hi allreadythere
I notice you have not registered! Is this because in the past if you are "allreadythere" late registration would not be possible as when you return to the "now" your registration would not exist? in fact if you were to register in the past returning to now would set up a loop in which you would keep returning to the past in attempt to gain a permanent registration.
In fact I would go so far as to say the Physorg team should make it a rule that registration in the past should not be allowed.
However if you are "allreadythere" could you remind the team that I have received no newsletters for the last few days, which of course for you being allreadythere could be the future. This could then mean that I could check my emails and find the errant newsletters there unread.
Thank in anticipation AR
has he completed his time travel experiment using his laser guns?
sounds like a crackpot to me...
sounds like a crackpot to me...
Hi
" and still the arguements are about time travel"
Everywhere you go , this is the hot topic. I wonder if that's because we imagine ourselves to be more comfortable in another , more remote concept of reality.
Hey! I like the thought. I just don't think it's possible for beings with the mass we inhabit. But I'll add to the mix just the same.
here's some fun for you. A friend and I were doing a thought experiment which looks like heading in a positive direction. We had considered reality from the perspective of sitting on a proton . Now take a seat and imagine this.
If Einstiens theories about relativity are correct, the view of an electron / photon form the nucleus of an atom would be that it was stationary. (maybe spinning) but not moving or moving very slowly.
we went a little deeper and supposed that the electron was not the smallest fundamental particle. But that Einstien's law was the highest possible speed that an object of that mass could move before stopping as a result of the very laws it governs. We likened the behaviour to the wave/particle features of light and concluded that (in our thought experiment) that this was not the smallest object in the known universe < But the largest. In fact this is true even if you DON'T have the vision to see this thought experiment.
So we considered what this means. Well the wave nature of light means that what we actually see is not motion , but first, the peaking of energy waves that make up an electron before the mass verses speed laws kick in.At the point where the mass verses energy laws rule , the wave is passed on to the next point in space until that too has too much mass to continue. This is why we have short and long waves.
Secondly , in order for Einstiens other observations to be true " spooky action at a distance" . ( for those who don't know , this means that every electron knows where every other electron is ) The wave that makes up the fundamental particles which peak as light are so small and so energetic that THEIR waves cross the universe instantly. (well almost instantly, since this is not magic , but science).
The theory allows for levels to continue many, many levels down. Meaning that the energy of light is conserved , not by throwing it out senslessly, but by each level peaking in concert , the universe literally "blooms " a variety of different levels which interact and swap like sized particle waves.
Gravity is explained by the peaking and collection of energy waves of so many levels , that they interact and interlock the fabric of space in such unisen and to such a depth that an electron is really a huge cumbersome particle which creates huge cumbersome beings who travel through time at a rate that most particles don't even bother to go around.
Eventually you come down to just one particle (after a few hundred billion trillion cycles) which created the first motion wave. Which created the next law for the next level which created the next law for the next level . And so on . The original particle get's back every thing from every point in space all the time.
Now that was fun. Feel like time travelling ?
cheers Iseason
" and still the arguements are about time travel"
Everywhere you go , this is the hot topic. I wonder if that's because we imagine ourselves to be more comfortable in another , more remote concept of reality.
Hey! I like the thought. I just don't think it's possible for beings with the mass we inhabit. But I'll add to the mix just the same.
here's some fun for you. A friend and I were doing a thought experiment which looks like heading in a positive direction. We had considered reality from the perspective of sitting on a proton . Now take a seat and imagine this.
If Einstiens theories about relativity are correct, the view of an electron / photon form the nucleus of an atom would be that it was stationary. (maybe spinning) but not moving or moving very slowly.
we went a little deeper and supposed that the electron was not the smallest fundamental particle. But that Einstien's law was the highest possible speed that an object of that mass could move before stopping as a result of the very laws it governs. We likened the behaviour to the wave/particle features of light and concluded that (in our thought experiment) that this was not the smallest object in the known universe < But the largest. In fact this is true even if you DON'T have the vision to see this thought experiment.
So we considered what this means. Well the wave nature of light means that what we actually see is not motion , but first, the peaking of energy waves that make up an electron before the mass verses speed laws kick in.At the point where the mass verses energy laws rule , the wave is passed on to the next point in space until that too has too much mass to continue. This is why we have short and long waves.
Secondly , in order for Einstiens other observations to be true " spooky action at a distance" . ( for those who don't know , this means that every electron knows where every other electron is ) The wave that makes up the fundamental particles which peak as light are so small and so energetic that THEIR waves cross the universe instantly. (well almost instantly, since this is not magic , but science).
The theory allows for levels to continue many, many levels down. Meaning that the energy of light is conserved , not by throwing it out senslessly, but by each level peaking in concert , the universe literally "blooms " a variety of different levels which interact and swap like sized particle waves.
Gravity is explained by the peaking and collection of energy waves of so many levels , that they interact and interlock the fabric of space in such unisen and to such a depth that an electron is really a huge cumbersome particle which creates huge cumbersome beings who travel through time at a rate that most particles don't even bother to go around.
Eventually you come down to just one particle (after a few hundred billion trillion cycles) which created the first motion wave. Which created the next law for the next level which created the next law for the next level . And so on . The original particle get's back every thing from every point in space all the time.
Now that was fun. Feel like time travelling ?
cheers Iseason
QUOTE (ARtone+Nov 29 2006, 12:08 AM)
hi allreadythere
I notice you have not registered! Is this because in the past if you are "allreadythere" late registration would not be possible as when you return to the "now" your registration would not exist? in fact if you were to register in the past returning to now would set up a loop in which you would keep returning to the past in attempt to gain a permanent registration.
In fact I would go so far as to say the Physorg team should make it a rule that registration in the past should not be allowed.
However if you are "allreadythere" could you remind the team that I have received no newsletters for the last few days, which of course for you being allreadythere could be the future. This could then mean that I could check my emails and find the errant newsletters there unread.
Thank in anticipation AR
It never seems to amaze me how so many wankers can talk about nothing and get nowhere in life. You should all get a life and get off the computer. morons. Hey look outside there is blue sky, go kick a ball
. Nerds. Ha Ha.
There no need to reply I want be here because I'm Alreadythere.
I notice you have not registered! Is this because in the past if you are "allreadythere" late registration would not be possible as when you return to the "now" your registration would not exist? in fact if you were to register in the past returning to now would set up a loop in which you would keep returning to the past in attempt to gain a permanent registration.
In fact I would go so far as to say the Physorg team should make it a rule that registration in the past should not be allowed.
However if you are "allreadythere" could you remind the team that I have received no newsletters for the last few days, which of course for you being allreadythere could be the future. This could then mean that I could check my emails and find the errant newsletters there unread.
Thank in anticipation AR
It never seems to amaze me how so many wankers can talk about nothing and get nowhere in life. You should all get a life and get off the computer. morons. Hey look outside there is blue sky, go kick a ball
. Nerds. Ha Ha.There no need to reply I want be here because I'm Alreadythere.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Apr 4 2006, 04:52 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news63371210.html
"And according to Einstein, whenever you do something to space, you also affect time. Twisting space causes time to be twisted, meaning you could theoretically walk through time as you walk through space."
Hi my name is Rose Davis, I am trying to find out when the plane flew around the world and flew as fast as the speed of light and had a watch in the ship and had one on the ground . When he left the watches had the same time , but when he came back the watch on the ground was 1 minute off from the watch on the ship. I am trying to find out why? 1, 2 What was the speed that the plane was traveling. 3 How high was the plane. 4 Did have to change it high , speed or anything to achieve this? These are the question that I hope you can help me with.
Just one of the numerous absurd corollaries of the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last scientist with an intact rationality. The moment people started worshiping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures the other observer"s clock to be slower than his own, or at the idiocy according to which passengers in the train measure the tunnel to be shorter than the train whereas observers in the tunnel measure the train to be shorter than the tunnel, a revolution took place. Humanity entered a world where the supernatural was defined as natural. A huge army of zombies systematically destroy those who would continue to call it "supernatural". Dieu est toujours pour les plus gros bataillons. Rational criticism is impossible: you cannot refute truths like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length".
George Orwell:
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
Hi my name is Rose Davis, I am trying to find out when the plane flew around the world and flew as fast as the speed of light and had a watch in the ship and had one on the ground . When he left the watches had the same time , but when he came back the watch on the ground was 1 minute off from the watch on the ship. I am trying to find out why? 1, 2 What was the speed that the plane was traveling. 3 How high was the plane. 4 Did have to change it high , speed or anything to achieve this? These are the question that I hope you can help me with.
"And according to Einstein, whenever you do something to space, you also affect time. Twisting space causes time to be twisted, meaning you could theoretically walk through time as you walk through space."
Hi my name is Rose Davis, I am trying to find out when the plane flew around the world and flew as fast as the speed of light and had a watch in the ship and had one on the ground . When he left the watches had the same time , but when he came back the watch on the ground was 1 minute off from the watch on the ship. I am trying to find out why? 1, 2 What was the speed that the plane was traveling. 3 How high was the plane. 4 Did have to change it high , speed or anything to achieve this? These are the question that I hope you can help me with.
Just one of the numerous absurd corollaries of the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last scientist with an intact rationality. The moment people started worshiping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures the other observer"s clock to be slower than his own, or at the idiocy according to which passengers in the train measure the tunnel to be shorter than the train whereas observers in the tunnel measure the train to be shorter than the tunnel, a revolution took place. Humanity entered a world where the supernatural was defined as natural. A huge army of zombies systematically destroy those who would continue to call it "supernatural". Dieu est toujours pour les plus gros bataillons. Rational criticism is impossible: you cannot refute truths like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length".
George Orwell:
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
Hi my name is Rose Davis, I am trying to find out when the plane flew around the world and flew as fast as the speed of light and had a watch in the ship and had one on the ground . When he left the watches had the same time , but when he came back the watch on the ground was 1 minute off from the watch on the ship. I am trying to find out why? 1, 2 What was the speed that the plane was traveling. 3 How high was the plane. 4 Did have to change it high , speed or anything to achieve this? These are the question that I hope you can help me with.
As soon as I hear of time travel, I start thinking of SF films, quantum physics and other fantasies.
google
I thought that photons are massless particles, so how then could they emit a "weak gravtational field", or affect space?
I think anyone who does time travel should consider NOT planting or leaving any present day progress in the past. The reason you wouldn't want to do such is cause in theory, say you take a cellphone into the distant past to help upgrade the present, by the time you return in the present you'll find having done so will wipe out the cellphone ever existing, because the one who originally invented it, won't do so. All because when he learns it already exists, he won't bother working on it. This is not like the 'free-lunch' where you take something that someone already invented to them, before they actually did it and show them all they accomplished.
if "I," foresee that something I do will cause something else to happen - as in a chess game, where I see, that beyond any doubt, that in two moves, I will have checkmate - then in a small sense I have projected my thoughts into the future. It is a great feeling, sometimes. But we all do that in many ways, all the time. Driving, making coffee, calling the dog, thinking of words and then saying them.
Our minds are aware of the future, to some extent. This is philosophy more than physics, but they may become interrelated at points. One of the most exhilarating feelings a person has is to be right about the future, especially if it is an unusual circumstance. Saying the red light will turn green is just not as satisfying as saying that in five moves, no matter what you do, checkmate!
What is the difference between a great thinker predicting that light will curve as it passes a star and a person physically moving into the future, though? Did not his thought accurately go to a time and place and say what would happen before anyone else knew? Did he go into the future, in a fully realistic, physical sense?
If his theories after a hundred years still comprehend and direct much of what we think and do, did he not go into the future? I wonder how far...
Our minds are aware of the future, to some extent. This is philosophy more than physics, but they may become interrelated at points. One of the most exhilarating feelings a person has is to be right about the future, especially if it is an unusual circumstance. Saying the red light will turn green is just not as satisfying as saying that in five moves, no matter what you do, checkmate!
What is the difference between a great thinker predicting that light will curve as it passes a star and a person physically moving into the future, though? Did not his thought accurately go to a time and place and say what would happen before anyone else knew? Did he go into the future, in a fully realistic, physical sense?
If his theories after a hundred years still comprehend and direct much of what we think and do, did he not go into the future? I wonder how far...
I don't have much book-learnin... but I've got plenty of horse sense... If Professor Mallett can get one neutron to go back in time then maybe we'll all shut up. If Alexander Graham Bell could put his voice in a wire or we can view the light of stars that shown billions and billions of years ago or Walt Disney can share his dancing hippo halucination then, I don't know, spinning lasers might do the trick.. just don't aim them at your eyes.
With all due respect, I don't think spinning lasers is the answer to Time Travel technology. All one could possibly produce with that is somekind of disco dance light show, if not accidently chopping off an arm, leg or boring a hole in the eye.
Some thought the bending of light, like a glass prism, is the answer to Time Travel, when all it might produce is somekind of invisibilty, if any.
I'm surprised that nobody has wondered enough to ask the Professor what he intends to do if Time Travel is ever accomplished. Anyone who sets out to
Time Travel in the past or future might would want a plan B ready, when faced with the WHAT IF scenerio. The WHAT IF scenerio is the possibilty of not being able to return to the present, but keep shifting around like the TV shows Quantum Leap and or Time Tunnel. Whether or not John Titor, a time traveler soldier from the future is real or not, using a car for a time travel capsule seems alot better. Especially if you end up like Back To The Future where an indian raid heads packing in your direction or getting caught up in the crossfires of the Revolutionary War. Time Travel at best could be used for historians to gather all the facts instead of leaving things to argument & speculation.
Some thought the bending of light, like a glass prism, is the answer to Time Travel, when all it might produce is somekind of invisibilty, if any.
I'm surprised that nobody has wondered enough to ask the Professor what he intends to do if Time Travel is ever accomplished. Anyone who sets out to
Time Travel in the past or future might would want a plan B ready, when faced with the WHAT IF scenerio. The WHAT IF scenerio is the possibilty of not being able to return to the present, but keep shifting around like the TV shows Quantum Leap and or Time Tunnel. Whether or not John Titor, a time traveler soldier from the future is real or not, using a car for a time travel capsule seems alot better. Especially if you end up like Back To The Future where an indian raid heads packing in your direction or getting caught up in the crossfires of the Revolutionary War. Time Travel at best could be used for historians to gather all the facts instead of leaving things to argument & speculation.
a quick comment - light speed is the speed of light in a vacuum, but since that definition, we have found that there is no vacuum, rather a seething sea of virtual particles
also, if it takes me ten years by my atomic clock and you five years by your atomic clock, because we are moving at different relativistic speeds, to get to star X, and we both also accurately measure light speed to be the same all the time...
say I run from first base to second in three seconds and you in 2.9, we measure our running speeds by taking the time and the distance and dividing.
