[Bored chemist]

I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.

I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.

Is your first language German?

Anyway, I don't care if you portray it through interpretive dance, as long as you make it clear what you mean.

[guest39538]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.

I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.

I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.

You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

[The Spoon]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.

I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.

I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.

You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

So you read all of it? How long did it take you to find that after I asked you the question? How does that relate to this post and what you are postulating?

[guest39538]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.

I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.

I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.

You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

So you read all of it? How long did it take you to find that after I asked you the question? How does that relate to this post and what you are postulating?

I did not read all of it, just some of it that was relevant to different notions I have. I do not think anything  relates to my suggested postulate. Often just a title spurs my mind into thinking, the title descriptive enough to allow me to think about that thing.  In example The Electrodynamics of Moving bodies ,  A descriptive title that says enough to allow a person to think about the subject. It took seconds to find it again, I use to have it all bookmarked but I had a computer clean up one day. 

[Bored chemist]

How does that relate to this post and what you are postulating?

It  probably doesn't.
In fairness you said he never read  research paper and he said he had read one- Einstein's.

There's no way you can prove he didn't.
Of course it's clear that he'as not copying the style or format of that paper but that's just a convention.
As long as he expresses his ideas  clearly, I don't care if it's in iambic pentameter.

Once he writes down what he thinks, we can look at it and see if it stands up both in its own right(internal consistency) and in the wider scheme of things ( consistency with observation).
That may not take long, but we won't be able to start until he's written down what he means.

[guest39538]

There's no way you can prove he didn't.

I can prove I did.  Do you think I could actually have different notions and ideas on things if I did not know the original view of that thing?

Of course not .   

I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light.  In my opinion that is a cop out without a complete  investigation. So I investigated and found a different answer that ''fits'' reality and the physics involved also agrees with it.
I thought the Universe was mysterious before but with my ''findings'' I now find it even more mysterious. I even will say I admire it because it is just such a ''clever'' universe.

[Bored chemist]

There's no way you can prove he didn't.

I can prove I did.  Do you think I could actually have different notions and ideas on things if I did not know the original view of that thing?

Of course not .   

I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light.  In my opinion that is a cop out without a complete  investigation. So I investigated and found a different answer that ''fits'' reality and the physics involved also agrees with it.
I thought the Universe was mysterious before but with my ''findings'' I now find it even more mysterious. I even will say I admire it because it is just such a ''clever'' universe.

Plenty of people, like me, have a view on relativity without having read the original paper(s).
I couldn't read it- that's why I wondered if German was your first language.

I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light. 

I think that, because it's plainly observably true.

May I remind you that you were writing an  account of your thoughts on the mater.
It might be better if you got back to that.

[guest39538]

There's no way you can prove he didn't.

I can prove I did.  Do you think I could actually have different notions and ideas on things if I did not know the original view of that thing?

Of course not .   

I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light.  In my opinion that is a cop out without a complete  investigation. So I investigated and found a different answer that ''fits'' reality and the physics involved also agrees with it.
I thought the Universe was mysterious before but with my ''findings'' I now find it even more mysterious. I even will say I admire it because it is just such a ''clever'' universe.

Plenty of people, like me, have a view on relativity without having read the original paper(s).
I couldn't read it- that's why I wondered if German was your first language.

I understand why you and even I use to think darkness is just the absence of light. 

I think that, because it's plainly observably true.

May I remind you that you were writing an  account of your thoughts on the mater.
It might be better if you got back to that.

Ok, soon  my friends will be gone and the background ''white noise'' will be gone. I will then sit and write my thoughts on the matter.

[guest39538]

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by  observation,logic and present information that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the visual property of any object that is not illuminated.   This paper is also intended to show by observation, logic and present information. that light and darkness do not exist of space.


