is equal to distance. He/she is obsessed with the idea that this should involve an arbitrary unit of time tied to an arbitrary size of planet and an arbitrary point on the surface of that planet at an arbitrary altitude and the distance that point will move in terms of rotation based on a daily rotation of 361 degrees and arbitrary ways of slicing up rotation into units. What an absolute pile of pants!

If you want to relate time to distance, that can be indeed be done, but the sensible way to do it is to link it directly to the speed of light and the distance it covers in an amount of time. You still have to choose an arbitrary unit of time or length, but then you can derive the other unit from it. This does not at any point mean that time = distance, but merely that these two distinct things can be related in some way. I have described a direct relationship between the two, but the OP describes one with an intermediate step which is a rotation angle, so if he thinks time = distance, he should be claiming that time = rotation = distance because that logically follows from his argument, or rather should come in the middle of his argument. And now that we have rotation = distance, I think that ought to wrap things up neatly.

[guest39538]

I only bothered to read this thread because it had a lot of posts in it, so I wondered if there was anything worth reading in it. It was no surprise to find that there isn't - there never is when someone new creates an avalanche of new threads. What we have here is someone proposing that time is equal to distance. He/she is obsessed with the idea that this should involve an arbitrary unit of time tied to an arbitrary size of planet and an arbitrary point on the surface of that planet at an arbitrary altitude and the distance that point will move in terms of rotation based on a daily rotation of 361 degrees and arbitrary ways of slicing up rotation into units. What an absolute pile of pants!

If you want to relate time to distance, that can be indeed be done, but the sensible way to do it is to link it directly to the speed of light and the distance it covers in an amount of time. You still have to choose an arbitrary unit of time or length, but then you can derive the other unit from it. This does not at any point mean that time = distance, but merely that these two distinct things can be related in some way. I have described a direct relationship between the two, but the OP describes one with an intermediate step which is a rotation angle, so if he thinks time = distance, he should be claiming that time = rotation = distance because that logically follows from his argument, or rather should come in the middle of his argument. And now that we have rotation = distance, I think that ought to wrap things up neatly.

A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.
I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against?  I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.



You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.

The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason  , they are the truths.

space time = 0

space time dilation = 0

A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing  of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.


 

[chiralSPO]

History does not make something true or untrue scientifically. We used to think the Earth was flat, but now we know better--this doesn't automatically invalidate other scientific advances made when this false knowledge was held to be true. It doesn't invalidate scientific advances based on repeated refinement of false ideas either--that's how all science works.

The reason your threads are "unarguable" has nothing to do with their truth, and everything to do with the fact that you are unable to understand our arguments and we are unable to understand yours.

Given this obvious disconnect and your inability to grasp the difference between units, ratios and values, we are at an impasse.


Do not be surprised if we completely stop replying to your posts.

[guest39538]

History does not make something true or untrue scientifically. We used to think the Earth was flat, but now we know better--this doesn't automatically invalidate other scientific advances made when this false knowledge was held to be true. It doesn't invalidate scientific advances based on repeated refinement of false ideas either--that's how all science works.

The reason your threads are "unarguable" has nothing to do with their truth, and everything to do with the fact that you are unable to understand our arguments and we are unable to understand yours.

Given this obvious disconnect and your inability to grasp the difference between units, ratios and values, we are at an impasse.


Do not be surprised if we completely stop replying to your posts.

They are unarguable because they are the scientific proofs from your very own science.

My observations and discourse of science present information and all the internet forums answers leave no other possible conclusions.

I have already heard all the opposing argument and all of it tries to deflect away from the issues being stated in question  that is sated by good logic and having very reasonable doubt of present information to its falsifiable statement.


I can show and have already shown that there is no space time and no dilation of time, 

Why do you insist on deflecting from the truth's?

[guest39538]

You only have to understand ''this''


Well actually ''this'' has dimensions, it is also 4 singular constants, it also occupies different dimensional pixel placement on your monitoring device, ''this'' occupies the volume of pixels within its dimensions, while you observe ''this'' you are not observing ''this'' time, you are monitoring your own time pass by.

