[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist says
Then there's nothing to stop you posting next week#'s lottery draw.
Go on.
GG: What we call time is meters/ meters per second.= Distance / light speed. Since there is no time, there was no time when the universe was created and no creator was necessary. A clock is just a clock. But it is far easier to explain things in terms of a clock.

[jerrygg38]

Puppypower says: As above
GG: Your dead fish clock is interesting. The same is true of the universe. It came alive about 13.78 billion years ago and has been dying ever since. Is that really true?  Yes and no. This light speed Co dimension is dying but the energy of life is moving into the Cs dimension. In the future no more Co energy will be left. Everything will be gone from this dimension. Then the Cs dimension will shrink and low and behold a new big bang will happen and our universe will be back fresh and new.

[Bored chemist]

Yet once they are declared secret or higher they are locked away.

OK that would happen if, and only if they met the criteria here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/715778/May-2018_Government-Security-Classifications-2.pdf
"SECRET
Very sensitive information that justifies heightened
protective measures to defend against determined
and highly capable threat actors. For example, where
compromise could seriously damage military capabilities, international relations or the
investigation of serious organised crime.
"
Or
"TOP SECRET
HMG’s most sensitive information requiring the
highest levels of protection from the most serious
threats. For example, where compromise could cause
widespread loss of life or else threaten the security or
economic wellbeing of the country or friendly nations."

Now, just how do you think that some research paper on relativity would meet those specifications?

Because, I assure you the government doesn't like to classify stuff higher than "Official Sensitive" because it makes it much more expensive to work with.

Of course, just because something is secret (or top secret) doesn't mean that it's locked away.
The people with a legitimate need to access it are still allowed to.

So, as was asked earlier... do you actually have any evidence to support your claims?

[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist says:
Because, I assure you the government doesn't like to classify stuff higher than "Official Sensitive" because it makes it much more expensive to work with.

Of course, just because something is secret (or top secret) doesn't mean that it's locked away.
The people with a legitimate need to access it are still allowed to.

So, as was asked earlier... do you actually have any evidence to support your claims?
GG: Do you really know what you say. At Sperry Rand formerly Gyro they had a guarded  library. You needed a secret clearance to get in which I had. Some of the relativity studies in that library were stamped secret. My boss had a top secret clearance. He had a lock on his desk and he would give me the submarine codes so I could design test equipment to test the Polaris system. Then I was supposed to forget the codes after I finished the job. And that was easy because I do not have a great memory.
   In any event it always bothered me that general  scientific radar information was locked away. Who were they hiding it from?

[puppypower]

Bored Chemist says
Then there's nothing to stop you posting next week#'s lottery draw.
Go on.
GG: What we call time is meters/ meters per second.= Distance / light speed. Since there is no time, there was no time when the universe was created and no creator was necessary. A clock is just a clock. But it is far easier to explain things in terms of a clock.

Clocks and other cyclic time keeper were invented before modern science. The were invented back in the days of mythology. A clock cycles like a wave, while time does not behave as a wave. Time moves in one direction and the past does not repeat. The movie Groundhog Day, was an example of an energy/wave model of time. It was fictional and not based on science, yet this is how time is applied in science theory.

I can see how the ancient people decided to model time as a cyclic wave or event. They saw the daily cycle of night and day, the annual cycle as the earth moves around the sun, and even the longer cycles as the stars and constellations moved. These all appeared to repeat themselves, and the concept of cyclic or wave time was born. This convention was in operation way before modern science. Science still uses a concept of time that was developed during the age of mythology; Oops!

The concert of entropy did not appear until the Industrial Revolution, after the modern age of science and the age of enlightenment was up and running. Scientists developing steam engines, noticed they could not close an energy balance. There was always missing energy between steam engine input and output. The machines did not behave in closed cyclic loops, with respect to an energy balance. They noticed missing energy, that had been absorbed into and rendered unusable by what they would call entropy.

