[guest39538]

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) . 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 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 fascinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn. An education that was to be aided by various science internet forums.
The fascination 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 me being stubborn in not accepting the discipline that at times forums were trying to ''force'' me to accept. Accept or be banned was often the ''calls'' on the forums agenda.
I am a nobody, but I write this paper in the aim of achieving relative correctness and the correct interpretation of process. Before I move onto discussing relative correctness, I feel it is important we should be clear in our understanding of certain things.

Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more solid than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

The meaning of math and math use dependency.

We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.

It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and the realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the solid boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.

Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Postulate two: Light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: light and dark do not exist of free space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being obejective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between increments, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them

[guest39538]

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across  a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.   It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two.  Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth.  Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

 If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.

[Colin2B]

q is not consequent on p, p is not antecedent to q.
Try another logic book.

[guest39538]

q is not consequent on p, p is not antecedent to q.
Try another logic book.

Oh, that is what google put me to, could you please provide another logic book?   that must mean something different to what I thought it meant.
antecedent
ˌantɪˈsiːd(ə)nt/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that existed before or logically precedes another.
"some antecedents to the African novel might exist in Africa's oral traditions"
synonyms:   precursor, forerunner, predecessor
"music composed for vihuela (the guitar's lute-like antecedent)"
2.
a person's ancestors or family and social background.
"her early life and antecedents have been traced"
synonyms:   ancestor, forefather, forebear, predecessor, progenitor; More
adjective
1.
preceding in time or order; previous or pre-existing.

[guest39538]

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, p=q?

is that better?

or

{\mathcal {L}} ={\mathcal {L}}     that was a constant that did not post correctly

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, →p=q∀

[guest39538]

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across  a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.   It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two.  Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth.  Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

 If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical  proofs.

[Colin2B]

synonyms:   ancestor, forefather, forebear, predecessor, progenitor; More
adjective
1.
preceding in time or order; previous or pre-existing.

Yes, I follow your thinking and it's a good attempt, but q could have thought first and p follow so there is no defined cause effect order, that is nothing that says "if p then q" - which is what the antecedent, consequent is all about.

I think you should keep up looking at logic but remember Aristotelian logic has some serious limitations and you won't find the proof you are looking for in it.

[guest39538]

 If twin one accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical  proofs.

Thank you Colin, if i changed it slightly defining an order, then would it be correct?

 If twin one accepts firstly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts secondly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

Both  twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive logical  proofs.

[guest39538]

Now for those who so far might think my paper is some form of attack on science, I have now added my next part which I assume you would not expect, a sort of twist.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct interpretation of information.


Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) . 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 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 fascinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn. An education that was to be aided by various science internet forums.
The fascination 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 me being stubborn in not accepting the discipline that at times forums were trying to ''force'' me to accept. Accept or be banned was often the ''calls'' on the forums agenda.
I am a nobody, but I write this paper in the aim of achieving relative correctness and the correct interpretation of process. Before I move onto discussing relative correctness, I feel it is important we should be clear in our understanding of certain things.

Theory and Hypothesis

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evident merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

The meaning of math and math use dependency.

We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

The firmament of the minds limitations.

It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and the realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the solid boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.

Moving forward from my introduction I feel it is now important I begin to discuss relative correctness which I have based on three postulates that I believe to be axiom postulates.

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Postulate two: Light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

Postulate three: light and dark do not exist of free space.


At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being obejective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided. We must also remember the firmament of the mind, this explained earlier. We must not let our thoughts be restricted by the firmament and always have an open mind. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immeadiately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immmedaitely with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuos flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .

This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertial reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

If twin one firstly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

twin two seondly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is then objectively accepted, →p=q∀

This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.

However in my mind this was still not enough, I needed to think even more. My thoughts were on the present , the ''now' moment. If twin one was on Earth and twin two was on earth in each others present, twin two could of never experienced less time to return back to the present of twin one. The significance of this being that the twins would occupy two different points on the time line, twin two being further back in time on the measurement of the time line than twins one measurement.

Thus completely explaining the first postulate:

Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.

Now let us look at the consequence of this on the present information, this certaintly shows that time dilation has no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner when concerning time travel or travelling twins and the speed of time.

However I found something else was amiss, all the forums of the land telling me I was incorrect and there was a time dilation and time slowed down, proving it without doubt by explaining time dilation was used in satellite systems in space to retain accuracy , this seemingly undistupatable. My thoughts were I was going crazy or they were just really not very clever people, because how could they not understand?
Then the thought occured to me, what if in some way they were being ambiguos about time and what they was defining as time, was not really time but something else?
Thus leading to a discussion about the mechanics of relativity, the mechanics of relativity being timing. Semantics causing misinterpretation worldwide of what a time dilation actually is, a timing dilation as it should be appropriately redefined too, is simply agreeable without ambiguity.

