We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
Can time be a new frame of reference?
We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
QUOTE (hpdrdoom+Mar 7 2012, 08:58 AM)
Can time be a new frame of reference?
We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
How is it that you can say this..? That it's not imaginary nor illusion...?
Especially since you say you don't *know* what it is..?
Is it because so many people have been taught to believe it exists..?
Are religions *real* because the priests wear robes and hold ceremonies..?
Time is an analogy to help man understand the cosmos... The cosmos itself is timeless.
It just keeps doing its thing.., using it's own means...
Gad... That shouldn't be hard for people to understand as possible and accept... Cause many people already say that Space doesn't expand... There just keeps being MORE of it... lol
I guess there's a process going on out there that we just don't understand... And just maybe we have it all wrong so far...?
Just maybe people need to get sensible and eliminate that which they cannot touch, feel, weigh, measure, see, smell, hear, or control...?
Cause I think that qualifies it as *IMAGINARY*...?? Correct me if I'm wrong...
But it sure does work nicely in their math.., doesn't it..?
Well... Maybe not so 'nicely'... Everyone knows there is something wrong with it... But no one really want's to find it. Do they. lol
Gravity is the governor of the galaxies... Of the entire cosmos... Measure it and know that *it* is the true relativity... The true controller of aging properties at the atomic level.., and therefore of everything they comprise...
It's the 'aging' that creates the illusion of time... *Not* the other way around...
Why is it so hard for people to catch on, and see that..?
But if I'm wrong.., I'd like to know what time really is too..? And how someone really knows that...? And please.., not some reason like it just can't be replaced in the calculations... lol
Cause I've shown it can be.
We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
How is it that you can say this..? That it's not imaginary nor illusion...?
Especially since you say you don't *know* what it is..?
Is it because so many people have been taught to believe it exists..?
Are religions *real* because the priests wear robes and hold ceremonies..?
Time is an analogy to help man understand the cosmos... The cosmos itself is timeless.
It just keeps doing its thing.., using it's own means...
Gad... That shouldn't be hard for people to understand as possible and accept... Cause many people already say that Space doesn't expand... There just keeps being MORE of it... lol
I guess there's a process going on out there that we just don't understand... And just maybe we have it all wrong so far...?
Just maybe people need to get sensible and eliminate that which they cannot touch, feel, weigh, measure, see, smell, hear, or control...?
Cause I think that qualifies it as *IMAGINARY*...?? Correct me if I'm wrong...
But it sure does work nicely in their math.., doesn't it..?
Well... Maybe not so 'nicely'... Everyone knows there is something wrong with it... But no one really want's to find it. Do they. lol
Gravity is the governor of the galaxies... Of the entire cosmos... Measure it and know that *it* is the true relativity... The true controller of aging properties at the atomic level.., and therefore of everything they comprise...
It's the 'aging' that creates the illusion of time... *Not* the other way around...
Why is it so hard for people to catch on, and see that..?
But if I'm wrong.., I'd like to know what time really is too..? And how someone really knows that...? And please.., not some reason like it just can't be replaced in the calculations... lol
Cause I've shown it can be.
Time is the only explanation for how physical processes can change.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 7 2012, 02:02 PM)
Time is the only explanation for how physical processes can change.
Excuse me.., but time, what humans have made of it.., only records what has happened... Otherwise please tell me what time does that causes things to happen..?
What does time have that cause physical processes to change... Cause I know some that don't... And of course according to you time would still be there while nothing's going on.., right..?
Why is time selective then on what it wants to see change..? And how does time decide... Does it know there's a tomorrow..? Does it have an imagination too..? Does it have a sense of humor..? Does it enjoy what it's doing...? lol
Time may be the only explanation YOU can understand.., but I am a little less locked in to what other people think... I can visualize no time... That takes imagination too.., but at least I know it for what it is...
Excuse me.., but time, what humans have made of it.., only records what has happened... Otherwise please tell me what time does that causes things to happen..?
What does time have that cause physical processes to change... Cause I know some that don't... And of course according to you time would still be there while nothing's going on.., right..?
Why is time selective then on what it wants to see change..? And how does time decide... Does it know there's a tomorrow..? Does it have an imagination too..? Does it have a sense of humor..? Does it enjoy what it's doing...? lol
Time may be the only explanation YOU can understand.., but I am a little less locked in to what other people think... I can visualize no time... That takes imagination too.., but at least I know it for what it is...