The irony is science still uses a pre-science concept of time; cyclic waves, while and I try to use a modern science concept for time that is consistent with our modern descriptions of time only moving forward. Yet science, using the mythology of time, asserts this ancient way is dogma; case closed. The system needs an overhaul. I am showing how this can be done. You start at the beginning of time and adjust while things are still simple.

If science is correct, and the entropy of the universe is increasing; 2nd law, this entropy increase is absorbing energy, making it unavailable to the inertial universe, similar to the 18th century mystery of the lost energy of the steam engine. In the limit, entropy will become maximize and all/most of the useable energy of the universe will be zero. The energy is there and conserved, but not in a form that can be used, in terms of future inertial universal dynamics.

The red shift of energy, due to the expansion of the universe, increases energy wavelength; microwaves background radiation. For example, the background microwaves of the universe have  less functionality compared to the original energy of the BB; gamma and nuclear actions. Time moves forward, never to the repeat, wth less and less energy available. 

In chemistry, entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state there is a standard amount of entropy, that is always the same for that state, no matter how you get there. This is measurable and repeatable; water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has an entropy of 188.8 joules/(mole K). The question is how would you describe a state of maximum entropy, that in essence has absorbed all the energy of the universe and has rendered it unusable to inertial reference, if the inertial universe still existed? Energy would be red shifted to infinite wavelength and all the waves cancel, so there is  no noticeable impact. Doesn't the black hole create this state of energy?

The simplest way to model this state, using existing theory is for inertial based space-time to dissociate into separated time and space, so one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in distance without the constraint of time. This allows infinite combinations and an entropy state that has maximum simultaneous energy containment. 

The concept of consciousness begins to emerge from this state of being without outward form.  For example, President Trump in his 2020 State of the Union Address suggested an initiative to plant 1 trillion trees around the world for CO2 absorption. This is now only an idea, but once implement will make a lot of energy available in a useable form. When it is only an idea, it has potential, but in an unusable form. Something needs to happen to bridge the gap and release the energy.

A place of infinite entropy has infinite potential, but this potential is locked in a way and that potential is not useable. Something needs to happen to change that. Once that change happens lots of energy appears out of the void; thought into physical action in time. This start to get metaphysical but this is  a useful conceptual backdrop since in the end consciousness is what makes these connections.; energy comes to a focus and is made available in time; 4 year budget for its time potential using the dead fish clock,

[Origin]

Clocks and other cyclic time keeper were invented before modern science. The were invented back in the days of mythology. A clock cycles like a wave, while time does not behave as a wave. Time moves in one direction and the past does not repeat. The movie Groundhog Day, was an example of an energy/wave model of time. It was fictional and not based on science, yet this is how time is applied in science theory.

I can see how the ancient people decided to model time as a cyclic wave or event. They saw the daily cycle of night and day, the annual cycle as the earth moves around the sun, and even the longer cycles as the stars and constellations moved. These all appeared to repeat themselves, and the concept of cyclic or wave time was born. This convention was in operation way before modern science. Science still uses a concept of time that was developed during the age of mythology; Oops!

The concert of entropy did not appear until the Industrial Revolution, after the modern age of science and the age of enlightenment was up and running. Scientists developing steam engines, noticed they could not close an energy balance. There was always missing energy between steam engine input and output. The machines did not behave in closed cyclic loops, with respect to an energy balance. They noticed missing energy, that had been absorbed into and rendered unusable by what they would call entropy.

The irony is science still uses a pre-science concept of time; cyclic waves, while and I try to use a modern science concept for time that is consistent with our modern descriptions of time only moving forward. Yet science, using the mythology of time, asserts this ancient way is dogma; case closed. The system needs an overhaul. I am showing how this can be done. You start at the beginning of time and adjust while things are still simple.

If science is correct, and the entropy of the universe is increasing; 2nd law, this entropy increase is absorbing energy, making it unavailable to the inertial universe, similar to the 18th century mystery of the lost energy of the steam engine. In the limit, entropy will become maximize and all/most of the useable energy of the universe will be zero. The energy is there and conserved, but not in a form that can be used, in terms of future inertial universal dynamics.

