what if the big bang particle was a heavy nucleus?
Actually Big Bang is not a particle. It is a phenomenon that occurred which led to the formation of the universe the name of this phenomenon is 'Big bang". And there is no matter in asking that from where does all these matter around us came from, because the answer is that i don't know the answer. Probably the answer could be E= mc ^2
Still the scientists and physicists are trying to figure out the answer.
Still the scientists and physicists are trying to figure out the answer.
lol ahaha,yeah right, just that i meant about the particle in which the universe was condensed,according to the theory,lol
thought that it had a pr-existing particle that was very dense,and the particle was material so it contained heavy elements.
maybe,like nuclear fusion which involves fusion of a subatomic thingie with a heavy nucleus,it could have been that two nusleus culd have fused together or a 'thingie' could have leaked out of a nucleus and fused to another,
(since the nuclue were densy i.e. heavy, maybe gravitational pull could have surpassed nuclear force,).
so should this happen, energy could 'leak out' of the "particle"(lol i dont know what is the exact scientific newtonian term for this particle :<).
this energy wold also be suficient to trigger fusion of other heavy elements too right?in the volume of that particle?
maybe this particle we are talking about was a black hole.its dense,heavy, if some energy leakage takes place in it?.....?
anyway,this leaked energy could condense again to form matter right? or just clusters?might be exothermic (opp of fusion).
this could create a system,heavier clusters forming stars,lighter-planets,moons etc. even nebula.
each of them revolving under gravitational pull of the one heavier than them, mabe the left over of that particle, something like ,the mega black hole?present at the centre of each galaxy?
so maybe we can say that not just one "big bang phenomenon occurred. various occured,each giving rise to a galaxy.
thought that it had a pr-existing particle that was very dense,and the particle was material so it contained heavy elements.
maybe,like nuclear fusion which involves fusion of a subatomic thingie with a heavy nucleus,it could have been that two nusleus culd have fused together or a 'thingie' could have leaked out of a nucleus and fused to another,
(since the nuclue were densy i.e. heavy, maybe gravitational pull could have surpassed nuclear force,).
so should this happen, energy could 'leak out' of the "particle"(lol i dont know what is the exact scientific newtonian term for this particle :<).
this energy wold also be suficient to trigger fusion of other heavy elements too right?in the volume of that particle?
maybe this particle we are talking about was a black hole.its dense,heavy, if some energy leakage takes place in it?.....?
anyway,this leaked energy could condense again to form matter right? or just clusters?might be exothermic (opp of fusion).
this could create a system,heavier clusters forming stars,lighter-planets,moons etc. even nebula.
each of them revolving under gravitational pull of the one heavier than them, mabe the left over of that particle, something like ,the mega black hole?present at the centre of each galaxy?
so maybe we can say that not just one "big bang phenomenon occurred. various occured,each giving rise to a galaxy.
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 5 2012, 02:20 AM)
lol ahaha,yeah right, just that i meant about the particle in which the universe was condensed,according to the theory,lol
thought that it had a pr-existing particle that was very dense,and the particle was material so it contained heavy elements.
maybe,like nuclear fusion which involves fusion of a subatomic thingie with a heavy nucleus,it could have been that two nusleus culd have fused together or a 'thingie' could have leaked out of a nucleus and fused to another,
(since the nuclue were densy i.e. heavy, maybe gravitational pull could have surpassed nuclear force,).
so should this happen, energy could 'leak out' of the "particle"(lol i dont know what is the exact scientific newtonian term for this particle :<).
this energy wold also be suficient to trigger fusion of other heavy elements too right?in the volume of that particle?
maybe this particle we are talking about was a black hole.its dense,heavy, if some energy leakage takes place in it?.....?
anyway,this leaked energy could condense again to form matter right? or just clusters?might be exothermic (opp of fusion).
this could create a system,heavier clusters forming stars,lighter-planets,moons etc. even nebula.
each of them revolving under gravitational pull of the one heavier than them, mabe the left over of that particle, something like ,the mega black hole?present at the centre of each galaxy?
so maybe we can say that not just one "big bang phenomenon occurred. various occured,each giving rise to a galaxy.
According to theory what existed before and at the moment of the big bang was too dence for matter to exist.
thought that it had a pr-existing particle that was very dense,and the particle was material so it contained heavy elements.
maybe,like nuclear fusion which involves fusion of a subatomic thingie with a heavy nucleus,it could have been that two nusleus culd have fused together or a 'thingie' could have leaked out of a nucleus and fused to another,
(since the nuclue were densy i.e. heavy, maybe gravitational pull could have surpassed nuclear force,).
so should this happen, energy could 'leak out' of the "particle"(lol i dont know what is the exact scientific newtonian term for this particle :<).
this energy wold also be suficient to trigger fusion of other heavy elements too right?in the volume of that particle?
maybe this particle we are talking about was a black hole.its dense,heavy, if some energy leakage takes place in it?.....?
anyway,this leaked energy could condense again to form matter right? or just clusters?might be exothermic (opp of fusion).
this could create a system,heavier clusters forming stars,lighter-planets,moons etc. even nebula.
each of them revolving under gravitational pull of the one heavier than them, mabe the left over of that particle, something like ,the mega black hole?present at the centre of each galaxy?
so maybe we can say that not just one "big bang phenomenon occurred. various occured,each giving rise to a galaxy.
According to theory what existed before and at the moment of the big bang was too dence for matter to exist.
No, to much matter got into the 4th spacial dimension and simply got regurgitated up
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 5 2012, 03:10 AM)
According to theory what existed before and at the moment of the big bang was too dence for matter to exist.
Would you mind citing your source of that theory you refer to, please?
Would you mind citing your source of that theory you refer to, please?
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 8 2012, 01:25 AM)
Would you mind citing your source of that theory you refer to, please?
You are asking a mindless troll to cite a source for made up bullshit.
Never happen.
You are asking a mindless troll to cite a source for made up bullshit.
Never happen.
no..it is believed that before the big bang there wasn`t any time or matter..it was just energy! which was concentrated at a point so small that it could fit in our hand! there was something that caused the explosion of this particular"ball".. since then we have been hearing that the universe is expanding!
QUOTE (shaunaqnarindra+Jun 8 2012, 07:14 AM)
no..it is believed that before the big bang there wasn`t any time or matter..it was just energy! which was concentrated at a point so small that it could fit in our hand! there was something that caused the explosion of this particular"ball".. since then we have been hearing that the universe is expanding!
A question like this would be a way beyond the regulars on here.
A question like this would be a way beyond the regulars on here.
QUOTE (shaunaqnarindra+Jun 8 2012, 07:14 AM)
no..it is believed that before the big bang there wasn`t any time or matter..it was just energy! which was concentrated at a point so small that it could fit in our hand! there was something that caused the explosion of this particular"ball".. since then we have been hearing that the universe is expanding!
Thanks for trying to explain that to the village idiot.
Thanks for trying to explain that to the village idiot.
QUOTE (shaunaqnarindra+Jun 8 2012, 07:14 AM)
no..it is believed that before the big bang there wasn`t any time or matter..it was just energy! which was concentrated at a point so small that it could fit in our hand! there was something that caused the explosion of this particular"ball".. since then we have been hearing that the universe is expanding!
Hi. if before the big bang,it was just energy,where did this energy come from?or how did matter form?and what caused the explosion?
i am a 2nd yr. ISc. student, i just got this idea of what could have happened during the big bang or after that, or how it formed the universe we live in today.im not sure if its true, and i dont have anyone to discuss it with here, so i will be grateful to you for helping me out with this, though eminents fell it is a made up bullshit. thankyou.
Hi. if before the big bang,it was just energy,where did this energy come from?or how did matter form?and what caused the explosion?
i am a 2nd yr. ISc. student, i just got this idea of what could have happened during the big bang or after that, or how it formed the universe we live in today.im not sure if its true, and i dont have anyone to discuss it with here, so i will be grateful to you for helping me out with this, though eminents fell it is a made up bullshit. thankyou.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 5 2012, 03:10 AM)
According to theory what existed before and at the moment of the big bang was too dence for matter to exist.
could it be that the too dense substance break down to form matter?
i didnt mean matter that existed or exploded during the explosion,but i dont know what its called.sorry
could it be that the too dense substance break down to form matter?
i didnt mean matter that existed or exploded during the explosion,but i dont know what its called.sorry
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 5 2012, 02:20 AM)
lol ahaha,yeah right, just that i meant about the particle in which the universe was condensed,according to the theory,lol
thought that it had a pr-existing particle that was very dense,and the particle was material so it contained heavy elements.
maybe,like nuclear fusion which involves fusion of a subatomic thingie with a heavy nucleus,it could have been that two nusleus culd have fused together or a 'thingie' could have leaked out of a nucleus and fused to another,
(since the nuclue were densy i.e. heavy, maybe gravitational pull could have surpassed nuclear force,).
so should this happen, energy could 'leak out' of the "particle"(lol i dont know what is the exact scientific newtonian term for this particle :<).
this energy wold also be suficient to trigger fusion of other heavy elements too right?in the volume of that particle?
maybe this particle we are talking about was a black hole.its dense,heavy, if some energy leakage takes place in it?.....?
anyway,this leaked energy could condense again to form matter right? or just clusters?might be exothermic (opp of fusion).
this could create a system,heavier clusters forming stars,lighter-planets,moons etc. even nebula.
each of them revolving under gravitational pull of the one heavier than them, mabe the left over of that particle, something like ,the mega black hole?present at the centre of each galaxy?
so maybe we can say that not just one "big bang phenomenon occurred. various occured,each giving rise to a galaxy.
Allen, your ideas are very good, although others have already offered them. If you thought of them on your own, though, it shows your brain is clicking on all 8 cylinders, as we used to say.
Your concept translates into the "static universe" theory (SUT), which is the opposite to the Big Bang Theory (BBT). Now that we know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, no one is still beating the SUT drum anymore because the BBT fits the research better now.
Your brain is working well in thinking there was a preexisting particle to the BBT which you may have heard called a "singularity," but which no scientist has yet been able to describe any better than that. Science is often confusing to laypersons simply because scientists are confused themselves and don't understand the "meat" of some theories. That is historical fact!
The BBT proposes the BB was an explosion of a so-called singularity that emptied out its contents of energy and space into a so-called "Great Void" which was not Absolute space (empty space). The singularity "particle" had space in it and (somehow) something else that had collapsed "something pre-existing" in it into a barely existing "particle" compressed under gravity which exploded ad created the universe.
Really, Modern Physics doesn't care that such a theory is stupid, because they can defend it by saying what happened before the BB cannot be discussed because we cannot know that information. Yet, they can presume to know there existed a "Great Void" that had/has no space in it. Science is populated with naked emperors who offer silly ideas in trying to convince others they know more about the real world than do laypersons.
I have written several essays relevant to Theoretical Physics in easy to understand prose, which you and anyone else is welcome to read one about Time at:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
As for the BBT, i has holes in it, sure, but it's all we have for now. I think the singularity exploded when its contents were transformed into energy and the energy emptied out not into an unimaginable Great Void, but into Absolute space. Soon afterward, some of the energy was transformed into mass from which elements formed. I have more on this in one of my essays.
thought that it had a pr-existing particle that was very dense,and the particle was material so it contained heavy elements.
maybe,like nuclear fusion which involves fusion of a subatomic thingie with a heavy nucleus,it could have been that two nusleus culd have fused together or a 'thingie' could have leaked out of a nucleus and fused to another,
(since the nuclue were densy i.e. heavy, maybe gravitational pull could have surpassed nuclear force,).
so should this happen, energy could 'leak out' of the "particle"(lol i dont know what is the exact scientific newtonian term for this particle :<).
this energy wold also be suficient to trigger fusion of other heavy elements too right?in the volume of that particle?
maybe this particle we are talking about was a black hole.its dense,heavy, if some energy leakage takes place in it?.....?
anyway,this leaked energy could condense again to form matter right? or just clusters?might be exothermic (opp of fusion).
this could create a system,heavier clusters forming stars,lighter-planets,moons etc. even nebula.
each of them revolving under gravitational pull of the one heavier than them, mabe the left over of that particle, something like ,the mega black hole?present at the centre of each galaxy?
so maybe we can say that not just one "big bang phenomenon occurred. various occured,each giving rise to a galaxy.
Allen, your ideas are very good, although others have already offered them. If you thought of them on your own, though, it shows your brain is clicking on all 8 cylinders, as we used to say.
Your concept translates into the "static universe" theory (SUT), which is the opposite to the Big Bang Theory (BBT). Now that we know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, no one is still beating the SUT drum anymore because the BBT fits the research better now.
Your brain is working well in thinking there was a preexisting particle to the BBT which you may have heard called a "singularity," but which no scientist has yet been able to describe any better than that. Science is often confusing to laypersons simply because scientists are confused themselves and don't understand the "meat" of some theories. That is historical fact!
The BBT proposes the BB was an explosion of a so-called singularity that emptied out its contents of energy and space into a so-called "Great Void" which was not Absolute space (empty space). The singularity "particle" had space in it and (somehow) something else that had collapsed "something pre-existing" in it into a barely existing "particle" compressed under gravity which exploded ad created the universe.
Really, Modern Physics doesn't care that such a theory is stupid, because they can defend it by saying what happened before the BB cannot be discussed because we cannot know that information. Yet, they can presume to know there existed a "Great Void" that had/has no space in it. Science is populated with naked emperors who offer silly ideas in trying to convince others they know more about the real world than do laypersons.
I have written several essays relevant to Theoretical Physics in easy to understand prose, which you and anyone else is welcome to read one about Time at:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
As for the BBT, i has holes in it, sure, but it's all we have for now. I think the singularity exploded when its contents were transformed into energy and the energy emptied out not into an unimaginable Great Void, but into Absolute space. Soon afterward, some of the energy was transformed into mass from which elements formed. I have more on this in one of my essays.
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 12 2012, 09:51 AM)
could it be that the too dense substance break down to form matter?
i didnt mean matter that existed or exploded during the explosion,but i dont know what its called.sorry
Yes that's right , the same state probibly existes inside a black hole.
It's a wonderful concept, one drop of this pure energy can produce every thing we know to be reality.
i didnt mean matter that existed or exploded during the explosion,but i dont know what its called.sorry
Yes that's right , the same state probibly existes inside a black hole.
It's a wonderful concept, one drop of this pure energy can produce every thing we know to be reality.
One thing I don't like about black holes is that they don't seem to fit into the re new property's that the rest of the universe is governed by.
How do they fit into this cycle?
How do they fit into this cycle?
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 12 2012, 11:01 AM)
One thing I don't like about black holes is that they don't seem to fit into the re new property's that the rest of the universe is governed by.
What?
QUOTE
re new property's
What?
Allen.92101, since you're new here, you probably haven't caught on yet that Whitewolf is simply an ignorant troll. I wouldn't pay any attention to anything he posts.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 12 2012, 05:35 PM)
Allen.92101, since you're new here, you probably haven't caught on yet that Whitewolf is simply an ignorant troll. I wouldn't pay any attention to anything he posts.
Actually, Allen was told by by WW himself that he is a troll in these parts, in his second (third?) reply to him.
Actually, Allen was told by by WW himself that he is a troll in these parts, in his second (third?) reply to him.
QUOTE (shaunaqnarindra+Jun 8 2012, 07:14 AM)
no..it is believed that before the big bang there wasn`t any time or matter..it was just energy! which was concentrated at a point so small that it could fit in our hand! there was something that caused the explosion of this particular"ball".. since then we have been hearing that the universe is expanding!
Just read about Eternal Inflation Theory. It's predictions have been empirically confirmed during the WMAP experiment.
Eternal Inflation [from 2001].
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf
Discussion for amateurs on Eternal Inflation
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html
Power point with Guth talking to a room full of string theorists
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
Eternal inflation and it's implications [from 2007].
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
The most important theoretical physics and experimental physics of the last 30 years. Based on it's success. Read it and then you'll know how much we really know about the beginning of our universe. Then read this mind blower where they build a model for ..... read it.
Observational Tests For Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
Just read about Eternal Inflation Theory. It's predictions have been empirically confirmed during the WMAP experiment.
Eternal Inflation [from 2001].
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf
Discussion for amateurs on Eternal Inflation
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html
Power point with Guth talking to a room full of string theorists
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
Eternal inflation and it's implications [from 2007].
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
The most important theoretical physics and experimental physics of the last 30 years. Based on it's success. Read it and then you'll know how much we really know about the beginning of our universe. Then read this mind blower where they build a model for ..... read it.
Observational Tests For Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 12 2012, 03:42 PM)
What?
What are you made of "pure hydrogen" ?
Now I know why your called "simple sum"
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 12 2012, 09:08 PM)
What are you made of ? "pure hydrogen"
Do you have a learning disability?
Care to explain what "re new property" means? You blame me for not interpreting your sh*tty spelling?
Do you have a learning disability?
Care to explain what "re new property" means? You blame me for not interpreting your sh*tty spelling?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 13 2012, 01:17 AM)
Do you have a learning disability?
Care to explain what "re new property" means? You blame me for not interpreting your sh*tty spelling?
Oh Is simple sum spelled with capitals?
Care to explain what "re new property" means? You blame me for not interpreting your sh*tty spelling?
Oh Is simple sum spelled with capitals?
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 12 2012, 09:20 PM)
Oh Is simple sum spelled with capitals?
Keep laughing, I'm sure some day it will be funny.
Keep laughing, I'm sure some day it will be funny.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 12 2012, 11:34 AM)
Allen, your ideas are very good, although others have already offered them. If you thought of them on your own, though, it shows your brain is clicking on all 8 cylinders, as we used to say.
Your concept translates into the "static universe" theory (SUT), which is the opposite to the Big Bang Theory (BBT). Now that we know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, no one is still beating the SUT drum anymore because the BBT fits the research better now.
Your brain is working well in thinking there was a preexisting particle to the BBT which you may have heard called a "singularity," but which no scientist has yet been able to describe any better than that. Science is often confusing to laypersons simply because scientists are confused themselves and don't understand the "meat" of some theories. That is historical fact!
The BBT proposes the BB was an explosion of a so-called singularity that emptied out its contents of energy and space into a so-called "Great Void" which was not Absolute space (empty space). The singularity "particle" had space in it and (somehow) something else that had collapsed "something pre-existing" in it into a barely existing "particle" compressed under gravity which exploded ad created the universe.
Really, Modern Physics doesn't care that such a theory is stupid, because they can defend it by saying what happened before the BB cannot be discussed because we cannot know that information. Yet, they can presume to know there existed a "Great Void" that had/has no space in it. Science is populated with naked emperors who offer silly ideas in trying to convince others they know more about the real world than do laypersons.
I have written several essays relevant to Theoretical Physics in easy to understand prose, which you and anyone else is welcome to read one about Time at:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
As for the BBT, i has holes in it, sure, but it's all we have for now. I think the singularity exploded when its contents were transformed into energy and the energy emptied out not into an unimaginable Great Void, but into Absolute space. Soon afterward, some of the energy was transformed into mass from which elements formed. I have more on this in one of my essays.
thankyou Sonoran Sundown, i feel good becauseof what you said ahaha, i thought them on my own in grade 10 and have been modifying it since then.
i talked to my physics teacher about this but he insulted me,im going to do that to him now,lol
and yes thankyou for the essays i believe i will enjoy reading them
Your concept translates into the "static universe" theory (SUT), which is the opposite to the Big Bang Theory (BBT). Now that we know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, no one is still beating the SUT drum anymore because the BBT fits the research better now.
Your brain is working well in thinking there was a preexisting particle to the BBT which you may have heard called a "singularity," but which no scientist has yet been able to describe any better than that. Science is often confusing to laypersons simply because scientists are confused themselves and don't understand the "meat" of some theories. That is historical fact!
The BBT proposes the BB was an explosion of a so-called singularity that emptied out its contents of energy and space into a so-called "Great Void" which was not Absolute space (empty space). The singularity "particle" had space in it and (somehow) something else that had collapsed "something pre-existing" in it into a barely existing "particle" compressed under gravity which exploded ad created the universe.
Really, Modern Physics doesn't care that such a theory is stupid, because they can defend it by saying what happened before the BB cannot be discussed because we cannot know that information. Yet, they can presume to know there existed a "Great Void" that had/has no space in it. Science is populated with naked emperors who offer silly ideas in trying to convince others they know more about the real world than do laypersons.
