0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

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.

Quote from: opportunity on 10/02/2018 01:54:41how 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.

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.

Quote from: Colin2B on 10/02/2018 11:10:57Quote from: opportunity on 10/02/2018 01:54:41how 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).

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.

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

Well, we have space and time.Either space is responsible for mass.Or, time is responsible for mass.

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

Quote from: Thebox on 13/02/2018 14:29:45I 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/1801.0368I'm upset by the idea of a hologrpahic universe. No one will like that.

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

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?

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.