QUOTE (hpdrdoom+Mar 7 2012, 01:58 AM)
Can time be a new frame of reference?
We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
A frame refers to a set of coordinates, not to one coordinate alone. Time is one of four coordinates needed to describe the location of an event.
We cannot say time as imaginary nor illusion.
So what is it?
A frame refers to a set of coordinates, not to one coordinate alone. Time is one of four coordinates needed to describe the location of an event.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Mar 7 2012, 03:14 PM)
A frame refers to a set of coordinates, not to one coordinate alone. Time is one of four coordinates needed to describe the location of an event.
What you say is ok as far as time being used to describe a difference between two frames that humans can relate to... But I see it as very unfortunate that you and many others are now trying to shove time down the cosmos's throat... Telling it that it must be able to reverse itself.., fold itself up into bundles so we can jump between folds through mythical worm holes... And a few more weird things that come from the math that now includes time as a physical part of the cosmos... Space/time. I hate to laugh out loud but hang on a minute... (rotflmao) There.., now that that's out of the way I have a bit more on this......
What you say about four coordinates really can't be true... You only need three coordinates to describe the location of anything at any particular instant...
Each frame is supposed to be one static set of three coordinates... So what you're talking about is the change between two frames... But that's not another coordinate... It's just a sampling period... And who knows how many frames you skipped.., or what went on between any of them... You're only looking at two static frames.
You and a few other people have that sampling period in your head, that may or may not show a change between any two arbitrary frames.., as being caused by time... But it was not caused by time. Time is for us humans to know how long it took for that change to occur *in our terms*. But time didn't dictate to any particular frame what to do or how long to take to do it before we wanted to look at the next frame...
You ought to look for something that really caused that frame to want to change.... Something that was affecting it *within* that single frame... There were still forces you know... Gravity being the most obvious... It was exerting its force on everything in that frame...
Now if you want to say that time was included too.., time would have been effectively stopped... It has no influence *within* a frame... That's precisely what a frame is for... To eliminate time... Is it not..?
So carry on now... You're looking at two frames... With a separation of one second between them. Can you please tell me what that means to the cosmos..?
And while you're at it.., why does time need to be IN the cosmos..? Can you tell us if it IS anything other than a means for humans to 'describe' things..?
Anyway..., frames are just another invention to confuse the issue further... There is no such thing in nature... Everything is absolutely and totally continuous... Analog as opposed to digital. You may look at a frame when you cut the side of an apple off... There you go... There's nothing there... lol The face of the apple toward the core is larger than the face of the cut off piece...
But there is absolutely NOTHING in the so called 'frame'...
Bite me.., says the apple...
lol
Thanks...
What you say is ok as far as time being used to describe a difference between two frames that humans can relate to... But I see it as very unfortunate that you and many others are now trying to shove time down the cosmos's throat... Telling it that it must be able to reverse itself.., fold itself up into bundles so we can jump between folds through mythical worm holes... And a few more weird things that come from the math that now includes time as a physical part of the cosmos... Space/time. I hate to laugh out loud but hang on a minute... (rotflmao) There.., now that that's out of the way I have a bit more on this......
What you say about four coordinates really can't be true... You only need three coordinates to describe the location of anything at any particular instant...
Each frame is supposed to be one static set of three coordinates... So what you're talking about is the change between two frames... But that's not another coordinate... It's just a sampling period... And who knows how many frames you skipped.., or what went on between any of them... You're only looking at two static frames.
You and a few other people have that sampling period in your head, that may or may not show a change between any two arbitrary frames.., as being caused by time... But it was not caused by time. Time is for us humans to know how long it took for that change to occur *in our terms*. But time didn't dictate to any particular frame what to do or how long to take to do it before we wanted to look at the next frame...
You ought to look for something that really caused that frame to want to change.... Something that was affecting it *within* that single frame... There were still forces you know... Gravity being the most obvious... It was exerting its force on everything in that frame...
Now if you want to say that time was included too.., time would have been effectively stopped... It has no influence *within* a frame... That's precisely what a frame is for... To eliminate time... Is it not..?
So carry on now... You're looking at two frames... With a separation of one second between them. Can you please tell me what that means to the cosmos..?
And while you're at it.., why does time need to be IN the cosmos..? Can you tell us if it IS anything other than a means for humans to 'describe' things..?
Anyway..., frames are just another invention to confuse the issue further... There is no such thing in nature... Everything is absolutely and totally continuous... Analog as opposed to digital. You may look at a frame when you cut the side of an apple off... There you go... There's nothing there... lol The face of the apple toward the core is larger than the face of the cut off piece...