I have written several essays relevant to Theoretical Physics in easy to understand prose, which you and anyone else is welcome to read one about Time at:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
As for the BBT, i has holes in it, sure, but it's all we have for now. I think the singularity exploded when its contents were transformed into energy and the energy emptied out not into an unimaginable Great Void, but into Absolute space. Soon afterward, some of the energy was transformed into mass from which elements formed. I have more on this in one of my essays.
thankyou Sonoran Sundown, i feel good becauseof what you said ahaha, i thought them on my own in grade 10 and have been modifying it since then.i talked to my physics teacher about this but he insulted me,im going to do that to him now,lol
and yes thankyou for the essays i believe i will enjoy reading them
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 12 2012, 05:35 PM)
Allen.92101, since you're new here, you probably haven't caught on yet that Whitewolf is simply an ignorant troll. I wouldn't pay any attention to anything he posts.
LOL maybe, well he is definitely more brainy than me,like you and Sonoran, so i dont mind respecting him too,aha,
LOL maybe, well he is definitely more brainy than me,like you and Sonoran, so i dont mind respecting him too,aha,
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 12 2012, 02:50 PM)
Yes that's right , the same state probibly existes inside a black hole.
It's a wonderful concept, one drop of this pure energy can produce every thing we know to be reality.
lol yeah but i was of the opinion that one drop of dense matter makes a lot of energy,not the other way, because matter is made of energy not enrgy of matter,though correct me if im wrong
It's a wonderful concept, one drop of this pure energy can produce every thing we know to be reality.
lol yeah but i was of the opinion that one drop of dense matter makes a lot of energy,not the other way, because matter is made of energy not enrgy of matter,though correct me if im wrong
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 12 2012, 11:34 AM)
The BBT proposes the BB was an explosion of a so-called singularity that emptied out its contents of energy and space into a so-called "Great Void" which was not Absolute space (empty space). The singularity "particle" had space in it and (somehow) something else that had collapsed "something pre-existing" in it into a barely existing "particle" compressed under gravity which exploded ad created the universe.
Really, Modern Physics doesn't care that such a theory is stupid, because they can defend it by saying what happened before the BB cannot be discussed because we cannot know that information. Yet, they can presume to know there existed a "Great Void" that had/has no space in it. Science is populated with naked emperors who offer silly ideas in trying to convince others they know more about the real world than do laypersons.
I have written several essays relevant to Theoretical Physics in easy to understand prose, which you and anyone else is welcome to read one about Time at:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
As for the BBT, i has holes in it, sure, but it's all we have for now. I think the singularity exploded when its contents were transformed into energy and the energy emptied out not into an unimaginable Great Void, but into Absolute space. Soon afterward, some of the energy was transformed into mass from which elements formed. I have more on this in one of my essays.
As for the singularity particle having space in it, then the singularity wouldnt be a particle anymore,right? anything that has space or (nothing) in it will either collapse or finish in itself or expand without a boundary limitlessly right? if it has no dimension,it can have any dimension as much it can because it doesnt mean anything. maybe thats why we say that the universe is expanding because if it is space,theres nothing to pull itself back,because no force acts on emptiness right?
so according to bbt, everything devoloped from nothing! wow that is fascinating but it doesnt make sense, even prof. Stephen Hawkins said this, but its a tough concept to be understood, and also that it doesnt make any sense.right?
law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,only changed from one form to another. if this is true,and that we all know it to be true, and considering matter and everything else as a form of condensed energy, how can energy be created out of nothing?it cannot be created.
science is in knowing things and secrets of existence, not in knowing human mind's boundaries because there is none.maybe this is another stupidity of some scientists,just like everything coming out of nothing,boundaries coming out of no boundaries!
why cant we look at the other option? lets remove the concept of great void,just for an instance.just say,the singularity particle contained energy,and the space it contained energy,so no space was present in the singularity.
also, i'd like to state that a quantum is the simplest form of existence (please comment). if matter is condensed energy,and matter is subatomic particles, is it that subatomic particles made of quantum particles ? it can be easily accepted.
can we not say,that the particle didn't explode,but just got expanding,or diffusing? it wont stop expanding because there's nothing outside its dimension to stop it from expanding.so there's no reason for it to stop.the expanding of the particle is what is creating volume and dimensions inside it as it expands.right?whats wrong in making the use of nothing to fill something(something=volume)? the expanding particle in emptiness is filling in more volume.like when you see a balloon being inflated,and imagine the outside air to be nothingness instead, the balloon is supposed to fill in more volume.this is amazing!
now the volume being contained inside maybe is the space we call today.and the energy inside it should be the matter and energy suspended today in the universe.
so the universe is expanding.thats how,maybe.
please comment on this.its entirely what i think,and im a human so i will make mistakes. please correct me if im wrong.
stupid theories dont make physics. thats blasphemy.or more like being just a physic-al jabbermouth.lol. knowledge is everything. and correct one. thats why we discuss right?
Really, Modern Physics doesn't care that such a theory is stupid, because they can defend it by saying what happened before the BB cannot be discussed because we cannot know that information. Yet, they can presume to know there existed a "Great Void" that had/has no space in it. Science is populated with naked emperors who offer silly ideas in trying to convince others they know more about the real world than do laypersons.
I have written several essays relevant to Theoretical Physics in easy to understand prose, which you and anyone else is welcome to read one about Time at:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com
As for the BBT, i has holes in it, sure, but it's all we have for now. I think the singularity exploded when its contents were transformed into energy and the energy emptied out not into an unimaginable Great Void, but into Absolute space. Soon afterward, some of the energy was transformed into mass from which elements formed. I have more on this in one of my essays.
As for the singularity particle having space in it, then the singularity wouldnt be a particle anymore,right? anything that has space or (nothing) in it will either collapse or finish in itself or expand without a boundary limitlessly right? if it has no dimension,it can have any dimension as much it can because it doesnt mean anything. maybe thats why we say that the universe is expanding because if it is space,theres nothing to pull itself back,because no force acts on emptiness right?
so according to bbt, everything devoloped from nothing! wow that is fascinating but it doesnt make sense, even prof. Stephen Hawkins said this, but its a tough concept to be understood, and also that it doesnt make any sense.right?
law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,only changed from one form to another. if this is true,and that we all know it to be true, and considering matter and everything else as a form of condensed energy, how can energy be created out of nothing?it cannot be created.
science is in knowing things and secrets of existence, not in knowing human mind's boundaries because there is none.maybe this is another stupidity of some scientists,just like everything coming out of nothing,boundaries coming out of no boundaries!
why cant we look at the other option? lets remove the concept of great void,just for an instance.just say,the singularity particle contained energy,and the space it contained energy,so no space was present in the singularity.
also, i'd like to state that a quantum is the simplest form of existence (please comment). if matter is condensed energy,and matter is subatomic particles, is it that subatomic particles made of quantum particles ? it can be easily accepted.
can we not say,that the particle didn't explode,but just got expanding,or diffusing? it wont stop expanding because there's nothing outside its dimension to stop it from expanding.so there's no reason for it to stop.the expanding of the particle is what is creating volume and dimensions inside it as it expands.right?whats wrong in making the use of nothing to fill something(something=volume)? the expanding particle in emptiness is filling in more volume.like when you see a balloon being inflated,and imagine the outside air to be nothingness instead, the balloon is supposed to fill in more volume.this is amazing!
now the volume being contained inside maybe is the space we call today.and the energy inside it should be the matter and energy suspended today in the universe.
so the universe is expanding.thats how,maybe.
please comment on this.its entirely what i think,and im a human so i will make mistakes. please correct me if im wrong.
stupid theories dont make physics. thats blasphemy.or more like being just a physic-al jabbermouth.lol. knowledge is everything. and correct one. thats why we discuss right?
QUOTE (shaunaqnarindra+Jun 8 2012, 07:14 AM)
no..it is believed that before the big bang there wasn`t any time or matter..it was just energy! which was concentrated at a point so small that it could fit in our hand! there was something that caused the explosion of this particular"ball".. since then we have been hearing that the universe is expanding!
So, where do you think the energy existed, then?
So, where do you think the energy existed, then?
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 13 2012, 11:44 AM)
lets remove the concept of great void,just for an instance.just say,the singularity particle contained energy,and the space it contained energy,so no space was present in the singularity.
also, i'd like to state that a quantum is the simplest form of existence (please comment). if matter is condensed energy,and matter is subatomic particles, is it that subatomic particles made of quantum particles ? it can be easily accepted.
energy existed.not space.space is just lack of matter or energty but with a dimension.we shouldnt misunderstand it with another form of existance
also, i'd like to state that a quantum is the simplest form of existence (please comment). if matter is condensed energy,and matter is subatomic particles, is it that subatomic particles made of quantum particles ? it can be easily accepted.
energy existed.not space.space is just lack of matter or energty but with a dimension.we shouldnt misunderstand it with another form of existance
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 13 2012, 06:14 AM)
so according to bbt, everything developed from nothing! wow that is fascinating but it doesn't make sense, even prof. Stephen Hawkins said this, but its a tough concept to be understood, and also that it doesn't make any sense.right?
law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,only changed from one form to another. if this is true,and that we all know it to be true, and considering matter and everything else as a form of condensed energy, how can energy be created out of nothing?it cannot be created.
science is in knowing things and secrets of existence, not in knowing human mind's boundaries because there is none.maybe this is another stupidity of some scientists,just like everything coming out of nothing,boundaries coming out of no boundaries!
why cant we look at the other option? lets remove the concept of great void,just for an instance.just say,the singularity particle contained energy,and the space it contained energy,so no space was present in the singularity.
so the universe is expanding.thats how,maybe.
please comment on this.its entirely what i think,and im a human so i will make mistakes. please correct me if im wrong.
stupid theories dont make physics. thats blasphemy.or more like being just a physic-al jabbermouth.lol. knowledge is everything. and correct one. thats why we discuss right?
As I understand it, the BBT has to have space come out of the BB, perhaps to be able to have the Inflationary Period (IP) happen, just so it can resolve the problem of what caused the elements to spread out so evenly throughout the universe. BUT, if space came out with the contents of the BB, what did it all come out into? Why, into the GV, of course.
When scientists believed the earth was flat, they ridiculed anyone believing otherwise. Ever since, the unwritten rule in Physics is to conform and don't rock the boat. As a result, we have the theories rivaling the Flat Earth Theory (FET) today from naked emperors who can do no more than accept unconfirmed theories created by those who have no better alternative explanations for the effects observed.
At least Hawkins has admitted most of his wrong conclusions, but others seem to have no better logical solutions than to pull concepts out of thin air.
For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space. The contents were only energy, without any discernible mass. Without mass, the equation Einstein borrowed from others, E=mc2, was not yet valid. The only pure energy we know of is electromagnetism, and magnetic fields do not seem to exist without mass, so I still cannot completely believe "pure" energy exists.
I agree with you that since energy cannot be destroyed, it can be transformed into motion or into mass. My model of the universe agrees with Gamow and Dirac that space is comprised of negative-mass particles and that the energy of the BB transforms them into their antiparticles and results in the release of two photons, creating the light of the universe.
You should read my essay about time and motion at www.nomathphysics.wordpress.com
law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,only changed from one form to another. if this is true,and that we all know it to be true, and considering matter and everything else as a form of condensed energy, how can energy be created out of nothing?it cannot be created.
science is in knowing things and secrets of existence, not in knowing human mind's boundaries because there is none.maybe this is another stupidity of some scientists,just like everything coming out of nothing,boundaries coming out of no boundaries!
why cant we look at the other option? lets remove the concept of great void,just for an instance.just say,the singularity particle contained energy,and the space it contained energy,so no space was present in the singularity.
so the universe is expanding.thats how,maybe.
please comment on this.its entirely what i think,and im a human so i will make mistakes. please correct me if im wrong.
stupid theories dont make physics. thats blasphemy.or more like being just a physic-al jabbermouth.lol. knowledge is everything. and correct one. thats why we discuss right?
As I understand it, the BBT has to have space come out of the BB, perhaps to be able to have the Inflationary Period (IP) happen, just so it can resolve the problem of what caused the elements to spread out so evenly throughout the universe. BUT, if space came out with the contents of the BB, what did it all come out into? Why, into the GV, of course.
When scientists believed the earth was flat, they ridiculed anyone believing otherwise. Ever since, the unwritten rule in Physics is to conform and don't rock the boat. As a result, we have the theories rivaling the Flat Earth Theory (FET) today from naked emperors who can do no more than accept unconfirmed theories created by those who have no better alternative explanations for the effects observed.
At least Hawkins has admitted most of his wrong conclusions, but others seem to have no better logical solutions than to pull concepts out of thin air.
For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space. The contents were only energy, without any discernible mass. Without mass, the equation Einstein borrowed from others, E=mc2, was not yet valid. The only pure energy we know of is electromagnetism, and magnetic fields do not seem to exist without mass, so I still cannot completely believe "pure" energy exists.
I agree with you that since energy cannot be destroyed, it can be transformed into motion or into mass. My model of the universe agrees with Gamow and Dirac that space is comprised of negative-mass particles and that the energy of the BB transforms them into their antiparticles and results in the release of two photons, creating the light of the universe.
You should read my essay about time and motion at www.nomathphysics.wordpress.com
What a meaningless plate of word salad.
Will your long-winded speeches never end?
What ails you that you keep on arguing?
-- Job 16:3
What ails you that you keep on arguing?
-- Job 16:3
I've often said that unregistered guests should not be permitted to post. In fact, this is the only site I know where that's allowed.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 18 2012, 08:47 PM)
Quit trolling the trolls, you dumba$$.
How's life treating you, Whitewolf?
How's life treating you, Whitewolf?
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 18 2012, 10:26 PM)
You've got the wrong guy. Don't feed the trolls. This means you too.
Are you a troll?
Are you a troll?
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 19 2012, 12:25 AM)
Are you going to be a dumba$$ too? Your stupid mistaken identity post implied Whitewolf was one. Now don't feed it or any other troll, silly dumba$$.
Let me repeat that very simple question: are you a troll?
Let me repeat that very simple question: are you a troll?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 19 2012, 04:54 AM)
Let me repeat that very simple question: are you a troll?
I think you are being warned by the moderator not to feed trolls. Simple stop it now.
I think you are being warned by the moderator not to feed trolls. Simple stop it now.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 18 2012, 11:44 PM)
As I understand it, the BBT has to have space come out of the BB, perhaps to be able to have the Inflationary Period (IP) happen, just so it can resolve the problem of what caused the elements to spread out so evenly throughout the universe. BUT, if space came out with the contents of the BB, what did it all come out into? Why, into the GV, of course.
For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space. The contents were only energy, without any discernible mass. Without mass, the equation Einstein borrowed from others, E=mc2, was not yet valid. The only pure energy we know of is electromagnetism, and magnetic fields do not seem to exist without mass, so I still cannot completely believe "pure" energy exists.
I agree with you that since energy cannot be destroyed, it can be transformed into motion or into mass. My model of the universe agrees with Gamow and Dirac that space is comprised of negative-mass particles and that the energy of the BB transforms them into their antiparticles and results in the release of two photons, creating the light of the universe.
You should read my essay about time and motion at www.nomathphysics.wordpress.com
hmm. I am just trying to say that i believe no explosion occurred. great void as we name it is just nothing-ness.NOT EVEN SPACE.
the contents of the particle didnt explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded.
it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space.
you can also say that,acc. to this, amount of space is directly propotional to increasing of universe.
Acc. to me, SPACE is a vacuum inside a definite dimension(volume).
I want to state that, before this expansion,there was not even any dimension,except for the on of the particle.
I am of the opinion that NO BIG BANG ( or as the name suggests,an explosion) occurred.there fits no meaning of its explosion because there was nothing outside the particle in which it would drain its contents into.not even space.if there was already space,as your saying-"For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space.",what is the use of accepting this theory?the space is already formed!!
the Birth Of Universe birth of not just energy or matter or space, it involves even the birth of dimensions. Dimension,or volume of existence forms universe.everything is contained inside the dimension of the universe.space is dimension WITHOUT ANY MASS, matter(energy)(photon) is dimension with mass. these two dimensions collectively form the universe.
For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space. The contents were only energy, without any discernible mass. Without mass, the equation Einstein borrowed from others, E=mc2, was not yet valid. The only pure energy we know of is electromagnetism, and magnetic fields do not seem to exist without mass, so I still cannot completely believe "pure" energy exists.
I agree with you that since energy cannot be destroyed, it can be transformed into motion or into mass. My model of the universe agrees with Gamow and Dirac that space is comprised of negative-mass particles and that the energy of the BB transforms them into their antiparticles and results in the release of two photons, creating the light of the universe.
You should read my essay about time and motion at www.nomathphysics.wordpress.com
hmm. I am just trying to say that i believe no explosion occurred. great void as we name it is just nothing-ness.NOT EVEN SPACE.
the contents of the particle didnt explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded.
it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space.
you can also say that,acc. to this, amount of space is directly propotional to increasing of universe.
Acc. to me, SPACE is a vacuum inside a definite dimension(volume).
I want to state that, before this expansion,there was not even any dimension,except for the on of the particle.
I am of the opinion that NO BIG BANG ( or as the name suggests,an explosion) occurred.there fits no meaning of its explosion because there was nothing outside the particle in which it would drain its contents into.not even space.if there was already space,as your saying-"For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space.",what is the use of accepting this theory?the space is already formed!!
the Birth Of Universe birth of not just energy or matter or space, it involves even the birth of dimensions. Dimension,or volume of existence forms universe.everything is contained inside the dimension of the universe.space is dimension WITHOUT ANY MASS, matter(energy)(photon) is dimension with mass. these two dimensions collectively form the universe.
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 19 2012, 09:00 AM)
hmm. I am just trying to say that i believe no explosion occurred. great void as we name it is just nothing-ness.NOT EVEN SPACE.
the contents of the particle didnt explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded.
it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space.
you can also say that,acc. to this, amount of space is directly propotional to increasing of universe.
Acc. to me, SPACE is a vacuum inside a definite dimension(volume).
I want to state that, before this expansion,there was not even any dimension,except for the on of the particle.
I am of the opinion that NO BIG BANG ( or as the name suggests,an explosion) occurred.there fits no meaning of its explosion because there was nothing outside the particle in which it would drain its contents into.not even space.if there was already space,as your saying-"For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space.",what is the use of accepting this theory?the space is already formed!!
the Birth Of Universe birth of not just energy or matter or space, it involves even the birth of dimensions. Dimension,or volume of existence forms universe.everything is contained inside the dimension of the universe.space is dimension WITHOUT ANY MASS, matter(energy)(photon) is dimension with mass. these two dimensions collectively form the universe.
This is what I have been saying.
It is hard to express a new idea around here without being trolled to death by the likes of FBM.
This is a quot by some one they supposedly respect.
Every thing is energy and that's all there is to it.
Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can't help but get that reality.
It can be no other way.
This is not philosophy.
This is Phisics.
A.E.
the contents of the particle didnt explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded.
it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space.
you can also say that,acc. to this, amount of space is directly propotional to increasing of universe.
Acc. to me, SPACE is a vacuum inside a definite dimension(volume).
I want to state that, before this expansion,there was not even any dimension,except for the on of the particle.
I am of the opinion that NO BIG BANG ( or as the name suggests,an explosion) occurred.there fits no meaning of its explosion because there was nothing outside the particle in which it would drain its contents into.not even space.if there was already space,as your saying-"For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space.",what is the use of accepting this theory?the space is already formed!!
the Birth Of Universe birth of not just energy or matter or space, it involves even the birth of dimensions. Dimension,or volume of existence forms universe.everything is contained inside the dimension of the universe.space is dimension WITHOUT ANY MASS, matter(energy)(photon) is dimension with mass. these two dimensions collectively form the universe.
This is what I have been saying.
It is hard to express a new idea around here without being trolled to death by the likes of FBM.
This is a quot by some one they supposedly respect.
Every thing is energy and that's all there is to it.
Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can't help but get that reality.
It can be no other way.
This is not philosophy.
This is Phisics.
A.E.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Jun 19 2012, 01:09 AM)
I think you are being warned by the moderator not to feed trolls. Simple stop it now.
That's not the moderator.
That's not the moderator.
QUOTE (Guest_Whitewolf+Jun 19 2012, 06:52 AM)
It is hard to express a new idea around here without being trolled to death by the likes of FBM.
You think your idea is new? There have been Big Bang deniers for just as long as there has been a Big Bang Theory, yet no-one has been able to come up with an idea that adequately explains the evidence.
You spew garbage and you expect to be praised and respected?