But in the first example of space travel, we measured the time, the distance by our odometers and light speed, all very accurately - and the distance changes for each of us, the time changes for each of us, and since the distance and time are related just as in the example of the the base runners, the time it takes light to get there will be different for each of us,the real light year distance from where we started to star x will be different to each of us, with equal validity to each of us, while, paradoxically, light's speed seems to stay the same to both of us. The answer could be that light is a particle/vibration/wave which comes into existence at the same speed, relates to us at the same speed, which may or may not be to it's only speed. Perhaps as in the two slit experiment, its speed only exists to us, when we measure it.
Perhaps the particles which we know of relate with movements at that which we call light speed, but light speed is actually another particle/vibration/wave which exists independently of us though we can invoke it or turn it off and yet to the system of particles of which we are made, the relationship of that vibration or wave really represents then the rate at which we can relate to it or it to us?...
Perhaps historically we have proven no more than that we and the things known to us relate to energy at a constant speed.
With these thoughts in mind, consider that the universe, to certain energies or masses with extreme relativistic natures, could be brand new, as validly as it is old to us. The big bang could still be occurring, the universe could be many or all shapes and sizes and ages right now, at the same 'time'
I just don't understand how people still relate going back in time into the context of time travel. If you talk about time and the occurrence of events that define time, the all take place on a scale that goes starts at 0. Time goes forward and no matter how you put it our finite universe dictates that you either have something or you don't. Negatives exist to balance out the positives of matter and energy that make up the universe. Complete balance is at 0 in relation to two opposing sides, and nature always works to maintain that balance.
The way that you would be able to go back in time only exists in the observation of events. For example: If you could Travel faster than the speed of light and went from your house to the moon and back, you would be able to watch yourself and observe you actions only because your matter was traveling faster than the light reflecting off of your body to your eyes. For you to actually go back in time your matter would have to be faster then your own matter that went quicker than light, and that doesn't make any sense. You could only go back in time in the observation of events as they relate to the speed of the light bouncing off of matter, not the actual matter itself, just the light.
The way that you would be able to go back in time only exists in the observation of events. For example: If you could Travel faster than the speed of light and went from your house to the moon and back, you would be able to watch yourself and observe you actions only because your matter was traveling faster than the light reflecting off of your body to your eyes. For you to actually go back in time your matter would have to be faster then your own matter that went quicker than light, and that doesn't make any sense. You could only go back in time in the observation of events as they relate to the speed of the light bouncing off of matter, not the actual matter itself, just the light.
QUOTE (undiscoveredgenius+Jan 16 2007, 08:19 PM)
I just don't understand how people still relate going back in time into the context of time travel. If you talk about time and the occurrence of events that define time, they all take place on a scale that goes starts at 0. Time goes forward and no matter how you put it, our finite universe dictates that you either have something or you don't. Negatives exist to balance out the positives of the matter and energy that make up the universe. Complete balance is at 0 in relation to two opposing sides, and nature always works to maintain that balance.
The way that you would be able to go back in time only exists in the observation of events. For example: If you could Travel faster than the speed of light and went from your house to the moon and back, you would be able to watch yourself and observe you actions only because your matter was traveling faster than the light reflecting off of your body to your eyes. For you to actually go back in time, your matter would have to be faster then your own matter that went quicker than light, and that doesn't make any sense. You could only go back in time in the observation of events as they relate to the speed of the light bouncing off of matter, not the actual matter itself, just the light.
Sorry, I accidentally posted before I was finished, and I'm a bit of a pefectionist. So read this one not the one before it.
I just don't understand how people still relate going back in time into the context of time travel. If you talk about time and the occurrence of events that define time, they all take place on a scale that goes starts at 0. Time goes forward and no matter how you put it, our finite universe dictates that you either have something or you don't. Negatives exist to balance out the positives of the matter and energy that make up the universe. Complete balance is at 0 in relation to two opposing sides, and nature always works to maintain that balance.
The way that you would be able to go back in time only exists in the observation of events. For example: If you could Travel faster than the speed of light and went from your house to the moon and back, you would be able to watch yourself and observe you actions only because your matter was traveling faster than the light reflecting off of your body to your eyes. For you to actually go back in time, your matter would have to be faster then your own matter that went quicker than light, and that doesn't make any sense. You could only go back in time in the observation of events as they relate to the speed of the light bouncing off of matter, not the actual matter itself, just the light.
The way that you would be able to go back in time only exists in the observation of events. For example: If you could Travel faster than the speed of light and went from your house to the moon and back, you would be able to watch yourself and observe you actions only because your matter was traveling faster than the light reflecting off of your body to your eyes. For you to actually go back in time, your matter would have to be faster then your own matter that went quicker than light, and that doesn't make any sense. You could only go back in time in the observation of events as they relate to the speed of the light bouncing off of matter, not the actual matter itself, just the light.
Sorry, I accidentally posted before I was finished, and I'm a bit of a pefectionist. So read this one not the one before it.
I just don't understand how people still relate going back in time into the context of time travel. If you talk about time and the occurrence of events that define time, they all take place on a scale that goes starts at 0. Time goes forward and no matter how you put it, our finite universe dictates that you either have something or you don't. Negatives exist to balance out the positives of the matter and energy that make up the universe. Complete balance is at 0 in relation to two opposing sides, and nature always works to maintain that balance.
The way that you would be able to go back in time only exists in the observation of events. For example: If you could Travel faster than the speed of light and went from your house to the moon and back, you would be able to watch yourself and observe you actions only because your matter was traveling faster than the light reflecting off of your body to your eyes. For you to actually go back in time, your matter would have to be faster then your own matter that went quicker than light, and that doesn't make any sense. You could only go back in time in the observation of events as they relate to the speed of the light bouncing off of matter, not the actual matter itself, just the light.
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 4 2006, 09:41 PM)
We can replace the the word "time" by the word "Aether", can we?
No. Continuum is not aether. No allowable link between aether and vectorial properties of time at relativistic speed. Aether is an old and not existing and not necessary medium, superseeded by Fermi -Dirac light propagation theory written more than 70 years ago. We must look frontward and not continuosly back.
For all people continuosly saying that time-back going is impossible, I can say them that their own proposition has the same chance of truth of the reversed one. Thei proposition or the contrary must be tested in laboratory or watching new exciting geometrical properties of strange stars. Done? No? For me time-back going is still possible and my own opinion weighs as much as the yours.
No. Continuum is not aether. No allowable link between aether and vectorial properties of time at relativistic speed. Aether is an old and not existing and not necessary medium, superseeded by Fermi -Dirac light propagation theory written more than 70 years ago. We must look frontward and not continuosly back.
For all people continuosly saying that time-back going is impossible, I can say them that their own proposition has the same chance of truth of the reversed one. Thei proposition or the contrary must be tested in laboratory or watching new exciting geometrical properties of strange stars. Done? No? For me time-back going is still possible and my own opinion weighs as much as the yours.
The closest your going to get to Time Travel in the next hundred years is LSD.
i'm not sure about physically traveling through time but I do think it may be possi.ble to percieve waves of light and waves of sound of a different time. The spinning laser is one way to go see but photography is another when viewed from the correct perspective
Time travel ... Why dont we just let professor Mallett try ? Tesla was riddiculed for A.C by Eddison... look what happened . So IF Professor Mallett succeeds then all those who have crucified him will have professonial egg on their face, like wise IF he fails then you can have a big grin on your face and say I told you. But science does not get anywhere by standing still, its people like Professor Mallett ( Pioneers ) that have brought science to where it is today.
I dont know if time travel is possible ..as Time is word given by humans for the occurance of events with a value given by humans based on a revolution of this planet around its star .. based on the number 60 ... 2000 BC !. So the speed of light and the age of the universe is fine for this planet .. but would an observer get the same results on a planet in say Orion that has a different revolution around its sun..? The Universe is ageless .. new stars are born and old ones die the universe is constantly changing. I observe we have the ability to change our future so. travel into the future may be possible, however I do not observe any ability to change the past.
I dont know if time travel is possible ..as Time is word given by humans for the occurance of events with a value given by humans based on a revolution of this planet around its star .. based on the number 60 ... 2000 BC !. So the speed of light and the age of the universe is fine for this planet .. but would an observer get the same results on a planet in say Orion that has a different revolution around its sun..? The Universe is ageless .. new stars are born and old ones die the universe is constantly changing. I observe we have the ability to change our future so. travel into the future may be possible, however I do not observe any ability to change the past.
We would not have access to the internal combustion engine were it left up to short sighted pseudo-scientists insisting it was impossible. And behold, we have real scientists on the verge of creating miniature black holes in Switzerland. We are just around the corner from the manipulation and control of gravity field singularities and hence, time travel. If your mind cannot come to grips with anything beyond what you learned in college you should just roll over and go back to sleep. Oh......Hawking was wrong about everything by the way. Black holes continually radiate information which, according to Hawking should not have been able to escape their gravity. I am sure that disappoints many of you who have worshiped his celebrity these many years. Foolish mortals, who will save you now?
Time travel is not possible for many reasons, the main one being that time does not exist as a dimension any more than temperature does.
When an atomic clock slows down after being moved about in a car and in a plane, and undergoing violent acceleration, all this means is that an atomic clock does not like being moved about as it can interfere with the stream of cesium atoms which are being counted to give the "correct" time.
When an atomic clock slows down after being moved about in a car and in a plane, and undergoing violent acceleration, all this means is that an atomic clock does not like being moved about as it can interfere with the stream of cesium atoms which are being counted to give the "correct" time.
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 22 2007, 09:52 AM)
Time travel is not possible for many reasons, the main one being that time does not exist as a dimension any more than temperature does.
Voice of sense, or what is rest of it under 100 years, or more, of SF proclaimed as "science".
Considering clocks and all that kinematic "paradoxes", clocks are DYNAMIC systems and, as any other such system, they are under clear dynamic (electromagnetic, gravitational etc.) influence. Time, as a property, has nothing to do with "motion" itself. Measuring "time intervals", lengths, masses always are "signal dependent", but kinematically unlimited. You can have any "c-TR" you can imagine. In the end, real limit would be Galilei kind of relativity of motion again.
Or let me be more "abstract", even if "possible", time travel would be under strong "cosmic censorship".
Regards
Voice of sense, or what is rest of it under 100 years, or more, of SF proclaimed as "science".
Considering clocks and all that kinematic "paradoxes", clocks are DYNAMIC systems and, as any other such system, they are under clear dynamic (electromagnetic, gravitational etc.) influence. Time, as a property, has nothing to do with "motion" itself. Measuring "time intervals", lengths, masses always are "signal dependent", but kinematically unlimited. You can have any "c-TR" you can imagine. In the end, real limit would be Galilei kind of relativity of motion again.
Or let me be more "abstract", even if "possible", time travel would be under strong "cosmic censorship".
Regards
QUOTE (Turya+Jan 22 2007, 01:48 PM)
Considering clocks and all that kinematic "paradoxes", clocks are DYNAMIC systems and, as any other such system, they are under clear dynamic (electromagnetic, gravitational etc.) influence. Time, as a property, has nothing to do with "motion" itself. Measuring "time intervals", lengths, masses always are "signal dependent", but kinematically unlimited. You can have any "c-TR" you can imagine. In the end, real limit would be Galilei kind of relativity of motion again.
If every single way of measuring time you have is effected by strong gravity and high velocities, even all those found in nature, how can you say that time hasn't been altered by the gravity or velocity? You're making reference to some kind of 'absolute background time' which cannot be measured by any means and so has no physical meaning. It's like adding God into your science theory. He does nothing but just sits in a place which can't be measured or probed or have any influence on physics at all. Hence, Occams razor would say not to put him in. Similarly with your 'background time', if nothing can measure it, man made or natural, and all systems are effected in the same predictable way by gravity and velocity, what grounds have you got to say time hasn't been altered other than "Because I don't like it!"?
If every single way of measuring time you have is effected by strong gravity and high velocities, even all those found in nature, how can you say that time hasn't been altered by the gravity or velocity? You're making reference to some kind of 'absolute background time' which cannot be measured by any means and so has no physical meaning. It's like adding God into your science theory. He does nothing but just sits in a place which can't be measured or probed or have any influence on physics at all. Hence, Occams razor would say not to put him in. Similarly with your 'background time', if nothing can measure it, man made or natural, and all systems are effected in the same predictable way by gravity and velocity, what grounds have you got to say time hasn't been altered other than "Because I don't like it!"?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 22 2007, 01:08 PM)
...how can you say that time hasn't been altered by the gravity or velocity?
Thanks for open minded input.
Well, because "time itself" and "measuring time using clocks" are very different things. In mind of many pragmatical physicist (in sense of the philosofical meaning of the term) I see constant confusion regardin the problem.
In fact there is no "time" except that connected with the dynamics of clocks. Clockes are time. Otherwise "time" is very useful but a "concept" only. So, I'm less in Newtonian kind of his absolutisation of time than e.g. so-called relativists. And let us stay "God" aside of the discussion because the same one cannot be a scientific "object" at all.
If you whish to see all that in a more positive way, that would be kind of new leap in our cosmic experience, consequently in our further theoretical endeavors.
Regards
Thanks for open minded input.
Well, because "time itself" and "measuring time using clocks" are very different things. In mind of many pragmatical physicist (in sense of the philosofical meaning of the term) I see constant confusion regardin the problem.
In fact there is no "time" except that connected with the dynamics of clocks. Clockes are time. Otherwise "time" is very useful but a "concept" only. So, I'm less in Newtonian kind of his absolutisation of time than e.g. so-called relativists. And let us stay "God" aside of the discussion because the same one cannot be a scientific "object" at all.