But there is absolutely NOTHING in the so called 'frame'...
Bite me.., says the apple...
lol
Thanks...
Hey new theories state that space time has no "Time dimension"
Einstein never interpreted time "t" as a fourth dimension of space. Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change. This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world. With this approach all immediate information transfers of quantum physics are explained in a more appropriate way. 4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers.
It states that time is not a fourth dimension.
Einstein never interpreted time "t" as a fourth dimension of space. Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change. This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world. With this approach all immediate information transfers of quantum physics are explained in a more appropriate way. 4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers.
It states that time is not a fourth dimension.
QUOTE
Hey new theories state that space time has no "Time dimension"
Do have some kind of source for this, because the only ones I see stating that there is no time are ubercranks.
QUOTE (hpdrdoom+Mar 8 2012, 01:30 PM)
Hey new theories state that space time has no "Time dimension"
Einstein never interpreted time "t" as a fourth dimension of space. Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change. This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world. With this approach all immediate information transfers of quantum physics are explained in a more appropriate way. 4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers.
It states that time is not a fourth dimension.
First off I didn't use the word 'dimension'... The term I used was 'coordinates' in response to David. And saying that time was not one of them either. Because to me, time does not exist in the cosmos. It can't be *anything* except to tell US how long something took to happen in terms that we can relate to others of US... Time should not become a constituent part of the cosmos itself.
Beyond that, I don't know if you're more or less agreeing with me or not. You say both.
and
and
It states that time is not a fourth dimension.
Beyond that.., you state
But it is not...
As we all know there can be many 'times' going on, all the time... Excuse the apparent paradox.., but that's exactly why time should not be a part of the calculations. It's misleading everyone.
The other 'time'..., is our also variable but measurable rates of *physical aging*...
In the established and on going time reference we have here on earth.., there are variations on the 'exact' time as seen by clocks in particular areas, and therefor the equivalent aging differences of the physical objects in those areas. The atoms of physical clocks are registering the same effects of more, or less, gravity as do all other physical objects in these areas... Which causes them to speed up or slow down from the average earth gravity by the same atomic level (or below) gravity regulated amounts...
It is all the same thing happening everywhere... Even to the extent that if we move from place to place, that so called 'time dilation' takes place... But in fact it is not time dilation... It is that we are apparently cutting through more gravity flux that we would otherwise be subjected to... And gravity is what is slowing the clocks. Time.., or rather clocks.., are just measurement tools, not a cause. They measure the slowness everything has from working against the effects of gravity. And gravity exists throughout space as well... It is the web they draw around planets and such... Not time. We know about space travelers coming back younger than we expect them to be. That is being proven to apply all over the place. It likely happens even on a trip to the corner grocery store and back. You're younger than if you hand't made the trip... Albeit in very minuscule amounts.
It is the various aging rates of physical objects, caused by various amounts of gravity that objects have been exposed too that brings on the different physical ages each has from the other. These younger and older physically aged objects can then become mixed. That's how the folding that is now seen, using time actually may be taking place... The math is hinting that 'folding' is possible.., but the math is not playing with a full deck... We made it use our imaginary time as an analogy for gravity... So it came out funny.., and man is misinterpreting the results.
Because time itself does not exist... Man only measures the sun going overhead and how many full moons there will be before people get old... It's our imagined analogy to quantify what's *really* going on...
IMHO of course.
But I'm usually right...
And I am here too...
IMHO of course.
First off I didn't use the word 'dimension'... The term I used was 'coordinates' in response to David. And saying that time was not one of them either. Because to me, time does not exist in the cosmos. It can't be *anything* except to tell US how long something took to happen in terms that we can relate to others of US... Time should not become a constituent part of the cosmos itself.
Beyond that, I don't know if you're more or less agreeing with me or not. You say both.
and
Beyond that.., you state
But it is not...
As we all know there can be many 'times' going on, all the time... Excuse the apparent paradox.., but that's exactly why time should not be a part of the calculations. It's misleading everyone.
The other 'time'..., is our also variable but measurable rates of *physical aging*...
In the established and on going time reference we have here on earth.., there are variations on the 'exact' time as seen by clocks in particular areas, and therefor the equivalent aging differences of the physical objects in those areas. The atoms of physical clocks are registering the same effects of more, or less, gravity as do all other physical objects in these areas... Which causes them to speed up or slow down from the average earth gravity by the same atomic level (or below) gravity regulated amounts...