The red shift of energy, due to the expansion of the universe, increases energy wavelength; microwaves background radiation. For example, the background microwaves of the universe have  less functionality compared to the original energy of the BB; gamma and nuclear actions. Time moves forward, never to the repeat, wth less and less energy available. 

In chemistry, entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state there is a standard amount of entropy, that is always the same for that state, no matter how you get there. This is measurable and repeatable; water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has an entropy of 188.8 joules/(mole K). The question is how would you describe a state of maximum entropy, that in essence has absorbed all the energy of the universe and has rendered it unusable to inertial reference, if the inertial universe still existed? Energy would be red shifted to infinite wavelength and all the waves cancel, so there is  no noticeable impact. Doesn't the black hole create this state of energy?

The simplest way to model this state, using existing theory is for inertial based space-time to dissociate into separated time and space, so one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in distance without the constraint of time. This allows infinite combinations and an entropy state that has maximum simultaneous energy containment. 

The concept of consciousness begins to emerge from this state of being without outward form.  For example, President Trump in his 2020 State of the Union Address suggested an initiative to plant 1 trillion trees around the world for CO2 absorption. This is now only an idea, but once implement will make a lot of energy available in a useable form. When it is only an idea, it has potential, but in an unusable form. Something needs to happen to bridge the gap and release the energy.

A place of infinite entropy has infinite potential, but this potential is locked in a way and that potential is not useable. Something needs to happen to change that. Once that change happens lots of energy appears out of the void; thought into physical action in time. This start to get metaphysical but this is  a useful conceptual backdrop since in the end consciousness is what makes these connections.; energy comes to a focus and is made available in time; 4 year budget for its time potential using the dead fish clock,

Your posts IMO drag down this entire forum into muddled pseudoscience.  I visit several other forums and they all have banned you due to your pseudoscience and your inability to coherently engage other members about your conjectures, hopefully this site will follow suit before too long.

[puppypower]

The point is valid, that time moves in one direction, to the future. We do not age backwards, after we reach a certain point in time. Although we get a second childhood when we get older. However, that is in the brain/imagination, but not in physical reality. Nor do we wake up each day the exact same way as yesterday at midnight. Time is not a cyclic phenomena, except in many religions. Reincarnation allows you to start again in time. Heaven allows you to start again, at the best time of your life. They could use the clock to model that. Science still uses a conceptual basis for time that came from religion. Does that make religion right or science wrong? You cannot have it both ways!

Prove to me and everyone else that time cycles like a clock. If not you, are defending pseudo-science disguised in tradition. Science is not based on the amount of resources used or the consensus of a tradition, that is allowed to conflict with basic observations. I get in trouble for pointing this out to those people who self appoint, as the guardians and defenders of the traditions.

Another conceptual time problem, that science has created for itself, is connected to the concept of space-time. If space and time are integrated as space-time, and cyclic clocks are used to isolate time, does that mean it is possible to separate space-time into separated space and time? Or do clocks actually measure space-time or time-space and not just time?

I think I just figured out how you guys screwed up. Space-time is a 2-D concept; (space=x, time=y) like a simple cyclic wave; x=amplitude and y=frequency. If we move the clock to another reference or location in space; Boston to LA, it will adjust itself. An entropy foundation for time is more flexible at any point in space.

I am sorry, but all the Math the uses cyclic time as a variable, has to be done over, if truth in nature matters to science. Applied science is about practical results and may not have to do anything other than realize what they are doing is empirical. While the math rehab is being done, may I suggest a simpler alternative using entropy? If nothing is done, than modern science is not what it claims to be. The golden age ended, then its was the silver age, then bronze age, now it would bt the rusted iron fist age of science.