However we must archive any thoughts on time slowing down or speeding up , twin paradox's , time travel and simultaneity these been literally useless content , borderline compared to religion and subjective thoughts based on timing mechanism and synchronous of that mechanism , an offset in timing is not a change in the speed of time.
Thus I propose Newton to be correct and time is absolute, relative time being relative timing .


I know I need to add some citations, but an honest opinion would be nice of how it reads so far?  Is it really worth me continuing with it?  Do you think it is garbage?  Do you think it is truthful?

[GoC]

If both twins think they are synchronous then both twins would be incorrect according to relativity. If you do not accept relativity your logic is based on ideas other than relativity. That's ok but proof is a non existent process. We can only follow observations and suggest causes. Math can follow a theory and the theory still be incorrect. There are no proofs. Time is like cars on the road the faster clocks go the slower they tick. The available energy is a ratio between kinetic (speed) used and available energy c left. You are a biological clock that slows down its tick rate with more kinetic (speed) energy being used. This is observed. p and q have the same use of energy (direction) but not always the same rate of energy used vs. available. There is no such thing as energy reverse so we have a time arrow. The electron cycles with angular momentum at c. Moving through space increases the path the electron has to travel slowing the tick of the cycle in SR. In GR its the dilation of space that increases the distance traveled and causes equivalence. Dilated space in GR increases the measuring stick in a confounded way with distance for light to travel. This insures the measurement of the speed of light the same in every frame

colin2b is giving you good advice. Your logic is based on your own understanding as is every ones.

[guest39538]

If both twins think they are synchronous then both twins would be incorrect according to relativity. If you do not accept relativity your logic is based on ideas other than relativity. That's ok but proof is a non existent process. We can only follow observations and suggest causes. Math can follow a theory and the theory still be incorrect. There are no proofs. Time is like cars on the road the faster clocks go the slower they tick. The available energy is a ratio between kinetic (speed) used and available energy c left. You are a biological clock that slows down its tick rate with more kinetic (speed) energy being used. This is observed. p and q have the same use of energy (direction) but not always the same rate of energy used vs. available. There is no such thing as energy reverse so we have a time arrow. The electron cycles with angular momentum at c. Moving through space increases the path the electron has to travel slowing the tick of the cycle in SR. In GR its the dilation of space that increases the distance traveled and causes equivalence. Dilated space in GR increases the measuring stick in a confounded way with distance for light to travel. This insures the measurement of the speed of light the same in every frame

colin2b is giving you good advice. Your logic is based on your own understanding as is every ones.

According to me , relativity is incorrect and I believe I have showed this to be true by a very simple axiom. My paper is of course not finished or a final edit, so we will just have to wait and see.  Here is one of my edits:

If twin one firstly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them or a Planck length away
 [​IMG]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length (p),

twin two secondly accepts that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them or a Planck length away[​IMG] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length (q),

It does not post the same on here, perhaps you can view it here :

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/i-need-some-advice-on-writing-a-scientific-paper-please-help.508739/page-5  #88

I have not added the lorentz length contraction either yet, here is the rough diagram.


carriage.jpg (20.61 kB . 985x507 - viewed 6108 times)

[guest39538]

Here is another edit.

Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to science process. Looking to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based as opposed to presenting naive set theories.
Using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information. Using a logical form of argument, consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes present science information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) based on these premises. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's that looks at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.




Introduction.

Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we are in on the action and can look at the intrinsic details, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science, looking to achieve relative correctness and the correct semantics of the thinking.

[guest39538]

I am just practising some different styles of presenting citations, does this look ok?

An axiom {Cf. axiom, n., etymology. Oxford English Dictionary, accessed 2012-04-28.} is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory {Davidson Reynolds, Paul (1971). A primer in theory construction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.} or hypothesis {Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hypothesis". Encyclopædia Britannica. 14 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 208.}. There is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism { Ben Dov, Y. Local Realism and the Crucial experiment}. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

[GoC]

Before you use a term you need to define the term in the context that you are using the term. In this case you have to define time. If you define time as c being always constant then you are correct. But that is not the way physics defines time in relativity. Physics defines time as the reaction rate used vs. energy c left that is available to mass.

The logic of relativity: c is constant if you can agree on that we can proceed. The cycle of the electron is how physics measures time. The electron cycle with the proton at rest cycles at its fastest tick rate in its frame. As you move the proton through space there is an accepted limit of c which is agreed cannot be passed. If mass could go c the electron could not cycle and time would be frozen as we measure time for its reaction rate. So complete rest of the proton has the fastest reaction rate of reaction as time while c has no reaction time. Physics measures time as its reaction rate as I explained. There is a non linear relationship from rest reaction rate to c non reaction rate. This is the focus of relativity twin paradox which is not a paradox at all. Your body has a reaction rate that slows down with increased velocity moving towards c.