It is all the same thing happening everywhere... Even to the extent that if we move from place to place, that so called 'time dilation' takes place... But in fact it is not time dilation... It is that we are apparently cutting through more gravity flux that we would otherwise be subjected to... And gravity is what is slowing the clocks. Time.., or rather clocks.., are just measurement tools, not a cause. They measure the slowness everything has from working against the effects of gravity. And gravity exists throughout space as well... It is the web they draw around planets and such... Not time. We know about space travelers coming back younger than we expect them to be. That is being proven to apply all over the place. It likely happens even on a trip to the corner grocery store and back. You're younger than if you hand't made the trip... Albeit in very minuscule amounts.
It is the various aging rates of physical objects, caused by various amounts of gravity that objects have been exposed too that brings on the different physical ages each has from the other. These younger and older physically aged objects can then become mixed. That's how the folding that is now seen, using time actually may be taking place... The math is hinting that 'folding' is possible.., but the math is not playing with a full deck... We made it use our imaginary time as an analogy for gravity... So it came out funny.., and man is misinterpreting the results.
Because time itself does not exist... Man only measures the sun going overhead and how many full moons there will be before people get old... It's our imagined analogy to quantify what's *really* going on...
IMHO of course.
But I'm usually right...
And I am here too...
IMHO of course.
It seems that all of my ideas have already been very well considered and vindicated... That gravity rules... That it is a pervasive governing flux stretching throughout the cosmos. That it is timeless..., and possibly of infinite speed... But currently indicated by observational evidence and experiments to be not less than 2 x 10^10 c.
A snip from the link presented below..:
It was not until the last decade that serious consideration was given to the possibility that the local gravity field may always constitute a preferred frame.
Here is a further snip of the Summary.., that tells of SR being somewhat misleading... That GR is the prevailing power of the cosmos. It is totally in tune with my own thoughts...
Here is a further snip of the Summary.., that tells of SR being somewhat misleading... That GR is the prevailing power of the cosmos. It is totally in tune with my own thoughts...
Why then did SR win out over LR? Thee circumstances conspired to make SR appear to be the better solution to describing nature in the early years of the 20th century.
Classical thinking about the aether almost always involved a universal field rather than a local field. No one took seriously that each local gravity field might serve as a preferred frame for local observers. Yet that now seems the case.
The wave nature of matter had not yet been discovered by deBroglie. Before that happened, there was no logical reason to expect that clocks based ultimately on atomic oscillations would have their rates affected by observer motion in the same way that the speed of light would be affected by observer motion, rendering observer motion undetectable in experiments. However, that also now seems to be true (Van Flandern, 1993, p.72-77).
The success of GR in predicting the light-bending effect at the 1918 solar eclipse gained great credibility for GR, and SR benefited from this success because it was widely believed that GR was based on SR. But GR is usually implemented using a preferred frame closely coinciding with the local gravity field, with the consequence that only the features that SR and LR have in common were integrated into GR. The reciprocity of time dilation between two inertial frames, a key way in which SR differs from LR, plays no role in GR.
The entire piece is well written, very informative, and very well documented...
Not to mention being correct...
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
Thank you... And I will tell you I told you so... lol
p.s. It is good to know there are others out there who will eventually lay waist to the lives of our attendant trolls... Those locked in, limited thinking, SR devotees... No matter how they squirm and wiggle now...
Watch out... Here they come... lol
I think of the forum as a kaleidoscope of colours and shapes, you can't turn it back to go back to what it was like before, but carry on it will be amazing.
Total bullshit.
Total bullshit.
And it's all based on proven, accepted and very observable factors...
More total bullshit.
Total bullshit.
More total bullshit.
Easy Read.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
Original Paper - Same text.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html (2nd source same info.)
People can judge for themselves...
And see that this PhD had a real job...
Alex... What rock did you come out from under...?
Now Alex will say this PhD is a 'crank' too... But what is Alex...
Actually it isn't worth knowing... I see nothing other than he's a BS man from 1975... But who ever hired him. What did he contribute. Did he buy his diploma doing sports... There's a little lacking in AlexG's credibility and believability... Read all of his posts... 90 percent of them are nasty one liner put downs... Who needs his kind of help and understanding... lol
He's not worth the bandwidth he's been wasting. That certainly clear.