If you whish to see all that in a more positive way, that would be kind of new leap in our cosmic experience, consequently in our further theoretical endeavors.
Regards
QUOTE
In fact there is no "time" except that connected with the dynamics of clocks
Time is ticking, but for it to tick there has to be a clock in each system.
There is one dynamic clock for Universe, very high frequency.We can call it External time as long as objects inside Universe is concerned. For other objects inside Universe there is also subjective, internal time clocks which ticks slower than Universe time. The bigger the structure, the slower its time.
All possible clocks are hidden inside vacuum. At proper resonance ratios, structure appears from vacuum together with its own clock.
Between these clocks, External and Internal, synchronization may appear or disappear. Synchronization is necessary for existence of a structure ( e.g. Planet, electron, Solar system etc.) , desynchronization leads to death of the structure.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 22 2007, 02:58 PM)
Time is ticking, but for it to tick there has to be a clock in each system.
There is one dynamic clock for Universe, very high frequency.We can call it External time as long as objects inside Universe is concerned. For other objects inside Universe there is also subjective, internal time clocks which ticks slower than Universe time. The bigger the structure, the slower its time.
All possible clocks are hidden inside vacuum. At proper resonance ratios, structure appears from vacuum together with its own clock.
Between these clocks, External and Internal, synchronization may appear or disappear. Synchronization is necessary for existence of a structure ( e.g. Planet, electron, Solar system etc.) , desynchronization leads to death of the structure.
Ivars,
I must say one of your most insightful posts, and let me say almost totally in agreement with sort of cosmic insights (dynamics) I sometimes try to speak off.
When speaking of clocks/structures hidden in vacuum, I'd say we have to recognize an exact mechanism of its appearance, which would be further generalization of genially Dirac kind of dynamics of quantum sea or so? Do you have your own specific picture?
I'm mostly with quantum gravitomagnetic space-matter resonances which I believe naturally leads towards over-bridging of the quantum and gravity areas via de Broglie matter and similar space wave dynamics.
Best regards
QUOTE
When speaking of clocks/structures hidden in vacuum, I'd say we have to recognize an exact mechanism of its appearance, which would be further generalization of genially Dirac kind of dynamics of quantum sea or so? Do you have your own specific picture?
Eye of a vortex.
I am tired of listening to all you nay-sayers. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE! Please don't take this article as your only basis for understanding this theory. If you *really* knew what you were talking about you would have to admit it has merit and is grounded in scientific axioms that already have been proven.
TIME TRAVEL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
http://media.www.technicianonline.com/medi...gepublisher.com
"Relativity offers a one-dimensional pathway for time travel. Regular physics classes teach the possibility of slowing time down at high speeds, but the theory actually offers much more possibility than fast forwarding to the future. Einstein's relativity theory defines time as the fourth dimension, so space and time can be folded back on themselves -- similar to folding a piece of paper.....Beyond the physical aspects of time travel are the philosophical problems that could arise if people went back to the future. There are two main paradoxes John Carroll, professor of philosophy, covers in his class on time travel: the "grandfather paradox" and the "self-visitation paradox." The grandfather paradox examines what would happen if someone went back in time and killed his or her grandfather before his or her father was born -- the problem then arising, how could the killer be born? The self-visitation paradox plays the mind game that if someone went back in a time machine he could visit himself. "If I went back in time and I was sitting down, but I do not sit down, I watch standing -- then at the same time I am both sitting and standing -- and that is impossible, right?" Carroll said. These examples focus mainly on a one-dimensional travel experience, meaning a person can only travel forward and backward in one pathway. But with the introduction of string theory became the possibility of a multidimensional universe and multidimensional time travel."
Since "with the introduction of string theory became the possibility of a multidimensional universe and multidimensional time travel", a sweeping reform in science education is needed. Immediately after birth babies should be exposed to the hymn "Divine Einstein":
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/Einstei...s/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
A year later their first words should be:
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/TYSaDTW.asp
"Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!"
After repeating "Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!" for a few years children will be ready to understand the relatively simple one-dimensional pathway for time travel. Then, gradually, multidimensional time travel should be introduced. However some Einsteinians believe string theory is a failure. If they are right, multidimensional time travel is a failure too and should not be introduced. The sweeping reform should be cancelled because the relatively simple one-dimensional time travel has become common sense anyway.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://media.www.technicianonline.com/medi...gepublisher.com
"Relativity offers a one-dimensional pathway for time travel. Regular physics classes teach the possibility of slowing time down at high speeds, but the theory actually offers much more possibility than fast forwarding to the future. Einstein's relativity theory defines time as the fourth dimension, so space and time can be folded back on themselves -- similar to folding a piece of paper.....Beyond the physical aspects of time travel are the philosophical problems that could arise if people went back to the future. There are two main paradoxes John Carroll, professor of philosophy, covers in his class on time travel: the "grandfather paradox" and the "self-visitation paradox." The grandfather paradox examines what would happen if someone went back in time and killed his or her grandfather before his or her father was born -- the problem then arising, how could the killer be born? The self-visitation paradox plays the mind game that if someone went back in a time machine he could visit himself. "If I went back in time and I was sitting down, but I do not sit down, I watch standing -- then at the same time I am both sitting and standing -- and that is impossible, right?" Carroll said. These examples focus mainly on a one-dimensional travel experience, meaning a person can only travel forward and backward in one pathway. But with the introduction of string theory became the possibility of a multidimensional universe and multidimensional time travel."
Since "with the introduction of string theory became the possibility of a multidimensional universe and multidimensional time travel", a sweeping reform in science education is needed. Immediately after birth babies should be exposed to the hymn "Divine Einstein":
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/Einstei...s/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
A year later their first words should be:
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/TYSaDTW.asp
"Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!"
After repeating "Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!" for a few years children will be ready to understand the relatively simple one-dimensional pathway for time travel. Then, gradually, multidimensional time travel should be introduced. However some Einsteinians believe string theory is a failure. If they are right, multidimensional time travel is a failure too and should not be introduced. The sweeping reform should be cancelled because the relatively simple one-dimensional time travel has become common sense anyway.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
>> If you *really* knew what you were talking about you would have to admit it has merit and is grounded in scientific axioms that already have been proven. >>
LOL
Since time does not exist I am wondering where you get the authority to make such a claim.
Physics is just riddled with modern delusions.
LOL
Since time does not exist I am wondering where you get the authority to make such a claim.
Physics is just riddled with modern delusions.
He's right.
how the clocks would be synchronizeted in extra-dimensions?
the spacetime continuos,are influentiated by others continuities of spacetimes,that are hidden in the others dimensions-through of energy states differents,with
differents spectrum of velocities,then the speed of light.appear as constant by the
homogeinization of the time and isotropy of the space,that is extremely strong in
3-dimension,but lose these properties in fourth-dimensions,with time,that encurve
the space(asymmetries),through of the time.then the clocks in the vaccum,when connect space and time,due the spontaneous symmetry breaking,the turn the
clocks in phases and also dephaseds,due the alterations in the structures of vaccum,by the motion,and also by non-linear structures,that are the curvatures of
spacetime in para-compacted,multi-connected,multi-foliated,non-euclidean(quasi-riemmanniana,with ellitical curvatures) manifolds,that is bitorus,that is the
backgrounds of superstrings.we know that the superstrings,lose some symmetries,as the invariance of lorentz and the symmetry of cpt.the propers
generations of the lorentzian is linked in the variations of space(lenght contraction)
and time dilatation,are due at the value c generated by the violation of cpt=pt,for the the uniform reference systems,in special the uniform rotation systems
the spacetime continuos,are influentiated by others continuities of spacetimes,that are hidden in the others dimensions-through of energy states differents,with
differents spectrum of velocities,then the speed of light.appear as constant by the
homogeinization of the time and isotropy of the space,that is extremely strong in
3-dimension,but lose these properties in fourth-dimensions,with time,that encurve
the space(asymmetries),through of the time.then the clocks in the vaccum,when connect space and time,due the spontaneous symmetry breaking,the turn the
clocks in phases and also dephaseds,due the alterations in the structures of vaccum,by the motion,and also by non-linear structures,that are the curvatures of
spacetime in para-compacted,multi-connected,multi-foliated,non-euclidean(quasi-riemmanniana,with ellitical curvatures) manifolds,that is bitorus,that is the
backgrounds of superstrings.we know that the superstrings,lose some symmetries,as the invariance of lorentz and the symmetry of cpt.the propers
generations of the lorentzian is linked in the variations of space(lenght contraction)
and time dilatation,are due at the value c generated by the violation of cpt=pt,for the the uniform reference systems,in special the uniform rotation systems
Sorry, i wrote/stole this and i can't help myself
wanting to share it with you eminent people...
Take it as it was written, as a commentary of life, universe
and off (or on) course us....
"so i contradict myself, so what, i contain multitudes "
This multi dimensional place we are living in can be very confusing at times. On Earth they had found it so confusing that they finally decided to create laws for explaining, not only how to live, but also the very laws of nature. They started with the macroscopic laws, that was quite easy as all could see the results from for example gravity and then backwards with help of the properties inherent in the phenomena calculate acceleration and create definitions relating to weight etc. Most of the phenomena one could see on a every day basis were quantifiable, When Earth discovered electricity and how light might work things got complicated again, Suddenly it seemed that the laws controlling our every day reality at best, only were statistical.
They were mostly true but not really, so to say. Take the duality of light, It were as right to see light as a particle as to see it as a wave. And you could prove both concepts in repeatable experiments, When you went down to the quantum level nothing of what we knew from our ’normal’ observations were seen to be true any more. Everything at that level just seemed to be about probabilities.
They called it the fuzzy level, just because probability ruled. One could expect that in a place were everything were possible. Microscopically hanging on threads of probability, that it also should show itself in our every day life? But it didn’t and doesn’t, which we all should be grateful for, because if it had, there probably wouldn’t even have existed ’tailless ones’. With the help of equations describing how electromagnetic forces interacted and flowed they tried to create diagrams and define new simplified forces that mathematically described those various couplings. A new type of quantum field theory came on to the scene that explained the weak nuclear force by uniting it with electromagnetism into electroweak theory, and it was shown to be renormalizable. That word meaning that at last they could create a norm where all deviations were explainable..
That is, that those infinities could be absorbed into a redefinition of a small number of parameters contained in the theory. Then similar wisdom was applied to the strong nuclear force to yield quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, The magicians, sorry physicists, smiled as this theory also was shown to be renormalizable, Which left one only force to be accounted for .. Gravity. . Which couldn't be turned into a renormalizable field theory, no matter how hard or for that matter, what spells one tried
At the same time as the physicists tried to understand the universe in form of particles and waves combining and interchanging, the mathematicians who worked inside their own fields of theoretical frameworks, started to look at topology as described mathematically. There had been a discarded theory of something called a dual resonance model. It was an attempt to describe the strong nuclear force. The dual model was never that successful at describing particles, The dual models were actually quantum theories of relativistic vibrating strings and had displayed very intriguing mathematical behavior. Dual models came to be called string theory as a result.
The question Earth's mathematicians finally asked themselves was, could string theory be a theory of quantum gravity? String theory worked in a smooth theoretical plane defined by two dimensions A two-dimensional space-time of its own, where the division between space and time depended upon the observer. The strings in themselves were one-dimensional. And all that were okay if you happened to be a mathematician, but for those tailless ones that weren't, it just didn’t make any sense.
Try to imagine a squarely formed string, five hundred feet wide, with a height of another five hundred feet, and a length of ooh, a thousand feet. Easy huh? Good. What you have is an object that is three-dimensional, height, width, and length, ok. Now let’s play! We take one dimension away, lets take width, and awaay it goes! We now have a ’string’ that you can see clearly, if standing to the side of it, because from there it will still have height and its length in space, you agree? Good. Now jump into my flying machine and take a good look at it from up above. Hey! It’s gone! . .
Why, well, we took away its width, didn’t we. There is no width to it, so seen from above it doesn’t exist, considering that we are looking on it, from our normal three-dimensional space with time as the fourth dimension. The same would be, if you saw that string straight from it's front or end, it just wouldn't exist. Which in a way seems to turn this two-dimensional string into a none dimensional, depending on where you look at it. The headache of it all, ahh.
It could of course, represent a solution to all those problem of storage limitations. We just take one dimension away and Presto! We can fold the whole universe into our wallet. Nicee. But one-dimensional? Strings? If you can envision them, tell me how. But those same scientists that frowned at paranormal phenomena were quite happy to accept string theory. Don’t ask me why? Without knowing it, the tailless ones were defining their own magic.
And Earth’s scientists and the common magicians had one thing in common, what worked, worked! Even though terminology and explanations differed, they all were result oriented. Which is a good thing if you want something to happen. What really were changing were that, without thinking about it the tailless ones at last started to feel, if not overjoyed, then at last ready to accept the universe, now when they had defined it.
For as they would prove to you, by relating to mathematical concepts and standardized retryable experiments, this is how it works. By the way, those one dimensional strings that Earth's magicians invented, they had not only placed them under enormous tensions, they also expected them to move, those movements through time created a one-dimensional plane of their own that those magicians named a 'worldsheet'. And magic it was, of a seldom seen complexity. Most worlds used to Magic never created so interwoven 'logical' laws for how their magic should work, only the tailless ones had found it so obsessive important.
Remember that the properties of magic lies in your intent, your choice of creation and use decides what that magic will do, and be. Because of the framework and concepts resting behind their magic, supporting and mounting it, the tailless ones could, without understanding, now create frightfully strong new spells.
Aint that the truth
wanting to share it with you eminent people...
Take it as it was written, as a commentary of life, universe
and off (or on) course us....
"so i contradict myself, so what, i contain multitudes "
This multi dimensional place we are living in can be very confusing at times. On Earth they had found it so confusing that they finally decided to create laws for explaining, not only how to live, but also the very laws of nature. They started with the macroscopic laws, that was quite easy as all could see the results from for example gravity and then backwards with help of the properties inherent in the phenomena calculate acceleration and create definitions relating to weight etc. Most of the phenomena one could see on a every day basis were quantifiable, When Earth discovered electricity and how light might work things got complicated again, Suddenly it seemed that the laws controlling our every day reality at best, only were statistical.