Light and dark explained

Let us start our discussion with the clarification of what we call light and what we call darkness in a general manner.   It is important we remove ambiguity from the discussion so that we can have an equal understanding of the context we mean.  In discussing light and dark , let us not mistake the words for being that of the ebony and ivory keys on a piano.  What we are discussing is the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a star or a source such as a flashlight.  In discussing darkness we are referring to the lack of light or the absence of light as it is presently defined.   One must also understand the difference in the visible spectrum ( can be seen by the eye)  and the invisible spectrum ( can not be seen by the eye). 
The visible spectrum(colour)   is visible light that can be seen by the eye, this can be measured to have a constant wave-length for each independent ''colour''.  The visible spectrum is measured to be 400nm-700nm , this is the range of light within our range of vision.   Shorter  or longer wave-lengths of light can not be seen by the human eye although some species of animals such as snakes  can see infra red wave-length that extends from 700nm to 1mm.


so far......to be continued

[guest39538]

The interference of space on light.

Let us now  look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light.  The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed.  The space seemingly empty and colourless  in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains  electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum). 


The change of state of space with the light on or off.


In the previous chapter we discussed the interference of space on light where we can draw a conclusion that space does not alter the light constant permeating through it .  Now let us look at the affects of light on space  and the visual appearance of that space with the lights on or the lights off.   We have already discussed and know that space is transparent to light and we already know that space does not interfere with the permeating light.    With the lights on , humans perceive the space to be light .  With the lights off one would perceive that space to be dark.  However the physics involved and what we have already discussed about space and interference, one could certainly suggest with an almost certainty that the space remains unaltered in its state and appearance, the appearance of dark and light of that space being an optical illusion.   The space remaining transparent with the lights on or off.

[guest39538]

Oh yea , I get it now.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.


Abstract-

This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics  in a primary respect to science process.  Using a dialectic approach and presenting  logical arguments that opposes the present information. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking  at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified.  Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity 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 can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.


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

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

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

Postulate four: Visible darkness is a visual property of an object that is not illuminated.

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 objective. 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 and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true.   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.

I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic

 '' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''.


I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity

''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''.

This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.

I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment

''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 and concluded by Albert Einstein.

However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss.   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 relativity 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, how fast does time pass?
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, 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 direction 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 another 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 in thought  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 it is said they had aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

Ok, let us consider this in respect to the twins and consider two  proposition statements.

proposition 1 : twin one's  next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p)

proposition 2: twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q)

conclusion :  (p?q)?(q?p)?(p?? q) 

p implies q and q implies p which implies p and q are equal and equivalent statements.

From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion.

model of relativity twins.jpg

Thus 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.

Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a clock that is identical to a clock on the carriage.  Both clocks tick at the frequency of one time Planck per tick.
 Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency  of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is  different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.
In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.   
This is the error in thinking  by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck.  If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
Evidentally if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one,  twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them  and synchronous too twin one.  The unit of a Planck length being fractionally zero and having no negliable length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation ideology.

I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock

''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''


Light and dark explained

Let us start our discussion with the clarification of what we call light and what we call darkness in a general manner.   It is important we remove ambiguity from the discussion so that we can have an equal understanding of the context we mean.  In discussing light and dark , let us not mistake the words for being that of the ebony and ivory keys on a piano.  What we are discussing is the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a star or a source such as a flashlight.  In discussing darkness we are referring to the lack of light or the absence of light as it is presently defined.   One must also understand the difference in the visible spectrum ( can be seen by the eye)  and the invisible spectrum ( can not be seen by the eye). 
The visible spectrum(colour)   is visible light that can be seen by the eye, this can be measured to have a constant wave-length for each independent ''colour''.  The visible spectrum is measured to be 400nm-700nm , this is the range of light within our range of vision.   Shorter  or longer wave-lengths of light can not be seen by the human eye although some species of animals such as snakes  can see infra red wave-length that extends from 700nm to 1mm.

The interference of space on light.

Let us now  look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light.  The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed.  The space seemingly empty and colourless  in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains  electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum). 


The change of state of space with the light on or off.

In the previous chapter we discussed the interference of space on light where we can draw a conclusion that space does not alter the light constant permeating through it .  Now let us look at the affects of light on space  and the visual appearance of that space with the lights on or the lights off.   We have already discussed and know that space is transparent to light and we already know that space does not interfere with the permeating light.    With the lights on , humans perceive the space to be light .  With the lights off one would perceive that space to be dark.  However the physics involved and what we have already discussed about space and interference, one could certainly suggest with an almost certainty that the space remains unaltered in its state and appearance, the appearance of dark and light of that space being an optical illusion.   The space remaining transparent with the lights on or off.