Einstein never interpreted time "t" as a fourth dimension of space. Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. With clocks we measure numerical order of material change. This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world. With this approach all immediate information transfers of quantum physics are explained in a more appropriate way. 4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers.
It states that time is not a fourth dimension.
First off I didn't use the word 'dimension'... The term I used was 'coordinates' in response to David. And saying that time was not one of them either. Because to me, time does not exist in the cosmos. It can't be *anything* except to tell US how long something took to happen in terms that we can relate to others of US... Time should not become a constituent part of the cosmos itself.
Beyond that, I don't know if you're more or less agreeing with me or not. You say both.
QUOTE
Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Space is not 3D + T, space is 4D. |
and
It states that time is not a fourth dimension.
Beyond that.., you state
QUOTE
This numerical order is the only time that exists in a physical world.
But it is not...
As we all know there can be many 'times' going on, all the time... Excuse the apparent paradox.., but that's exactly why time should not be a part of the calculations. It's misleading everyone.
The other 'time'..., is our also variable but measurable rates of *physical aging*...
In the established and on going time reference we have here on earth.., there are variations on the 'exact' time as seen by clocks in particular areas, and therefor the equivalent aging differences of the physical objects in those areas. The atoms of physical clocks are registering the same effects of more, or less, gravity as do all other physical objects in these areas... Which causes them to speed up or slow down from the average earth gravity by the same atomic level (or below) gravity regulated amounts...
It is all the same thing happening everywhere... Even to the extent that if we move from place to place, that so called 'time dilation' takes place... But in fact it is not time dilation... It is that we are apparently cutting through more gravity flux that we would otherwise be subjected to... And gravity is what is slowing the clocks. Time.., or rather clocks.., are just measurement tools, not a cause. They measure the slowness everything has from working against the effects of gravity. And gravity exists throughout space as well... It is the web they draw around planets and such... Not time. We know about space travelers coming back younger than we expect them to be. That is being proven to apply all over the place. It likely happens even on a trip to the corner grocery store and back. You're younger than if you hand't made the trip... Albeit in very minuscule amounts.
It is the various aging rates of physical objects, caused by various amounts of gravity that objects have been exposed too that brings on the different physical ages each has from the other. These younger and older physically aged objects can then become mixed. That's how the folding that is now seen, using time actually may be taking place... The math is hinting that 'folding' is possible.., but the math is not playing with a full deck... We made it use our imaginary time as an analogy for gravity... So it came out funny.., and man is misinterpreting the results.
Because time itself does not exist... Man only measures the sun going overhead and how many full moons there will be before people get old... It's our imagined analogy to quantify what's *really* going on...
IMHO of course.
But I'm usually right...
And I am here too...
IMHO of course.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Mar 8 2012, 05:57 PM)
First off I didn't use the word 'dimension'... The term I used was 'coordinates' in response to David. And saying that time was not one of them either. Because to me, time does not exist in the cosmos. It can't be *anything* except to tell US how long something took to happen in terms that we can relate to others of US... Time should not become a constituent part of the cosmos itself.
Beyond that, I don't know if you're more or less agreeing with me or not. You say both.
and
Beyond that.., you state
But it is not...
As we all know there can be many 'times' going on, all the time... Excuse the apparent paradox.., but that's exactly why time should not be a part of the calculations. It's misleading everyone.
The other 'time'..., is our also variable but measurable rates of *physical aging*...
In the established and on going time reference we have here on earth.., there are variations on the 'exact' time as seen by clocks in particular areas, and therefor the equivalent aging differences of the physical objects in those areas. The atoms of physical clocks are registering the same effects of more, or less, gravity as do all other physical objects in these areas... Which causes them to speed up or slow down from the average earth gravity by the same atomic level (or below) gravity regulated amounts...
It is all the same thing happening everywhere... Even to the extent that if we move from place to place, that so called 'time dilation' takes place... But in fact it is not time dilation... It is that we are apparently cutting through more gravity flux that we would otherwise be subjected to... And gravity is what is slowing the clocks. Time.., or rather clocks.., are just measurement tools, not a cause. They measure the slowness everything has from working against the effects of gravity. And gravity exists throughout space as well... It is the web they draw around planets and such... Not time. We know about space travelers coming back younger than we expect them to be. That is being proven to apply all over the place. It likely happens even on a trip to the corner grocery store and back. You're younger than if you hand't made the trip... Albeit in very minuscule amounts.