They were mostly true but not really, so to say. Take the duality of light, It were as right to see light as a particle as to see it as a wave. And you could prove both concepts in repeatable experiments, When you went down to the quantum level nothing of what we knew from our ’normal’ observations were seen to be true any more. Everything at that level just seemed to be about probabilities.
They called it the fuzzy level, just because probability ruled. One could expect that in a place were everything were possible. Microscopically hanging on threads of probability, that it also should show itself in our every day life? But it didn’t and doesn’t, which we all should be grateful for, because if it had, there probably wouldn’t even have existed ’tailless ones’. With the help of equations describing how electromagnetic forces interacted and flowed they tried to create diagrams and define new simplified forces that mathematically described those various couplings. A new type of quantum field theory came on to the scene that explained the weak nuclear force by uniting it with electromagnetism into electroweak theory, and it was shown to be renormalizable. That word meaning that at last they could create a norm where all deviations were explainable..
That is, that those infinities could be absorbed into a redefinition of a small number of parameters contained in the theory. Then similar wisdom was applied to the strong nuclear force to yield quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, The magicians, sorry physicists, smiled as this theory also was shown to be renormalizable, Which left one only force to be accounted for .. Gravity. . Which couldn't be turned into a renormalizable field theory, no matter how hard or for that matter, what spells one tried
At the same time as the physicists tried to understand the universe in form of particles and waves combining and interchanging, the mathematicians who worked inside their own fields of theoretical frameworks, started to look at topology as described mathematically. There had been a discarded theory of something called a dual resonance model. It was an attempt to describe the strong nuclear force. The dual model was never that successful at describing particles, The dual models were actually quantum theories of relativistic vibrating strings and had displayed very intriguing mathematical behavior. Dual models came to be called string theory as a result.
The question Earth's mathematicians finally asked themselves was, could string theory be a theory of quantum gravity? String theory worked in a smooth theoretical plane defined by two dimensions A two-dimensional space-time of its own, where the division between space and time depended upon the observer. The strings in themselves were one-dimensional. And all that were okay if you happened to be a mathematician, but for those tailless ones that weren't, it just didn’t make any sense.
Try to imagine a squarely formed string, five hundred feet wide, with a height of another five hundred feet, and a length of ooh, a thousand feet. Easy huh? Good. What you have is an object that is three-dimensional, height, width, and length, ok. Now let’s play! We take one dimension away, lets take width, and awaay it goes! We now have a ’string’ that you can see clearly, if standing to the side of it, because from there it will still have height and its length in space, you agree? Good. Now jump into my flying machine and take a good look at it from up above. Hey! It’s gone! . .
Why, well, we took away its width, didn’t we. There is no width to it, so seen from above it doesn’t exist, considering that we are looking on it, from our normal three-dimensional space with time as the fourth dimension. The same would be, if you saw that string straight from it's front or end, it just wouldn't exist. Which in a way seems to turn this two-dimensional string into a none dimensional, depending on where you look at it. The headache of it all, ahh.
It could of course, represent a solution to all those problem of storage limitations. We just take one dimension away and Presto! We can fold the whole universe into our wallet. Nicee. But one-dimensional? Strings? If you can envision them, tell me how. But those same scientists that frowned at paranormal phenomena were quite happy to accept string theory. Don’t ask me why? Without knowing it, the tailless ones were defining their own magic.
And Earth’s scientists and the common magicians had one thing in common, what worked, worked! Even though terminology and explanations differed, they all were result oriented. Which is a good thing if you want something to happen. What really were changing were that, without thinking about it the tailless ones at last started to feel, if not overjoyed, then at last ready to accept the universe, now when they had defined it.
For as they would prove to you, by relating to mathematical concepts and standardized retryable experiments, this is how it works. By the way, those one dimensional strings that Earth's magicians invented, they had not only placed them under enormous tensions, they also expected them to move, those movements through time created a one-dimensional plane of their own that those magicians named a 'worldsheet'. And magic it was, of a seldom seen complexity. Most worlds used to Magic never created so interwoven 'logical' laws for how their magic should work, only the tailless ones had found it so obsessive important.
Remember that the properties of magic lies in your intent, your choice of creation and use decides what that magic will do, and be. Because of the framework and concepts resting behind their magic, supporting and mounting it, the tailless ones could, without understanding, now create frightfully strong new spells.
Aint that the truth
brilliant
So maybe this one to then ?
Think about it, friends. It starts on that plane where the smallest of our particles forms from the fuzzy weave of possibilities, every thing we call reality, is just one of the possible directions those particles that build us and our world takes and took, simultaneously and continuously, for every moment in time. But then, you may ask. How do you explain that we only experience this reality? Ah, to that there are some different answers, the simplest, being to accept that we exist as we do, because that is the only possibility we can experience. There is offcourse that alternate explanation of the old man of Krell.
It states that probability has a difficult case of hay fever and that our worlds are like soap bubbles floating from his nose created by his sneezing. What will happen when the pollen season is over we don't know though. It may be that all worlds end. This doesn't imply that there can't be alternate world lines, even if they, from our point of view, have a lower probability, or if you like, a nonexistent reality.
Now, bear with me. Our reality had always had the strongest probability. The proof of this is easily found when viewing backward in time. Backward because that is the only way we can view, or for that sake make conclusions of what might really be. Nothing can be said to exist until that moment of probability have been passed into the wake of history and therefore left us with the indubitable result of its existence. Like that paycheck you've got last month, remember it? So huge when you waited for it to materialize, so pathetically small after you used it.
So now you're getting a headache? Don't worry, it can only get better. Time travels then, can we travel back in time? Of course we can, whenever you remember your loved ones you are there, in a way of speaking. But in the same way as your remembrance may not be the exact replica of the actual experience, so will your traveling backward in time not deliver you to the world line that you went out from. And now you wonder, what will then happen to my world line if I go back and kill my forefather? Nothing, I say! Nothing. The probability of you finding your self in that exact world line that you've followed since your birth, before jumping backwards that is, is nil and not existent. So kill him if you like and be done with it. Be aware though, that you might find it hard to find your way home afterwards.
So you say, as you happily contemplate your new possibilities of getting even with those slights and hurts you collected thru your childhood, what then about coming back after said fact, that is, traveling forward in time again? Here we have two simple outcomes, the first consider you getting back to your own world line. Even if it may seem to you as to belong in the future, in fact it actually belongs to your past. In that way you can travel back with impunity, as long as you accept that the chances of you finding you way back to your own world line are somewhat less than zero.
Or we can put it this way, the chances of you winning the lotto every day of your life, are immensely greater than you going 'forward' to your original world line, in fact you will find uncountable world lines, just not yours. But to travel where no possibilities ever have crystallized, where no worldline yet exist, where nobody threaded before, the unknown future. That my friend is a No No. That is in the hands, tentacles of? Who knows??
In the end, according to the old man of krell, all the different world lines will flow into one continuos ocean, as entropy increases with all matters and energy you had, into that relaxing state of inert uniformity. And that my friends, are going to be one timeless heck of a vacation, where all finally can enjoy their well deserved rest.
But before this happy occasion I'm afraid that we will have to suffer that, for every action one chose, or may chose in time, simultaneously there will be created alternate actions, in which endless versions of one self splits out immediately in differentiate world lines. Which in their turn will split up in endless. And the same goes for every phenomenon, material as metaphysical..
seen in another light one could say that time grows backward, that we are merely observers sitting still, seeing and reliving time as it unfold itselfs backwards into 'history' . And where that would leave the old man of Krell ? Well, ?? Ahh the ...
That's mostly based on the 'many worlds theory' by the way.
But i've always woundered over the concept of time and allways will..
Think about it, friends. It starts on that plane where the smallest of our particles forms from the fuzzy weave of possibilities, every thing we call reality, is just one of the possible directions those particles that build us and our world takes and took, simultaneously and continuously, for every moment in time. But then, you may ask. How do you explain that we only experience this reality? Ah, to that there are some different answers, the simplest, being to accept that we exist as we do, because that is the only possibility we can experience. There is offcourse that alternate explanation of the old man of Krell.
It states that probability has a difficult case of hay fever and that our worlds are like soap bubbles floating from his nose created by his sneezing. What will happen when the pollen season is over we don't know though. It may be that all worlds end. This doesn't imply that there can't be alternate world lines, even if they, from our point of view, have a lower probability, or if you like, a nonexistent reality.
Now, bear with me. Our reality had always had the strongest probability. The proof of this is easily found when viewing backward in time. Backward because that is the only way we can view, or for that sake make conclusions of what might really be. Nothing can be said to exist until that moment of probability have been passed into the wake of history and therefore left us with the indubitable result of its existence. Like that paycheck you've got last month, remember it? So huge when you waited for it to materialize, so pathetically small after you used it.
So now you're getting a headache? Don't worry, it can only get better. Time travels then, can we travel back in time? Of course we can, whenever you remember your loved ones you are there, in a way of speaking. But in the same way as your remembrance may not be the exact replica of the actual experience, so will your traveling backward in time not deliver you to the world line that you went out from. And now you wonder, what will then happen to my world line if I go back and kill my forefather? Nothing, I say! Nothing. The probability of you finding your self in that exact world line that you've followed since your birth, before jumping backwards that is, is nil and not existent. So kill him if you like and be done with it. Be aware though, that you might find it hard to find your way home afterwards.
So you say, as you happily contemplate your new possibilities of getting even with those slights and hurts you collected thru your childhood, what then about coming back after said fact, that is, traveling forward in time again? Here we have two simple outcomes, the first consider you getting back to your own world line. Even if it may seem to you as to belong in the future, in fact it actually belongs to your past. In that way you can travel back with impunity, as long as you accept that the chances of you finding you way back to your own world line are somewhat less than zero.
Or we can put it this way, the chances of you winning the lotto every day of your life, are immensely greater than you going 'forward' to your original world line, in fact you will find uncountable world lines, just not yours. But to travel where no possibilities ever have crystallized, where no worldline yet exist, where nobody threaded before, the unknown future. That my friend is a No No. That is in the hands, tentacles of? Who knows??
In the end, according to the old man of krell, all the different world lines will flow into one continuos ocean, as entropy increases with all matters and energy you had, into that relaxing state of inert uniformity. And that my friends, are going to be one timeless heck of a vacation, where all finally can enjoy their well deserved rest.
But before this happy occasion I'm afraid that we will have to suffer that, for every action one chose, or may chose in time, simultaneously there will be created alternate actions, in which endless versions of one self splits out immediately in differentiate world lines. Which in their turn will split up in endless. And the same goes for every phenomenon, material as metaphysical..
seen in another light one could say that time grows backward, that we are merely observers sitting still, seeing and reliving time as it unfold itselfs backwards into 'history' . And where that would leave the old man of Krell ? Well, ?? Ahh the ...
That's mostly based on the 'many worlds theory' by the way.
But i've always woundered over the concept of time and allways will..
i'm afraid i'll have to explain my thoughts somewhat better 
Time is a concept that is bound to our three dimensions. as those change, as percieved by you or me or any conciousness, so will time. But the change will only reveal itself when we get into a relative framework of comparition, Like travel to the nearest star and back, finding out that your son now will be older then yourself. We all know the analogy of space as as a rubbersheet with massive objects making dents into the said sheet. Thats one way of describing gravity, but you could probably include time there to. Veilocity affects time, mass affects time, gravity, spacetime is just that, a interweaved concept where everything is bound together. Einstein is said to have believed that everything existed simultaneously, that our past and our future already are here, but that we just couldn't see it. Well, maybe, everything is possible offcourse, still that would make our lives a somewhat tedious experience, if everything already were 'planned', so to speak. And if you dont mind, i will leave the concept of God and 'free will' outside this disscussion. We all live inside our own timebuble, inside it, time always will 'tick' at the same rate, not caring if we're on the beach or if we travel to a star. The mystery of time only unfolds itself when we get a ' point of reference' So what is time then ? We already seem to have two definitions here, both coexisting simultaneously. If we take the concept of 'sliced time' where there suposedly exist some hyperdimension where time flows in a totaly different direction, and somehow binds those two concepts together... Ahh the headache, can you imagine all the 'logistics' involved in keeping such a concept together? I can't, I'm pretty shure that there is something fundamentelly wrong with our perception of reality, the whole concept should be simple, 'with one there is nothing, from two rises multitudes'. In short i don't f**ng know what time is, but i have a feeling that if we were to understand it we would finally start to know ourselves.
Hope i haven't bored you to death.
Time is a concept that is bound to our three dimensions. as those change, as percieved by you or me or any conciousness, so will time. But the change will only reveal itself when we get into a relative framework of comparition, Like travel to the nearest star and back, finding out that your son now will be older then yourself. We all know the analogy of space as as a rubbersheet with massive objects making dents into the said sheet. Thats one way of describing gravity, but you could probably include time there to. Veilocity affects time, mass affects time, gravity, spacetime is just that, a interweaved concept where everything is bound together. Einstein is said to have believed that everything existed simultaneously, that our past and our future already are here, but that we just couldn't see it. Well, maybe, everything is possible offcourse, still that would make our lives a somewhat tedious experience, if everything already were 'planned', so to speak. And if you dont mind, i will leave the concept of God and 'free will' outside this disscussion. We all live inside our own timebuble, inside it, time always will 'tick' at the same rate, not caring if we're on the beach or if we travel to a star. The mystery of time only unfolds itself when we get a ' point of reference' So what is time then ? We already seem to have two definitions here, both coexisting simultaneously. If we take the concept of 'sliced time' where there suposedly exist some hyperdimension where time flows in a totaly different direction, and somehow binds those two concepts together... Ahh the headache, can you imagine all the 'logistics' involved in keeping such a concept together? I can't, I'm pretty shure that there is something fundamentelly wrong with our perception of reality, the whole concept should be simple, 'with one there is nothing, from two rises multitudes'. In short i don't f**ng know what time is, but i have a feeling that if we were to understand it we would finally start to know ourselves.
Hope i haven't bored you to death.
Project Home 2010, a research project in Connecticut, is also developing a large matter accelerator for testing theories in time/space relativity physics. The project is scheduled to conduct the experiment in 2010 when the matter accelerator will be turned to an angular velocity approaching the speed of light on an asymtote acceleration curve rotating in a friction free environment in a vacuum chamber gliding on magnetic fields which also supress the centrifugal forces.