If you're going to quote Einstein, try to find something that he actually said.
Yes, that's a fake quote. Please try again.
You think your idea is new? There have been Big Bang deniers for just as long as there has been a Big Bang Theory, yet no-one has been able to come up with an idea that adequately explains the evidence.
You spew garbage and you expect to be praised and respected?
QUOTE
This is a quot by some one they supposedly respect.
Every thing is energy and that's all there is to it.
Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can't help but get that reality.
It can be no other way.
This is not philosophy.
This is Phisics.
A.E.
Every thing is energy and that's all there is to it.
Match the frequency of the reality you want and you can't help but get that reality.
It can be no other way.
This is not philosophy.
This is Phisics.
A.E.
If you're going to quote Einstein, try to find something that he actually said.
Yes, that's a fake quote. Please try again.
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 19 2012, 09:00 AM)
you can also say that,acc. to this, amount of space is directly propotional to increasing of universe.
Acc. to me, SPACE is a vacuum inside a definite dimension(volume).
I want to state that, before this expansion,there was not even any dimension,except for the on of the particle.
I am of the opinion that NO BIG BANG ( or as the name suggests,an explosion) occurred.there fits no meaning of its explosion because there was nothing outside the particle in which it would drain its contents into.not even space.if there was already space,as your saying-"For me, if the BB occurred, it emptied out its contents into Abs. space.",what is the use of accepting this theory?the space is already formed!!
the Birth Of Universe birth of not just energy or matter or space, it involves even the birth of dimensions. Dimension,or volume of existence forms universe.everything is contained inside the dimension of the universe.space is dimension WITHOUT ANY MASS, matter(energy)(photon) is dimension with mass. these two dimensions collectively form the universe.
"hmm. I am just trying to say that i believe no explosion occurred. great void as we name it is just nothing-ness.NOT EVEN SPACE."
You could be right, since we're all only guessing here. At this point of our evolutionary trip, we should be looking for ideas that do not preclude either scenario. The best reason today why the BBT is more accepted is the news that the universe (U.) is in an increasing rate of expansion. However, that does mean it could have started with a whimper, or, as someone else said, as a slow leak.
My model of the U. allows for either of both to have occurred, thus freeing us from conjecture as to which one was the start of the U.
"the contents of the particle didn't explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded."
That's good thinking because it provokes related questions: We generally accept it was energy that came out, presumably due to the compaction of something which was converted at some point into that energy. The conversion of mass into energy is possible, we now know, and the evidence of that is the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Such a conversion would necessarily involve an explosion, we should think. We seem to be saying then that if matter was compacted enough, a U. would be created from the total conversion of the mass into pure energy.
If there was no explosion, there is no evidence mass can be converted into energy without an explosive result, so we need to try to figure that out.
"it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space."
Now folks, at some time in our lives, even those of us who think highly of ourselves must admit there are some things our brains have not yet evolved to a point where we can imagine everything we can think about, right? I tried as hard as I could to imagine the Great Void, to no avail, however.
In the 1st place, no one can imagine infinity, and the GV must be infinite in its non-existence! 2nd, we have no language with which to properly describe such an idea. We can imagine there is such a thing, but we cannot imagine the thing itself! We cannot even imagine a million bucks one by one even though we know much more than that many exist! Last time I made this argument, some guy replied, of course he can imagine it! No one else made that claim, but I expect at least one claim to that effect here.
A GV is BS - pure 'n simple! Don't let Modern Physics con you!
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 19 2012, 09:44 PM)
"hmm. I am just trying to say that i believe no explosion occurred. great void as we name it is just nothing-ness.NOT EVEN SPACE."
You could be right, since we're all only guessing here. At this point of our evolutionary trip, we should be looking for ideas that do not preclude either scenario. The best reason today why the BBT is more accepted is the news that the universe (U.) is in an increasing rate of expansion. However, that does mean it could have started with a whimper, or, as someone else said, as a slow leak.
My model of the U. allows for either of both to have occurred, thus freeing us from conjecture as to which one was the start of the U.
"the contents of the particle didn't explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded."
That's good thinking because it provokes related questions: We generally accept it was energy that came out, presumably due to the compaction of something which was converted at some point into that energy. The conversion of mass into energy is possible, we now know, and the evidence of that is the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Such a conversion would necessarily involve an explosion, we should think. We seem to be saying then that if matter was compacted enough, a U. would be created from the total conversion of the mass into pure energy.
If there was no explosion, there is no evidence mass can be converted into energy without an explosive result, so we need to try to figure that out.
"it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space."
Now folks, at some time in our lives, even those of us who think highly of ourselves must admit there are some things our brains have not yet evolved to a point where we can imagine everything we can think about, right? I tried as hard as I could to imagine the Great Void, to no avail, however.
In the 1st place, no one can imagine infinity, and the GV must be infinite in its non-existence! 2nd, we have no language with which to properly describe such an idea. We can imagine there is such a thing, but we cannot imagine the thing itself! We cannot even imagine a million bucks one by one even though we know much more than that many exist! Last time I made this argument, some guy replied, of course he can imagine it! No one else made that claim, but I expect at least one claim to that effect here.
A GV is BS - pure 'n simple! Don't let Modern Physics con you!
mhm. thanks for helping me out in this.i've been thinking of this theory for like 3 years and i just felt it explained everything that happened or could have happened.just of the opinion that the universe exists today inside the continously expanding singularity itself.
But thanks for helping and giving me a better idea.respect you. maybe i can imagine more clearly after having a graduate degree,lol.
You could be right, since we're all only guessing here. At this point of our evolutionary trip, we should be looking for ideas that do not preclude either scenario. The best reason today why the BBT is more accepted is the news that the universe (U.) is in an increasing rate of expansion. However, that does mean it could have started with a whimper, or, as someone else said, as a slow leak.
My model of the U. allows for either of both to have occurred, thus freeing us from conjecture as to which one was the start of the U.
"the contents of the particle didn't explode.the particle just expanded.it expanded because there was nothing to stop it on the outside.Totally nothing.like the singularity='x' then 'x' + 0 ='x' , where 0 is nothingness.or void.the inside of the particle contained volume,however small.and that volume contained energy,in whatever form. so the volume of the particle was at a higher potential.the outside of the particle was at the least of the potential=0. so,the particle just expanded."
That's good thinking because it provokes related questions: We generally accept it was energy that came out, presumably due to the compaction of something which was converted at some point into that energy. The conversion of mass into energy is possible, we now know, and the evidence of that is the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Such a conversion would necessarily involve an explosion, we should think. We seem to be saying then that if matter was compacted enough, a U. would be created from the total conversion of the mass into pure energy.
If there was no explosion, there is no evidence mass can be converted into energy without an explosive result, so we need to try to figure that out.
"it expanded into nothingness,or void.since the energy inside that particle was limited,that energy occupied some volume.but since the particle was (and is) expanding, the volume inside it which was not occupied with the energy inside that expanding particle was called space."
Now folks, at some time in our lives, even those of us who think highly of ourselves must admit there are some things our brains have not yet evolved to a point where we can imagine everything we can think about, right? I tried as hard as I could to imagine the Great Void, to no avail, however.
In the 1st place, no one can imagine infinity, and the GV must be infinite in its non-existence! 2nd, we have no language with which to properly describe such an idea. We can imagine there is such a thing, but we cannot imagine the thing itself! We cannot even imagine a million bucks one by one even though we know much more than that many exist! Last time I made this argument, some guy replied, of course he can imagine it! No one else made that claim, but I expect at least one claim to that effect here.
A GV is BS - pure 'n simple! Don't let Modern Physics con you!
mhm. thanks for helping me out in this.i've been thinking of this theory for like 3 years and i just felt it explained everything that happened or could have happened.just of the opinion that the universe exists today inside the continously expanding singularity itself.
But thanks for helping and giving me a better idea.respect you. maybe i can imagine more clearly after having a graduate degree,lol.
QUOTE
Don't let Modern Physics con you!
That's right. Pay no attention to what physics tells you, just make up a bunch of bullshit and post it on a forum. You're an instant genius.
QUOTE (Guest_Whitewolf+Jun 19 2012, 06:57 PM)
"We all know that light travals faster than sound.
That's why certian people appear bright until you hear them speak."
Quote by
A.E.
I'm not sure that's a legit quote either. Do you have a source?
If you want to quote Einstein, perhaps start here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein
That's why certian people appear bright until you hear them speak."
Quote by
A.E.
I'm not sure that's a legit quote either. Do you have a source?
If you want to quote Einstein, perhaps start here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 20 2012, 11:56 PM)
Well is it a legit AE quote or isn't it?
It doesn't sound like Einstein to say "we all know that."
It doesn't sound like Einstein to say "we all know that."
The quote appears in many places attributed to AE.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 19 2012, 04:14 PM)
"hm no one can imagine infinity,
I don't think that is a true statement . I think we can imagine infinity . We have many expressions that conjure infinity like "Never ending" Eternal "
Rub until the hubs fall off . Oh yeah that ends when hubs fall off .
O.K. imagine never getting to die . Wa la . O.K. imagine you are five and it is a week before Christmas and you know for certain you are getting that bike you dreamed of having .
O.K. imagine you are sixteen and someone talks to about saving for your retirement .
I think humans are pretty good at imagining infinity . More than most creatures anyway .
I think procrastination is at the heart of human ability to imagine infinity .
Yeah Pretty good imagination
I don't think that is a true statement . I think we can imagine infinity . We have many expressions that conjure infinity like "Never ending" Eternal "
Rub until the hubs fall off . Oh yeah that ends when hubs fall off .
O.K. imagine never getting to die . Wa la . O.K. imagine you are five and it is a week before Christmas and you know for certain you are getting that bike you dreamed of having .
O.K. imagine you are sixteen and someone talks to about saving for your retirement .
I think humans are pretty good at imagining infinity . More than most creatures anyway .
I think procrastination is at the heart of human ability to imagine infinity .
Yeah Pretty good imagination
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 21 2012, 04:20 AM)
It doesn't sound like Einstein to say "we all know that."
Your absolutely right. He probibly said "Wir alle wissen,dass"
We should try to rember the A E was just a man.
Your absolutely right. He probibly said "Wir alle wissen,dass"
We should try to rember the A E was just a man.
QUOTE (Guest_Whitewolf+Jun 21 2012, 06:02 AM)
Your absolutely right. He probibly said "Wir alle wissen,dass"
Source?
"We?" You're the one attempting to quote him.
Source?
QUOTE
We should try to rember the A E was just a man.
"We?" You're the one attempting to quote him.
QUOTE (Guest_Whitewolf+Jun 21 2012, 08:24 AM)
By US law anindividual is innocent until proven guilty.
In other words I am correct until you prove otherwise.
I'm not accusing you of committing a crime. Legal due process does not apply to the rules of debate. By quoting someone, you are making an assertion of fact. It is not up to the critic to prove or disprove the veracity of that quote. I was not able to find a verifiable source for that quote, so I'm asking you for one. It's your responsibility to either produce reasonable proof that the quote is correct, or retract it as false. The burden of proof is on you.
Awwww, you didn't have to say that! You're too kind!
In other words I am correct until you prove otherwise.
I'm not accusing you of committing a crime. Legal due process does not apply to the rules of debate. By quoting someone, you are making an assertion of fact. It is not up to the critic to prove or disprove the veracity of that quote. I was not able to find a verifiable source for that quote, so I'm asking you for one. It's your responsibility to either produce reasonable proof that the quote is correct, or retract it as false. The burden of proof is on you.
QUOTE
You are the worst Troll of physforum.
Awwww, you didn't have to say that!
You're too kind!
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 21 2012, 06:19 AM)
I don't think that is a true statement . I think we can imagine infinity . We have many expressions that conjure infinity like "Never ending" Eternal "
Well, think about it a little deeper, Meckigal. Try to imagine the speed of light; you'll find that impossible too. Infinity is a math construct in Physics, just like space-time, and both are imaginary tools we use in several ways.
We can imagine infinity as meaning "...that without end.", but we cannot imagine aything without end unless it is in reference to a circular perimeter of something, as J. Wallis' symbol of infinity infers. Infinity refers to something that goes on forever, like time and distance, but since we know nothing in our universe can do that, it is thus an ideal concept like Absolute temperature. Can you also imagine that?
This would be a good research topic to debate here, i.e., The extent to which our minds can hold Absolutes.
Well, think about it a little deeper, Meckigal. Try to imagine the speed of light; you'll find that impossible too. Infinity is a math construct in Physics, just like space-time, and both are imaginary tools we use in several ways.
We can imagine infinity as meaning "...that without end.", but we cannot imagine aything without end unless it is in reference to a circular perimeter of something, as J. Wallis' symbol of infinity infers. Infinity refers to something that goes on forever, like time and distance, but since we know nothing in our universe can do that, it is thus an ideal concept like Absolute temperature. Can you also imagine that?
This would be a good research topic to debate here, i.e., The extent to which our minds can hold Absolutes.
Wow lol
are you guys professional physicists?like post graduates or philosophers? i feel like that and that makes me feel i'm stupid!
are you guys professional physicists?like post graduates or philosophers? i feel like that and that makes me feel i'm stupid!
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 22 2012, 03:41 AM)
Wow lol
are you guys professional physicists?like post graduates or philosophers? i feel like that and that makes me feel i'm stupid!
Myself, I am no more than "a fan of science" who can thnk objectively to discover alternative conclusions to the wild unconfirmable theories coming from
naked emperors, unfound or uncredited heroes' discoveries.
I am writing no-math Theoretical Physics essays for others like me who have the sense to know no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, even the Great Ones. E.g., one of my essays resolves A.E.'s contradiction that time and space have an interdependent relationship,and I show that is nonsense.
In another essay, I poke fun at those who are willing to fight to the death to defend the brainwashing that spacetime is a real place in the universe.
In my essay, "The Ether Found," I clearly explain why it wasn't found before, and plainly offer my alternative conclusion about where and what the ether is.
I cover every issue and paradox I can think of and offer what I thik are better explanations than what Modern Physics defend as the Absolute truth.
I promise my essays will - rather than make you feel stupid - will povide you with rational ideas based on logical argument and confirmed facts, and will arm you with ideas that make more sense than much of what is out there today.
Essay One is free and can be read here:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com/
I welcome any and all comments, pro and con.
are you guys professional physicists?like post graduates or philosophers? i feel like that and that makes me feel i'm stupid!
Myself, I am no more than "a fan of science" who can thnk objectively to discover alternative conclusions to the wild unconfirmable theories coming from
naked emperors, unfound or uncredited heroes' discoveries.
I am writing no-math Theoretical Physics essays for others like me who have the sense to know no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, even the Great Ones. E.g., one of my essays resolves A.E.'s contradiction that time and space have an interdependent relationship,and I show that is nonsense.
In another essay, I poke fun at those who are willing to fight to the death to defend the brainwashing that spacetime is a real place in the universe.
In my essay, "The Ether Found," I clearly explain why it wasn't found before, and plainly offer my alternative conclusion about where and what the ether is.
I cover every issue and paradox I can think of and offer what I thik are better explanations than what Modern Physics defend as the Absolute truth.
I promise my essays will - rather than make you feel stupid - will povide you with rational ideas based on logical argument and confirmed facts, and will arm you with ideas that make more sense than much of what is out there today.
Essay One is free and can be read here:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com/
I welcome any and all comments, pro and con.
Another large helping of word salad.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 23 2012, 04:22 PM)
Myself, I am no more than "a fan of science" who can thnk objectively to discover alternative conclusions to the wild unconfirmable theories coming from
naked emperors, unfound or uncredited heroes' discoveries.
I am writing no-math Theoretical Physics essays for others like me who have the sense to know no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, even the Great Ones. E.g., one of my essays resolves A.E.'s contradiction that time and space have an interdependent relationship,and I show that is nonsense.
In another essay, I poke fun at those who are willing to fight to the death to defend the brainwashing that spacetime is a real place in the universe.
In my essay, "The Ether Found," I clearly explain why it wasn't found before, and plainly offer my alternative conclusion about where and what the ether is.
I cover every issue and paradox I can think of and offer what I thik are better explanations than what Modern Physics defend as the Absolute truth.
I promise my essays will - rather than make you feel stupid - will povide you with rational ideas based on logical argument and confirmed facts, and will arm you with ideas that make more sense than much of what is out there today.
Essay One is free and can be read here:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com/
I welcome any and all comments, pro and con.
You're a crackpot blowhard making stupid claims about stuff you don't know much about.
Time and space are interdependent because they're both components of the same geometry. Your claim that Einstein made a mistake is nonsense. I'm not reading any essay written by somebody who makes such a stupid claim. The Gravity Probe B experiment measured the effect of local spacetime geometry on the experimental satellite. Meeting the prediction of GR to a very small error bar. So it is real. You know [mostly likely you don't ] they measured the geodetic effect. IE the effect of spacetime curvature on the natural path of the gyro experimental apparatus on board the Gravity Probe B satellite. You should round file any 'essay' that doesn't agree with the experimental results of Gravity Probe B. Proving a geometry wrong without using math? You're not really a fan of science, you're a fan of your own 'crankisms' which have nothing to do with reality. If you were a fan of physics you'd be learning some math so you can study physics instead of 'just saying somethings wrong' with 'something you don't understand'.
naked emperors, unfound or uncredited heroes' discoveries.
I am writing no-math Theoretical Physics essays for others like me who have the sense to know no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, even the Great Ones. E.g., one of my essays resolves A.E.'s contradiction that time and space have an interdependent relationship,and I show that is nonsense.
In another essay, I poke fun at those who are willing to fight to the death to defend the brainwashing that spacetime is a real place in the universe.
In my essay, "The Ether Found," I clearly explain why it wasn't found before, and plainly offer my alternative conclusion about where and what the ether is.
I cover every issue and paradox I can think of and offer what I thik are better explanations than what Modern Physics defend as the Absolute truth.
I promise my essays will - rather than make you feel stupid - will povide you with rational ideas based on logical argument and confirmed facts, and will arm you with ideas that make more sense than much of what is out there today.
Essay One is free and can be read here:
http://nomathphysics.wordpress.com/
I welcome any and all comments, pro and con.
You're a crackpot blowhard making stupid claims about stuff you don't know much about.
Time and space are interdependent because they're both components of the same geometry. Your claim that Einstein made a mistake is nonsense. I'm not reading any essay written by somebody who makes such a stupid claim. The Gravity Probe B experiment measured the effect of local spacetime geometry on the experimental satellite. Meeting the prediction of GR to a very small error bar. So it is real. You know [mostly likely you don't
] they measured the geodetic effect. IE the effect of spacetime curvature on the natural path of the gyro experimental apparatus on board the Gravity Probe B satellite. You should round file any 'essay' that doesn't agree with the experimental results of Gravity Probe B. Proving a geometry wrong without using math? You're not really a fan of science, you're a fan of your own 'crankisms' which have nothing to do with reality. If you were a fan of physics you'd be learning some math so you can study physics instead of 'just saying somethings wrong' with 'something you don't understand'.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 23 2012, 03:49 PM)
That line is getting very very old.
But it's so totally descriptive.
But it's so totally descriptive.
QUOTE
word salad /word sal·ad/ (werd sal´ad) a meaningless mixture of words and phrases
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 23 2012, 08:55 PM)
You're a crackpot blowhard making stupid claims about stuff you don't know much about.
Time and space are interdependent because they're both components of the same geometry. Your claim that Einstein made a mistake is nonsense. I'm not reading any essay written by somebody who makes such a stupid claim. The Gravity Probe B experiment measured the effect of local spacetime geometry on the experimental satellite. Meeting the prediction of GR to a very small error bar. So it is real. You know [mostly likely you don't ] they measured the geodetic effect. IE the effect of spacetime curvature on the natural path of the gyro experimental apparatus on board the Gravity Probe B satellite. You should round file any 'essay' that doesn't agree with the experimental results of Gravity Probe B. Proving a geometry wrong without using math? You're not really a fan of science, you're a fan of your own 'crankisms' which have nothing to do with reality. If you were a fan of physics you'd be learning some math so you can study physics instead of 'just saying somethings wrong' with 'something you don't understand'.
So you respond to Pavlov's bells exactly like his slavering dogs, eh? Think! - Who taught you to blindly lash back at critical thought that does not conform to what you have been forced to learn without being allowed to think for yourself?
This is supposed to be an open forum of new ideas to what exist today, which are nothing but new ideas proffered by not only naked emperors, but also by those trying very hard to make sense of what they're learning.