It is the various aging rates of physical objects, caused by various amounts of gravity that objects have been exposed too that brings on the different physical ages each has from the other. These younger and older physically aged objects can then become mixed. That's how the folding that is now seen, using time actually may be taking place... The math is hinting that 'folding' is possible.., but the math is not playing with a full deck... We made it use our imaginary time as an analogy for gravity... So it came out funny.., and man is misinterpreting the results.
Because time itself does not exist... Man only measures the sun going overhead and how many full moons there will be before people get old... It's our imagined analogy to quantify what's *really* going on...
IMHO of course.
But I'm usually right...
And I am here too...
IMHO of course.
It seems that all of my ideas have already been very well considered and vindicated... That gravity rules... That it is a pervasive governing flux stretching throughout the cosmos. That it is timeless..., and possibly of infinite speed... But currently indicated by observational evidence and experiments to be not less than 2 x 10^10 c.
A snip from the link presented below..:
QUOTE
It was not until the last decade that serious consideration was given to the possibility that the local gravity field may always constitute a preferred frame.
Here is a further snip of the Summary.., that tells of SR being somewhat misleading... That GR is the prevailing power of the cosmos. It is totally in tune with my own thoughts...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It was not until the last decade that serious consideration was given to the possibility that the local gravity field may always constitute a preferred frame. |
Here is a further snip of the Summary.., that tells of SR being somewhat misleading... That GR is the prevailing power of the cosmos. It is totally in tune with my own thoughts...
Why then did SR win out over LR? Thee circumstances conspired to make SR appear to be the better solution to describing nature in the early years of the 20th century.
Classical thinking about the aether almost always involved a universal field rather than a local field. No one took seriously that each local gravity field might serve as a preferred frame for local observers. Yet that now seems the case.
The wave nature of matter had not yet been discovered by deBroglie. Before that happened, there was no logical reason to expect that clocks based ultimately on atomic oscillations would have their rates affected by observer motion in the same way that the speed of light would be affected by observer motion, rendering observer motion undetectable in experiments. However, that also now seems to be true (Van Flandern, 1993, p.72-77).
The success of GR in predicting the light-bending effect at the 1918 solar eclipse gained great credibility for GR, and SR benefited from this success because it was widely believed that GR was based on SR. But GR is usually implemented using a preferred frame closely coinciding with the local gravity field, with the consequence that only the features that SR and LR have in common were integrated into GR. The reciprocity of time dilation between two inertial frames, a key way in which SR differs from LR, plays no role in GR.
The entire piece is well written, very informative, and very well documented...
Not to mention being correct...
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
Thank you... And I will tell you I told you so... lol
p.s. It is good to know there are others out there who will eventually lay waist to the lives of our attendant trolls... Those locked in, limited thinking, SR devotees... No matter how they squirm and wiggle now...
Watch out... Here they come... lol
What's up with all the cranks who like to talk to themselves now days?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 9 2012, 05:10 PM)
What's up with all the cranks who like to talk to themselves now days?
Was that a question to someone or were you asking yourself?
Was that a question to someone or were you asking yourself?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 12:28 PM)
Was that a question to someone or were you asking yourself?
QUOTE (Maxila+Mar 9 2012, 06:36 PM)
I think of the forum as a kaleidoscope of colours and shapes, you can't turn it back to go back to what it was like before, but carry on it will be amazing.
Yes it can. This is one big problem. According to physics it is not, but if you count effects like quantun entanglement there is no way to explain without it.
QUOTE (Bryslon+Mar 15 2012, 06:17 PM)
Yes it can. This is one big problem. According to physics it is not, but if you count effects like quantun entanglement there is no way to explain without it.
But there is a way... Gravity is thought by some.., including me.., to be the highway of everything that travels in the cosmos... All particles, photons, etc... It is pervasive and thought to be of infinite speed... Measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c...
I see for instance that it is what photon particles react with.., as radios mix incoming and local oscillators to produce a usable frequency.... Photon's vibrations, oscillations, or whatever they may be, mix with gravity to produce what we see as light., as those particles travel through that flux... That particle squeezes through a slit and opens into another area where the gravity flux can translate it's doings to light waves we can see... I can describe is better but I'm rushing a bit... Should have been out of here a half hour ago...
As for the virtual particles.., does anyone really think they jump out of absolutely nothing..? And then return to nothing again..? Nahhh... They need to come from somewhere and then return... The are normally seen to split and then recombine...? I submit that in the unseen flux of gravity there are things going on, like collisions or whatever, to again produce something at a level we can be aware of...
