0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

This is my opinion on the matter. According to Special Relativity, as velocity reaches the speed of light, space-time contracts to a point instant. At the speed of light reference, time appears to stop in all inertial references and space appears to contract to a point. If I am not mistaking, Einstein once said (paraphrase) that time is there so everything does not occur at once. At the speed of light, since inertial time has contracted to an instant, everything in the seen universe appears to occur at once, since instant is the smallest time unit. The concept of time breaks down in the sense there is not enough time; only an instant, for anything to occur separately. Since the speed of light is the same in all references and time has stopped in the speed of light reference, the speed of light exceeds time. The means new types of things can happen. Let me extrapolate these new things, beginning with the analogy of the fabric of space-time. At the speed of light, when the speed of light exceeds time and space (no sense of separate in space or time) the fabric of space-time begins to unravel into separated threads of time and separated threads of space. This is like a hole in blue jean material where white and blue threads will separate. If we follow a time thread, since this is now detached from any junction with space threads, we can follow this time line, everywhere, simultaneously. If we follow a thread of distance that is not dependent on time; detached from time threads, we can be anywhere in the universe in zero time. Traditionally these states were called omniscience and omnipresence, respectively. To reform space-time, we need to cross a thread of time with a thread of space. This will cause single space-time unit to appear; point-instant, Since each thread is now limiting the other, time becomes constrained to a point in space, so only the local history is evidence, and space becomes constrained to the point in time so position becomes limited; primordial atom. The modern fabric of space-time is similar to any modern fabric in that the weave is not solid under the microscope, but has air holes between the fibers of the weave. This is where distinct thread pieces of time and thread pieces of space continue to exist; speed of light is the same in all references. Particle pairs, for example, can coordinate in ways that appear to exceed the speed of light in terms of information transmission. They work in the gaps and make use of the separated threads pieces of time and space. These gaps between the weave is also why we have a quantum universe. If you look at our modern universe, we observe a net a conversion of matter to energy. Or inertial (matter) is returning to the speed of light reference (energy). The potential of the universe is moving from the fabric of space-time into the gaps of the fabric where separated threads of time and space appear. One further consideration is embroidery. This is where you weave extra fibers onto a base fabric to create designs. Once such embroidery is connected to weaving extra time into space-time. This is called acceleration; d/t/t, which is connected to force. This can pucker the fabric of space-time; gravity.This analysis is different and unique because it works under the assumption C is the ground state of the universe. Space-time an anomaly that lingers at the junctions of the fabric. These junctions are ultimately connected to inertial matter since matter can't move at the speed of light, thereby allowing a persistence in the fabric.

9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per secondc=299 792 458 m / s299 792 458 / 46.3491072=*6468138.7865 faster than time

You can't equate different units of measure the way you did, so the calculations are not sensible.Conceptually, it doesn't work either. Time is not something that moves. There is no "speed of time," so the speed of light can neither be faster nor slower than it.

9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second

Quote from: Thebox on 31/10/2015 10:03:01 9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second Utter, meaningless drivel. Why waste your time writing such obvious tosh?

Thebox, are you saying that anything that travels faster than 103.68 mph is travelling faster than time?What does travelling faster than time mean?

1035 mph so I believe where do you get 103mph from Bill?

Quote from: Thebox1035 mph so I believe where do you get 103mph from Bill?Just trying to follow your maths; but I guess Alan has pointed out why that might not work. []

. Do you really think there is no difference between m/s and s?

someone got it wrong somewhere.

Time came well before 17th century science began

Time came well before the Earth and Sun existed. So how can "the speed of time" be determined by the Earth? The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets has no bearing on the fundamental nature of time itself.

Einstein once said (paraphrase) that time is there so everything does not occur at once. At

At the speed of light, since inertial time has contracted to an instant, everything in the seen universe appears to occur at once, since instant is the smallest time unit.

Since the speed of light is the same in all references and time has stopped in the speed of light reference, the speed of light exceeds time.

The means new types of things can happen.

Let me extrapolate these new things, beginning with the analogy of the fabric of space-time. At the speed of light, when the speed of light exceeds time and space (no sense of separate in space or time) the fabric of space-time begins to unravel into separated threads of time and separated threads of space. This is like a hole in blue jean material where white and blue threads will separate.

Since each thread is now limiting the other, time becomes constrained to a point in space, so only the local history is evidence, and space becomes constrained to the point in time so position becomes limited; primordial atom.

Thebox, are you saying that anything that travels faster than (1035) mph is travelling faster than time?What does travelling faster than time mean?

Time can dilate. This means that the passage of time in one frame of reference can be at a different rate than that in another frame of reference. In which case we can say that the rate of time changes. This has nothing to do with speed which is a function of distance over time. Rates of change and speed are entirely separate. You can have a rate of change of speed which is acceleration. This can be both positive and negative. Unless these simple definitions are grasped you may as well be talking Klingon.

So it seems that this question is not about Einstein's relativity, but it's all about the speed of the Terminator: the day/night dividing line (not the time-traveling cyborg).

Not only does he confuse speed of terminator, speed of time and speed of light, he uses the frequency of the cesium clock without understanding that this is a microwave frequency and so travels at the speed of light - hence the calculation he offers is false.

My calculation is falsifiable.

Quote from: Thebox My calculation is falsifiable.No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified. []

The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets has no bearing on the fundamental nature of time itself.

Utter drivel.You have "equated" reciprocal time (Hz) to time (s) and speed (m/s) which is illogical bunkum, then divided one arbitrary number by another to prove nothing at all.But I like your method. If I drive at 70 mph (31 m/s) and listen to Test Match Special (198 kHz) I can calculate scoring rate as 198/31 = 6.39 runs per over, which is the expected value for the middle order on the Sharja wicket, and is actually falsifiable.

TheBox,I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.It comes down to this:1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school... 3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?

Quote from: Bill S on 03/11/2015 13:38:13Quote from: Thebox My calculation is falsifiable.No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified. []My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.

Quote from: chiralSPO on 03/11/2015 14:39:20TheBox,I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.It comes down to this:1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school... 3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct. arbitrary time equalling motion,I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements. Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles? is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly? Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly? Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc? Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something? Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers? I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science. And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines. I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.

My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.

Quote from: Thebox on 03/11/2015 14:56:45Quote from: chiralSPO on 03/11/2015 14:39:20TheBox,I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.It comes down to this:1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school... 3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct. arbitrary time equalling motion,I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements. Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles? is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly? Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly? Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc? Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something? Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers? I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science. And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines. I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me. ......so number 2, then?

......so number 2, then?

I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room. I could show you all this gibberish in minutes. I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.

Quote from: Thebox on 03/11/2015 15:12:53I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room. I could show you all this gibberish in minutes. I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.Given your success rate over the last year, I don't think a few minutes would help anything...

9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second

I have not equated anything,

Quote from: Thebox on 31/10/2015 10:03:019,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second.

9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second

Lengthmetre, m: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.......Time, Durationsecond, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom..... When the physical metre held in Paris was abandoned as the standard length in 1983, the metre was defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a specific fraction of a second. This effectively assigned the speed of light as a constant value.

And there you go again!

Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.

Quote from: Thebox on 03/11/2015 16:42:38Then we can work out distances and speeds etc. Not until you have defined a unit of length.

second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....