Okay. In your critical review of my post, you can make no arguments about what I said, so you sink to immature behavior, name-calling and claiming I know nothing of the topics I presented.
You argue time & space are interdependent because "they're both components of the same geometry." Are you saying geometry is a physical thing, like time & space? If so, that is untrue because while the latter are indeed physical realities, Geometry is a math construct just like the S-T continuum everyone believes A.E. swore it exists as a physical reality. Mathematical constructs, including those of Logic, exist in our minds and are not real physical things and places.
Unless you learn to tell the difference between what is real and what are ideas formed in our minds, you will be no more than fodder for those who do learn that.
It does not matter that both are what you say that prevents them from being independent, because what makes things dependent onto each other has nothing to do with Geometry. Interdependence, FYI, means one cannot exist without the other. In S-T, that is correct. If you can find where A.E. said that is also true as a physical reality, that would make him wrong.
Why? Well, time has nothing to do with space because it is a property of visible objects and accrues to them inversely proportional to an object's speed.
OTOH, space does not need time to exist as space. In fact, time does not accrue to space at all, since space is not visible objects.
A.E. devised a constant in support of his idea that the U. was static, but when that was found not 2 b true, He said that was his "...biggest blunder." Hey we all make errors, if we're human, and I bet A.E. would not want you to say he did not. By his own words, my claim was not stupid, but guess what that makes yours? Yes, I know your teacher said he may have been right after all, and maybe he was.
My ideas do not conflict with any other confirmed ideas, and I did not say anything that does not agree with the results of GPB. I am not saying something is wrong about somethng I don't understand. It's obvious this is something you don't understand. I learned some math, now I have to fight hard against people who can't understand anything that hasn't been drummed, tattooed, and stapled to their foreheads.
Time and space are interdependent because they're both components of the same geometry. Your claim that Einstein made a mistake is nonsense. I'm not reading any essay written by somebody who makes such a stupid claim. The Gravity Probe B experiment measured the effect of local spacetime geometry on the experimental satellite. Meeting the prediction of GR to a very small error bar. So it is real. You know [mostly likely you don't
] they measured the geodetic effect. IE the effect of spacetime curvature on the natural path of the gyro experimental apparatus on board the Gravity Probe B satellite. You should round file any 'essay' that doesn't agree with the experimental results of Gravity Probe B. Proving a geometry wrong without using math? You're not really a fan of science, you're a fan of your own 'crankisms' which have nothing to do with reality. If you were a fan of physics you'd be learning some math so you can study physics instead of 'just saying somethings wrong' with 'something you don't understand'. So you respond to Pavlov's bells exactly like his slavering dogs, eh? Think! - Who taught you to blindly lash back at critical thought that does not conform to what you have been forced to learn without being allowed to think for yourself?
This is supposed to be an open forum of new ideas to what exist today, which are nothing but new ideas proffered by not only naked emperors, but also by those trying very hard to make sense of what they're learning.
Okay. In your critical review of my post, you can make no arguments about what I said, so you sink to immature behavior, name-calling and claiming I know nothing of the topics I presented.
You argue time & space are interdependent because "they're both components of the same geometry." Are you saying geometry is a physical thing, like time & space? If so, that is untrue because while the latter are indeed physical realities, Geometry is a math construct just like the S-T continuum everyone believes A.E. swore it exists as a physical reality. Mathematical constructs, including those of Logic, exist in our minds and are not real physical things and places.
Unless you learn to tell the difference between what is real and what are ideas formed in our minds, you will be no more than fodder for those who do learn that.
It does not matter that both are what you say that prevents them from being independent, because what makes things dependent onto each other has nothing to do with Geometry. Interdependence, FYI, means one cannot exist without the other. In S-T, that is correct. If you can find where A.E. said that is also true as a physical reality, that would make him wrong.
Why? Well, time has nothing to do with space because it is a property of visible objects and accrues to them inversely proportional to an object's speed.
OTOH, space does not need time to exist as space. In fact, time does not accrue to space at all, since space is not visible objects.
A.E. devised a constant in support of his idea that the U. was static, but when that was found not 2 b true, He said that was his "...biggest blunder." Hey we all make errors, if we're human, and I bet A.E. would not want you to say he did not. By his own words, my claim was not stupid, but guess what that makes yours? Yes, I know your teacher said he may have been right after all, and maybe he was.
My ideas do not conflict with any other confirmed ideas, and I did not say anything that does not agree with the results of GPB. I am not saying something is wrong about somethng I don't understand. It's obvious this is something you don't understand. I learned some math, now I have to fight hard against people who can't understand anything that hasn't been drummed, tattooed, and stapled to their foreheads.
You start out posting by saying you know nothing of physics, and then go on to prove yourself correct.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 24 2012, 12:01 AM)
You start out posting by saying you know nothing of physics, and then go on to prove yourself correct.
Who you talking to? Who said they know nothing about physics?
Who you talking to? Who said they know nothing about physics?
This is just another crank with his head up his as$.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 24 2012, 02:33 AM)
This is just another crank with his head up his as$.
Which of my ideas or comments makes you respond like an uncouth child? You have yet to say anything worth the space you've taken up.
Can't you think of any logical rebuttals to my posts in reference to the many feasible alternative conclusions I've made based on the facts? Or perhaps you're braindead and can no longer think on your own?
Which of my ideas or comments makes you respond like an uncouth child? You have yet to say anything worth the space you've taken up.
Can't you think of any logical rebuttals to my posts in reference to the many feasible alternative conclusions I've made based on the facts? Or perhaps you're braindead and can no longer think on your own?
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 24 2012, 03:40 AM)
Which of my ideas or comments makes you respond like an uncouth child? You have yet to say anything worth the space you've taken up.
Can't you think of any logical rebuttals to my posts in reference to the many feasible alternative conclusions I've made based on the facts? Or perhaps you're braindead and can no longer think on your own?
All I can think of is to keep reporting AlexG to the moderator and hope he gets warned off the site.
Can't you think of any logical rebuttals to my posts in reference to the many feasible alternative conclusions I've made based on the facts? Or perhaps you're braindead and can no longer think on your own?
All I can think of is to keep reporting AlexG to the moderator and hope he gets warned off the site.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Jun 24 2012, 05:35 AM)
All I can think of is to keep reporting AlexG to the moderator and hope he gets warned off the site.
Oh, great idea, thanks.
Oh, great idea, thanks.
sonoran sundown,
Your linked essay is pure garbage, an here's why.
You admit to only a "layman’s whetted interest in science", which explains your obvious lack of facility with the subject. You say, "many scientists today avow their job is to find the “how” of things through empirical research and to leave the question of “why” to the philosophers" without any apparent understanding that Relativity is a model of how, not a direct answer of why. Nothing in Relativity precludes time and space being intrinsic properties of objects, but as such, both are equally dependent on those objects.
You go on to argue that relative time rates are proportional to motion, just as SR states, but then deny GR without bothering to generalize your argument to include gravity (the equivalence principle). You also claim that Einstein didn't apply his theory to objects, simply because you take "observer" to mean "person" and completely avoid Einstein's term "frame of reference" which is all about the objects.
You have no clue as to what a vacuum "fluctuation" is, nor how entropy works to "age the entire universe", and all only out of naive incredulity, i.e. "For human beings, though, it is just too difficult to successfully imagine".
You've also directly contradicted yourself, "time is independent of space because, while time needs space in order to have objects in it that have the property of time, space does not need time in order to exist in the universe". Time can't be independent if it "needs space", and you don't make any argument about the independence of space other than a bald assertion.
How's that for a critique? While no one else bothered to justify it, their conclusion that you are a misinformed crank is very valid.
Your linked essay is pure garbage, an here's why.
You admit to only a "layman’s whetted interest in science", which explains your obvious lack of facility with the subject. You say, "many scientists today avow their job is to find the “how” of things through empirical research and to leave the question of “why” to the philosophers" without any apparent understanding that Relativity is a model of how, not a direct answer of why. Nothing in Relativity precludes time and space being intrinsic properties of objects, but as such, both are equally dependent on those objects.
You go on to argue that relative time rates are proportional to motion, just as SR states, but then deny GR without bothering to generalize your argument to include gravity (the equivalence principle). You also claim that Einstein didn't apply his theory to objects, simply because you take "observer" to mean "person" and completely avoid Einstein's term "frame of reference" which is all about the objects.
You have no clue as to what a vacuum "fluctuation" is, nor how entropy works to "age the entire universe", and all only out of naive incredulity, i.e. "For human beings, though, it is just too difficult to successfully imagine".
You've also directly contradicted yourself, "time is independent of space because, while time needs space in order to have objects in it that have the property of time, space does not need time in order to exist in the universe". Time can't be independent if it "needs space", and you don't make any argument about the independence of space other than a bald assertion.
How's that for a critique? While no one else bothered to justify it, their conclusion that you are a misinformed crank is very valid.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 24 2012, 07:34 PM)
sonoran sundown,
Your linked essay is pure garbage, an here's why.
How's that for a critique? While no one else bothered to justify it, their conclusion that you are a misinformed crank is very valid.
I think yours is a wonderful critique and I sincerely thank you for it! Parts of your post are hard to understand, though, but I will try my best.
You claim I lack "facility" with respect to this subject. Even if that were true, why do you think that's germaine to the subject? If you are saying I should explain myself better, I agree. I have rewritten my works so many times just to try to get some decent response from others, including 2 I know are physicists. Your response shows I have improved a lot to this point. My only defense is twofold. One, these are difficult topics and even more difficult issues. I believe some blame must be shared with those who refuse to even consider new idea, while swearing to high heaven they are open to logical proposals and rational thought. I think our schools have so brainwashed our children that such a respnse to new ideas is commonplace now.
The argument of knowing the how of things without knowing the why of them is the same as knowing only the effects of nature without knowing their cause, yet I have been told more than once that science is only concerned with the of things and their why. That always has made me think, "How stupid that would be," and so I never once agreed with it. Ours is a cause and effect universe; thus all research always seeks to explain the cause of any and all observed effects. You say the SRT is only the how part of things, but I cannot agree.
Relativity is a response to observed effects, and A.E. worked to find their causes, and was very successful in that. You said tme & space are properties of objects and are thus dependent on objects. That is incorrect. Time is a property of visible objects which exist in space; thus time is dependent objects, as I have said before, but space is not dependent on objects. You have it backwards, space exists where no objects are present, but objects depend on space for a place to exist.You did not read that right.
You are incorrect in saying I deny GRT. Reread that part and see that I think gravity plays a part in it as the effect, while tme dilation is better explained by the speed differences between objects used in the experiment, and not by time being susceptible to gravitation. I don't know where you got the idea I said A.E. did not apply either theory to objects. In fact, it is my understanding he said objects are only relevant with respect to each other, or words to that effect. I show later he was wrong about that too.
As for "observers", friend, s/he must be a person in order to observe, regardles of his/her frame of reference.
So-called vacumn "fluctuations" are what everyone has bought into as that which cause antiparticles to appear in space just before annihilating with their "antiparticle." Now you know, right? You don't know also that entropy occurs as discrete systems and thus cannot work to "age the whole universe" as you believe.
You need to reread sme parts you apparently missed or misunderstood because I see no contradiction about my separating time and space from each other. You are the one who makes no logical arguments against whichever "bald assertion" you claim I made.
Your linked essay is pure garbage, an here's why.
How's that for a critique? While no one else bothered to justify it, their conclusion that you are a misinformed crank is very valid.
I think yours is a wonderful critique and I sincerely thank you for it! Parts of your post are hard to understand, though, but I will try my best.
You claim I lack "facility" with respect to this subject. Even if that were true, why do you think that's germaine to the subject? If you are saying I should explain myself better, I agree. I have rewritten my works so many times just to try to get some decent response from others, including 2 I know are physicists. Your response shows I have improved a lot to this point. My only defense is twofold. One, these are difficult topics and even more difficult issues. I believe some blame must be shared with those who refuse to even consider new idea, while swearing to high heaven they are open to logical proposals and rational thought. I think our schools have so brainwashed our children that such a respnse to new ideas is commonplace now.
The argument of knowing the how of things without knowing the why of them is the same as knowing only the effects of nature without knowing their cause, yet I have been told more than once that science is only concerned with the of things and their why. That always has made me think, "How stupid that would be," and so I never once agreed with it. Ours is a cause and effect universe; thus all research always seeks to explain the cause of any and all observed effects. You say the SRT is only the how part of things, but I cannot agree.
Relativity is a response to observed effects, and A.E. worked to find their causes, and was very successful in that. You said tme & space are properties of objects and are thus dependent on objects. That is incorrect. Time is a property of visible objects which exist in space; thus time is dependent objects, as I have said before, but space is not dependent on objects. You have it backwards, space exists where no objects are present, but objects depend on space for a place to exist.You did not read that right.
You are incorrect in saying I deny GRT. Reread that part and see that I think gravity plays a part in it as the effect, while tme dilation is better explained by the speed differences between objects used in the experiment, and not by time being susceptible to gravitation. I don't know where you got the idea I said A.E. did not apply either theory to objects. In fact, it is my understanding he said objects are only relevant with respect to each other, or words to that effect. I show later he was wrong about that too.
As for "observers", friend, s/he must be a person in order to observe, regardles of his/her frame of reference.
So-called vacumn "fluctuations" are what everyone has bought into as that which cause antiparticles to appear in space just before annihilating with their "antiparticle." Now you know, right? You don't know also that entropy occurs as discrete systems and thus cannot work to "age the whole universe" as you believe.
You need to reread sme parts you apparently missed or misunderstood because I see no contradiction about my separating time and space from each other. You are the one who makes no logical arguments against whichever "bald assertion" you claim I made.
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jun 24 2012, 09:07 PM)
Hi synthsin75.
I bolded a couple of bits in your above post....
Thank you, sir/madam, whichever the case. Very decent of you indeed.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 24 2012, 04:24 PM)
I think yours is a wonderful critique and I sincerely thank you for it! Parts of your post are hard to understand, though, but I will try my best.
You claim I lack "facility" with respect to this subject. Even if that were true, why do you think that's germaine to the subject? If you are saying I should explain myself better, I agree. I have rewritten my works so many times just to try to get some decent response from others, including 2 I know are physicists. Your response shows I have improved a lot to this point. My only defense is twofold. One, these are difficult topics and even more difficult issues. I believe some blame must be shared with those who refuse to even consider new idea, while swearing to high heaven they are open to logical proposals and rational thought. I think our schools have so brainwashed our children that such a respnse to new ideas is commonplace now.
The argument of knowing the how of things without knowing the why of them is the same as knowing only the effects of nature without knowing their cause, yet I have been told more than once that science is only concerned with the of things and their why. That always has made me think, "How stupid that would be," and so I never once agreed with it. Ours is a cause and effect universe; thus all research always seeks to explain the cause of any and all observed effects. You say the SRT is only the how part of things, but I cannot agree.
Relativity is a response to observed effects, and A.E. worked to find their causes, and was very successful in that. You said tme & space are properties of objects and are thus dependent on objects. That is incorrect. Time is a property of visible objects which exist in space; thus time is dependent objects, as I have said before, but space is not dependent on objects. You have it backwards, space exists where no objects are present, but objects depend on space for a place to exist.You did not read that right.
You are incorrect in saying I deny GRT. Reread that part and see that I think gravity plays a part in it as the effect, while tme dilation is better explained by the speed differences between objects used in the experiment, and not by time being susceptible to gravitation. I don't know where you got the idea I said A.E. did not apply either theory to objects. In fact, it is my understanding he said objects are only relevant with respect to each other, or words to that effect. I show later he was wrong about that too.
As for "observers", friend, s/he must be a person in order to observe, regardles of his/her frame of reference.
So-called vacumn "fluctuations" are what everyone has bought into as that which cause antiparticles to appear in space just before annihilating with their "antiparticle." Now you know, right? You don't know also that entropy occurs as discrete systems and thus cannot work to "age the whole universe" as you believe.
You need to reread sme parts you apparently missed or misunderstood because I see no contradiction about my separating time and space from each other. You are the one who makes no logical arguments against whichever "bald assertion" you claim I made.
Your lack of facility with the subject is germane to the fact that your essay has many facts wrong, with only your naive incredulity to support your assertions. This is common among those who have not taken the time to actually learn a subject before critiquing it. This simply speaks to the overall quality of the entire essay.
I am not saying that you merely lack clarity but that you are completely wrong. My response was only to show you where your posts are deserving of the negative responses you had already received.
If you find these topics difficult then that is most likely a clear indication that you do not know them well enough to criticize them at all. New ideas are fine, but new ideas that refute tested and verified physics without any tests of their own are trash. Logic and credulity do not trump physical evidence. Blaming such responses to ill-formed ideas contrary to known science is stereotypical of self-deluded cranks (such as the one trying to support you here, who is simply feeding your self-delusion in the hopes of your gratitude feeding his own).
Newton ushered in the scientific era with a theory of HOW gravity worked, without any clue as to why or by what mechanism. Physics does not make wild guesses in lieu of physical evidence. Your disagreement is immaterial when you are not fully cognizant of the subject.
It is only an a priori presumption that space may exist devoid of objects. Without at least two objects a space cannot be defined and it meaningless.
And the rest of your nonsense is simple proof that others were right to not waste the time to critique you at all. You are uneducated, deluded, and stubborn about it. There's no cure for that.
You claim I lack "facility" with respect to this subject. Even if that were true, why do you think that's germaine to the subject? If you are saying I should explain myself better, I agree. I have rewritten my works so many times just to try to get some decent response from others, including 2 I know are physicists. Your response shows I have improved a lot to this point. My only defense is twofold. One, these are difficult topics and even more difficult issues. I believe some blame must be shared with those who refuse to even consider new idea, while swearing to high heaven they are open to logical proposals and rational thought. I think our schools have so brainwashed our children that such a respnse to new ideas is commonplace now.
The argument of knowing the how of things without knowing the why of them is the same as knowing only the effects of nature without knowing their cause, yet I have been told more than once that science is only concerned with the of things and their why. That always has made me think, "How stupid that would be," and so I never once agreed with it. Ours is a cause and effect universe; thus all research always seeks to explain the cause of any and all observed effects. You say the SRT is only the how part of things, but I cannot agree.
Relativity is a response to observed effects, and A.E. worked to find their causes, and was very successful in that. You said tme & space are properties of objects and are thus dependent on objects. That is incorrect. Time is a property of visible objects which exist in space; thus time is dependent objects, as I have said before, but space is not dependent on objects. You have it backwards, space exists where no objects are present, but objects depend on space for a place to exist.You did not read that right.
You are incorrect in saying I deny GRT. Reread that part and see that I think gravity plays a part in it as the effect, while tme dilation is better explained by the speed differences between objects used in the experiment, and not by time being susceptible to gravitation. I don't know where you got the idea I said A.E. did not apply either theory to objects. In fact, it is my understanding he said objects are only relevant with respect to each other, or words to that effect. I show later he was wrong about that too.
As for "observers", friend, s/he must be a person in order to observe, regardles of his/her frame of reference.
So-called vacumn "fluctuations" are what everyone has bought into as that which cause antiparticles to appear in space just before annihilating with their "antiparticle." Now you know, right? You don't know also that entropy occurs as discrete systems and thus cannot work to "age the whole universe" as you believe.
You need to reread sme parts you apparently missed or misunderstood because I see no contradiction about my separating time and space from each other. You are the one who makes no logical arguments against whichever "bald assertion" you claim I made.
Your lack of facility with the subject is germane to the fact that your essay has many facts wrong, with only your naive incredulity to support your assertions. This is common among those who have not taken the time to actually learn a subject before critiquing it. This simply speaks to the overall quality of the entire essay.
I am not saying that you merely lack clarity but that you are completely wrong. My response was only to show you where your posts are deserving of the negative responses you had already received.
If you find these topics difficult then that is most likely a clear indication that you do not know them well enough to criticize them at all. New ideas are fine, but new ideas that refute tested and verified physics without any tests of their own are trash. Logic and credulity do not trump physical evidence. Blaming such responses to ill-formed ideas contrary to known science is stereotypical of self-deluded cranks (such as the one trying to support you here, who is simply feeding your self-delusion in the hopes of your gratitude feeding his own).
Newton ushered in the scientific era with a theory of HOW gravity worked, without any clue as to why or by what mechanism. Physics does not make wild guesses in lieu of physical evidence. Your disagreement is immaterial when you are not fully cognizant of the subject.