I think I have lost some parts, will have to find them.

[Kryptid]

Funny how you mentioned the Hafele–Keating experiment only to subsequently ignore its results.

[guest39538]

Funny how you mentioned the Hafele–Keating experiment only to subsequently ignore its results.

Quite clearly you have not read it properly .  The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.

[Kryptid]

Quite clearly you have not read it properly .  The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.

Call it whatever you want to, but the results of that experiment (and others) demonstrate that different objects do indeed experience the flow of time at different rates depending on their relative velocities and positions in a gravity well. To argue anything else is to argue against observed reality.

[guest39538]

Quite clearly you have not read it properly .  The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.

Call it whatever you want to, but the results of that experiment (and others) demonstrate that different objects do indeed experience the flow of time at different rates depending on their relative velocities and positions in a gravity well. To argue anything else is to argue against observed reality.

Nope, what they experience is a different rate of the measurement of time.  Time is independent of the clocks.  Counting slow or counting fast does not alter the rate of time.   Perhaps if you had read it properly and tried to understand it you might not be so defensive.   Yes there is a timing dilation but no there is not a time dilation.   

[The Spoon]

Quite clearly you have not read it properly .  The conclusion about time dilation is it is a timing dilation.

Call it whatever you want to, but the results of that experiment (and others) demonstrate that different objects do indeed experience the flow of time at different rates depending on their relative velocities and positions in a gravity well. To argue anything else is to argue against observed reality.

Nope, what they experience is a different rate of the measurement of time.  Time is independent of the clocks.  Counting slow or counting fast does not alter the rate of time.   Perhaps if you had read it properly and tried to understand it you might not be so defensive.   Yes there is a timing dilation but no there is not a time dilation.   

How do you have a measurement of time without a clock?

ETA. Kryptid was not being defensive. He was pointing out why you were wrong.

[Kryptid]

Nope, what they experience is a different rate of the measurement of time.  Time is independent of the clocks.  Counting slow or counting fast does not alter the rate of time.   Perhaps if you had read it properly and tried to understand it you might not be so defensive.   Yes there is a timing dilation but no there is not a time dilation.   

Without time dilation there is nothing making the clocks speed up or slow down. If clocks speed up or slow down, then any time measuring device or process must speed up or slow down under the same circumstances, including the human brain. That's effectively the same as time dilating because you can't tell the difference. How can you possibly establish the difference between time actually dilating and time merely appearing to dilate? Those two things would appear identical to any measuring device.

[guest39538]

Without time dilation there is nothing making the clocks speed up or slow down

Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?  The clock measures time but is not time.

[Kryptid]

Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?

It obviously isn't due to any changes in the internal structure of the clock, given that it's identical when it's sitting on the ground or when it's flying in an airplane. Even unstable subatomic particles take longer to decay when they are moving quickly. So whatever is causing processes to slow down at high speeds or in strong gravity wells affects all devices and processes equally. Also, the amount by which it slows down is in accordance with the amount that Einstein predicted mathematically that it would if time itself is indeed slowing down. Due to these facts, it is perfectly sensible to say that time is slowing down.

The clock measures time but is not time.

You don't say...

[guest39538]

Why would you think time was slowing the clock down?

It obviously isn't due to any changes in the internal structure of the clock, given that it's identical when it's sitting on the ground or when it's flying in an airplane. Even unstable subatomic particles take longer to decay when they are moving quickly. So whatever is causing processes to slow down at high speeds or in strong gravity wells affects all devices and processes equally. Also, the amount by which it slows down is in accordance with the amount that Einstein predicted mathematically that it would if time itself is indeed slowing down. Due to these facts, it is perfectly sensible to say that time is slowing down.

The clock measures time but is not time.

You don't say...

Can you just for once pretend you know nothing?    Forget Einstein and everything about science you know. 


I am going to learn you about time ok?  Because in this scenario you are ''clueless'' about time.


Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change. 


Do you understand the definition?

added - I will even tell you how to approach the statement.

Firstly we can break the statement down into two segments because the statement says two things:

1)Time is a quantifiable measurement

2) directly proportional to change

Do you disagree with 1 or 2?