[MichaelMD]

Our universe, or macrocosm, is creational, having been creationally quantized from a pre existing etheric world, or macrocosm, which had had to be quantized for better magnetic stability for more microcosmic entity(ies) who had arisen from intense fluxes of energy of the ether. (The smallest quantal units, electrons, were creationally projected toward a "virgin" ether region, which chain-reactionally produced larger units like protons, neutrons, and atoms.) Our universe isn't "expanding" and the apparent expansion of its outermost bodies isn't due to "dark energy." They are being pulled on by the ever-closer approach of another, younger, more energetic universe, creationally emplaced so as to collide with and re-energize the "tired" (our) universe. (It's known that galaxies collide with each other.) -Black holes are not related to some kind of "Big Bang." They are creationally-directed repositories of the antimatter which has had to be shunted away from interfering with new quantal matter.-

[Dave Lev]

Black holes are not related to some kind of "Big Bang." They are creationally-directed repositories of the antimatter which has had to be shunted away from interfering with new quantal matter.-

That is very interesting.
What kind of source are you using to protect this statement?
P.S
I fully agree with you.
However, I'm not sure that our science community accepts this approach.

They are being pulled on by the ever-closer approach of another, younger, more energetic universe, creationally emplaced so as to collide with and re-energize the "tired" (our) universe.

What do you mean by "another, younger, more energetic universe"
Do you mean that our Universe is not there by itself?

Our universe isn't "expanding" and the apparent expansion of its outermost bodies isn't due to "dark energy.

Yes. I fully agree that our Universe isn't expanding.
However, how do you explain that all far away galaxies in all directions are drifting away from us at almost the speed of light?
How ""another, younger, more energetic universe" can affect this process.

[Origin]

I think I just figured out how you guys screwed up. Space-time is a 2-D concept; (space=x, time=y) like a simple cyclic wave; x=amplitude and y=frequency. If we move the clock to another reference or location in space; Boston to LA, it will adjust itself. An entropy foundation for time is more flexible at any point in space.

Our universe, or macrocosm, is creational, having been creationally quantized from a pre existing etheric world, or macrocosm, which had had to be quantized for better magnetic stability for more microcosmic entity(ies) who had arisen from intense fluxes of energy of the ether.

Yes. I fully agree that our Universe isn't expanding.

There sure is a lot of pseudoscience on this site!

[puppypower]

I think I just figured out how you guys screwed up. Space-time is a 2-D concept; (space=x, time=y) like a simple cyclic wave; x=amplitude and y=frequency. If we move the clock to another reference or location in space; Boston to LA, it will adjust itself. An entropy foundation for time is more flexible at any point in space.

Our universe, or macrocosm, is creational, having been creationally quantized from a pre existing etheric world, or macrocosm, which had had to be quantized for better magnetic stability for more microcosmic entity(ies) who had arisen from intense fluxes of energy of the ether.

Yes. I fully agree that our Universe isn't expanding.

There sure is a lot of pseudoscience on this site!

Again, time moves to the future in one direction. Time does not cycle like a clock or a wave. The clock is the wrong analogy for time, thereby creating conceptual problems in terms of pure science. I agree about pseudo science impacting the mainstream of science. 

Practical science and engineering, on the other hand, isn't as fussy about conceptual purity, since it is more about practical results, You can still tell time, using the position of the sun,  whether you assume Helios is riding his chariot, or the earth rotates on its axis. Each can still lead to the same practical results, such as telling when the sun rises and sets. But to the pure scientist, only one is conceptually consistent with all known observations,

Since most of science is not self sufficient in terms of resources, but rather is beholden to others for funding; Government, Business, Universities and Private Donations, results geared to the whims and need of the donors, often require that applied science, using alternate conceptual framework, be the law of the land. For example, if the donors want to hear 100 genders, you cannot point out X and Y chromosomes and the need for conceptual consistency with the rest of generic theory. Rather you need to come up with a Helios framework to get the applied results that are being paid for. Then you feed this to the herd for profit.

Clock time can be blindly or dutifully accepted as the standard of time, even though it has conceptual flaws in terms of time observed to move  in only one direction. I get the pressures, but I am trying to be pure, instead of tainted, since I am not beholden. (Naked instead covered in flash)

Let me do an intellectual exercise to show one pitfall connected to the force compliance to clock time, due to the needs of money donors and practical science. Say I am in Boston, and I go to MIT to be fitted for a revolutionary new watch that is extremely accurate. The experiment requires me wear the watch and then travel westward, to California, to test the watch's accuracy, using a standard they have developed at Cal Tech.