It is only an a priori presumption that space may exist devoid of objects. Without at least two objects a space cannot be defined and it meaningless.
And the rest of your nonsense is simple proof that others were right to not waste the time to critique you at all. You are uneducated, deluded, and stubborn about it. There's no cure for that.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 25 2012, 02:21 AM)
Your lack of facility with the subject is germane to the fact that your essay has many facts wrong, with only your naive incredulity to support your assertions. This is common among those who have not taken the time to actually learn a subject before critiquing it. This simply speaks to the overall quality of the entire essay.
I am not saying that you merely lack clarity but that you are completely wrong. My response was only to show you where your posts are deserving of the negative responses you had already received.
If you find these topics difficult then that is most likely a clear indication that you do not know them well enough to criticize them at all. New ideas are fine, but new ideas that refute tested and verified physics without any tests of their own are trash. Logic and credulity do not trump physical evidence. Blaming such responses to ill-formed ideas contrary to known science is stereotypical of self-deluded cranks (such as the one trying to support you here, who is simply feeding your self-delusion in the hopes of your gratitude feeding his own).
Newton ushered in the scientific era with a theory of HOW gravity worked, without any clue as to why or by what mechanism. Physics does not make wild guesses in lieu of physical evidence. Your disagreement is immaterial when you are not fully cognizant of the subject.
It is only an a priori presumption that space may exist devoid of objects. Without at least two objects a space cannot be defined and it meaningless.
And the rest of your nonsense is simple proof that others were right to not waste the time to critique you at all. You are uneducated, deluded, and stubborn about it. There's no cure for that.
Instead of acting so mysterious about what you meant, you could have said what you meant in the 1st place. I really can't read your mind, you know.
Now that we know what you meant, let's start again by you writing down all those things you say I'm wrong about, and beside each one, write what you deem to be the facts and cite your sources. Since you claim to be so smart, surely you can back up your claims, right?
As for how long I've been learning this stuff, I began in my 3rd year in college and that would have been in 1973. Then I wrote my first essay in 1996. That's still not long enough for you? Oh, that's just tooo bad, isn't it? In fact, your inability to say what you mean without going around the block with it shows you lack some time learning a subject before you can know how to critique it. That simply speaks to the emptiness of facts in your counter arguments which you left out of your entire "critique."
I am not just saying you forgot to make any specific rebuttals to what you think I am wrong about, but also that you are completely wrong. In point of fact, you response is so unspecific as to show you don't know the subject well enough to understand what I'm saying about it. I do want to tell you not to worry about the negative responses to my ideas because they will be around long after we're gone and for as long as it takes for science to get its s--t together.
The rest of your post is simply nonsense, unless you are a psychiatrist, and if you are, why are you trolling here?
Now c'mon & give me specifics about what you don't like, and I will be glad to help you believe!
I am not saying that you merely lack clarity but that you are completely wrong. My response was only to show you where your posts are deserving of the negative responses you had already received.
If you find these topics difficult then that is most likely a clear indication that you do not know them well enough to criticize them at all. New ideas are fine, but new ideas that refute tested and verified physics without any tests of their own are trash. Logic and credulity do not trump physical evidence. Blaming such responses to ill-formed ideas contrary to known science is stereotypical of self-deluded cranks (such as the one trying to support you here, who is simply feeding your self-delusion in the hopes of your gratitude feeding his own).
Newton ushered in the scientific era with a theory of HOW gravity worked, without any clue as to why or by what mechanism. Physics does not make wild guesses in lieu of physical evidence. Your disagreement is immaterial when you are not fully cognizant of the subject.
It is only an a priori presumption that space may exist devoid of objects. Without at least two objects a space cannot be defined and it meaningless.
And the rest of your nonsense is simple proof that others were right to not waste the time to critique you at all. You are uneducated, deluded, and stubborn about it. There's no cure for that.
Instead of acting so mysterious about what you meant, you could have said what you meant in the 1st place. I really can't read your mind, you know.
Now that we know what you meant, let's start again by you writing down all those things you say I'm wrong about, and beside each one, write what you deem to be the facts and cite your sources. Since you claim to be so smart, surely you can back up your claims, right?
As for how long I've been learning this stuff, I began in my 3rd year in college and that would have been in 1973. Then I wrote my first essay in 1996. That's still not long enough for you? Oh, that's just tooo bad, isn't it? In fact, your inability to say what you mean without going around the block with it shows you lack some time learning a subject before you can know how to critique it. That simply speaks to the emptiness of facts in your counter arguments which you left out of your entire "critique."
I am not just saying you forgot to make any specific rebuttals to what you think I am wrong about, but also that you are completely wrong. In point of fact, you response is so unspecific as to show you don't know the subject well enough to understand what I'm saying about it. I do want to tell you not to worry about the negative responses to my ideas because they will be around long after we're gone and for as long as it takes for science to get its s--t together.
The rest of your post is simply nonsense, unless you are a psychiatrist, and if you are, why are you trolling here?
Now c'mon & give me specifics about what you don't like, and I will be glad to help you believe!
blehhh, isn't this forum a site to discuss topics in physics? no one is A.E. here. not me not sonoran not alexG . please quit fighting like some english chics here commenting on a reply being some stupid salad or curry .use facebook for that. comment about their idea.and please state your idea.aight?
i joined this forum to broaden my knowledge about beginning of universe , to know what is time, how does space and time relate and other topics. we arent great proffessors. or else we would have been cambridge lecturers having some fancy comets and moons named after us. some of you talk so interestingly. like sonoran sundown and whitewolf and synthsin75 i dont know if they are wrong but they have interest in it. some of you just talk bullcrap trying to prove a guy's a troll or someones stupid,like you are some megamind advanced seniormost scientist and hae a god-like knowledge about everything.how many of you really have any idea how according to you the universe was formed?by some fancy salad? this site isnt about being wrong.the person who is right can always correct it.its like a disgrace to physics to use such a nice way to discuss physics just to find trolls.suckks. if you're intellegent, talk that we respect your intellegence. please stop having "pillowfights" here.
i joined this forum to broaden my knowledge about beginning of universe , to know what is time, how does space and time relate and other topics. we arent great proffessors. or else we would have been cambridge lecturers having some fancy comets and moons named after us. some of you talk so interestingly. like sonoran sundown and whitewolf and synthsin75 i dont know if they are wrong but they have interest in it. some of you just talk bullcrap trying to prove a guy's a troll or someones stupid,like you are some megamind advanced seniormost scientist and hae a god-like knowledge about everything.how many of you really have any idea how according to you the universe was formed?by some fancy salad? this site isnt about being wrong.the person who is right can always correct it.its like a disgrace to physics to use such a nice way to discuss physics just to find trolls.suckks. if you're intellegent, talk that we respect your intellegence. please stop having "pillowfights" here.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 23 2012, 10:51 PM)
So you respond to Pavlov's bells exactly like his slavering dogs, eh? Think! - Who taught you to blindly lash back at critical thought that does not conform to what you have been forced to learn without being allowed to think for yourself?
This is supposed to be an open forum of new ideas to what exist today, which are nothing but new ideas proffered by not only naked emperors, but also by those trying very hard to make sense of what they're learning.
Okay. In your critical review of my post, you can make no arguments about what I said, so you sink to immature behavior, name-calling and claiming I know nothing of the topics I presented.
You argue time & space are interdependent because "they're both components of the same geometry." Are you saying geometry is a physical thing, like time & space? If so, that is untrue because while the latter are indeed physical realities, Geometry is a math construct just like the S-T continuum everyone believes A.E. swore it exists as a physical reality. Mathematical constructs, including those of Logic, exist in our minds and are not real physical things and places.
Unless you learn to tell the difference between what is real and what are ideas formed in our minds, you will be no more than fodder for those who do learn that.
It does not matter that both are what you say that prevents them from being independent, because what makes things dependent onto each other has nothing to do with Geometry. Interdependence, FYI, means one cannot exist without the other. In S-T, that is correct. If you can find where A.E. said that is also true as a physical reality, that would make him wrong.
Why? Well, time has nothing to do with space because it is a property of visible objects and accrues to them inversely proportional to an object's speed.
OTOH, space does not need time to exist as space. In fact, time does not accrue to space at all, since space is not visible objects.
A.E. devised a constant in support of his idea that the U. was static, but when that was found not 2 b true, He said that was his "...biggest blunder." Hey we all make errors, if we're human, and I bet A.E. would not want you to say he did not. By his own words, my claim was not stupid, but guess what that makes yours? Yes, I know your teacher said he may have been right after all, and maybe he was.
My ideas do not conflict with any other confirmed ideas, and I did not say anything that does not agree with the results of GPB. I am not saying something is wrong about somethng I don't understand. It's obvious this is something you don't understand. I learned some math, now I have to fight hard against people who can't understand anything that hasn't been drummed, tattooed, and stapled to their foreheads.
Everything you talk about is at the bullshit level. You can't find empirical evidence [outside the solid bone area between your ears] for anything you've claimed. Trying to sell your bullshit on this site is comical. You hope the crackpot contingent will spend real money for nonsense bullshit.
This is supposed to be an open forum of new ideas to what exist today, which are nothing but new ideas proffered by not only naked emperors, but also by those trying very hard to make sense of what they're learning.
Okay. In your critical review of my post, you can make no arguments about what I said, so you sink to immature behavior, name-calling and claiming I know nothing of the topics I presented.
You argue time & space are interdependent because "they're both components of the same geometry." Are you saying geometry is a physical thing, like time & space? If so, that is untrue because while the latter are indeed physical realities, Geometry is a math construct just like the S-T continuum everyone believes A.E. swore it exists as a physical reality. Mathematical constructs, including those of Logic, exist in our minds and are not real physical things and places.
Unless you learn to tell the difference between what is real and what are ideas formed in our minds, you will be no more than fodder for those who do learn that.
It does not matter that both are what you say that prevents them from being independent, because what makes things dependent onto each other has nothing to do with Geometry. Interdependence, FYI, means one cannot exist without the other. In S-T, that is correct. If you can find where A.E. said that is also true as a physical reality, that would make him wrong.
Why? Well, time has nothing to do with space because it is a property of visible objects and accrues to them inversely proportional to an object's speed.
OTOH, space does not need time to exist as space. In fact, time does not accrue to space at all, since space is not visible objects.
A.E. devised a constant in support of his idea that the U. was static, but when that was found not 2 b true, He said that was his "...biggest blunder." Hey we all make errors, if we're human, and I bet A.E. would not want you to say he did not. By his own words, my claim was not stupid, but guess what that makes yours? Yes, I know your teacher said he may have been right after all, and maybe he was.
My ideas do not conflict with any other confirmed ideas, and I did not say anything that does not agree with the results of GPB. I am not saying something is wrong about somethng I don't understand. It's obvious this is something you don't understand. I learned some math, now I have to fight hard against people who can't understand anything that hasn't been drummed, tattooed, and stapled to their foreheads.
Everything you talk about is at the bullshit level. You can't find empirical evidence [outside the solid bone area between your ears] for anything you've claimed. Trying to sell your bullshit on this site is comical. You hope the crackpot contingent will spend real money for nonsense bullshit.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 25 2012, 06:17 PM)
Everything you talk about is at the bullshit level. You can't find empirical evidence [outside the solid bone area between your ears] for anything you've claimed. Trying to sell your bullshit on this site is comical. You hope the crackpot contingent will spend real money for nonsense bullshit.
Brucep, I will be glad to refer you to any empirical evidence you so much desire. But I don't think you can come up with a single request since you failed to name one in your harangue.
Which part of my essay do you disagree with? I am not sure you can, since you did not do it the 1st time. C'mon, pick any issue which you cannot agree with my position. If all you can voice are generalities,that won't do.
Otherwise, I'll have to report you to the troll police.
Brucep, I will be glad to refer you to any empirical evidence you so much desire. But I don't think you can come up with a single request since you failed to name one in your harangue.
Which part of my essay do you disagree with? I am not sure you can, since you did not do it the 1st time. C'mon, pick any issue which you cannot agree with my position. If all you can voice are generalities,that won't do.
Otherwise, I'll have to report you to the troll police.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 24 2012, 10:38 PM)
Instead of acting so mysterious about what you meant, you could have said what you meant in the 1st place. I really can't read your mind, you know.
Now that we know what you meant, let's start again by you writing down all those things you say I'm wrong about, and beside each one, write what you deem to be the facts and cite your sources. Since you claim to be so smart, surely you can back up your claims, right?
As for how long I've been learning this stuff, I began in my 3rd year in college and that would have been in 1973. Then I wrote my first essay in 1996. That's still not long enough for you? Oh, that's just tooo bad, isn't it? In fact, your inability to say what you mean without going around the block with it shows you lack some time learning a subject before you can know how to critique it. That simply speaks to the emptiness of facts in your counter arguments which you left out of your entire "critique."
I am not just saying you forgot to make any specific rebuttals to what you think I am wrong about, but also that you are completely wrong. In point of fact, you response is so unspecific as to show you don't know the subject well enough to understand what I'm saying about it. I do want to tell you not to worry about the negative responses to my ideas because they will be around long after we're gone and for as long as it takes for science to get its s--t together.
The rest of your post is simply nonsense, unless you are a psychiatrist, and if you are, why are you trolling here?
Now c'mon & give me specifics about what you don't like, and I will be glad to help you believe!
How is opening with "Your linked essay is pure garbage" in any way mysterious? No mind reading necessary to figure out that I thought it was nonsense. Is English not your native language?
I'm not here to tutor someone who shows absolutely no sign of being educable. If you were genuinely interested in getting your facts right then you should have spent more time studying than polishing turds.
And cranks very often cite how long they've been interested or studying science, as if that alone is some sort of reliable credential.
Don't worry, leaving you with your delusion intact is no problem at all. But in case you really do what to be challenged, why don't you make a brief summary of your claims, including about Einstein being wrong? Cranks always try to throw it back at any challenger so that they never have to concisely state their assertions. So let's see just how much of a crank you are.
RC, the reason you were banned from this forum is because you know nothing about physics, but persist in posting meaningless word salad.
Now that you have been banned, you are simply continuing.
THIS IS WHY GUESTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST.
Now that you have been banned, you are simply continuing.
THIS IS WHY GUESTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST.
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jun 26 2012, 12:15 AM)
Meanwhile, parrots and delusional 'tutors' ignore their own crank hypocrisy. Are you ever going to face the following examples of your flawed 'tutoring'?.......
You say he tutored students? What a tragedy. For the students, I mean. I feel so sorry for them. The blind leading the blind over cliffs.
I still need feedback, or debate, or devil's advocates, to show me my weaknesses or strengths. Not from trolls, though. I really can't afford the wasted time it takes to feed them or treat their manic and gloomy existence.
sonoran sundown,
Seems you've opted for cranks commiserating rather than taking me up on my offered challenge. Even though you seem too lazy to summarize your own assertions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this once to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.
Seems you've opted for cranks commiserating rather than taking me up on my offered challenge. Even though you seem too lazy to summarize your own assertions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this once to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.
QUOTE (Thomas Garcia+)
Where it concerns time theory, my candid inquiries have led me to propose herein that the passage of time varies for all physical objects at rates set inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete matter in space, and therefore time to me is a distinct property of matter accruing to all objects.
The passage of time never varies within the local rest frame of any given observer. Such blanket statements seem to favor some absolute space wherein such motion can be absolutely determined.
Bald assertion without any justifying argument. How does this “require” time to be a force, other than your previous and unsupported “force of time” phrase?
Bald assertion without any justifying argument. How does this “require” time to be a force, other than your previous and unsupported “force of time” phrase?
Unfortunately, that leads us to other blind alleys where we find we can’t explain certain “loose ends” or other apparent natural contradictions. For example, how could time possibly have the energy to be such a force? In order to support the idea that real space-time interdependence exists, Modern Physics has had to come up with the notion that there are such things as time and space “fluctuations.”
Then you protest “blind alleys”, “loose ends”, and “contradictions” that you do not specify other than to continue your unsupported assertion that time is a force. Nor do you make any solid connection to quantum fluctuations other than a seeming incredulity.
This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding.
This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding.
Yet, if space is not empty and can do something, how would we ever know it? Even so, if we wish to (if only to resolve these nagging questions), we can imagine the concept of space as being independent of time (in opposition to the current Standard Model), and I discuss in this essay just how that may be done.
So your misunderstanding is the only reason you give for opposing current physics.
Apparently you find these concepts difficult, and thus should refrain from making assertions about them. You also seem to have conflated the relativity of simultaneity and the principle of relativity.
Apparently you find these concepts difficult, and thus should refrain from making assertions about them. You also seem to have conflated the relativity of simultaneity and the principle of relativity.
Barring any better explanation, my model of the universe proposes that time varies between objects when at anytime their only relevant difference is that they are not moving at the same speed with respect to one another. The two concepts above allow the same conclusion, yet it seems to have been overlooked as an obvious clue needing follow up.
And how exactly do you propose that any two given objects “are not moving at the same speed relative to one another”? The only time two objects are “ not moving at the same speed relative to one another” is when they are not moving relative to one another, in which case they are in the same rest frame and cannot possibly experience a variance of time rates between them. But if one object observes itself to be moving at a specific speed relative to another that other must observe the same relative speed.
And this discrepancy in your essay is outright laughable.
You neglect the fact that the train observer will see the “stationary” observer's time to slow, as it is the remote observer who is always considered to be “moving” from the local rest frame. The difference in time rates is not considered paradoxical, but the reciprocal observation is a naively apparent paradox, though still not actual.
You neglect the fact that the train observer will see the “stationary” observer's time to slow, as it is the remote observer who is always considered to be “moving” from the local rest frame. The difference in time rates is not considered paradoxical, but the reciprocal observation is a naively apparent paradox, though still not actual.
If the speed of light did vary in order to accommodate the situation, that would explain the time differences and we could then say that the speed of light “adjusted” to that particular situation, and then it would not be necessary for time and space to fold, warp or curve.
If it was the case instead that the speed of light varied rather than the rate of the passage of time, then time could be a force of the universe, and if that is so, it seems all objects in the universe should age at the same rate. Much of Modern Physics theory and research seems to have accepted that contradiction, reporting the former as impossible while apparently accepting the latter as true.
So now you seem to be asserting, and even reiterated no less, that the speed of light is variable to continue your thus far unsupported claim that time is a force. No one working in “Modern Physics” believes that true, and you provide no physical evidence for a variable speed of light.
Again, two observers cannot have a different speed relative to one another. You are assuming some absolute criteria for motion without providing evidence of it, nor even apparently being aware that you are doing so. The later very much indicates a seriously lack of understanding.
Again, two observers cannot have a different speed relative to one another. You are assuming some absolute criteria for motion without providing evidence of it, nor even apparently being aware that you are doing so. The later very much indicates a seriously lack of understanding.
The Twin Paradox is just another example where there has been widespread agreement for some time now that the time rates of discrete objects are set inversely proportional to their states of motion
And perhaps you don't realize that those time rates will both differ relative to a third reference frame.
Have you bothered to read the book?
Have you bothered to read the book?
The problem with that is it makes videos quite susceptible to subjective bias and prejudice, in my opinion.
Seems you should have read the book, even just by your own estimation.
We'll see how well you do with that much for now.
The passage of time never varies within the local rest frame of any given observer. Such blanket statements seem to favor some absolute space wherein such motion can be absolutely determined.
QUOTE
Therefore, when we think about time, it is usually as a “continuum” or “fabric” of our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the force of time’s irresistible and unwavering flow. However, such a concept will require a force of its own, making it necessary then for time to either be energy or to contain energy sufficient to age the entire universe!
Bald assertion without any justifying argument. How does this “require” time to be a force, other than your previous and unsupported “force of time” phrase?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Therefore, when we think about time, it is usually as a “continuum” or “fabric” of our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the force of time’s irresistible and unwavering flow. However, such a concept will require a force of its own, making it necessary then for time to either be energy or to contain energy sufficient to age the entire universe! |
Bald assertion without any justifying argument. How does this “require” time to be a force, other than your previous and unsupported “force of time” phrase?
Unfortunately, that leads us to other blind alleys where we find we can’t explain certain “loose ends” or other apparent natural contradictions. For example, how could time possibly have the energy to be such a force? In order to support the idea that real space-time interdependence exists, Modern Physics has had to come up with the notion that there are such things as time and space “fluctuations.”
Then you protest “blind alleys”, “loose ends”, and “contradictions” that you do not specify other than to continue your unsupported assertion that time is a force. Nor do you make any solid connection to quantum fluctuations other than a seeming incredulity.