This experiment, which the engineering design and mathematical calculations say will work, will compress space close to singularity state where Einstein's theory predicts the close to virtual stopping of time.
This is due to space being compressed to it's maximum density, which is the point that relatively prevents anything to move faster than 186,280 MPS.
The reason matter and energy becomes the same at the speed of light is because space and the object are both space compressed to maximum density. Project Home 2010 has found evidence that matter is made of empty space that is just 'clumped up' which explains the amount of energy in matter. Matter is in a state of entropy always looking for a way to diffuse back to regular space density.
The website for Project Home 2010 is located at:
angelfire com / clone2 / projecthome2010
Project Home 2010 was formed in 2010 and the selected gifted students, John Obik and Matthew Mitchel Urquhart, will enter 'phase 3' in Spring 2007, where actual tests of this machinery will be conducted, with all the programs completed and failsafing designs begin, accelerating the 47 foot diameter stainless steel disk to 50 MPS. until the one-time experiment in 2010.
John Obik and Matt Urquhart invented a computer processor called 'polybit' that will govern the functions of the machinery.
The Project Home 2010 lab includes an extensive machine shop including CNC robotic machinery for the manufacturing of the parts, mostly made of aerospace nickel alloys, as well as servo controlled robotics for automated machine functions.
The electromagnetic field propulsion invented in Project Home 2010 for propulsion and levitation is also described on the website.
-Envirotech EA, Australia
Acting Agent
This experiment, which the engineering design and mathematical calculations say will work, will compress space close to singularity state where Einstein's theory predicts the close to virtual stopping of time.
This is due to space being compressed to it's maximum density, which is the point that relatively prevents anything to move faster than 186,280 MPS.
The reason matter and energy becomes the same at the speed of light is because space and the object are both space compressed to maximum density. Project Home 2010 has found evidence that matter is made of empty space that is just 'clumped up' which explains the amount of energy in matter. Matter is in a state of entropy always looking for a way to diffuse back to regular space density.
The website for Project Home 2010 is located at:
angelfire com / clone2 / projecthome2010
Project Home 2010 was formed in 2010 and the selected gifted students, John Obik and Matthew Mitchel Urquhart, will enter 'phase 3' in Spring 2007, where actual tests of this machinery will be conducted, with all the programs completed and failsafing designs begin, accelerating the 47 foot diameter stainless steel disk to 50 MPS. until the one-time experiment in 2010.
John Obik and Matt Urquhart invented a computer processor called 'polybit' that will govern the functions of the machinery.
The Project Home 2010 lab includes an extensive machine shop including CNC robotic machinery for the manufacturing of the parts, mostly made of aerospace nickel alloys, as well as servo controlled robotics for automated machine functions.
The electromagnetic field propulsion invented in Project Home 2010 for propulsion and levitation is also described on the website.
-Envirotech EA, Australia
Acting Agent
Re: U-Conn time research,
Time can be slowed, but the laws of thermodynamics will not allow backwards progression of time. The acceleration curve to compress space to slow time approaches an asymtote at the speed of light, which cannot reverse time.
Energy coefficient of the mass and energy applied to accelerate it (y axis) all in relation to the speed of light (x axis domain [ 0, 186280 mps) ).
Subatomic particles moving the speed of light are compressing space this way creating an irregularity in space density and time progression, however their mass is so tiny we don't notice this.
Gravity is the result of space density thinning from a massive object compressing space within it's mass. The space around is stretched thin, like pinching a sheet of thin rubber in the middle. The rubber is dense where pinched and the rubber around it is stretched thinner, and is less and less stretched the further away from the pinch source. Newton's law illustrates this. Matter entering a gravity source follow the path of least resistance by moving toward the thinner space around the massive body creating the gravity (stretched space).
Particles 'living' longer could be an observation of slowed time but not leaving the one single time space continuum there is. In other words the particles could have been existing in a field of slowed time. Project Home 2010 confirms this is physicaly possible.
-Project Home 2010 research
Time can be slowed, but the laws of thermodynamics will not allow backwards progression of time. The acceleration curve to compress space to slow time approaches an asymtote at the speed of light, which cannot reverse time.
Energy coefficient of the mass and energy applied to accelerate it (y axis) all in relation to the speed of light (x axis domain [ 0, 186280 mps) ).
Subatomic particles moving the speed of light are compressing space this way creating an irregularity in space density and time progression, however their mass is so tiny we don't notice this.
Gravity is the result of space density thinning from a massive object compressing space within it's mass. The space around is stretched thin, like pinching a sheet of thin rubber in the middle. The rubber is dense where pinched and the rubber around it is stretched thinner, and is less and less stretched the further away from the pinch source. Newton's law illustrates this. Matter entering a gravity source follow the path of least resistance by moving toward the thinner space around the massive body creating the gravity (stretched space).
Particles 'living' longer could be an observation of slowed time but not leaving the one single time space continuum there is. In other words the particles could have been existing in a field of slowed time. Project Home 2010 confirms this is physicaly possible.
-Project Home 2010 research
Project Home 2010 principal in the friction free vacuum for accelerating the disk allows stored energy in the accelerating disk to remain.
The result is that the disk will continue to accelerate continuously with the applied thrust, to reach the astronomical speeds.
The result is that the disk will continue to accelerate continuously with the applied thrust, to reach the astronomical speeds.
Australian Research Company buys 12-year-old boys from parents and molests them, keeping them locked up and unable to learn English.
http://www.angelfire.com/clone2/projecthome2010/
http://www.angelfire.com/clone2/projecthome2010/
Concerning Project Home 2010
Ahh yes Sir, We are believers! In fact i was discussing this same project with the Crown prince just this morning as i held his morning paper for him to read. " Sire" i said, !it's my humble opinion that those Connecticutans must be mad. Planning to go home in rubber suits Sire, are they perverts!!!" But the Crown prince, bless him, sat me straight on that one, so now we can proudly inform you Sir, that we to are a believer.
As the the king has set aside a fair amount of expenses you can expect me , the Crown prince (and his harem) to arrive in a short time to that lovely Connecticut. Please inform ohn Obik and Matthew Mitchel Urquhart about our imminent arrival.
There will be no need of courtly manners as the Prince, his harem, the nearest thirty advisers, and some uh loose peopleperty all will be traveling incognito. We would appreciate if you could arrange some small castle just near you, and in case of none some few villas perhaps ? By the way, is it true that the papers are referring to the project as the rubberrianSpace_project. Here in the Royal country Of Swedania we prefer to immortalize it as "going Home".
With our regards Sir.
as signed by the The royal mouthpiece
PS As we are trying to keep a low profile i will be wearing a red gadenia in my uppermost breastpocke, the Crown Prince will wear a harems lady as is the proper thing for a Crown Prince to wear. And yes, the royal canine will weaf googles. So a merry meetimg Sir...
e
Ahh yes Sir, We are believers! In fact i was discussing this same project with the Crown prince just this morning as i held his morning paper for him to read. " Sire" i said, !it's my humble opinion that those Connecticutans must be mad. Planning to go home in rubber suits Sire, are they perverts!!!" But the Crown prince, bless him, sat me straight on that one, so now we can proudly inform you Sir, that we to are a believer.
As the the king has set aside a fair amount of expenses you can expect me , the Crown prince (and his harem) to arrive in a short time to that lovely Connecticut. Please inform ohn Obik and Matthew Mitchel Urquhart about our imminent arrival.
There will be no need of courtly manners as the Prince, his harem, the nearest thirty advisers, and some uh loose peopleperty all will be traveling incognito. We would appreciate if you could arrange some small castle just near you, and in case of none some few villas perhaps ? By the way, is it true that the papers are referring to the project as the rubberrianSpace_project. Here in the Royal country Of Swedania we prefer to immortalize it as "going Home".
With our regards Sir.
as signed by the The royal mouthpiece
PS As we are trying to keep a low profile i will be wearing a red gadenia in my uppermost breastpocke, the Crown Prince will wear a harems lady as is the proper thing for a Crown Prince to wear. And yes, the royal canine will weaf googles. So a merry meetimg Sir...
e
Whoops.
Concerning our arrival, there seems to have been a slight misunderstanding between the Crown Prince and our Royal Highness. The Crown Prince have found it for good to be incommunicado for the present time. Therefore it will be only me coming. Although I'll try to convince the Crown Prince of the importance of his young ladies getting an proper education as I'm sure you'll provide under there.
So i will have to take it on me to lead the expedition into your wilderness. Do you have running water? Why I'm asking, well there was this incident with the English Crown prince in the late eighteenth hundred where he were visiting an out post in India. As they had no running water but didn't wanted to admit it they made two water pipes go straight out the roof. There they had 'boys' at all times filling those pipes with hot and cold water. As you can imagine it gave those 'at home' that knew the conditions of this place a slightly skewed view of the Crown Prince:s sanity.
So I'll ask you again Sir, do you have running water ?
Otherwise everything goes as planned..
The Royal Mouthpiece
Concerning our arrival, there seems to have been a slight misunderstanding between the Crown Prince and our Royal Highness. The Crown Prince have found it for good to be incommunicado for the present time. Therefore it will be only me coming. Although I'll try to convince the Crown Prince of the importance of his young ladies getting an proper education as I'm sure you'll provide under there.
So i will have to take it on me to lead the expedition into your wilderness. Do you have running water? Why I'm asking, well there was this incident with the English Crown prince in the late eighteenth hundred where he were visiting an out post in India. As they had no running water but didn't wanted to admit it they made two water pipes go straight out the roof. There they had 'boys' at all times filling those pipes with hot and cold water. As you can imagine it gave those 'at home' that knew the conditions of this place a slightly skewed view of the Crown Prince:s sanity.
So I'll ask you again Sir, do you have running water ?
Otherwise everything goes as planned..
The Royal Mouthpiece
I love the experiment because it will show that curved spacetime and marble time-dimension are totally wrong and Julian Barbour is correct!
QUOTE (truth2k+Feb 18 2007, 08:00 PM)
I love the experiment because it will show that curved space time and marble time-dimension are totally wrong and Julian Barbour is correct!
My good man, i surmise that to be 'locally wrong' not 'totally wrong'.
As we all know from the curved marble theory of warped space, it can only be a localized effect. A slight misspell from you I'm sure.
Otherwise the whole Paradigm stands on it's head, and that would be unfortunate.
My good man, i surmise that to be 'locally wrong' not 'totally wrong'.
As we all know from the curved marble theory of warped space, it can only be a localized effect. A slight misspell from you I'm sure.
Otherwise the whole Paradigm stands on it's head, and that would be unfortunate.
QUOTE
Otherwise the whole Paradigm stands on it's head, and that would be unfortunate.
The whole paradigm is collapsing. See
www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614
In response to " only when space time is flat does there exists one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. "
Dear cosmodel. that would eminently well explain what one dimensional strings are made of. Namely us ;)
And it will surely help us to find our way to Connecticut.
Btw: you haven't seen a stray canine passing by, wearing goggles?
Dear cosmodel. that would eminently well explain what one dimensional strings are made of. Namely us ;)
And it will surely help us to find our way to Connecticut.
Btw: you haven't seen a stray canine passing by, wearing goggles?
THE SUBTLE FRAUD OF RELATIVITY
A few years ago the journal Nature discussed a "paradox" that Einstein's theory had produced:
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/030728-3.html
The essence of the "paradox" is explained here:
http://www.srijith.net/trinetre/archives/2003/07/30.shtml "According to Nature, a Brazilian physicist has resolved a paradox caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. Called the"submarine paradox", the paradox goes: According to the theory, objects traveling at close to the speed of light appear to get shorter when viewed by stationary observers. But from the viewpoint of those on the moving object, the observers - who are receding at close to the speed of light - appear shortened instead. Other dimensions remain the same. When these notions are applied to a submarine just below the water's surface, an inconsistency seems to arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see the submarine shrink as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light speed. The resulting density increase would sink the vessel. The submarine crew would see the opposite: water rushing past them would contract and get denser, making the submarine more buoyant and causing it to rise. Relativity insists that both viewpoints are equally valid - so does the sub sink or swim?"
Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski spacetime etc.). Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle of variability of the speed of light) and obtain correct results but simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in science. So days come when you are able to extract money from everything: the miracles, the "paradoxes" caused by them, the solutions to the "paradoxes", the experimental verification of the true results etc. No rejection of the miracles is possible - the collective madness regards absurdity as best science.
Still consider another length contraction absurdity taught by perhaps the best relativity textbook. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - there are two incompatible answers. In a different world the theory producing such an absurdity would be rejected. In this world any version of the absurdity - e.g. the submarine miracle - can only bring more money to those who devise it, publish it, resolve it etc.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
A few years ago the journal Nature discussed a "paradox" that Einstein's theory had produced:
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/030728-3.html
The essence of the "paradox" is explained here:
http://www.srijith.net/trinetre/archives/2003/07/30.shtml "According to Nature, a Brazilian physicist has resolved a paradox caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. Called the"submarine paradox", the paradox goes: According to the theory, objects traveling at close to the speed of light appear to get shorter when viewed by stationary observers. But from the viewpoint of those on the moving object, the observers - who are receding at close to the speed of light - appear shortened instead. Other dimensions remain the same. When these notions are applied to a submarine just below the water's surface, an inconsistency seems to arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see the submarine shrink as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light speed. The resulting density increase would sink the vessel. The submarine crew would see the opposite: water rushing past them would contract and get denser, making the submarine more buoyant and causing it to rise. Relativity insists that both viewpoints are equally valid - so does the sub sink or swim?"
Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) that produces breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski spacetime etc.). Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle of variability of the speed of light) and obtain correct results but simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in science. So days come when you are able to extract money from everything: the miracles, the "paradoxes" caused by them, the solutions to the "paradoxes", the experimental verification of the true results etc. No rejection of the miracles is possible - the collective madness regards absurdity as best science.