I am do this trip several different ways. The first is a direct flight, the second is by train, the third is by car, taking a less direct route down the East coat and then along the southern Gulf coast and along the Mexican border, then northward to Cal Tech.

When I get there, in all three cases, my watch, although accurate to the nanosecond, is nevertheless always three hours fast. This experimental result occurs regardless of the route or my average velocity of travel. Was some form of Relativity in affect?

After pondering this, we figure out this was due to changing time zones. Time zones are not a measure of time, but a measure of distance, that impacts clock time. This adjustment is needed because the earth is rotating; has angular velocity, on its axis, thereby altering the position of the sun. The position of the sun is being used as the reference standard for time. We are not really measuring time, but space-time; time as a function of position and velocity.

The entropy clock does not have the same constraints. Time is not dependent or defined as a function of the position of the sun, the rotational speed of the earth, and/or the location on the earth. In space, we us light year to define distance. This is not needed for the entropy clock since it is conceptually consistent with the nature of time. The dead fish clock walks to the beat of its own drum, moving to the future, independent of what the sun or earth or universe is doing in space, based on relative motion and velocity in space-time. It simplifies.

We run a second experiment, where we clone a fish and make a dozen genetically similar fish. These will be use as standard clocks for entropic time. Half the live fish will go to MIT and the other half will go to Cal Tech. We set the dead fish clocks all at the same time, via teleconference and calculate the time delay.

I take six dead fish clocks, two each on a plane, two on a train and two by car, and head westward to compare the time on the dead fish clocks. It turns out, we do not have to adjust for time zones, the rotation of the earth or the position of the sun. All the experiments are within a tighter margin of time error, compared to the advanced watch. Low tech can be simpler, if the conceptual framework is better.

When is science going to get out of the mythological age of magical boot licking, and smell the coffee? Or is science too beholden to the donors and not in a position to make such as change? Do the donors need to game the applied science system, with a hidden conceptual flaws? The Helios sun time model may appeal to the donors, since it has hidden psychological charm, that can be used to move the herd to the feeding holes of big business and politics.

[jerrygg38]

Naked 2.8.20 8AM
Puppypower says
After pondering this, we figure out this was due to changing time zones. Time zones are not a measure of time, but a measure of distance, that impacts clock time. This adjustment is needed because the earth is rotating; has angular velocity, on its axis, thereby altering the position of the sun. The position of the sun is being used as the reference standard for time. We are not really measuring time, but space-time; time as a function of position and velocity.
GG: Firstly you say that time always moves forward. Yes and no. When I worked for Sperry the Engineers union would go on strike at various times. Then I became a handyman and earned my take home pay that way. One job I had was an old oven/stove. It had a clock. You would think that the clock would always run clockwise. However for some strange reason the clock suddenly ran counterclockwise. Thus time can go backwards. It is funny but time can run backwards. I fixed it by rewiring one set of coils in the motor.  Why did it happen? Perhaps it is probability. Sometimes a clock will run backwards.
  Funny story but true. Anyway I gained a customer that I serviced even after I return to my job at Sperry.
  You are absolutely correct that we do not measure time but
Time = distance / velocity = meters/ meters per second = seconds.
   The calculation for the position of a shell fired from the 5 inch Navy guns requires the rotational speed of the Earth and the location of the ship with respect to the equator. It requires one hundred simultaneous equations. So the time to hit a target is really quite complicated.
  Since time is not a dimension space time is not really true. We get space and velocity or X, Y, Z, and C. However in order to get Einstein’s equations we need two light speeds Co and Cs. This is equivalent to two time dimensions of R/Co and R/Cs.
   Entropy sounds good but we cannot end up with a dead dimension of the universe. In the end we end up with dimension Co being erased. Then in the far future as the dimension Cs shrinks and a new big bang occurs, here we are again forever. Since time does not exist the universe always existed and someday in the far future another engineer will be asked to fix a clock that runs backwards.