QUOTE
It is a hard task for us because we are unable to extend far enough our concept of ordinary space to reconcile in our inquiring minds how it could be that empty space can do or perform any physical act. For scientists to take ideas from science fiction is a risky adventure as that can too easily become a case of the tail wagging the dog, as it were.
This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is a hard task for us because we are unable to extend far enough our concept of ordinary space to reconcile in our inquiring minds how it could be that empty space can do or perform any physical act. For scientists to take ideas from science fiction is a risky adventure as that can too easily become a case of the tail wagging the dog, as it were. |
This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding.
Yet, if space is not empty and can do something, how would we ever know it? Even so, if we wish to (if only to resolve these nagging questions), we can imagine the concept of space as being independent of time (in opposition to the current Standard Model), and I discuss in this essay just how that may be done.
So your misunderstanding is the only reason you give for opposing current physics.
QUOTE
Well, the explanation involves the difficult concepts of inertial and non-inertial reference frames as explained in relativity’s principle of simultaneity, which is easily available in print at any library, bookstore, or website under “special relativity.” It is definitely not within the scope of this essay to attempt to tackle the confusing explanations about those concepts, but the experiments shown and the conclusions given here observe their rules.
Apparently you find these concepts difficult, and thus should refrain from making assertions about them. You also seem to have conflated the relativity of simultaneity and the principle of relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, the explanation involves the difficult concepts of inertial and non-inertial reference frames as explained in relativity’s principle of simultaneity, which is easily available in print at any library, bookstore, or website under “special relativity.” It is definitely not within the scope of this essay to attempt to tackle the confusing explanations about those concepts, but the experiments shown and the conclusions given here observe their rules. |
Apparently you find these concepts difficult, and thus should refrain from making assertions about them. You also seem to have conflated the relativity of simultaneity and the principle of relativity.
Barring any better explanation, my model of the universe proposes that time varies between objects when at anytime their only relevant difference is that they are not moving at the same speed with respect to one another. The two concepts above allow the same conclusion, yet it seems to have been overlooked as an obvious clue needing follow up.
And how exactly do you propose that any two given objects “are not moving at the same speed relative to one another”? The only time two objects are “ not moving at the same speed relative to one another” is when they are not moving relative to one another, in which case they are in the same rest frame and cannot possibly experience a variance of time rates between them. But if one object observes itself to be moving at a specific speed relative to another that other must observe the same relative speed.
And this discrepancy in your essay is outright laughable.
QUOTE
If for the stationary observer the event took, e.g., two seconds to occur by his clock, and if for the train passenger it took, say, only one second to occur by her clock, it means that in this trilateral relationship, time passed for the stationary observer at twice the rate that the train passenger underwent, and therefore he aged faster, or more, than the passenger in the moving train.
This experiment clearly illustrates the time and motion relationship of inverse proportionality in that the observer moving relatively faster than the other observer accrued and underwent a slower time rate.
This experiment clearly illustrates the time and motion relationship of inverse proportionality in that the observer moving relatively faster than the other observer accrued and underwent a slower time rate.
You neglect the fact that the train observer will see the “stationary” observer's time to slow, as it is the remote observer who is always considered to be “moving” from the local rest frame. The difference in time rates is not considered paradoxical, but the reciprocal observation is a naively apparent paradox, though still not actual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If for the stationary observer the event took, e.g., two seconds to occur by his clock, and if for the train passenger it took, say, only one second to occur by her clock, it means that in this trilateral relationship, time passed for the stationary observer at twice the rate that the train passenger underwent, and therefore he aged faster, or more, than the passenger in the moving train. This experiment clearly illustrates the time and motion relationship of inverse proportionality in that the observer moving relatively faster than the other observer accrued and underwent a slower time rate. |
You neglect the fact that the train observer will see the “stationary” observer's time to slow, as it is the remote observer who is always considered to be “moving” from the local rest frame. The difference in time rates is not considered paradoxical, but the reciprocal observation is a naively apparent paradox, though still not actual.
If the speed of light did vary in order to accommodate the situation, that would explain the time differences and we could then say that the speed of light “adjusted” to that particular situation, and then it would not be necessary for time and space to fold, warp or curve.
If it was the case instead that the speed of light varied rather than the rate of the passage of time, then time could be a force of the universe, and if that is so, it seems all objects in the universe should age at the same rate. Much of Modern Physics theory and research seems to have accepted that contradiction, reporting the former as impossible while apparently accepting the latter as true.
So now you seem to be asserting, and even reiterated no less, that the speed of light is variable to continue your thus far unsupported claim that time is a force. No one working in “Modern Physics” believes that true, and you provide no physical evidence for a variable speed of light.
QUOTE
If we agree it cannot be the case that the speed of light varied during the experiment, it seems then that the one reason for the time differences must indeed have to do with the fact that the measurements were made while each observer was in a different state of motion relative to the other. Thus, we can say the rate of the passage of time varied for each observer inversely proportional to their particular state of motion.
Again, two observers cannot have a different speed relative to one another. You are assuming some absolute criteria for motion without providing evidence of it, nor even apparently being aware that you are doing so. The later very much indicates a seriously lack of understanding.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we agree it cannot be the case that the speed of light varied during the experiment, it seems then that the one reason for the time differences must indeed have to do with the fact that the measurements were made while each observer was in a different state of motion relative to the other. Thus, we can say the rate of the passage of time varied for each observer inversely proportional to their particular state of motion. |
Again, two observers cannot have a different speed relative to one another. You are assuming some absolute criteria for motion without providing evidence of it, nor even apparently being aware that you are doing so. The later very much indicates a seriously lack of understanding.
The Twin Paradox is just another example where there has been widespread agreement for some time now that the time rates of discrete objects are set inversely proportional to their states of motion
And perhaps you don't realize that those time rates will both differ relative to a third reference frame.
QUOTE
On November 2011, however, PBS ran an episode on NOVA of the series, “The Fabric of the Cosmos” starring Physicist Brian Greene, titled The Illusion of Time.
Have you bothered to read the book?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On November 2011, however, PBS ran an episode on NOVA of the series, “The Fabric of the Cosmos” starring Physicist Brian Greene, titled The Illusion of Time. |
Have you bothered to read the book?
The problem with that is it makes videos quite susceptible to subjective bias and prejudice, in my opinion.
Seems you should have read the book, even just by your own estimation.
We'll see how well you do with that much for now.
"Bald assertion without any justifying argument. How does this “require” time to be a force, other than your previous and unsupported “force of time” phrase?"
Good point. If we say time passes for everything at the same rate because everything is equally subject to it, how then can we have A. Einstein's so-called time dilations (which occur because time is a property of objects and its rates are dependent on the speed of each discrete object), if everything ages at the same rate? Also, in order to impose a single time rate on every object in the universe, time could not be a property of individual objects then since it would have to make everything age at the same rate, and for that, time must contain energy.
If we say time does have energy to make discrete objects age at different rates, that may well be so. We can accept time as a property of mass without requiring it unrealistically to impose the same rate over the entire universe.
"Then you protest 'blind alleys', 'loose ends', and 'contradictions' that you do not specify other than to continue your unsupported assertion that time is a force. Nor do you make any solid connection to quantum fluctuations other than a seeming incredulity."
Okay. "Blind alleyways" are those fantasy theories parallel or multiple universes "Loose ends" are the paradoxes, so-called, which science has been unable to resolve (like space warps and time dilations). "Contradictions" are those claims like the one I mentioned about Albert E.'s interdependence of time and space.
"This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding."
I did not refer to those who understand Relativiy with my statement about "empty space." You just thought I did. Just as important, you seem to believe a S-T diagram is a physical force that can bend time and space. A.E. never said that since he knew better. He thought he did not need to explain to physicists it is only a tool. I already explained to you that it is not gravitational forces that provide the effect of the bending of space and time, but I'll do it again. The effect is caused when a gravitational force affects the speed of two objects such that they are moving at different speeds.
"So your misunderstanding is the only reason you give for opposing current physics."
You are the one who misunderstood what you read, I'm afraid. I do not oppose rational physics; I oppose naked emperors who fake their way through science in demaning students conform to their way of thinking.
Good point. If we say time passes for everything at the same rate because everything is equally subject to it, how then can we have A. Einstein's so-called time dilations (which occur because time is a property of objects and its rates are dependent on the speed of each discrete object), if everything ages at the same rate? Also, in order to impose a single time rate on every object in the universe, time could not be a property of individual objects then since it would have to make everything age at the same rate, and for that, time must contain energy.
If we say time does have energy to make discrete objects age at different rates, that may well be so. We can accept time as a property of mass without requiring it unrealistically to impose the same rate over the entire universe.
"Then you protest 'blind alleys', 'loose ends', and 'contradictions' that you do not specify other than to continue your unsupported assertion that time is a force. Nor do you make any solid connection to quantum fluctuations other than a seeming incredulity."
Okay. "Blind alleyways" are those fantasy theories parallel or multiple universes "Loose ends" are the paradoxes, so-called, which science has been unable to resolve (like space warps and time dilations). "Contradictions" are those claims like the one I mentioned about Albert E.'s interdependence of time and space.
"This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding."
I did not refer to those who understand Relativiy with my statement about "empty space." You just thought I did. Just as important, you seem to believe a S-T diagram is a physical force that can bend time and space. A.E. never said that since he knew better. He thought he did not need to explain to physicists it is only a tool. I already explained to you that it is not gravitational forces that provide the effect of the bending of space and time, but I'll do it again. The effect is caused when a gravitational force affects the speed of two objects such that they are moving at different speeds.
"So your misunderstanding is the only reason you give for opposing current physics."
You are the one who misunderstood what you read, I'm afraid. I do not oppose rational physics; I oppose naked emperors who fake their way through science in demaning students conform to their way of thinking.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 27 2012, 03:06 AM)
sonoran sundown,
Apparently you find these concepts difficult, and thus should refrain from making assertions about them. You also seem to have conflated the relativity of simultaneity and the principle of relativity.
"Well, if I did that, I apologize. But first, you have to explain what you mean by that."
And how exactly do you propose that any two given objects “are not moving at the same speed relative to one another”?
"Say you throw a baseball. Before, you and the ball were moving through space on the surface of the earth at the same speed but because you and the ball were both stationary relative to each other, you were both moving at the same speed relative to each other and also relative to the earth. Once you threw the ball, it was no longer moving at the same speed as you were before."
The only time two objects are “ not moving at the same speed relative to one another” is when they are not moving relative to one another, in which case they are in the same rest frame and cannot possibly experience a variance of time rates between them. But if one object observes itself to be moving at a specific speed relative to another that other must observe the same relative speed.
"You keep bringing in stuff that don't apply to the topic and you will get more confused. FOCUS! '...rest frame...?' Do you mean reference frame? The rate of time depends on the speed of objects, so when two objects in the same frame are moving at different speeds, tme passes at different rates for both."
And this discrepancy in your essay is outright laughable.
You neglect the fact that the train observer will see the “stationary” observer's time to slow, as it is the remote observer who is always considered to be “moving” from the local rest frame. The difference in time rates is not considered paradoxical, but the reciprocal observation is a naively apparent paradox, though still not actual.
"Out of focus again, looks like. The train observer IS the stationary observer! The rest is gibberish - get some sleep and take your meds."
So now you seem to be asserting, and even reiterated no less, that the speed of light is variable to continue your thus far unsupported claim that time is a force. No one working in “Modern Physics” believes that true, and you provide no physical evidence for a variable speed of light.
We'll see how well you do with that much for now.
Apparently you find these concepts difficult, and thus should refrain from making assertions about them. You also seem to have conflated the relativity of simultaneity and the principle of relativity.
"Well, if I did that, I apologize. But first, you have to explain what you mean by that."
And how exactly do you propose that any two given objects “are not moving at the same speed relative to one another”?
"Say you throw a baseball. Before, you and the ball were moving through space on the surface of the earth at the same speed but because you and the ball were both stationary relative to each other, you were both moving at the same speed relative to each other and also relative to the earth. Once you threw the ball, it was no longer moving at the same speed as you were before."
The only time two objects are “ not moving at the same speed relative to one another” is when they are not moving relative to one another, in which case they are in the same rest frame and cannot possibly experience a variance of time rates between them. But if one object observes itself to be moving at a specific speed relative to another that other must observe the same relative speed.
"You keep bringing in stuff that don't apply to the topic and you will get more confused. FOCUS! '...rest frame...?' Do you mean reference frame? The rate of time depends on the speed of objects, so when two objects in the same frame are moving at different speeds, tme passes at different rates for both."
And this discrepancy in your essay is outright laughable.
You neglect the fact that the train observer will see the “stationary” observer's time to slow, as it is the remote observer who is always considered to be “moving” from the local rest frame. The difference in time rates is not considered paradoxical, but the reciprocal observation is a naively apparent paradox, though still not actual.
"Out of focus again, looks like. The train observer IS the stationary observer! The rest is gibberish - get some sleep and take your meds."
So now you seem to be asserting, and even reiterated no less, that the speed of light is variable to continue your thus far unsupported claim that time is a force. No one working in “Modern Physics” believes that true, and you provide no physical evidence for a variable speed of light.
We'll see how well you do with that much for now.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 26 2012, 10:24 PM)
"Bald assertion without any justifying argument. How does this “require” time to be a force, other than your previous and unsupported “force of time” phrase?"
Good point. If we say time passes for everything at the same rate because everything is equally subject to it, how then can we have A. Einstein's so-called time dilations (which occur because time is a property of objects and its rates are dependent on the speed of each discrete object), if everything ages at the same rate? Also, in order to impose a single time rate on every object in the universe, time could not be a property of individual objects then since it would have to make everything age at the same rate, and for that, time must contain energy.
If we say time does have energy to make discrete objects age at different rates, that may well be so. We can accept time as a property of mass without requiring it unrealistically to impose the same rate over the entire universe.
Aside from you, who exactly has said that "time passes for everything at the same rate". Seems you are running with the obsolete Newtonian notion of an absolute time. Now perhaps you mean to say that time passes at the same rate as observed within any rest frame, in which case there is no discrepancy with these varying between frames.
Again, with respect to what are you determining this "speed of each discrete object"? Speeds are only relative, so they will be observed to be different depending on who observers them.
Who said anything about "everything ages at the same rate"? You seem to be confused on the subject and are shadowboxing your own misconceptions. No one credible has made that claim, so what exactly are you arguing?
So all of your arguments for "time must contain energy" have been completely fabricated by you. You claim that everything being subject to the same time rate requires it, but then you have neglected the crucial step of providing any evidence or citation that your initial assumption is in the least bit true. If your premise is not valid then neither is your conclusion.
Of course, you then continue to blindly harp on the erroneous "time has energy" whether the time rates for everything are the same or not. Go back to the drawing board, as you have made unfounded assumptions in lieu of understanding.
Multiverses are known to be highly hypothetical, and there are no "loose ends" with "paradoxes". Your "loose ends" and "contradictions" are only an indication of your lack of understanding, nothing more. Paradoxes in science only seem to be so, usually from a naive intuition, but in actuality are quite consistent and no paradox at all once comprehended. You have also yet to make the case for the interdependence of spacetime being any sort of contradiction.
Multiverses are known to be highly hypothetical, and there are no "loose ends" with "paradoxes". Your "loose ends" and "contradictions" are only an indication of your lack of understanding, nothing more. Paradoxes in science only seem to be so, usually from a naive intuition, but in actuality are quite consistent and no paradox at all once comprehended. You have also yet to make the case for the interdependence of spacetime being any sort of contradiction.
"This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding."
I did not refer to those who understand Relativiy with my statement about "empty space." You just thought I did. Just as important, you seem to believe a S-T diagram is a physical force that can bend time and space. A.E. never said that since he knew better. He thought he did not need to explain to physicists it is only a tool. I already explained to you that it is not gravitational forces that provide the effect of the bending of space and time, but I'll do it again. The effect is caused when a gravitational force affects the speed of two objects such that they are moving at different speeds.
Really?
Good point. If we say time passes for everything at the same rate because everything is equally subject to it, how then can we have A. Einstein's so-called time dilations (which occur because time is a property of objects and its rates are dependent on the speed of each discrete object), if everything ages at the same rate? Also, in order to impose a single time rate on every object in the universe, time could not be a property of individual objects then since it would have to make everything age at the same rate, and for that, time must contain energy.
If we say time does have energy to make discrete objects age at different rates, that may well be so. We can accept time as a property of mass without requiring it unrealistically to impose the same rate over the entire universe.
Aside from you, who exactly has said that "time passes for everything at the same rate". Seems you are running with the obsolete Newtonian notion of an absolute time. Now perhaps you mean to say that time passes at the same rate as observed within any rest frame, in which case there is no discrepancy with these varying between frames.
Again, with respect to what are you determining this "speed of each discrete object"? Speeds are only relative, so they will be observed to be different depending on who observers them.
Who said anything about "everything ages at the same rate"? You seem to be confused on the subject and are shadowboxing your own misconceptions. No one credible has made that claim, so what exactly are you arguing?
So all of your arguments for "time must contain energy" have been completely fabricated by you. You claim that everything being subject to the same time rate requires it, but then you have neglected the crucial step of providing any evidence or citation that your initial assumption is in the least bit true. If your premise is not valid then neither is your conclusion.
Of course, you then continue to blindly harp on the erroneous "time has energy" whether the time rates for everything are the same or not. Go back to the drawing board, as you have made unfounded assumptions in lieu of understanding.
QUOTE
"Then you protest 'blind alleys', 'loose ends', and 'contradictions' that you do not specify other than to continue your unsupported assertion that time is a force. Nor do you make any solid connection to quantum fluctuations other than a seeming incredulity."
Okay. "Blind alleyways" are those fantasy theories parallel or multiple universes "Loose ends" are the paradoxes, so-called, which science has been unable to resolve (like space warps and time dilations). "Contradictions" are those claims like the one I mentioned about Albert E.'s interdependence of time and space.
Okay. "Blind alleyways" are those fantasy theories parallel or multiple universes "Loose ends" are the paradoxes, so-called, which science has been unable to resolve (like space warps and time dilations). "Contradictions" are those claims like the one I mentioned about Albert E.'s interdependence of time and space.
Multiverses are known to be highly hypothetical, and there are no "loose ends" with "paradoxes". Your "loose ends" and "contradictions" are only an indication of your lack of understanding, nothing more. Paradoxes in science only seem to be so, usually from a naive intuition, but in actuality are quite consistent and no paradox at all once comprehended. You have also yet to make the case for the interdependence of spacetime being any sort of contradiction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Then you protest 'blind alleys', 'loose ends', and 'contradictions' that you do not specify other than to continue your unsupported assertion that time is a force. Nor do you make any solid connection to quantum fluctuations other than a seeming incredulity." Okay. "Blind alleyways" are those fantasy theories parallel or multiple universes "Loose ends" are the paradoxes, so-called, which science has been unable to resolve (like space warps and time dilations). "Contradictions" are those claims like the one I mentioned about Albert E.'s interdependence of time and space. |
Multiverses are known to be highly hypothetical, and there are no "loose ends" with "paradoxes". Your "loose ends" and "contradictions" are only an indication of your lack of understanding, nothing more. Paradoxes in science only seem to be so, usually from a naive intuition, but in actuality are quite consistent and no paradox at all once comprehended. You have also yet to make the case for the interdependence of spacetime being any sort of contradiction.
"This illustrates that you do not understand what a scientific model is. A model is not the actuality, but a way to predict physical behavior and interaction. No one who understands relativity thinks that “empty space can do or perform any physical act”, as spacetime is only curved as a result of the presence of energy. So you are simply arguing against your own literal misunderstanding."
I did not refer to those who understand Relativiy with my statement about "empty space." You just thought I did. Just as important, you seem to believe a S-T diagram is a physical force that can bend time and space. A.E. never said that since he knew better. He thought he did not need to explain to physicists it is only a tool. I already explained to you that it is not gravitational forces that provide the effect of the bending of space and time, but I'll do it again. The effect is caused when a gravitational force affects the speed of two objects such that they are moving at different speeds.
Really?
QUOTE (Thomas Garcia+)
It is a hard task for us because we are unable to extend far enough our concept of ordinary space to reconcile in our inquiring minds how it could be that empty space can do or perform any physical act. For scientists to take ideas from science fiction is a risky adventure as that can too easily become a case of the tail wagging the dog, as it were.