Still consider another length contraction absurdity taught by perhaps the best relativity textbook. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - there are two incompatible answers. In a different world the theory producing such an absurdity would be rejected. In this world any version of the absurdity - e.g. the submarine miracle - can only bring more money to those who devise it, publish it, resolve it etc.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
valev
who was a brazilian physicist what solved the paradox?
if the there is or not the dark energy,to compensate the acceleration of the expansion of the universe;or if exist some scalar and anti-symmetric tensor to
explain the accelaration,then the equivalence principle is violated,and demonstrates that the GTR is not complete.
i believe that the time-dilatation and contraction of space can vanish application the reverse lorentz transformation to the space that must obtain of time-vector,that goes forward in time and backward in time in spacetime curved,that
does c appear as constant.it is ,the object in rest and other in high-velocity
woud have other geometry,and therefore would have transitions between non-linear and linear structures.,that modify the vision of object in relation the
speeds of the object;and c must be variable to obtain these variation of space
and time,then in a direction c appear as constant and in other as variable.the
differentiation between the objects,is the relativity of space in the time,and time
in the space
who was a brazilian physicist what solved the paradox?
if the there is or not the dark energy,to compensate the acceleration of the expansion of the universe;or if exist some scalar and anti-symmetric tensor to
explain the accelaration,then the equivalence principle is violated,and demonstrates that the GTR is not complete.
i believe that the time-dilatation and contraction of space can vanish application the reverse lorentz transformation to the space that must obtain of time-vector,that goes forward in time and backward in time in spacetime curved,that
does c appear as constant.it is ,the object in rest and other in high-velocity
woud have other geometry,and therefore would have transitions between non-linear and linear structures.,that modify the vision of object in relation the
speeds of the object;and c must be variable to obtain these variation of space
and time,then in a direction c appear as constant and in other as variable.the
differentiation between the objects,is the relativity of space in the time,and time
in the space
I enjoyed that title. It could have been a god book title ;)
On the other hand, this is the same paper that 'Reviews Drug Discovery's?'
Personally or????
I mean that would explain the submarine...
I know , just a thought.
I just have to thank you guys. after finding this oasis i found so many nice links towards physics especcially those pdf:s. Still one spend so much time up here reading, the only thing one can do is to collect them 'on heap' ;) And mott.carl, is there any possibility of you explaining in more 'layman english' what you just wrote?
On the other hand, after reading this our Crown Prince absolutely refuse to go to Connecticut via Submarine, not that any such transport was planned. The King on the third? hand seems somewhat exalted?
On the other hand, this is the same paper that 'Reviews Drug Discovery's?'
Personally or????
I mean that would explain the submarine...
I know , just a thought.
I just have to thank you guys. after finding this oasis i found so many nice links towards physics especcially those pdf:s. Still one spend so much time up here reading, the only thing one can do is to collect them 'on heap' ;) And mott.carl, is there any possibility of you explaining in more 'layman english' what you just wrote?
On the other hand, after reading this our Crown Prince absolutely refuse to go to Connecticut via Submarine, not that any such transport was planned. The King on the third? hand seems somewhat exalted?
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
THE SUBTLE FRAUD OF RELATIVITY
Neither Einstein nor his descendants are receiving money for relativity. How so is it a fraud?
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
A few years ago the journal Nature discussed a "paradox" that Einstein's theory had produced:
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/030728-3.html
The essence of the "paradox" is explained here:
http://www.srijith.net/trinetre/archives/2003/07/30.shtml "According to Nature, a Brazilian physicist has resolved a paradox caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. Called the"submarine paradox", the paradox goes: According to the theory, objects traveling at close to the speed of light appear to get shorter when viewed by stationary observers. But from the viewpoint of those on the moving object, the observers - who are receding at close to the speed of light - appear shortened instead. Other dimensions remain the same. When these notions are applied to a submarine just below the water's surface, an inconsistency seems to arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see the submarine shrink as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light speed. The resulting density increase would sink the vessel. The submarine crew would see the opposite: water rushing past them would contract and get denser, making the submarine more buoyant and causing it to rise. Relativity insists that both viewpoints are equally valid - so does the sub sink or swim?"
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/030728-3.html
The essence of the "paradox" is explained here:
http://www.srijith.net/trinetre/archives/2003/07/30.shtml "According to Nature, a Brazilian physicist has resolved a paradox caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. Called the"submarine paradox", the paradox goes: According to the theory, objects traveling at close to the speed of light appear to get shorter when viewed by stationary observers. But from the viewpoint of those on the moving object, the observers - who are receding at close to the speed of light - appear shortened instead. Other dimensions remain the same. When these notions are applied to a submarine just below the water's surface, an inconsistency seems to arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see the submarine shrink as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light speed. The resulting density increase would sink the vessel. The submarine crew would see the opposite: water rushing past them would contract and get denser, making the submarine more buoyant and causing it to rise. Relativity insists that both viewpoints are equally valid - so does the sub sink or swim?"
The Nature source is poor for the casual viewer of the web, since it's a paid link. The Blog entry is also poor, because it refers to the Nature article by link, also. Also, this is the "Physics News" section and this "News" is very old. Here is a much better citation list:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st4 (News story based on article)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v68/i2/e027701 (Paid link to the article itself)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305106 (Free version of above)
http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st4 (News story based on article)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v68/i2/e027701 (Paid link to the article itself)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305106 (Free version of above)
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
Relativists' strategy is simple: Initially you introduce a falsehood (the principle of constancy of the speed of light)
It's called a postulate, and it's up to experiment to prove it true or false.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
that produces breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski spacetime etc.).
Which are required by self-consistency. Any experiment that proves these wrong would prove Relativity wrong
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
Then you restore the truth (Einstein's 1911 principle of variability of the speed of light)
1911 was a step to GR, and the full GR clearly shows that the local speed of light is constant but space and time are curved.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
and obtain correct results but simultaneously your miracles continue to destroy rationality in science.
You are hardly the sole-arbitrator of what is and isn't rational.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
So days come when you are able to extract money from everything: the miracles, the "paradoxes" caused by them, the solutions to the "paradoxes", the experimental verification of the true results etc. No rejection of the miracles is possible - the collective madness regards absurdity as best science.
I have never made a dime of off relativity theory. But I find it very useful if I want to do high-speed electronics or find where I am. The only reason it's called a paradox is that people tried to inappropriately apply SR to solve it.
This is not a problem with SR, since buoyancy is clearly a first order effect of gravity on matter. Both the problem and the solution are clearly in the realm of GR.
This is not a problem with SR, since buoyancy is clearly a first order effect of gravity on matter. Both the problem and the solution are clearly in the realm of GR.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Feb 20 2007, 08:20 AM)
Still consider another length contraction absurdity taught by perhaps the best relativity textbook. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - there are two incompatible answers. In a different world the theory producing such an absurdity would be rejected. In this world any version of the absurdity - e.g. the submarine miracle - can only bring more money to those who devise it, publish it, resolve it etc.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - there are two incompatible answers. In a different world the theory producing such an absurdity would be rejected. In this world any version of the absurdity - e.g. the submarine miracle - can only bring more money to those who devise it, publish it, resolve it etc.
Ridiculous because you don't apply the correct definition of simultaneity. The textbook you link to is excellent, but you learn nothing because you never try to apply this knowledge. You never try to calculate anything, and get stuck at the first contradiction with Aristotle. Einstein doesn't add to Newton and/or Aristotle, he replaces them.
rpenner
in your optics,what means CONTRACTION OF SPACE AND TIME DILATATION,before of talk about twin paradox? is hard understand as poincare
thinked not on the relativity of the motion.the ausence of absolute system of motion.
why the transformations of lorentz made by Dingle were not corrects?
valev-would be the brasilian physicist:cesar lattes,that was a-relativisic convict.passed out 2005.
in your optics,what means CONTRACTION OF SPACE AND TIME DILATATION,before of talk about twin paradox? is hard understand as poincare
thinked not on the relativity of the motion.the ausence of absolute system of motion.
why the transformations of lorentz made by Dingle were not corrects?
valev-would be the brasilian physicist:cesar lattes,that was a-relativisic convict.passed out 2005.
Toudelo ;) I'm proud to announce that the Crown Prince graciously have allowed me to supervise his personal harem for the time present,
Connecticut here we come.
Connecticut here we come.
I love the way people always say something is impossible until someone who refuses to listen goes and does it... let’s see; Columbus, the Wright Brothers, Manned Space Flight, and the list goes on. Of course the nay-sayers will never be great men (or women) now will they. Run through life with blinders on if you like, but you are a fool if you do! Yeah, I have an EE degree and I've seen things I can't always explain. I'm willing to move forward anyway. The dimwits always walk away, shaking their heads! When Dr. Mallet is holding his Nobel Prize and we are all indebted to him for not listening to the closed minded people, I will be there to cheer!
RELATIVISTS: SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE
http://www.routledge.com/shopping_cart/pro...80415701747&pc=
Einstein, Relativity & Absolute Simultaneity, Smith & Craig
Editor(s) - William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith
Series: Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativity’s relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Time-Quenti...h/dp/0195155947
Language and Time by Quentin, Smith: "This book offers a defense of the tensed theory of time, a critique of the New Theory of Reference, and an argument that simultaneity is absolute.....He concludes the book with a lengthy critique of Einstein's theory of time."
Bravo! Relativists' next step will be to discover which false principle misled Einstein into believing that simultaneity was relative. The false principle of constancy of the speed of light? Who knows.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://www.routledge.com/shopping_cart/pro...80415701747&pc=
Einstein, Relativity & Absolute Simultaneity, Smith & Craig
Editor(s) - William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith
Series: Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativity’s relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Time-Quenti...h/dp/0195155947
Language and Time by Quentin, Smith: "This book offers a defense of the tensed theory of time, a critique of the New Theory of Reference, and an argument that simultaneity is absolute.....He concludes the book with a lengthy critique of Einstein's theory of time."
Bravo! Relativists' next step will be to discover which false principle misled Einstein into believing that simultaneity was relative. The false principle of constancy of the speed of light? Who knows.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
VALEV
in yours thoughts,the physics still is totally newtonian ?
the quantic mechanics is only seen the vision of newton.how stay the dirac's equations to the electron,if the relativity were not correct,in some aspects?
have the theories of magueijo,carmelia,recami,caldirola,cesar lattes...what your though to respect?
in yours thoughts,the physics still is totally newtonian ?
the quantic mechanics is only seen the vision of newton.how stay the dirac's equations to the electron,if the relativity were not correct,in some aspects?
have the theories of magueijo,carmelia,recami,caldirola,cesar lattes...what your though to respect?
Quentin Smith, a philosopher, is the editor of Einstein, Relativity & Absolute Simultaneity (2006) and the author of Language and Time (1993). It is clear that Quentin Smith finds a theory of absolute time more satisfying philosophically. It is unclear from his writings if he finds the absolutism of past and future light-cones equally satisfying. I find it hard to see why he has a problem with this, as the mind is a local thing, clearly tied to ponderable matter, and both Einstein and Newton agree that locally, time is absolute, passing at 1 second per second.
Quentin Smith rarely steps into the realm of physics, however, so I haven't been able to find his thoughts on the twin paradox. Others ( http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0101099 ) have covered Quentin Smith and I find it illustrative that they too use very weak arguments based on the agreement that a "now" is well-defined when delta-t is only sensitive to the nearest +/-86400 seconds and delta-v is allowed only to vary +/- 3x10^-6 c and delta-x is less that 1 light-second. In such a conceptual universe, the A-theory (tensed time) and the B-theory (block time) are both indistinguishable from a local theory. Naturally, the intuition-prejudiced philosopher will find plenty of examples to support whatever view he has.
I especially find Quentin Smith hard to follow when Quentin Smith thinks GR resolves his philosophical conflicts with SR, since the Earth and the Moon are demonstrably different in their perceptions of time. This whole exercise seems to be taking human language (which is built in a an intuitionist environment) far too literally in the construction of bad metaphysics.
Quentin Smith rarely steps into the realm of physics, however, so I haven't been able to find his thoughts on the twin paradox. Others ( http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0101099 ) have covered Quentin Smith and I find it illustrative that they too use very weak arguments based on the agreement that a "now" is well-defined when delta-t is only sensitive to the nearest +/-86400 seconds and delta-v is allowed only to vary +/- 3x10^-6 c and delta-x is less that 1 light-second. In such a conceptual universe, the A-theory (tensed time) and the B-theory (block time) are both indistinguishable from a local theory. Naturally, the intuition-prejudiced philosopher will find plenty of examples to support whatever view he has.
I especially find Quentin Smith hard to follow when Quentin Smith thinks GR resolves his philosophical conflicts with SR, since the Earth and the Moon are demonstrably different in their perceptions of time. This whole exercise seems to be taking human language (which is built in a an intuitionist environment) far too literally in the construction of bad metaphysics.
Time is not a dimension. Time is a concept invented by Man. Time is simply the rate of decay of one lump of matter relative to the rate of decay of another lump of matter. The rates of decay of two identical lumps of matter will be different based upon each lump's relative rate of motion in space. Because of this, time travel is not a concept to contemplate.
Shame on you. You should have already figured this out.
Regards,
Mark Shackelford
markshackelford@hotmail.com
Shame on you. You should have already figured this out.
Regards,
Mark Shackelford
markshackelford@hotmail.com
So sorry my good man, as the Crown Prince so graciously pointed out to me at tea 'if time would wear out as all decaying materials do where would that leave us? Without our tea???' Then he made a decree that hereafter time under no circumstances would be allowed to wear out under tea time..