''this'' has 4 constants and a ''vowel'', a ''vowel'' being its own dependant time.  ''this'' is now a ''blank space'' , blank space has a greater dimension than ''this'', ''blank space'' has 10 constants and a ''vowel'' occupying the volume of pixels contained.
''Blank space'' has more dimensional points than ''this'', ''blank space'' has more dimensions of space covered with time, a time that does not alter, a blank space is infinite in time with no beginning until occupied.



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".
By combining matter and time into a single manifold called occupied space, , time is treated as moving with an object, time  being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or the object and dependent relative to gravitational fields for the object or observer relative to the observers time dependency to gravitational fields.  Time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of the object or observer, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object or observer occupying and moving through space is   equal to the object or observers own time observed rate of  occupying and moving through space,

[David Cooper]

A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.

If you can't follow something when it's set out properly, there's really no hope for you. If you want to talk about time and to discuss its relationship to distance, don't get bogged down in the origin of the second which is merely an arbitrary unit of time. There is nothing magically special about the second that makes how its length was chosen important when looking at time itself, so all the stuff about planets going round and the distance some parts of one planet cover as they rotate is utterly irrelevant. If you want to tie time to distance, you need to do it via light.

I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against?  I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.

There is nothing to defend against here - I was just trying to point you in a better direction than the one you're going in because you're thinking is horribly muddled.

You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.

History of the origin of the second is not the same thing as the issue of time. If you're obsessed with an unimportant measure of time to the point that you can't separate it from the idea of time itself, you aren't going to get any further.

The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason  , they are the truths.

They are not attracting attention because they say nothing of any value. This thread would have gone the same way, but people have been using it to explore your mind as it's always interesting to study how people think, or fail to.

A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing  of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.

It's hard to work out what you're trying to attack there. Time dilation is a term from one theory, while other theories have other descriptions relating to how clocks run at different speeds. I don't know if you're trying to attack relativity or what your aim is there, but clocks certainly do get out of sync with each other when located at different altitudes in a gravity well or when moving relative to each other.

[guest39538]

A nice attempt to oppose the idea, however without foundation for the points I have mentioned, the speed of light came much later than the derivation of time from an origin of time that equalled a distance travelled relative to the observer relative to method.

If you can't follow something when it's set out properly, there's really no hope for you. If you want to talk about time and to discuss its relationship to distance, don't get bogged down in the origin of the second which is merely an arbitrary unit of time. There is nothing magically special about the second that makes how its length was chosen important when looking at time itself, so all the stuff about planets going round and the distance some parts of one planet cover as they rotate is utterly irrelevant. If you want to tie time to distance, you need to do it via light.

I could not understand how people have lost the ability to be objective to themselves and try to deny truth values.
Whom exactly are you defending against?  I am not an Alien we are all on this planet together.

There is nothing to defend against here - I was just trying to point you in a better direction than the one you're going in because you're thinking is horribly muddled.

You have to deny history and the origin of time which I do not believe anyone can do to show my idea is untrue and unfounded.

History of the origin of the second is not the same thing as the issue of time. If you're obsessed with an unimportant measure of time to the point that you can't separate it from the idea of time itself, you aren't going to get any further.

The obvious avoidance of my other threads by members tells me that my ideas are pretty much un-arguable, the reason  , they are the truths.

They are not attracting attention because they say nothing of any value. This thread would have gone the same way, but people have been using it to explore your mind as it's always interesting to study how people think, or fail to.

A Caesium atom is not time, a difference in timing  of the caesium atom(s) in the Keating experiment is a gravity synchronization fluctuation and not a time dilation.

It's hard to work out what you're trying to attack there. Time dilation is a term from one theory, while other theories have other descriptions relating to how clocks run at different speeds. I don't know if you're trying to attack relativity or what your aim is there, but clocks certainly do get out of sync with each other when located at different altitudes in a gravity well or when moving relative to each other.

Yes the arbitrary Caesium clocks have a synchronization off set, this should not be referred to as a time dilation.  A Caesium clock and the monitoring of a change in timing is not any effect on time itself.

You are trying to say I do not know time and trying to direct that I am in some way thinking an arbitrary meaning of time means something compared to real time.

It is not I who has SR based on a time dilation of an arbitrary device.

I understand very well what time is and what time certainly is not.