Scientists are those who understand relativity, so who exactly are you claiming believes "empty space can do or perform any physical act"? What "ideas" have scientists taken from sci-fi? And why should it matter one wit whether the uneducated believe such nonsense? Their beliefs do not affect the validity of the science.
What you don't seem to understand is that relativity is a model of how energy and mass interact and affect one another. Spacetime is only a geometric model of such interactions. Nothing in this implies that spacetime itself supplies any force.
Scientists are those who understand relativity, so who exactly are you claiming believes "empty space can do or perform any physical act"? What "ideas" have scientists taken from sci-fi? And why should it matter one wit whether the uneducated believe such nonsense? Their beliefs do not affect the validity of the science.
What you don't seem to understand is that relativity is a model of how energy and mass interact and affect one another. Spacetime is only a geometric model of such interactions. Nothing in this implies that spacetime itself supplies any force.
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+)
The effect is caused when a gravitational force affects the speed of two objects such that they are moving at different speeds.
Really? So even though an object closer to the center of rotation of a massive object is moving slower than an object further out, why is the closer object's time slower relative to the further objects? This completely contradicts your assertion that time should slow for faster objects.
Like I said earlier, you are ignorant and stubborn, so this is all wasted effort on my part. Go back to play pretend science with other cranks. At least you can make each other feel special, even if the rest of us think you are special for entirely different reasons.
Really? So even though an object closer to the center of rotation of a massive object is moving slower than an object further out, why is the closer object's time slower relative to the further objects? This completely contradicts your assertion that time should slow for faster objects.
QUOTE
"So your misunderstanding is the only reason you give for opposing current physics."
You are the one who misunderstood what you read, I'm afraid. I do not oppose rational physics; I oppose naked emperors who fake their way through science in demaning students conform to their way of thinking.
You are the one who misunderstood what you read, I'm afraid. I do not oppose rational physics; I oppose naked emperors who fake their way through science in demaning students conform to their way of thinking.
Like I said earlier, you are ignorant and stubborn, so this is all wasted effort on my part. Go back to play pretend science with other cranks. At least you can make each other feel special, even if the rest of us think you are special for entirely different reasons.
QUOTE
undefined
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| undefined |
Aside from you, who exactly has said that "time passes for everything at the same rate". Seems you are running with the obsolete Newtonian notion of an absolute time.
No, I did not say that. What I said was, "IF we say that...." You are reading too fast for your reading comprehension level. Slow down a little.
No, I did not mean to say that atall, since that is not relevant to our discussion.
No, I did not mean to say that atall, since that is not relevant to our discussion.
Again, with respect to what are you determining this "speed of each discrete object"? Speeds are only relative, so they will be observed to be different depending on who observers them.
No, I am not determining the speed of each object; I am merely saying when ever or if ever any object is moving faster or slower than any other object, their time rates will be different. There is a section in my free essay wherein I make a distinction between A.E.'s claim (which you quote in saying, "Speeds are only relative...." and one instance where it does not apply. You apparently haven't read that far yet, so let me stick it in here real quick:
"...Yet another reason why this idea has not been further developed (that time rates vary as a function of the state of motion of matter in space) may be due to another Relativity postulate which states that motion is meaningful only between two bodies moving relatively to each other. Since the universe is expanding, all observable matter in it must be in motion; therefore, we cannot locate a stationary point in the universe from which to measure the motion of a single body. Any and all of our measurements of motion may only be obtained by comparison to the relative motion and position of other objects.
Nevertheless, is not Einstein’s other premise (noted on page one in the third paragraph) that time and space are dependent on the state of motion of an observer - simply the one exception where motion is meaningful to something other than the relative motion of two bodies? The premise of the paragraph above holds true when we wish to measure the motion of objects in space because that requires other bodies to enable us to compare their motions.
Still, my contention that motion is meaningful to something other than just the motion of two bodies, where time is dependent on the state of motion of objects, is also relevant and holds true to measurements taken by observers whose states of motion differ, as they do in our moving-train and space-traveler-twin experiments. We have already noted above that it is the difference in the states of motion of the observers that yields consequential outcomes in measurements of time."
"YOU LIE!" Everyone alive today believes that the same as they believe the S-T Continuum is a physical place in the universe and that space and time are dependent upon each other, etc., etc., etc. I'm sure those who hate you can find many examples where you have played the conformed fool and defended nonsense from naked emperors. Anytime you have agreed that time is a
“continuum” or “fabric” in our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the “force” of time’s irresistible and unwavering flow, you have labored under the misconception which you now vehemently decry.
"YOU LIE!" Everyone alive today believes that the same as they believe the S-T Continuum is a physical place in the universe and that space and time are dependent upon each other, etc., etc., etc. I'm sure those who hate you can find many examples where you have played the conformed fool and defended nonsense from naked emperors. Anytime you have agreed that time is a
“continuum” or “fabric” in our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the “force” of time’s irresistible and unwavering flow, you have labored under the misconception which you now vehemently decry.
So all of your arguments for "time must contain energy" have been completely fabricated by you. You claim that everything being subject to the same time rate requires it, but then you have neglected the crucial step of providing any evidence or citation that your initial assumption is in the least bit true. If your premise is not valid then neither is your conclusion.
I have made no arguments to that effect. What is wrong with your brain? Are you a bot? Now we have a troll with a botbrain. Lordy what next?
Yeah, right, I would do that. Why is the closer object moving slower, botbrain?
[/QUOTE]
Hi synthsin75, sonoran sundown, everyone!
Some further third-party observations in the interests of fair and productive debate....
Observation 1) All 'forces' are ultimately rooted in the transfer of energy from one state/location to another. That is how Entropy and Time effects arise. The energy 'flows' during decay/aging/motion processes/phenomena are what inevitably results in the 'time' and 'entropy' RATES observed in any localised energy-space 'feature' under study.
Observation 2) All motion is ultimately a aprt of the WHOLE wider universal context. So any localised system is ultimately a PART of that whole universal energy-space extent within which all the energy-mass phenomena occur and change and age and spread out etc etc.
Observation 3) Relative motion is only a 'theoretical analytical construct' limited to SR theory. That theory has limited applicability. In QUANTUM theory, for example, there is a 'force' of gravity, so SR is immediately seen as a PARTIAL THEORY, and not a be-all-and-end-all reality construct.
Observation 4) Based on the fact that any change'force is due to energy change/relocation/motion/flow etc, then in QUANTUM THEORY as for gravity, time can be thought of as rooted in a force, ie, the force ultimately imparted/experienced during such energy exchange/relocation.
Observation 5) When considering any 'twin paradox' llike scenarios, it is crucial to remember that the 'paradox' is easily shown to be NOT such once the later comparisons in the greater context is made, and especially having regard to ACCELERATION PROFILES involved in establishing any 'relative' morion between the twins.
Observation 6) It is also crucial to remember that ROTATION is a SELF-REFERENTIAL ABSOLUTE which can form the multi-frame GRADIENT of MOTIONAL RELATIVITY and ACCELERATION HISTORY of any two or more parts of that rotating object's energy-mass and time-space EXPERIENCES/STATES before AND after for COMPARISON to establish the facts OBJCTIVELY and ABSOLUTELY within the PRE_EXISTING energy-space state/context in which the rotating body commenced the 'seeming paradox' experiment/exercise under study (irrespective of whether one knows or not the whole universal absolute reference state for the rotating body per se).
Observation 7) Before dismissing out of hand the concept of energy-space as a real and effective entity in its own right, it would behove those who would 'pooh-pooh' the idea to explain the 'connection' between the Big Bang expansion/extension of space etc which supposedly explains the supposed UNIVERSAL RECESSION VELOCITIES (apart from the proper motion velocities) of the distant galaxies. That is, unless and until one explains THE MECHANISM that COUPLES those galaxies to the expanding/extending space etc, there is no ogical or physical basis for claiming to know that space is not the energy-space reservoir of nergy/motion/change phenomena which manifests as the various object-associated processes including time, entropy, universal recession etc etc.
Observation 8) So, I again urge all genuine science/idea discoursers to refrain from using personal comments and unhelpful and uninformative invocations of authority as 'arguments'. Please address the points raised and the logics involved and try to avoid defaulting to current attitudes/understandings which may or may not in the end be ONLY PARTIAL views of the realities/logics actually involved in the various points raised for discussion.
Again, just some third party observations for the greater good of discourse in science and humanity. Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
.
Mr. Obfuscation to the rescue.
Hi synthsin75, sonoran sundown, everyone!
Like I said, it may well be that time is a force. I am not ready yet to make that conclusion, but I'm close to it. For one thing, what is the source of the energy required for time to be a force? The how of it is only the effects of the passage of time; a theory should be able to offer the source that powers the effects.
My point was that time rates vary as a function of the individual different speeds of discrete objects. It was not about whether time is a force or not.
Like I said, it may well be that time is a force. I am not ready yet to make that conclusion, but I'm close to it. For one thing, what is the source of the energy required for time to be a force? The how of it is only the effects of the passage of time; a theory should be able to offer the source that powers the effects.
My point was that time rates vary as a function of the individual different speeds of discrete objects. It was not about whether time is a force or not.
Observation 2) All motion is ultimately a apart of the WHOLE wider universal context. So any localised system is ultimately a PART of that whole universal energy-space extent within which all the energy-mass phenomena occur and change and age and spread out etc etc.
What would be your point here,please?
IMO, A.E. "borrowed" much from other Giants, in particular the equation E=mc2,so I have to accept the Relativity theories as applications correctly developed by Einstein from the works of others. Not saying that's bad, just that we all should be aware of that, just like I have made you all aware of where my ides came from. Accepting his works as mostly his and correct, I have tried to go farther than he could go due to the lack of research achieved back then.
IMO, A.E. "borrowed" much from other Giants, in particular the equation E=mc2,so I have to accept the Relativity theories as applications correctly developed by Einstein from the works of others. Not saying that's bad, just that we all should be aware of that, just like I have made you all aware of where my ides came from. Accepting his works as mostly his and correct, I have tried to go farther than he could go due to the lack of research achieved back then.
Observation 4) Based on the fact that any change'force is due to energy change/relocation/motion/flow etc, then in QUANTUM THEORY as for gravity, time can be thought of as rooted in a force, ie, the force ultimately imparted/experienced during such energy exchange/relocation.
Yes, I agree. Your observation has been evident to many who have realized it but have yet to connect an energy source to it.
Quite so. A paradox is no longer one as soon as it is resolved.
Quite so. A paradox is no longer one as soon as it is resolved.
[u]Observation 6) It is also crucial to remember that ROTATION is a SELF-REFERENTIAL ABSOLUTE which can form the multi-frame GRADIENT of MOTIONAL RELATIVITY and ACCELERATION HISTORY of any two or more parts of that rotating object's energy-mass and time-space EXPERIENCES/STATES before AND after for COMPARISON to establish the facts OBJCTIVELY and ABSOLUTELY within the PRE_EXISTING energy-space state/context in which the rotating body commenced the 'seeming paradox' experiment/exercise under study (irrespective of whether one knows or not the whole universal absolute reference state for the rotating body per se).
Huh?
Agreed. In fact, my next essay, The Ether Found, finds that it is already well-known that space is not empty but is comprised of antiparticles which I define as Dark Matter. Further, I am unable to believe space and time came out of the BB. The so-called "Great Void" is a bonafide naked emperor's scam, even though it may have been adopted by one of my heroes by the time he worked on it. I just shows to me the desperation levels scientists can reach in their desire to resolve nature's "paradoxes."
Time, being a property only of matter, could not accrue to matter at the start of the BB simply because matter was not yet created. Later, when matter in motion formed from the energy released, only then did time begin.
Agreed. In fact, my next essay, The Ether Found, finds that it is already well-known that space is not empty but is comprised of antiparticles which I define as Dark Matter. Further, I am unable to believe space and time came out of the BB. The so-called "Great Void" is a bonafide naked emperor's scam, even though it may have been adopted by one of my heroes by the time he worked on it. I just shows to me the desperation levels scientists can reach in their desire to resolve nature's "paradoxes."
Time, being a property only of matter, could not accrue to matter at the start of the BB simply because matter was not yet created. Later, when matter in motion formed from the energy released, only then did time begin.
Observation 8) So, I again urge all genuine science/idea discoursers to refrain from using personal comments and unhelpful and uninformative invocations of authority as 'arguments'. Please address the points raised and the logics involved and try to avoid defaulting to current attitudes/understandings which may or may not in the end be ONLY PARTIAL views of the realities/logics actually involved in the various points raised for discussion.
Again, just some third party observations for the greater good of discourse in science and humanity. Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
undefined
Sensible advice; I applaud it.
The original was about rates, not 'time as a force'. I don't see how you got there except the poster is so frckin hard to make any sense of. I think he does sometime, but its hidden by all the bs.
You guys do more name calling than discussing.
No, I did not say that. What I said was, "IF we say that...." You are reading too fast for your reading comprehension level. Slow down a little.
QUOTE
Now perhaps you mean to say that time passes at the same rate as observed within any rest frame, in which case there is no discrepancy with these varying between frames.
No, I did not mean to say that atall, since that is not relevant to our discussion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now perhaps you mean to say that time passes at the same rate as observed within any rest frame, in which case there is no discrepancy with these varying between frames. |
No, I did not mean to say that atall, since that is not relevant to our discussion.
Again, with respect to what are you determining this "speed of each discrete object"? Speeds are only relative, so they will be observed to be different depending on who observers them.
No, I am not determining the speed of each object; I am merely saying when ever or if ever any object is moving faster or slower than any other object, their time rates will be different. There is a section in my free essay wherein I make a distinction between A.E.'s claim (which you quote in saying, "Speeds are only relative...." and one instance where it does not apply. You apparently haven't read that far yet, so let me stick it in here real quick:
"...Yet another reason why this idea has not been further developed (that time rates vary as a function of the state of motion of matter in space) may be due to another Relativity postulate which states that motion is meaningful only between two bodies moving relatively to each other. Since the universe is expanding, all observable matter in it must be in motion; therefore, we cannot locate a stationary point in the universe from which to measure the motion of a single body. Any and all of our measurements of motion may only be obtained by comparison to the relative motion and position of other objects.
Nevertheless, is not Einstein’s other premise (noted on page one in the third paragraph) that time and space are dependent on the state of motion of an observer - simply the one exception where motion is meaningful to something other than the relative motion of two bodies? The premise of the paragraph above holds true when we wish to measure the motion of objects in space because that requires other bodies to enable us to compare their motions.
Still, my contention that motion is meaningful to something other than just the motion of two bodies, where time is dependent on the state of motion of objects, is also relevant and holds true to measurements taken by observers whose states of motion differ, as they do in our moving-train and space-traveler-twin experiments. We have already noted above that it is the difference in the states of motion of the observers that yields consequential outcomes in measurements of time."
QUOTE
Who said anything about "everything ages at the same rate"? You seem to be confused on the subject and are shadowboxing your own misconceptions. No one credible has made that claim, so what exactly are you arguing?
"YOU LIE!" Everyone alive today believes that the same as they believe the S-T Continuum is a physical place in the universe and that space and time are dependent upon each other, etc., etc., etc. I'm sure those who hate you can find many examples where you have played the conformed fool and defended nonsense from naked emperors. Anytime you have agreed that time is a
“continuum” or “fabric” in our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the “force” of time’s irresistible and unwavering flow, you have labored under the misconception which you now vehemently decry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Who said anything about "everything ages at the same rate"? You seem to be confused on the subject and are shadowboxing your own misconceptions. No one credible has made that claim, so what exactly are you arguing? |
"YOU LIE!" Everyone alive today believes that the same as they believe the S-T Continuum is a physical place in the universe and that space and time are dependent upon each other, etc., etc., etc. I'm sure those who hate you can find many examples where you have played the conformed fool and defended nonsense from naked emperors. Anytime you have agreed that time is a
“continuum” or “fabric” in our universe in which all things exist equally subject to the “force” of time’s irresistible and unwavering flow, you have labored under the misconception which you now vehemently decry.
So all of your arguments for "time must contain energy" have been completely fabricated by you. You claim that everything being subject to the same time rate requires it, but then you have neglected the crucial step of providing any evidence or citation that your initial assumption is in the least bit true. If your premise is not valid then neither is your conclusion.
I have made no arguments to that effect. What is wrong with your brain? Are you a bot? Now we have a troll with a botbrain. Lordy what next?
QUOTE
Really? So even though an object closer to the center of rotation of a massive object is moving slower than an object further out, why is the closer object's time slower relative to the further objects? This completely contradicts your assertion that time should slow for faster objects.
Yeah, right, I would do that. Why is the closer object moving slower, botbrain?
sonoran sundown,
I gave you your chance to redeem yourself from being an unabashed crank, but you have fully confirmed the worst assumptions made about you.
I gave you your chance to redeem yourself from being an unabashed crank, but you have fully confirmed the worst assumptions made about you.
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jun 27 2012, 10:50 PM)
[/QUOTE]
Hi synthsin75, sonoran sundown, everyone!
Some further third-party observations in the interests of fair and productive debate....
Observation 1) All 'forces' are ultimately rooted in the transfer of energy from one state/location to another. That is how Entropy and Time effects arise. The energy 'flows' during decay/aging/motion processes/phenomena are what inevitably results in the 'time' and 'entropy' RATES observed in any localised energy-space 'feature' under study.
Observation 2) All motion is ultimately a aprt of the WHOLE wider universal context. So any localised system is ultimately a PART of that whole universal energy-space extent within which all the energy-mass phenomena occur and change and age and spread out etc etc.
Observation 3) Relative motion is only a 'theoretical analytical construct' limited to SR theory. That theory has limited applicability. In QUANTUM theory, for example, there is a 'force' of gravity, so SR is immediately seen as a PARTIAL THEORY, and not a be-all-and-end-all reality construct.
Observation 4) Based on the fact that any change'force is due to energy change/relocation/motion/flow etc, then in QUANTUM THEORY as for gravity, time can be thought of as rooted in a force, ie, the force ultimately imparted/experienced during such energy exchange/relocation.
Observation 5) When considering any 'twin paradox' llike scenarios, it is crucial to remember that the 'paradox' is easily shown to be NOT such once the later comparisons in the greater context is made, and especially having regard to ACCELERATION PROFILES involved in establishing any 'relative' morion between the twins.
Observation 6) It is also crucial to remember that ROTATION is a SELF-REFERENTIAL ABSOLUTE which can form the multi-frame GRADIENT of MOTIONAL RELATIVITY and ACCELERATION HISTORY of any two or more parts of that rotating object's energy-mass and time-space EXPERIENCES/STATES before AND after for COMPARISON to establish the facts OBJCTIVELY and ABSOLUTELY within the PRE_EXISTING energy-space state/context in which the rotating body commenced the 'seeming paradox' experiment/exercise under study (irrespective of whether one knows or not the whole universal absolute reference state for the rotating body per se).
Observation 7) Before dismissing out of hand the concept of energy-space as a real and effective entity in its own right, it would behove those who would 'pooh-pooh' the idea to explain the 'connection' between the Big Bang expansion/extension of space etc which supposedly explains the supposed UNIVERSAL RECESSION VELOCITIES (apart from the proper motion velocities) of the distant galaxies. That is, unless and until one explains THE MECHANISM that COUPLES those galaxies to the expanding/extending space etc, there is no ogical or physical basis for claiming to know that space is not the energy-space reservoir of nergy/motion/change phenomena which manifests as the various object-associated processes including time, entropy, universal recession etc etc.
Observation 8) So, I again urge all genuine science/idea discoursers to refrain from using personal comments and unhelpful and uninformative invocations of authority as 'arguments'. Please address the points raised and the logics involved and try to avoid defaulting to current attitudes/understandings which may or may not in the end be ONLY PARTIAL views of the realities/logics actually involved in the various points raised for discussion.
Again, just some third party observations for the greater good of discourse in science and humanity. Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
.
Mr. Obfuscation to the rescue.
That crap is why he was banned.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 28 2012, 04:35 AM)
Hi synthsin75, sonoran sundown, everyone!
QUOTE
Observation 1) All 'forces' are ultimately rooted in the transfer of energy from one state/location to another. That is how Entropy and Time effects arise. The energy 'flows' during decay/aging/motion processes/phenomena are what inevitably results in the 'time' and 'entropy' RATES observed in any localised energy-space 'feature' under study.
Like I said, it may well be that time is a force. I am not ready yet to make that conclusion, but I'm close to it. For one thing, what is the source of the energy required for time to be a force? The how of it is only the effects of the passage of time; a theory should be able to offer the source that powers the effects.