So you no longer have to worry about time taking a nap, at least as long as you do your tea as a good boy ;)
So you no longer have to worry about time taking a nap, at least as long as you do your tea as a good boy ;)
this thread is some of the best reading on the subject of time travel... though i have no schooling other than the most basic of education, i have always been fascinated by physics and everything related to it... it's obvious that many of the posters in this thread are well versed in physics, quantum mechanics, and everything related, and it's a pleasure to read your theories and thoughts on the subject (of course like in any public forum, there are the morons (and the one random *** racist), and the completely confused... too bad there isn't a moderator to remove the trash that unfortunately has posted on this excellent thread)...
but either way, thanks for the great reading.. i just spent the entire day reading and pondering this thread, trying to conceptualize my own view of what time is, and like any project that i've ever gotten involved with, it's best to start at the beginning before jumping ahead (in time)... though before starting any project, it's critical that we define exactly what we're dealing with, instead of jumping to the how's of doing it...
given the question of a time machine, like some have stated quite clearly, if we can't define time clearly, then there's no point in going any farther with the project... the best definition of time that i read here, was simply that time exists only in human perception... given that, an attempt to make a machine that one can travel in in time, is a moot point.. i think that given that definition of time, one should focus on a machine that would affect human perception, that may be the more logical starting point, instead of trying to manipulate the physical universe (or a piece of it)...
and this would relate only to the past, never the future... since the future has not occured yet, there would be no future to 'travel' to...
i think the idea of time travel is not possible for those basic reasons... though the idea of time viewing is where i think we should focus our energies on... i mean, looking into the past using telescopes, or rather, viewing light which has travelled across great distances, gives us the ability to literally look back in time... of course as it is we are only looking at objects far away from us... but if we could somehow use some sort of natural phenomena in the cosmos at some great distance, say the edge of the known universe, that could reflect the light that the earth has given off (or possibly using some sort of curvature in space to bend light), giving us the ability to look at ourselves in the past (not just some distant star), with some type of powerful telescope that could focus down to the meter to view actual human goings on on our earth, that in itself would of enormous value, in the least as historical value (imagine how many court cases could be solved if we could look back into time and see the actual event occuring when no visual record previously existed of it)...
that would seem a more realistic project, still with great value, than a physical time travelling device...
but basically, if time is human perception, then there can be no such a thing as a device that would allow us to travel in time... (well, other than possibly a mix of tequila and hallucinogens... heh)
but either way, thanks for the great reading.. i just spent the entire day reading and pondering this thread, trying to conceptualize my own view of what time is, and like any project that i've ever gotten involved with, it's best to start at the beginning before jumping ahead (in time)... though before starting any project, it's critical that we define exactly what we're dealing with, instead of jumping to the how's of doing it...
given the question of a time machine, like some have stated quite clearly, if we can't define time clearly, then there's no point in going any farther with the project... the best definition of time that i read here, was simply that time exists only in human perception... given that, an attempt to make a machine that one can travel in in time, is a moot point.. i think that given that definition of time, one should focus on a machine that would affect human perception, that may be the more logical starting point, instead of trying to manipulate the physical universe (or a piece of it)...
and this would relate only to the past, never the future... since the future has not occured yet, there would be no future to 'travel' to...
i think the idea of time travel is not possible for those basic reasons... though the idea of time viewing is where i think we should focus our energies on... i mean, looking into the past using telescopes, or rather, viewing light which has travelled across great distances, gives us the ability to literally look back in time... of course as it is we are only looking at objects far away from us... but if we could somehow use some sort of natural phenomena in the cosmos at some great distance, say the edge of the known universe, that could reflect the light that the earth has given off (or possibly using some sort of curvature in space to bend light), giving us the ability to look at ourselves in the past (not just some distant star), with some type of powerful telescope that could focus down to the meter to view actual human goings on on our earth, that in itself would of enormous value, in the least as historical value (imagine how many court cases could be solved if we could look back into time and see the actual event occuring when no visual record previously existed of it)...
that would seem a more realistic project, still with great value, than a physical time travelling device...
but basically, if time is human perception, then there can be no such a thing as a device that would allow us to travel in time... (well, other than possibly a mix of tequila and hallucinogens... heh)
Carlos castanada wrote a book about experiences of the mind through drugs like hallucinogens,Some type of cactus plant.It seems that if you were looking through opened eyes of your mind (if you'll use that term of knowledge)you could probably get a different understanding about issues of excistance.Maybe time is not as relavant as we think.What we see is what we get in this reality,is as far as our mind can take us.I,myself believe there are things beyond our understanding of this excistance.Do you think that the realms of dreamstates are just dreams ,or maybe theres an excistance beyond the physical body.Just something to think about.
as to that, one should never as u me anything. One should use proper methodology and measures for getting ones own first hand experiences. As the Crown prince so abundantly mumbled as he visited the opium den ;)
INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EINSTEINIANS
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_11782.html
THE BEGINNING: "Brian Greene, a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University in New York who at the age of 5 was already doing such complicated mathematical equations that they only fit on pieces of paper that were specially taped together."
THE END: Brian Greene: "Time travel to the future is completely within the laws of physics as we understand them. In principal, if you want to know what the earth will look like ten thousand years from now, then Einstein laid out a blueprint of how you would accomplish that: you build a spaceship, you travel near the speed of light for a certain period of time, you come back, and when you step out of your spaceship you will be just a year older, but earth will be ten thousand or a hundred thousand years older and you’ll have jumped into the future."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_11782.html
THE BEGINNING: "Brian Greene, a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University in New York who at the age of 5 was already doing such complicated mathematical equations that they only fit on pieces of paper that were specially taped together."
THE END: Brian Greene: "Time travel to the future is completely within the laws of physics as we understand them. In principal, if you want to know what the earth will look like ten thousand years from now, then Einstein laid out a blueprint of how you would accomplish that: you build a spaceship, you travel near the speed of light for a certain period of time, you come back, and when you step out of your spaceship you will be just a year older, but earth will be ten thousand or a hundred thousand years older and you’ll have jumped into the future."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The above post has no thesis, and no argument. As such there is no evidence of thought or sound judgement.
At a minimum, there is a requirement to state a thesis. Since I'm the only one who responds to Pentcho Valev, I will act as his "best friend" and suppose that the intended thesis is that anyone who believes that the twin paradox is internally logically consistent is mentally deficient. This cannot follow since many fine mathematicians have proved that the system of equations is internally consistent. Then, in the alternative, the thesis might be that relativity is physically wrong, but as Pentcho Valev offers no evidence one way or the other, how is the reader supposed to judge the strength of the (wholly implied) argument? Neither of the unattributed quotes have any bearing on physical evidence whatsoever.
In summary, reading the above post is less than a fulfilling experience.
At a minimum, there is a requirement to state a thesis. Since I'm the only one who responds to Pentcho Valev, I will act as his "best friend" and suppose that the intended thesis is that anyone who believes that the twin paradox is internally logically consistent is mentally deficient. This cannot follow since many fine mathematicians have proved that the system of equations is internally consistent. Then, in the alternative, the thesis might be that relativity is physically wrong, but as Pentcho Valev offers no evidence one way or the other, how is the reader supposed to judge the strength of the (wholly implied) argument? Neither of the unattributed quotes have any bearing on physical evidence whatsoever.
In summary, reading the above post is less than a fulfilling experience.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 22 2007, 09:02 AM)
The above post has no thesis, and no argument. As such there is no evidence of thought or sound judgement.
At a minimum, there is a requirement to state a thesis. Since I'm the only one who responds to Pentcho Valev, I will act as his "best friend" and suppose that the intended thesis is that anyone who believes that the twin paradox is internally logically consistent is mentally deficient. This cannot follow since many fine mathematicians have proved that the system of equations is internally consistent. Then, in the alternative, the thesis might be that relativity is physically wrong, but as Pentcho Valev offers no evidence one way or the other, how is the reader supposed to judge the strength of the (wholly implied) argument?
The reader could consider this:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG within two years of publishing it."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein"s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...d_of_light.html "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."
Then the reader may decide to reject all corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
At a minimum, there is a requirement to state a thesis. Since I'm the only one who responds to Pentcho Valev, I will act as his "best friend" and suppose that the intended thesis is that anyone who believes that the twin paradox is internally logically consistent is mentally deficient. This cannot follow since many fine mathematicians have proved that the system of equations is internally consistent. Then, in the alternative, the thesis might be that relativity is physically wrong, but as Pentcho Valev offers no evidence one way or the other, how is the reader supposed to judge the strength of the (wholly implied) argument?
The reader could consider this:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG within two years of publishing it."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein"s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...d_of_light.html "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."
Then the reader may decide to reject all corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
does you think that the speed of light is not only one altered itself,but also in the
direction,permit that time is not variable?then c could be variable,and the curvatures would be connected in its metrics with variable gravitational potential.then there are differences topologics in the non-euclidean that permit
distortion of the spacetime without necessity of any matter.the proper structure
topological of the spacetime,implies that the texture of the riemannian manifold,in the case,produce deformations,with twisting ,bending,and warping,generating "holes",that changes the topological characterics of the
manifold.the c is deformable by the topological structure,that connect space and time(=spacetime),through of discontinuities ,that do appear the curvatures of spacetime,not of form continuos,but discrete,then c,cannot be the time all constant,but suffer variations,in these topological changes,as suffered interpherence of some substance,that modify the form of measure time and space,not as something absolute,but relative to both entities,measured all the same time,
direction,permit that time is not variable?then c could be variable,and the curvatures would be connected in its metrics with variable gravitational potential.then there are differences topologics in the non-euclidean that permit
distortion of the spacetime without necessity of any matter.the proper structure
topological of the spacetime,implies that the texture of the riemannian manifold,in the case,produce deformations,with twisting ,bending,and warping,generating "holes",that changes the topological characterics of the
manifold.the c is deformable by the topological structure,that connect space and time(=spacetime),through of discontinuities ,that do appear the curvatures of spacetime,not of form continuos,but discrete,then c,cannot be the time all constant,but suffer variations,in these topological changes,as suffered interpherence of some substance,that modify the form of measure time and space,not as something absolute,but relative to both entities,measured all the same time,
QUOTE (David G+Apr 4 2006, 05:10 PM)
I have to say I don't buy Ronald Mallett's theory. The quantity of energy needed to bend space the way he is describing would have to be absurdly enormous.*snip*
True.....but size and amount comparisons are relative. 'absurdly enormous' for us might not be absurdly enormous to something else.
True.....but size and amount comparisons are relative. 'absurdly enormous' for us might not be absurdly enormous to something else.
If you throw a ball up in the air on a heavy gravity world, it does not go so high. Wow! Time dilation in action.
If you use your brakes in your car. Amazing! Time dilation in action again.
Duh!
Example : If you make an atom lose energy by putting it under heavier gravity so the electrons have to work harder or you crush it against the light barrier so that the energy loss of electrons is now proportional to C - the speed, then you make it contract in the direction of travel.
If you use your brakes in your car. Amazing! Time dilation in action again.
Duh!
Example : If you make an atom lose energy by putting it under heavier gravity so the electrons have to work harder or you crush it against the light barrier so that the energy loss of electrons is now proportional to C - the speed, then you make it contract in the direction of travel.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Apr 22 2007, 09:40 AM)
The reader could consider this:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
People have studied Einstein's writing know that in all his early writings, he used the term "principle of relativity" -- it wasn't until later, following the conventions of others, that he began to use the term "theory of relativity." So when John Norton writes "Einstein considered experiment X as supporting Y" and "Later writers use experiment X as supporting Z," you have left out that Z is included in Y. Nothing in your quoted section supports your above thesis that the twin paradox makes the special theory of relativity obviously wrong.
QUOTE (John D. Norton+Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics prior to 1905, page 2)
My understanding of this episode is framed essentially by the historical researches of John Stachel, individually and in collaboration with the editors of Volume 2 of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein; and by Robert Rynasiewicz and his collaborators. See Stachel (1987, 1989), Stachel et al. (1989a), Rynasiewicz (2000) and Earman et al. (1983) and the citations therein for their debts to other scholarship.
...
In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein’s serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity.*
*Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate.
The opinion in your quote from page 2 and a footnote is more properly attributed to John Stachel than to John D. Norton. Norton goes on to say "an emission theory of light must contradict some quite secure properties known empirically for light." (page 25). Indeed, in pp. 25-31 the concept of a emission theory of light is torn apart. So in-the-whole, this reference does nothing to make an emission theory of light even respectable of future investigation.
...
In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein’s serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity.*
*Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate.
The opinion in your quote from page 2 and a footnote is more properly attributed to John Stachel than to John D. Norton. Norton goes on to say "an emission theory of light must contradict some quite secure properties known empirically for light." (page 25). Indeed, in pp. 25-31 the concept of a emission theory of light is torn apart. So in-the-whole, this reference does nothing to make an emission theory of light even respectable of future investigation.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Apr 22 2007, 09:40 AM)
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."
And yet, locally it remains the same universal constant. Here, Pentcho Valev omits the telling footnote.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG within two years of publishing it."
Einstein may have though it wrong because, according to Lee Smolin, Einstein was a better person than Pentcho Valev.
Then the reader may decide to reject all corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The reader may decide to do whatever the hell the reader wants to do. But General Relativity isn't obviously wrong away from the physical singularities of the mathematics, and General Relativity always reduces to Special Relativity when local, free-falling frames are considered. Special Relativity isn't obviously wrong anywhere it applies. Further, since Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian physics when v << c, then nothing in you intuition and experience that agrees with Newton contradicts Special Relativity.
THAT TWO CLOCKS CAN BE GOING BOTH SLOWER THAN THE OTHER IS WHAT MAKES STR OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
MOVING THROUGH SPACE IS WHAT DILATES TIME.
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG. THE STATION DOES NOT MOVE THROUGH SPACE TO COME TO THE TRAIN. THEREFOR ONLY THE TRAIN'S CLOCK WILL BE SEEN TO GO SLOW; NOT THE STATION'S.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
If you consider time to be past, present, or future then Einstein did not show that any physical change affects past, present, or future.
Einstein showed a relation between the function of all physical clocking functions and physical change. If you move at a different velocity or move to a different gravitational environment then someone else your clocking functions will change with respect to the other person.
When you return to the same location as the other person, you will be able to see that your clocking functions were different. You will also notice that you were able to return to the same present as the other person.
If real time had changed your present should be different then the other person. Since you never left the present, your time did not change.
There has never been any observation that anything has ever left the present.
Relativity is not a theory of time but a theory of clocks. Relativity is not a theory of any absolutes that exist. It is a theory of relative relations.
And yet, locally it remains the same universal constant. Here, Pentcho Valev omits the telling footnote.