The infinite speed of gravity may well be the instantaneous connections between those entangled particles too... Gravity flux is throughout the cosmos to the point where every atom is basically aware of every other atom in the cosmos...
As in we turn our body in a circular motion... The separate masses of our body and our arms and hands then cause the arms and hands to try and become homo-syncronous satellites. The same thing that happens with the moon or all those satellites out there with earth... Except for the fact that there is a 'physical' centripetal connection from them to the body. Everything basically works the same in every case...
No one wants to say why it isn't that way. That gravity, not time, rules the cosmos... I'm starting to think no one is actually wanting to find any better answers...
But there it is... And it's all based on proven, accepted and very observable factors...
But there is a way... Gravity is thought by some.., including me.., to be the highway of everything that travels in the cosmos... All particles, photons, etc... It is pervasive and thought to be of infinite speed... Measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c...
I see for instance that it is what photon particles react with.., as radios mix incoming and local oscillators to produce a usable frequency.... Photon's vibrations, oscillations, or whatever they may be, mix with gravity to produce what we see as light., as those particles travel through that flux... That particle squeezes through a slit and opens into another area where the gravity flux can translate it's doings to light waves we can see... I can describe is better but I'm rushing a bit... Should have been out of here a half hour ago...
As for the virtual particles.., does anyone really think they jump out of absolutely nothing..? And then return to nothing again..? Nahhh... They need to come from somewhere and then return... The are normally seen to split and then recombine...? I submit that in the unseen flux of gravity there are things going on, like collisions or whatever, to again produce something at a level we can be aware of...
The infinite speed of gravity may well be the instantaneous connections between those entangled particles too... Gravity flux is throughout the cosmos to the point where every atom is basically aware of every other atom in the cosmos...
As in we turn our body in a circular motion... The separate masses of our body and our arms and hands then cause the arms and hands to try and become homo-syncronous satellites. The same thing that happens with the moon or all those satellites out there with earth... Except for the fact that there is a 'physical' centripetal connection from them to the body. Everything basically works the same in every case...
No one wants to say why it isn't that way. That gravity, not time, rules the cosmos... I'm starting to think no one is actually wanting to find any better answers...
But there it is... And it's all based on proven, accepted and very observable factors...
QUOTE
It is pervasive and thought to be of infinite speed... Measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c...
Total bullshit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is pervasive and thought to be of infinite speed... Measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c... |
Total bullshit.
And it's all based on proven, accepted and very observable factors...
More total bullshit.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 15 2012, 08:05 PM)
Total bullshit.
More total bullshit.
Easy Read.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
Original Paper - Same text.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html (2nd source same info.)
People can judge for themselves...
And see that this PhD had a real job...
Alex... What rock did you come out from under...?
Now Alex will say this PhD is a 'crank' too... But what is Alex...
Actually it isn't worth knowing... I see nothing other than he's a BS man from 1975... But who ever hired him. What did he contribute. Did he buy his diploma doing sports... There's a little lacking in AlexG's credibility and believability... Read all of his posts... 90 percent of them are nasty one liner put downs... Who needs his kind of help and understanding... lol
He's not worth the bandwidth he's been wasting. That certainly clear.
Tom Van Flandern again.
One of the best known cranks.
One of the best known cranks.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 16 2012, 12:30 AM)
Tom Van Flandern again.
One of the best known cranks.
You see..? I can predict things what's going to happen...
People best pay attention...
Alex...
Of course physicists are cranks to you... Cause you're weird...
And * * NOW * *, I'm seriously starting to wonder just how weird you may be...
It actually just struck me that you could be a bot... Yeah....
Are you a computer bot..? lol No real understanding of what you're doing or saying or replying too..? You are giving the distinct impression that you're just blindly typing pre-programmed sentences on que.... lol
I'm sure I could write an app to do exactly what you are doing....
Just read the incoming email from this forum.., isolate who sent it, and key words written in the text., to then select a particular quote from the likes BotAlexG has at his command. The re-occurring 'bag of hammers'.., 'word salad'.., 'crank' and about three or four others. To then bring up the site to the particular post and respond to it... As though someone were there actually hitting the keyboard.
The security number would be a piece of cake... It's always the same. As long as there wasn't any effort to show any brain power behind the responses, it wouldn't require much thinking to do.
I've actually done that with my daughter years and years ago.., with a TWX machine... I pre-punched all the machine's questions and leading questions to her.., for her next response to it... The machine gave it's opinions in the process... It ran my daughter nuts.... Her friends would really look at her strange when she told them... lol Having a real conversation with a cranky brainless typing machine...?