My point was that time rates vary as a function of the individual different speeds of discrete objects. It was not about whether time is a force or not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Observation 1) All 'forces' are ultimately rooted in the transfer of energy from one state/location to another. That is how Entropy and Time effects arise. The energy 'flows' during decay/aging/motion processes/phenomena are what inevitably results in the 'time' and 'entropy' RATES observed in any localised energy-space 'feature' under study. |
Like I said, it may well be that time is a force. I am not ready yet to make that conclusion, but I'm close to it. For one thing, what is the source of the energy required for time to be a force? The how of it is only the effects of the passage of time; a theory should be able to offer the source that powers the effects.
My point was that time rates vary as a function of the individual different speeds of discrete objects. It was not about whether time is a force or not.
Observation 2) All motion is ultimately a apart of the WHOLE wider universal context. So any localised system is ultimately a PART of that whole universal energy-space extent within which all the energy-mass phenomena occur and change and age and spread out etc etc.
What would be your point here,please?
QUOTE
Observation 3) Relative motion is only a 'theoretical analytical construct' limited to SR theory. That theory has limited applicability. In QUANTUM theory, for example, there is a 'force' of gravity, so SR is immediately seen as a PARTIAL THEORY, and not a be-all-and-end-all reality construct.
IMO, A.E. "borrowed" much from other Giants, in particular the equation E=mc2,so I have to accept the Relativity theories as applications correctly developed by Einstein from the works of others. Not saying that's bad, just that we all should be aware of that, just like I have made you all aware of where my ides came from. Accepting his works as mostly his and correct, I have tried to go farther than he could go due to the lack of research achieved back then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Observation 3) Relative motion is only a 'theoretical analytical construct' limited to SR theory. That theory has limited applicability. In QUANTUM theory, for example, there is a 'force' of gravity, so SR is immediately seen as a PARTIAL THEORY, and not a be-all-and-end-all reality construct. |
IMO, A.E. "borrowed" much from other Giants, in particular the equation E=mc2,so I have to accept the Relativity theories as applications correctly developed by Einstein from the works of others. Not saying that's bad, just that we all should be aware of that, just like I have made you all aware of where my ides came from. Accepting his works as mostly his and correct, I have tried to go farther than he could go due to the lack of research achieved back then.
Observation 4) Based on the fact that any change'force is due to energy change/relocation/motion/flow etc, then in QUANTUM THEORY as for gravity, time can be thought of as rooted in a force, ie, the force ultimately imparted/experienced during such energy exchange/relocation.
Yes, I agree. Your observation has been evident to many who have realized it but have yet to connect an energy source to it.
QUOTE
Observation 5) When considering any 'twin paradox' like scenarios, it is crucial to remember that the 'paradox' is easily shown to be NOT such once the later comparisons in the greater context is made, and especially having regard to ACCELERATION PROFILES involved in establishing any 'relative' morion between the twins.
undefined
undefined
Quite so. A paradox is no longer one as soon as it is resolved.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Observation 5) When considering any 'twin paradox' like scenarios, it is crucial to remember that the 'paradox' is easily shown to be NOT such once the later comparisons in the greater context is made, and especially having regard to ACCELERATION PROFILES involved in establishing any 'relative' morion between the twins. undefined |
Quite so. A paradox is no longer one as soon as it is resolved.
[u]Observation 6) It is also crucial to remember that ROTATION is a SELF-REFERENTIAL ABSOLUTE which can form the multi-frame GRADIENT of MOTIONAL RELATIVITY and ACCELERATION HISTORY of any two or more parts of that rotating object's energy-mass and time-space EXPERIENCES/STATES before AND after for COMPARISON to establish the facts OBJCTIVELY and ABSOLUTELY within the PRE_EXISTING energy-space state/context in which the rotating body commenced the 'seeming paradox' experiment/exercise under study (irrespective of whether one knows or not the whole universal absolute reference state for the rotating body per se).
Huh?
QUOTE
Observation 7) Before dismissing out of hand the concept of energy-space as a real and effective entity in its own right, it would behove those who would 'pooh-pooh' the idea to explain the 'connection' between the Big Bang expansion/extension of space etc which supposedly explains the supposed UNIVERSAL RECESSION VELOCITIES (apart from the proper motion velocities) of the distant galaxies. That is, unless and until one explains THE MECHANISM that COUPLES those galaxies to the expanding/extending space etc, there is no ogical or physical basis for claiming to know that space is not the energy-space reservoir of nergy/motion/change phenomena which manifests as the various object-associated processes including time, entropy, universal recession etc etc.
undefined
undefined
Agreed. In fact, my next essay, The Ether Found, finds that it is already well-known that space is not empty but is comprised of antiparticles which I define as Dark Matter. Further, I am unable to believe space and time came out of the BB. The so-called "Great Void" is a bonafide naked emperor's scam, even though it may have been adopted by one of my heroes by the time he worked on it. I just shows to me the desperation levels scientists can reach in their desire to resolve nature's "paradoxes."
Time, being a property only of matter, could not accrue to matter at the start of the BB simply because matter was not yet created. Later, when matter in motion formed from the energy released, only then did time begin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Observation 7) Before dismissing out of hand the concept of energy-space as a real and effective entity in its own right, it would behove those who would 'pooh-pooh' the idea to explain the 'connection' between the Big Bang expansion/extension of space etc which supposedly explains the supposed UNIVERSAL RECESSION VELOCITIES (apart from the proper motion velocities) of the distant galaxies. That is, unless and until one explains THE MECHANISM that COUPLES those galaxies to the expanding/extending space etc, there is no ogical or physical basis for claiming to know that space is not the energy-space reservoir of nergy/motion/change phenomena which manifests as the various object-associated processes including time, entropy, universal recession etc etc. undefined |
Agreed. In fact, my next essay, The Ether Found, finds that it is already well-known that space is not empty but is comprised of antiparticles which I define as Dark Matter. Further, I am unable to believe space and time came out of the BB. The so-called "Great Void" is a bonafide naked emperor's scam, even though it may have been adopted by one of my heroes by the time he worked on it. I just shows to me the desperation levels scientists can reach in their desire to resolve nature's "paradoxes."
Time, being a property only of matter, could not accrue to matter at the start of the BB simply because matter was not yet created. Later, when matter in motion formed from the energy released, only then did time begin.
Observation 8) So, I again urge all genuine science/idea discoursers to refrain from using personal comments and unhelpful and uninformative invocations of authority as 'arguments'. Please address the points raised and the logics involved and try to avoid defaulting to current attitudes/understandings which may or may not in the end be ONLY PARTIAL views of the realities/logics actually involved in the various points raised for discussion.
Again, just some third party observations for the greater good of discourse in science and humanity. Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
undefined
Sensible advice; I applaud it.
QUOTE
My point was that time rates vary as a function of the individual different speeds of discrete objects. It was not about whether time is a force or not.
The original was about rates, not 'time as a force'. I don't see how you got there except the poster is so frckin hard to make any sense of. I think he does sometime, but its hidden by all the bs.
You guys do more name calling than discussing.
And being banned, he continues to post the same crap.
RC, go away.
If there was any actual moderater of this site, you'd have been IP banned long ago.
RC, go away.
If there was any actual moderater of this site, you'd have been IP banned long ago.
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jun 28 2012, 09:11 PM)
Mr. Obfuscation to the rescue.[/QUOTE]
Hi brucep.
You have not read the post or not understood it. Either way, your non-answer says much more about your ineffectual trolling and parroting in lieu of addressing the points raised in the observations. Too bad. Do better.
And as for this from the AlexG 'programmed loop' troll...
...The fact that you are still allowed to post your mindless crap at all says it all about the moderator's bias and/or incompetenct. So my banning was a suspect act either way.
Thanks again for helping me make my point about that again, stooge-for-hire!
.
Mr. Hand Wringing Obfuscation to the rescue. Before you were banned [way after the fact], for trolling complete irrelevant bullshit over way to long a time, you were incredibly ignorant of the facts. Still are dummy. Plus any credibility you might have garnered is 'long gone'. You should do the same.
Hi brucep.
You have not read the post or not understood it. Either way, your non-answer says much more about your ineffectual trolling and parroting in lieu of addressing the points raised in the observations. Too bad. Do better.
And as for this from the AlexG 'programmed loop' troll...
...The fact that you are still allowed to post your mindless crap at all says it all about the moderator's bias and/or incompetenct. So my banning was a suspect act either way.
Thanks again for helping me make my point about that again, stooge-for-hire!
.
Mr. Hand Wringing Obfuscation to the rescue. Before you were banned [way after the fact], for trolling complete irrelevant bullshit over way to long a time, you were incredibly ignorant of the facts. Still are dummy. Plus any credibility you might have garnered is 'long gone'.
You should do the same.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 27 2012, 04:53 PM)
Aside from you, who exactly has said that "time passes for everything at the same rate". Seems you are running with the obsolete Newtonian notion of an absolute time. Now perhaps you mean to say that time passes at the same rate as observed within any rest frame, in which case there is no discrepancy with these varying between frames.
Again, with respect to what are you determining this "speed of each discrete object"? Speeds are only relative, so they will be observed to be different depending on who observers them.
Who said anything about "everything ages at the same rate"? You seem to be confused on the subject and are shadowboxing your own misconceptions. No one credible has made that claim, so what exactly are you arguing?
So all of your arguments for "time must contain energy" have been completely fabricated by you. You claim that everything being subject to the same time rate requires it, but then you have neglected the crucial step of providing any evidence or citation that your initial assumption is in the least bit true. If your premise is not valid then neither is your conclusion.
Of course, you then continue to blindly harp on the erroneous "time has energy" whether the time rates for everything are the same or not. Go back to the drawing board, as you have made unfounded assumptions in lieu of understanding.
Multiverses are known to be highly hypothetical, and there are no "loose ends" with "paradoxes". Your "loose ends" and "contradictions" are only an indication of your lack of understanding, nothing more. Paradoxes in science only seem to be so, usually from a naive intuition, but in actuality are quite consistent and no paradox at all once comprehended. You have also yet to make the case for the interdependence of spacetime being any sort of contradiction.
Really?
Really? So even though an object closer to the center of rotation of a massive object is moving slower than an object further out, why is the closer object's time slower relative to the further objects? This completely contradicts your assertion that time should slow for faster objects.
Like I said earlier, you are ignorant and stubborn, so this is all wasted effort on my part. Go back to play pretend science with other cranks. At least you can make each other feel special, even if the rest of us think you are special for entirely different reasons.
Nice delivery crank buster. So that's what he's all about [the crank you're busting] 'time must contain energy'. Wow I only wished that were true
brucep^2_age in earth seconds + m^2 + p^2 = E_total brucep.
That answers the age old question why 'many humans' win Olympic Gold in their late 90's.
Again, with respect to what are you determining this "speed of each discrete object"? Speeds are only relative, so they will be observed to be different depending on who observers them.
Who said anything about "everything ages at the same rate"? You seem to be confused on the subject and are shadowboxing your own misconceptions. No one credible has made that claim, so what exactly are you arguing?
So all of your arguments for "time must contain energy" have been completely fabricated by you. You claim that everything being subject to the same time rate requires it, but then you have neglected the crucial step of providing any evidence or citation that your initial assumption is in the least bit true. If your premise is not valid then neither is your conclusion.
Of course, you then continue to blindly harp on the erroneous "time has energy" whether the time rates for everything are the same or not. Go back to the drawing board, as you have made unfounded assumptions in lieu of understanding.
Multiverses are known to be highly hypothetical, and there are no "loose ends" with "paradoxes". Your "loose ends" and "contradictions" are only an indication of your lack of understanding, nothing more. Paradoxes in science only seem to be so, usually from a naive intuition, but in actuality are quite consistent and no paradox at all once comprehended. You have also yet to make the case for the interdependence of spacetime being any sort of contradiction.
Really?
Really? So even though an object closer to the center of rotation of a massive object is moving slower than an object further out, why is the closer object's time slower relative to the further objects? This completely contradicts your assertion that time should slow for faster objects.
Like I said earlier, you are ignorant and stubborn, so this is all wasted effort on my part. Go back to play pretend science with other cranks. At least you can make each other feel special, even if the rest of us think you are special for entirely different reasons.
Nice delivery crank buster. So that's what he's all about [the crank you're busting] 'time must contain energy'. Wow I only wished that were true
brucep^2_age in earth seconds + m^2 + p^2 = E_total brucep.
That answers the age old question why 'many humans' win Olympic Gold in their late 90's.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 29 2012, 04:03 PM)
Mr. Hand Wringing Obfuscation to the rescue. Before you were banned [way after the fact], for trolling complete irrelevant bullshit over way to long a time, you were incredibly ignorant of the facts. Still are dummy. Plus any credibility you might have garnered is 'long gone'. You should do the same. [/QUOTE]
My kid is having a birthday party and I am looking to hire a couple of stooges for the day.
Try looking in the mirror. Couple of schizophrenic stooges staring back at you. So where can we get the book you've been lying about. Published by Peanut Brain Press. Have fun at the birthday party. Three stooges, RC, RC, and RC.
You should do the same. [/QUOTE]My kid is having a birthday party and I am looking to hire a couple of stooges for the day.
Try looking in the mirror. Couple of schizophrenic stooges staring back at you. So where can we get the book you've been lying about. Published by Peanut Brain Press. Have fun at the birthday party. Three stooges, RC, RC, and RC.
RC is quite a paranoid nutcase.
You weren't banned because rpenner doesn't like you, you were banned because you post obscuring, nonsensical crap.
Over, and over and over and over again.
There's some serious mental malfunction at work here.
You weren't banned because rpenner doesn't like you, you were banned because you post obscuring, nonsensical crap.
Over, and over and over and over again.
There's some serious mental malfunction at work here.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 1 2012, 12:11 AM)
Looky there everybodyl
rpenner has deleted
It's what happens to spam.
rpenner has deleted
It's what happens to spam.
Whinning Troll again.
There is serious mental illness at work here.
There is serious mental illness at work here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam
Who believes anything you have to say on the matter, rpenner?
You delude yourself that people haven't been watching YOU squirm and distorting and 'housekeeping' to beat the band trying to cover up the evidence pointing to your lies and libel and continuing abuse of power....as amply demonstrated by your characterization of those 'stats'.
You are still on that slippery slope mate. Get off it before it's too late. No one here is deceived by your distorting and framing to cover up your own fault. You created this debacle. You alone can redeem it by reinstating RealityCheck. The facts are already widely known. It's no use deluding yourself that you are 'getting away with it' by these lame cover up attempts and self-justifying distortions of the record.
The "INVESTIGATOR" experiment PROVED your policy of banning inconvenient questions/questioners while hypocritically allowing your 'protected species' parrots to avoid answering them. All the while YOU and they DEMANDING answers from others while you and your protected species do NOT do likewise.
As for the RealityCheck warnings, it was already clear to everyone that YOU unconscionably victimized me in order to trump up 'excuses' to RAISE the warn level to the point you could FALSELY 'justify' banning me and THEN making the supid and illegal mistake of LYING and LIBELING in order to further frame and intimidate your victim so that he would just 'go away'.
You were wrong to do all that then; and you are compounding that wrongness by continuing with this ridiculous farce and pretense of 'justifying' using the 'stats' which YOU are mostly responsible for framing/creating in the first place.
How lame you've become. How ordinary the nastiness to which you stoop to cover up your failures of character, legality and professionalism. Sad.
Reinstate RealityCheck without any more of your nonsense, rpenner. That's the only way. Your present course of desperately destroying/distprting the record and 'framing it your way' is not worthy of the intellect once so respected. Truly, if you don't do the right thing now and reinstate RealityCheck, you will be responsible for your own loss of reputation and credibility evermore. Courage. Do the right thing. Reinstate RealityCheck and all will be forgiven and forgot.
With every new deletion/distortion, your credibility takes a hit. The Streisand Effect only builds further. You know this yet you persist in your self-destructive activity and treating the forum members like gullible idiost whom you hope will take your word for anything anymore. Give it up. This victim did not 'go away'and all is known because I spoke up in self defense against your wrongdoing. Step back and stop it now, rpenner, for your future self's sake. Good luck with your future choices which go to make up your future self. Seriously.
.
rpenners sin is being a useless moderator. You're a schizophrenic pariah.
QUOTE (^+)
Forum spam is the creating of messages that are advertisements, abusive, or otherwise unwanted on Internet forums. It is generally done by automated spambots, or manually with unscrupulous intentions.
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jul 1 2012, 06:36 PM)
And just WHO is the 'judge' of what is or is not 'spam' here?
Should we hold a vote?
Should we hold a vote?
I don't generally reply to illegitimate posters.
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jul 2 2012, 02:20 AM)
reinstate RealityCheck ... without any more nonsense
Investigator 93 posts of nonsense zero remain.
RealityCheck 8 warnings on our 5-strikes-and-you-are-out system. 6186 posts of spam remain.
Investigator 93 posts of nonsense zero remain.
RealityCheck 8 warnings on our 5-strikes-and-you-are-out system. 6186 posts of spam remain.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 1 2012, 10:40 PM)
RealityCheck 8 warnings on our 5-strikes-and-you-are-out system. 6186 posts of spam remain.
Now that hardly seems fair, RealityCheck is so special that he deserves at least double the number of warnings that everyone else gets. In fact, he should be exempt from ALL the rules.
/sarcasm
Now that hardly seems fair, RealityCheck is so special that he deserves at least double the number of warnings that everyone else gets. In fact, he should be exempt from ALL the rules.
/sarcasm
QUOTE (In-Self-Defense+Jul 2 2012, 03:34 AM)
Who believes anything you have to say on the matter, rpenner?
You delude yourself that people haven't been watching YOU squirm and distorting and 'housekeeping' to beat the band trying to cover up the evidence pointing to your lies and libel and continuing abuse of power....as amply demonstrated by your characterization of those 'stats'.
You are still on that slippery slope mate. Get off it before it's too late. No one here is deceived by your distorting and framing to cover up your own fault. You created this debacle. You alone can redeem it by reinstating RealityCheck. The facts are already widely known. It's no use deluding yourself that you are 'getting away with it' by these lame cover up attempts and self-justifying distortions of the record.
The "INVESTIGATOR" experiment PROVED your policy of banning inconvenient questions/questioners while hypocritically allowing your 'protected species' parrots to avoid answering them. All the while YOU and they DEMANDING answers from others while you and your protected species do NOT do likewise.
As for the RealityCheck warnings, it was already clear to everyone that YOU unconscionably victimized me in order to trump up 'excuses' to RAISE the warn level to the point you could FALSELY 'justify' banning me and THEN making the supid and illegal mistake of LYING and LIBELING in order to further frame and intimidate your victim so that he would just 'go away'.
You were wrong to do all that then; and you are compounding that wrongness by continuing with this ridiculous farce and pretense of 'justifying' using the 'stats' which YOU are mostly responsible for framing/creating in the first place.
How lame you've become. How ordinary the nastiness to which you stoop to cover up your failures of character, legality and professionalism. Sad.
Reinstate RealityCheck without any more of your nonsense, rpenner. That's the only way. Your present course of desperately destroying/distprting the record and 'framing it your way' is not worthy of the intellect once so respected. Truly, if you don't do the right thing now and reinstate RealityCheck, you will be responsible for your own loss of reputation and credibility evermore. Courage. Do the right thing. Reinstate RealityCheck and all will be forgiven and forgot.
With every new deletion/distortion, your credibility takes a hit. The Streisand Effect only builds further. You know this yet you persist in your self-destructive activity and treating the forum members like gullible idiost whom you hope will take your word for anything anymore. Give it up. This victim did not 'go away'and all is known because I spoke up in self defense against your wrongdoing. Step back and stop it now, rpenner, for your future self's sake. Good luck with your future choices which go to make up your future self. Seriously.
.
rpenners sin is being a useless moderator. You're a schizophrenic pariah.
I tried to resign -- you guys dragged me back just because some idiot spammed this forum every 90 seconds, 24/7.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 2 2012, 09:42 PM)
I tried to resign .
I must have missed the post of your intent to resign.
I must have missed the post of your intent to resign.
QUOTE (Capracus+Jul 2 2012, 04:20 PM)
I must have missed the post of your intent to resign.
What, the long absence corresponding to all of the posts about this forum being unmoderated, not to mention the onslaught of spam, didn't clue you in?
What, the long absence corresponding to all of the posts about this forum being unmoderated, not to mention the onslaught of spam, didn't clue you in?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.