So if you define time as c only than you are correct. But if you want to discuss time as relativity cycles of the electron, than time reaction is the amount of space the proton moves through for its cycle. Cycle time decreases as the proton moves faster through space. This is directly related to reaction time of say your synapsis. So you think slower relative to your sense of time and your time is slower. You do not recognize any difference. Even if your second is relative to a year of someone else.

So your logic for c as time is correct for your logic the rest of science moved on to relativities definition of relative cycle times of the electron.

So define time you are discussing.

[guest39538]

Before you use a term you need to define the term in the context that you are using the term. In this case you have to define time. If you define time as c being always constant then you are correct. But that is not the way physics defines time in relativity. Physics defines time as the reaction rate used vs. energy c left that is available to mass.

The logic of relativity: c is constant if you can agree on that we can proceed. The cycle of the electron is how physics measures time. The electron cycle with the proton at rest cycles at its fastest tick rate in its frame. As you move the proton through space there is an accepted limit of c which is agreed cannot be passed. If mass could go c the electron could not cycle and time would be frozen as we measure time for its reaction rate. So complete rest of the proton has the fastest reaction rate of reaction as time while c has no reaction time. Physics measures time as its reaction rate as I explained. There is a non linear relationship from rest reaction rate to c non reaction rate. This is the focus of relativity twin paradox which is not a paradox at all. Your body has a reaction rate that slows down with increased velocity moving towards c.

So if you define time as c only than you are correct. But if you want to discuss time as relativity cycles of the electron, than time reaction is the amount of space the proton moves through for its cycle. Cycle time decreases as the proton moves faster through space. This is directly related to reaction time of say your synapsis. So you think slower relative to your sense of time and your time is slower. You do not recognize any difference. Even if your second is relative to a year of someone else.

So your logic for c as time is correct for your logic the rest of science moved on to relativities definition of relative cycle times of the electron.

So define time you are discussing.

I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact,  without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.   Bare in  mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help.
I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .

[guest4091]

Thebox #7

If twin one accepts firstly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (p),

 twin two also accepts secondly that their next moment of time is immediately ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

What is "their moment of time"?
We don/t know unless you define it.

[GoC]

I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact,  without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.   Bare in  mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help. I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .

What would you want Wiki to say? thebox is lost in his understanding of how physics relates time to physics? Are there others that are lost in the same place?

If you want to discuss relativity you need to have the correct understanding of defined terms or predefine your own definition of time as phyti suggested.

If you want to discuss Newton's pre-Einstein work you need to explain that. Your understanding is back with Newton. Physics as moved on and for good reason. Observed phenomenon follow Einstein closer than Newton. There may actually be different Plank's length in GR so you may not even have that as a standard.

If you look at fundamental energy as c and kinetic energy as a ratio of conserved energy c you might bridge the gap between Newton and Einstein. Your clock measures available energy left in fundamental c of your frame.

It does not matter how fast light images hit your peeps it's your process time in the brain for the images. Your brain's clock follows the clock in your frame. The same with your aging process.

Try not to let your pride believe you have a deeper insight than Einstein. That is a block to learning. If you get to the point where you can understand relativity beyond the mathematics its a beautiful relationship. Sort of like life is more than just the body.

[guest39538]

What is "their moment of time"?
.

Now

added- sorry for the blunt answer, your next increment of now, how long away is it?

[guest39538]

I have never argued c is not constant, my ideas this far are based on that fact,  without that fact my idea would not work. The problem with relativity which I have tried explaining, is that the distance in the Lorentz contraction is not really there when considering time. I consider the rate of time is equal to the updated information in your brain, the information updates at c, there is no distance between photon packets entering your eyes, the next photon update is immediately away.   Bare in  mind I am pretty much self taught so will struggle to explain properly, that is why I am on these forums asking for and looking for help. I just want science to investigate my line of enquires, a small mention in WIKI would be nice .

What would you want Wiki to say? thebox is lost in his understanding of how physics relates time to physics?

I understand time better than you my friend, I could quite easily talk about time in a manner of how presently physics perceives it, however it still wouldn't change the facts that the semantics are totally wrong in the thinking of time dilation , simultaneity etc.
Perhaps you should ask yourself if you understand?  to me it is obvious you don't.

[guest39538]

The Nature of time.

Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.
I quote:
''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained by relativity and Minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold of four dimensions , XYZ and time.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. In Einsteins paper On the electrodynamics of a moving body, he mentions simultainety. In brief description I quote :

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another.''


I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativety between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time?
In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immeadiately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immmedaitely with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuos flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the arrow of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that the second observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .



This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and is said to have aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in a modus poden view.

If twin one accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck  ahead of them (p),

If  twin two  accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

 (‘if p then q ’) is accepted,  →p=q∀

This implies the speed of time for twin one is always equal to the speed of time for twin two and concludes a deductive logical proof that applies for all.

Both twins could conclude their rates of time were always synchronous from the deductive proofs.


model of relativity twins.jpg (28.11 kB . 985x507 - viewed 5808 times)