[scherado]

Quote from: scherado on 08/02/2018 19:58:16

    Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2018 14:37:34

        Do not like constructive criticism?    You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity  ignoring the moderators content of his post. 

    .
    Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.

Your question of does time exist had been answered , seems to be the point you have completely ignored.   Time exists is the answer. 

.
I could not find me asking "does time exist".. I quote myself:
.

What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

.
I hereby, forevermore change the question to:

What is the duration of a "moment?"

Yet, this is placing the cart before the horse,

In what units?-?-?-?

My position is that 'Time' is inextricably linked to Matter that is involved in some physical process. One example is the physical process employed in the so-called "atomic clock," ("9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields."); another example is Earth's revolution around (the) Sun; the other, Earth's period of rotation.

[opportunity]

how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.

Intersting idea, but does it have to be all quantum scale?
Einstien used energy/mometum to modify spacetime such that increase in mass/energy slows time processes, (but does not offer a causation) so that should be part of the before after equation. The problem is what other elements - variable and constant - would you consider for your algorithm.

Hi Colin, apologies for not replying sooner owing to being out of town.

The way I approached the algorithm was to be as basic as possible with the following considerations:

-   Time “now” was considered as a value of “1”, as a reference marker (tN = 1), which pegs the rate of time as a constant.
-   Associated to tN would be time-before (tB), and time-after (tA).

I then suggested that tA – tB = tN (1), which keeps the arrow of time intact, making the value of tA greater than tB.

Further to this, I suggested that as the future is relatively unknown, and that tN ≠ tA, that therefore tA must be a factor of tB (not a multiple, yet a factor of tB with tB), and thus most simply as tB².

I thus proposed tB² – tB = 1.

This then derived two values of tB as the golden ratio.

I wasn’t immediately looking to plug in ideas of entropy, mass, momentum, and so on, just yet. My next step was to somehow tag 3-d space with this new algorithm for time. It’s in my paper, first few pages of section 2, please see the relevant post in the “new theories” section (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72250.0).

To answer your question, the ideas relevant to relativity began to develop after explaining how time could be tagged with (different) coordinates of 3-d space. The most basic feature that became apparent in using tN as 1 was that time would run along a spherical wave-front in space, and this implied the need for features of the axes of time to concur with a value of π along an incremental ruler of “1” for each step of a hypothetical time-front. In developing that wave-function, “errors” presented themselves in not properly fitting the value for π, which then proposed inherent flaws in each wave-function for time, that each spatial reference for the time-algorithm would need to resolve somehow through quantum wave-function “building” with a variety of other references of 3-d space. This then lead to a neat explanation for the uncertainty principle for light, together with the idea of time being associated to “energy” in the new developed explanation, and then how mass could be associated to this upon further quantum wave-function development (takes a few pages to explain, but I’ll leave it to the post I made in the new theories section).

[Colin2B]

@opportunity thanks, I’ll have a read through + your link.

[guest39538]

how we can set that standard for time mathematically, "actually" using an algorithm that defines time-before and time-after. We do with linear algebra, and yes that's a very simple and tested way to do that. On the quantum scale though things get a bit tricky.

Intersting idea, but does it have to be all quantum scale?
Einstien used energy/mometum to modify spacetime such that increase in mass/energy slows time processes, (but does not offer a causation) so that should be part of the before after equation. The problem is what other elements - variable and constant - would you consider for your algorithm.

Hi Colin, apologies for not replying sooner owing to being out of town.

The way I approached the algorithm was to be as basic as possible with the following considerations:

-   Time “now” was considered as a value of “1”, as a reference marker (tN = 1), which pegs the rate of time as a constant.
-   Associated to tN would be time-before (tB), and time-after (tA).

I then suggested that tA – tB = tN (1), which keeps the arrow of time intact, making the value of tA greater than tB.

Further to this, I suggested that as the future is relatively unknown, and that tN ≠ tA, that therefore tA must be a factor of tB (not a multiple, yet a factor of tB with tB), and thus most simply as tB².

I thus proposed tB² – tB = 1.

This then derived two values of tB as the golden ratio.

I wasn’t immediately looking to plug in ideas of entropy, mass, momentum, and so on, just yet. My next step was to somehow tag 3-d space with this new algorithm for time. It’s in my paper, first few pages of section 2, please see the relevant post in the “new theories” section (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72250.0).

To answer your question, the ideas relevant to relativity began to develop after explaining how time could be tagged with (different) coordinates of 3-d space. The most basic feature that became apparent in using tN as 1 was that time would run along a spherical wave-front in space, and this implied the need for features of the axes of time to concur with a value of π along an incremental ruler of “1” for each step of a hypothetical time-front. In developing that wave-function, “errors” presented themselves in not properly fitting the value for π, which then proposed inherent flaws in each wave-function for time, that each spatial reference for the time-algorithm would need to resolve somehow through quantum wave-function “building” with a variety of other references of 3-d space. This then lead to a neat explanation for the uncertainty principle for light, together with the idea of time being associated to “energy” in the new developed explanation, and then how mass could be associated to this upon further quantum wave-function development (takes a few pages to explain, but I’ll leave it to the post I made in the new theories section).

Absolute time is constant  and relativistic time Δ matter = Δ time

[opportunity]

Are you sure its as simple as that?

I understand you're point, yet if you were to take your a-priori from another aspect, "time" could influence how matter behaves based on how "time" forces its own agenda as opposed to space through a new "way" of consdering "time"? It sounds wonky, yet, it is a matter of perspective, and I do see yours.