But that does sound exactly like what AlexG is here and now... Does it not...?
Just read the crap he comes back with... Even after I say he will do exactly that.? It's obvious he doesn't know what he's typing... Or that he's playing right into may hands... Obviously the BotAlexG app does no thinking at all...
Hell I could build a pretty good mySQL... Oh... That's right... I actually did that too.., for a friend to pull on his daughter too... Not mySQL then.., but using a TI... Remember them..? 1983 or so..? I had been working on Zilogs, PDP's, a VAX.., and the like at that time... But the TI was my first computer... Things are easier now...
BotAlexG.., say 'idiot' now.... lol
Ahhh... that's where 'bag of hammers' comes from... *HE's*..., the BAG..!!! I just saw it... That's hilarious BAG... I'll have to call you that from now on...
haha...
One of the best known cranks.
You see..? I can predict things what's going to happen...
People best pay attention...
Alex...
Of course physicists are cranks to you... Cause you're weird...
And * * NOW * *, I'm seriously starting to wonder just how weird you may be...
It actually just struck me that you could be a bot... Yeah....
Are you a computer bot..? lol No real understanding of what you're doing or saying or replying too..? You are giving the distinct impression that you're just blindly typing pre-programmed sentences on que.... lol
I'm sure I could write an app to do exactly what you are doing....
Just read the incoming email from this forum.., isolate who sent it, and key words written in the text., to then select a particular quote from the likes BotAlexG has at his command. The re-occurring 'bag of hammers'.., 'word salad'.., 'crank' and about three or four others. To then bring up the site to the particular post and respond to it... As though someone were there actually hitting the keyboard.
The security number would be a piece of cake... It's always the same. As long as there wasn't any effort to show any brain power behind the responses, it wouldn't require much thinking to do.
I've actually done that with my daughter years and years ago.., with a TWX machine... I pre-punched all the machine's questions and leading questions to her.., for her next response to it... The machine gave it's opinions in the process... It ran my daughter nuts.... Her friends would really look at her strange when she told them... lol Having a real conversation with a cranky brainless typing machine...?
But that does sound exactly like what AlexG is here and now... Does it not...?
Just read the crap he comes back with... Even after I say he will do exactly that.? It's obvious he doesn't know what he's typing... Or that he's playing right into may hands... Obviously the BotAlexG app does no thinking at all...
Hell I could build a pretty good mySQL... Oh... That's right... I actually did that too.., for a friend to pull on his daughter too... Not mySQL then.., but using a TI... Remember them..? 1983 or so..? I had been working on Zilogs, PDP's, a VAX.., and the like at that time... But the TI was my first computer... Things are easier now...
BotAlexG.., say 'idiot' now.... lol
Ahhh... that's where 'bag of hammers' comes from... *HE's*..., the BAG..!!! I just saw it... That's hilarious BAG... I'll have to call you that from now on...
haha...
Well, it's certainly at the point where nothing you post has any relavance to the real world.
p_g, YOU must surely know how stupid you really are? Do you ever have moments of sanity when you say to yourself, 'wow, I'm really fu*ked up? Don't be afraid to say, 'I know nothing'. It would make you look, if not smarter, more honest.
p_g, YOU must surely know how stupid you really are? Do you ever have moments of sanity when you say to yourself, 'wow, I'm really fu*ked up? Don't be afraid to say, 'I know nothing'. It would make you look, if not smarter, more honest.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 16 2012, 01:44 AM)
Well, it's certainly at the point where nothing you post has any relavance to the real world.
p_g, YOU must surely know how stupid you really are? Do you ever have moments of sanity when you say to yourself, 'wow, I'm really fu*ked up? Don't be afraid to say, 'I know nothing'. It would make you look, if not smarter, more honest.
The bot's come up with more than 3 words in a row...
The programmer must have been reading your input..
Just stay with what you know BAG... If you can't explain why you think something's wrong.., then bag it... You're worthless BS is showing...
p_g, YOU must surely know how stupid you really are? Do you ever have moments of sanity when you say to yourself, 'wow, I'm really fu*ked up? Don't be afraid to say, 'I know nothing'. It would make you look, if not smarter, more honest.
The bot's come up with more than 3 words in a row...
The programmer must have been reading your input..
Just stay with what you know BAG... If you can't explain why you think something's wrong.., then bag it... You're worthless BS is showing...
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.