[Bored chemist]

Say I am in Boston, and I go to MIT to be fitted for a revolutionary new watch that is extremely accurate. The experiment requires me wear the watch and then travel westward, to California, to test the watch's accuracy, using a standard they have developed at Cal Tech.

I am do this trip several different ways. The first is a direct flight, the second is by train, the third is by car, taking a less direct route down the East coat and then along the southern Gulf coast and along the Mexican border, then northward to Cal Tech.

When I get there, in all three cases, my watch, although accurate to the nanosecond, is nevertheless always three hours fast. This experimental result occurs regardless of the route or my average velocity of travel. Was some form of Relativity in affect?

That's not just stupid, it isn't even true.
The MIT and Caltec clocks will both be set to UTC.
So, what you would actually see (given a good enough watch) would be the variations due to relativity

[jerrygg38]

Bored Chemist says
The MIT and Caltec clocks will both be set to UTC.
So, what you would actually see (given a good enough watch) would be the variations due to relativity
GG: If the watch was super accurate it would vary depending upon the speed and also the variations in the Earths gravitational field as per Einstein.

[Bored chemist]

Bored Chemist says
The MIT and Caltec clocks will both be set to UTC.
So, what you would actually see (given a good enough watch) would be the variations due to relativity
GG: If the watch was super accurate it would vary depending upon the speed and also the variations in the Earths gravitational field as per Einstein.

That's just about the first time you have said anything that's correct.
Given that you were repeating what I said, it's not very useful, but at least it's right.

[jerrygg38]

BC says
That's just about the first time you have said anything that's correct.
Given that you were repeating what I said, it's not very useful, but at least it's right.
GG: I wasn't doing it for your benefit. I like what Puppypower has to say about time. Yet the physical clock does vary as per Einstein but time is not a dimension. So Einstein is both correct mathematically and wrong theoretically.

[Kryptid]

time is not a dimension.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

[Dave Lev]

Dear Dave,
 
As to "Expansion of our universe" and how to interpret the evidence that was based on, namely the astronomical observation that the outermost bodies of the universe are accelerating outwards. - The way consensus quantum physics interprets this is by hypothesizing that an unknown energy ("Dark Energy") is acting on those bodies, as part of the "expansion" of the universe.

From my coded source, the correct interpretation is that there were a certain number of universes created and emplaced such that when bone universe (here, ours) has radiated off a lot of its internal energy, and cosmic chaotic cosmic events start happening, such as quasars appearing, then the tired universe starts to "feel" the pull of another, younger, more energized, universe, and the two approach each other. That's why the outermost bodies of our universe are accelerating away - not because there is some sort of "Dark Energy." The younger universe and the older universe start resonating through space, and a gravity "pull" between them begins to pull them toward each other. -Note that galaxies have been observed colliding with each other. -It's the same principle.

Dear MichaelMD
Thanks for the explanation.
So, theoretically, if there were infinite universes around us, and we are located just at the center, than this could be a nice solution.
However, what is the chance for that?
It is quite clear that if we won't be at the center, or even at one of the nearby universes, we might see different space view.
If there are other universes around us, than by definition our universe is finite.
If it is finite than what kind of space view we would see at the edge of our finite universe?
This by itself is quite problematic.
Therefore, we must first understand the real size of our Universe. We also must assume that we can be at any spot at this universe.
Based on that data we can search for an answer.
So, what do you think? Is our universe finite or infinite?

[jerrygg38]

GG said : Time is not a dimension
Kyptoid says
Do you have evidence for this claim?

GG: My evidence is quite subjective. I have encountered higher light speed energy with the ability to appear before me like a hologram. I could put my hand through it and not effect it but it could control me. I could speak to it and it could speak to me. Truth or hallucination? It could put me in a trance and take me on a tour of the universe. No evidence for sure but I encountered something quite freaky. So I try to understand our multi-light-speed universe.
   Einsteins equations are q

[jerrygg38]

(continued)
Einstein's equations are quite good but with a multi-light-speed universe other explanations are quite possible. So the time dimension is not necessary. It would be okay is the other light speed dimensions were wrong. Yet then it makes it difficult for me to explain what I have observed.