[guest39538]

Are you sure its as simple as that?

I understand you're point, yet if you were to take your a-priori from another aspect, "time" could influence how matter behaves based on how "time" forces its own agenda as opposed to space through a new "way" of consdering "time"? It sounds wonky, yet, it is a matter of perspective, and I do see yours.

I am sure it is that simple.  Time does not exist without matter because space cannot age , it has no mechanism. 

Try considering it this way , Mercury ages less than the Earth because a tomato in the window decays faster than the tomato in the fridge. 

[opportunity]

The latter point is your point.

I agree, space has not only agelessness, it is given age by virtue of what mass is playing it by virtue of something. What "something" though?

Is it mass or time?

Time trying to resolve itself, or space......what do you think should be examined more?

[guest39538]

Explaining simultaneity is quite easy, this completes the explanation of time.

t ≠ t'   because r₁  ≠  r₂  from the electromagnetic radiation source,   a consequence directly proportional to the inverse is that the further body away is situated in less field density, so experiences a slower rate of time.   ΔS  =  Δt where S is entropy.

[opportunity]

sorry, you posted as I was replying. This was my reply:


Time trying to resolve itself, or space......what do you think should be examined more?

[opportunity]

why would space resolve itself if not for the idea of time?

[guest39538]

why would space resolve itself if not for the idea of time?

I am not sure I understand your question correctly, could you emphasise please?

[opportunity]

Well, we have space and time.

Either space is responsible for mass.

Or, time is responsible for mass.

Space is space. Time seems to be the idea that makes ideas in space come to life.

[guest39538]

Well, we have space and time.

Either space is responsible for mass.

Or, time is responsible for mass.

Matter = time

I will try to explain more although I am giving away info I could put in a book.

When mass manifests at any given point of space, time has begun for that mass.   The time of the mass existence has nothing to do with space, acceleration or speed.  The frequency of time for the mass is dependent to field position   
and field density.   In example, mass life expectancy manifesting r=1m from the sun , is practically t=0, where if the same mass manifested r=1ly from the sun , it will have a longer life expectancy. 
The amount of life and rate of time being defined by field density.  Mass having a frequency of input and output electromagnetic radiation. 
Also though to maybe understand this, I would need to explain the big bang, in doing this I would use a 0*0*0 matrix

The big bang states in the beginning there was nothing,  not even space.   The Universe was then created in a split second .   

Firstly the 0 matrix cannot expand into nothing.   

Secondly it is limitation in their thinking,   in the beginning there was a void, this void is the thinking by not knowing. 

They then suggest in a split second the universe was created, you know this one ''let there be light''.   

Light showed an observable universe in their minds at a split second.

It may sound a bit confusing.

[opportunity]

I will try to explain more although I am giving away info I could put in a book.

My book is going nowhere: http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0368

I'm upset by the idea of a hologrpahic universe. No one will like that.

[guest39538]

I will try to explain more although I am giving away info I could put in a book.

My book is going nowhere: http://vixra.org/abs/1801.0368

I'm upset by the idea of a hologrpahic universe. No one will like that.

The Universe is not holographic objectively, for a hologram would need space to exist in , the space would prove the Universe existed beyond the illusion of the holograph.  In other words , even if we were all holograms (which we are definitely not), there would be an exterior to the interior.

I have glanced your work from your link and will read more later, but why use the word : algorithm

 

the golden ratio algorithm effecting a unified theory of time  and space,

What does that even mean?

[opportunity]

I'm cautious about how planets and stars are sold as images to the general public without stating that the images are Disneyland images. I knew that though many years pre-animation sales-pitch.

It's better to know whats real and whats not.

We either know what we are actually seeing or we don't. Bigger is how we can predict variations in observations pre-research with better theory.


The "golen-ratio" thing....? Even to me it's just a feature, not the hard theory.

Anything the public sees is not hard data but animated. Why? Whhhhy? Who's you're favorite cartoon character?

The planets are easily justified, but the stars and the images we given are something else.

[guest39538]

I'm cautious about how planets and stars are sold as images to the general public without stating that the images are Disneyland images. I knew that though many years pre-animation sales-pitch.

It's better to know whats real and whats not.

We either know what we are actually seeing or we don't. Bigger is how we can predict variations in observations pre-research with better theory.


The "golen-ratio" thing....? Even to me it's just a feature, not the hard theory.

Anything the public sees is not hard data but animated. Why? Whhhhy? Who's you're favorite cartoon character?

Its not animated , what we see is real, we can measure it with a tape measure to be in its exact location.    Animations don't feel.   

Write a paper for this model if you want a winning paper, I am too lazy write a paper because I can explain things in a single sentence or  a diagram , this is real time : see it here first .


real time.jpg (36.72 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3081 times)

I understand Physical time better than science understand Physical time.   I understand their own work better than they do.

[guest39538]

Ohhh, I have just worked why space-time affects time.   

[opportunity]

Ok, with the WEBB telescope, they're using a new adaptive lens, because they don't want any recalibration. Like, right.....you want to focus if you're not sure what you're looking for.

This is not conspiracy theory, this is not knowing what the nature of the light we're seeing from the stars "could" be beyond big-bang theory.

[guest39538]

Ok, with the WEBB telescope, they're using a new adaptive lens, because they don't want any recalibration. Like, right.....you want to focus if you're not sure what you're looking for.

This is not conspiracy theory, this is not knowing what the nature of the light we're seeing from the stars "could" be beyond big-bang theory.

Sorry I am not sure I understood that or if there was a question  there?