QUOTE
See Einstein (1907, 1911). It is not so easy ask if the speed of light is constant in general relativity. At first it looks like the result survives. The metrical norm of any lightlike vector is zero, so that if this zero norm measures the speed then it is always the same—although zero is an unusual measure for the greatest achievable speed. Also, in the neighborhood of any event, one can always set up measuring rods and clocks in free fall and of sufficient smallness so that they measure the same constant for the speed of a light signal. However there seems no general way to extend this constancy to measurements conducted over extended regions, as Einstein realized in 1907. Consider the simplest case of a static spacetime which can be foliated into a family of spacelike hypersurfaces with a time independent geometry. We can use any physical process to assign times to the surfaces, a kind of cosmic clock. But, in the general case, there is no way to do this so that all light signals propagate through the spaces with the same speed on this cosmic clock. For details of the these constructions, see Norton (1985, §3). Einstein’s view (as elaborated in Einstein and Fokker, 1914, §2) seems to have been that the constancy of the speed of light entails that the spacetime is conformally flat, such as it was in his reformulation of the Nordström theory of gravitation. The spaces of general relativity are not, in general, conformally flat, so that sense of the constancy of the speed of light fails.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See Einstein (1907, 1911). It is not so easy ask if the speed of light is constant in general relativity. At first it looks like the result survives. The metrical norm of any lightlike vector is zero, so that if this zero norm measures the speed then it is always the same—although zero is an unusual measure for the greatest achievable speed. Also, in the neighborhood of any event, one can always set up measuring rods and clocks in free fall and of sufficient smallness so that they measure the same constant for the speed of a light signal. However there seems no general way to extend this constancy to measurements conducted over extended regions, as Einstein realized in 1907. Consider the simplest case of a static spacetime which can be foliated into a family of spacelike hypersurfaces with a time independent geometry. We can use any physical process to assign times to the surfaces, a kind of cosmic clock. But, in the general case, there is no way to do this so that all light signals propagate through the spaces with the same speed on this cosmic clock. For details of the these constructions, see Norton (1985, §3). Einstein’s view (as elaborated in Einstein and Fokker, 1914, §2) seems to have been that the constancy of the speed of light entails that the spacetime is conformally flat, such as it was in his reformulation of the Nordström theory of gravitation. The spaces of general relativity are not, in general, conformally flat, so that sense of the constancy of the speed of light fails. |
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG within two years of publishing it."
Einstein may have though it wrong because, according to Lee Smolin, Einstein was a better person than Pentcho Valev.
QUOTE
In retrospect, I believe what allowed Einstein to achieve so much was primarily a moral quality. He simply cared far more than most of his colleagues that the laws of physics have to explain everything in nature coherently and consistently. As a result he was acutely sensitive to flaws and contradictions in the logical structure of physical theories.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In retrospect, I believe what allowed Einstein to achieve so much was primarily a moral quality. He simply cared far more than most of his colleagues that the laws of physics have to explain everything in nature coherently and consistently. As a result he was acutely sensitive to flaws and contradictions in the logical structure of physical theories. |
Then the reader may decide to reject all corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The reader may decide to do whatever the hell the reader wants to do. But General Relativity isn't obviously wrong away from the physical singularities of the mathematics, and General Relativity always reduces to Special Relativity when local, free-falling frames are considered. Special Relativity isn't obviously wrong anywhere it applies. Further, since Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian physics when v << c, then nothing in you intuition and experience that agrees with Newton contradicts Special Relativity.
QUOTE
Nothing in your quoted section supports your above thesis that the twin paradox makes the special theory of relativity obviously wrong.
THAT TWO CLOCKS CAN BE GOING BOTH SLOWER THAN THE OTHER IS WHAT MAKES STR OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
MOVING THROUGH SPACE IS WHAT DILATES TIME.
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG. THE STATION DOES NOT MOVE THROUGH SPACE TO COME TO THE TRAIN. THEREFOR ONLY THE TRAIN'S CLOCK WILL BE SEEN TO GO SLOW; NOT THE STATION'S.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 23 2007, 01:45 AM)
THAT TWO CLOCKS CAN BE GOING BOTH SLOWER THAN THE OTHER IS WHAT MAKES STR OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
You have failed to show that the prediction is that any one observer would ever see two clocks each running slower than each other. Since this is not a prediction of Relativity, but only your incomplete understanding of Relativity, the fault doesn't lie with Relativity.
You have failed to show that the prediction is that any one observer would ever see two clocks each running slower than each other. Since this is not a prediction of Relativity, but only your incomplete understanding of Relativity, the fault doesn't lie with Relativity.
“Einstein showed that time is affected by motion, and his theories have been demonstrated experimentally by comparing time on an atomic clock that has traveled around the earth on a jet. It’s slower than a clock on earth.”
And all the while, the universe expanded at the same rate. Maybe time is absolute after all. Or maybe time simply doesn’t exist. Maybe there is just the motion of the universe within the three real dimensions and our own creation of an imaginary dimension called time used to describe it.
Going back in time isn’t just going back to before the mistake or tragedy you hope to prevent, it’s going back to a smaller universe…one where the earth and stars are in the position they were in originally at that destination time in the past. This hardly seems relative. The differing clocks can not be in two different size universes. The atomic clock in motion simply recorded time at a different pace, if it could observe it, this clock would not have seen the expansion of the universe change.
The above is only my opinion, you of course have the right to your own opinion no matter how wrong that opinion might be;-)
mk
And all the while, the universe expanded at the same rate. Maybe time is absolute after all. Or maybe time simply doesn’t exist. Maybe there is just the motion of the universe within the three real dimensions and our own creation of an imaginary dimension called time used to describe it.
Going back in time isn’t just going back to before the mistake or tragedy you hope to prevent, it’s going back to a smaller universe…one where the earth and stars are in the position they were in originally at that destination time in the past. This hardly seems relative. The differing clocks can not be in two different size universes. The atomic clock in motion simply recorded time at a different pace, if it could observe it, this clock would not have seen the expansion of the universe change.
The above is only my opinion, you of course have the right to your own opinion no matter how wrong that opinion might be;-)
mk
QUOTE (mk+Apr 29 2007, 08:25 AM)
“Einstein showed that time is affected by motion, and his theories have been demonstrated experimentally by comparing time on an atomic clock that has traveled around the earth on a jet. It’s slower than a clock on earth.”
And all the while, the universe expanded at the same rate. Maybe time is absolute after all.
At least the so-called Minkowski's spacetime is an absurd concept. As I have already said in my initial comment, all such absurdities are corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Let me call the attention to Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics":
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Incorrigible relativists who would be happy to find imperfections in Wallace's texts should not forget that the book (especially its last chapter) was written by a dying person.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
And all the while, the universe expanded at the same rate. Maybe time is absolute after all.
At least the so-called Minkowski's spacetime is an absurd concept. As I have already said in my initial comment, all such absurdities are corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Let me call the attention to Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics":
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Incorrigible relativists who would be happy to find imperfections in Wallace's texts should not forget that the book (especially its last chapter) was written by a dying person.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
QUOTE
“Einstein showed that time is affected by motion, and his theories have been demonstrated experimentally by comparing time on an atomic clock that has traveled around the earth on a jet. It’s slower than a clock on earth.”
If you consider time to be past, present, or future then Einstein did not show that any physical change affects past, present, or future.
Einstein showed a relation between the function of all physical clocking functions and physical change. If you move at a different velocity or move to a different gravitational environment then someone else your clocking functions will change with respect to the other person.
When you return to the same location as the other person, you will be able to see that your clocking functions were different. You will also notice that you were able to return to the same present as the other person.
If real time had changed your present should be different then the other person. Since you never left the present, your time did not change.
There has never been any observation that anything has ever left the present.
Relativity is not a theory of time but a theory of clocks. Relativity is not a theory of any absolutes that exist. It is a theory of relative relations.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Apr 29 2007, 08:38 AM)
At least the so-called Minkowski's spacetime is an absurd concept. As I have already said in my initial comment, all such absurdities are corollaries of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light.
Although hardly being at the TR paradigm as physical concept in general and from different reasons than I am able to see it around (and I already tr yd to explain that openly through my papers and different discussions which leads towards totally different kind of space-cosmic dynamics), I really have a sympathy towards Minkowski's mathematical genius.
But I can see it in two different ways:
1. As an math interpretation of Poincare-Lorentz-Einstein line of development of mechanics in light of the contemporary electrodynamics (There was even more lucid interpretations such as e.g. Varicak's hyperbolic geometry with c as absolute negative curvature of 3-D Space. Time is intrinsic property of such a geometry, but this concept was, I'm free to say rejected in favor that of of Minkowskie. Also questionable.)
2. As a pure intellectual approach with general idea of the temporal 4th dimension
x4 = ict
where c becomes an absolute constant of one 4-D "space-time".
Let me add, that even purely mathematically, we can accept that the law of velocity composition is most general by its form. But physically speaking, such a law always depends on speed of signal in use. c is only one such a "speed". Even seeing from the "relativistic" perspective, there always exists "speed" v > c and paradoxically, "relativity of motion" becomes in its limit that of Galilei's.
Finally, where comes from the confusion? From basic misconception: c is neither "constant" nor "speed". Light is not kinematic phenomenon? Similarly to Newton's G.
Regards
Although hardly being at the TR paradigm as physical concept in general and from different reasons than I am able to see it around (and I already tr yd to explain that openly through my papers and different discussions which leads towards totally different kind of space-cosmic dynamics), I really have a sympathy towards Minkowski's mathematical genius.
But I can see it in two different ways:
1. As an math interpretation of Poincare-Lorentz-Einstein line of development of mechanics in light of the contemporary electrodynamics (There was even more lucid interpretations such as e.g. Varicak's hyperbolic geometry with c as absolute negative curvature of 3-D Space. Time is intrinsic property of such a geometry, but this concept was, I'm free to say rejected in favor that of of Minkowskie. Also questionable.)
2. As a pure intellectual approach with general idea of the temporal 4th dimension
x4 = ict
where c becomes an absolute constant of one 4-D "space-time".
Let me add, that even purely mathematically, we can accept that the law of velocity composition is most general by its form. But physically speaking, such a law always depends on speed of signal in use. c is only one such a "speed". Even seeing from the "relativistic" perspective, there always exists "speed" v > c and paradoxically, "relativity of motion" becomes in its limit that of Galilei's.
Finally, where comes from the confusion? From basic misconception: c is neither "constant" nor "speed". Light is not kinematic phenomenon? Similarly to Newton's G.
Regards
Time and space are not warped by matter, they are created by matter as a point of origin, mass to energy transfer into gravitational wave-field form. Time and space are a function of wave frequency and density. Time is a measure of generated field frequency and space is the active area/ volume. The aether is the gravitational wave as matter decays creating space via the wave-field. The war page is actually of space and time is actually a function of wave frequency. It is three misunderstood actions of one process that has everyone fooled. Time, space and gravitational wave alignment or synchronization, or constructive and destructive wave interference is the true understanding of how the universe works.
valev
theirs thoughts are that space and time be linears,infinity.then how could understand that the relativistic experiments,do time and space be deformed,variables with increasing of the speed.if this is correct,must there is
a speed-limit.
i think that the time is real,and define the fouth-dimension,as connection of spacetime,it is the metric of space is given by the motion of time,that occur,due
at the curved space by the time,but the fouth-dimension is given by quaternions,
that determine the anti-commutative property,that define the asymmetry between
the laterility proprties of space,that become it symmetric,for other coordinate of time,that is the fifth-dimension,that gives the isotropy of the space and the homogeinity of time( spacetime continuos),that transform by the reversion of time and space,through of that other coordinate of time
theirs thoughts are that space and time be linears,infinity.then how could understand that the relativistic experiments,do time and space be deformed,variables with increasing of the speed.if this is correct,must there is
a speed-limit.
i think that the time is real,and define the fouth-dimension,as connection of spacetime,it is the metric of space is given by the motion of time,that occur,due
at the curved space by the time,but the fouth-dimension is given by quaternions,
that determine the anti-commutative property,that define the asymmetry between
the laterility proprties of space,that become it symmetric,for other coordinate of time,that is the fifth-dimension,that gives the isotropy of the space and the homogeinity of time( spacetime continuos),that transform by the reversion of time and space,through of that other coordinate of time
No one seems to have noticed that communicating with the future would unlock all the scientific and technological advancements that will ever be made, in every future universe, including the more advanced technology of physical time travel. Even if this technology were misused, we could always escape to an alternative universe. Without fantastic scientific and technological advancement, all we can hope for is to slow down the rate at which humans destroy everything natural on Earth. I for one would rather not live in a world in which wildlife consists mainly of rats, flies, cockroaches, fire ants and other invasive species.
And do not dismiss the idea of time travel to times before the invention of time travel and before humans existed. Hundreds of out of place artifacts (ooparts) have been uncovered in rock strata millions of years older than the human race. Most date back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, because such anomalies seem ridiculous, nowadays. Paleontologists are also concerned about giving ammunition to the creationists.
There are exceptions, including flattened metallic tubes discovered in late Cretaceous chalk in Saint-Jean de Livit, France in 1968. These can still be found in the geomorphology department of the University of Caen.
Stephen Barnath also discovered human bones in 8.7 million-year-old volcanic rock in Placer County, California in 1989. This region yielded numerous ooparts, dating back 55 million years, during the California gold rush.
The oldest ooparts of all are inexplicable grooved metallic spheres discovered by South African gold miners in 2.8 billion-year-old rock. These are still being found and are on display at the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa.
One of the most incredible and best documented ooparts is a fossilized shoe sole discovered in 225 million-year-old Triassic limestone in Nevada in 1917. Nevada United Mining Company employee Alfred Knapp discovered the fossil and showed it to mining engineer and amateur archaeologist and paleontologist, John T. Reid in 1922.
According to the article, "Mystery of the Petrified Shoe-Sole," by Dr. W. H. Ballou, New York American, October 8, 1922: Reid "showed the fossil to Dr. James F. Kemp, geologist of Columbia University: Professors H. F. Osborn, W. D. Matthew and E. O. Hovey of the American Museum of Natural History. All these men reached the same conclusion, in effect ' it was the most remarkable imitation of an artificial object they had ever seen...These experts agreed, however that the rock formation was Triassic, and manufactures of shoes agreed that originally, the specimen was a hand-welted sole. Dr. W. D. Matthew wrote a brief report on the find, declaring that while all the semblances of a shoe sole were present, including the threads with which it had been sewn, it was only a remarkable imitation, a lusus nature, or 'freak of nature'." One can also download "Fossil Under Lens Like Man-Made Shoe," New York Times, Aug. 13, 1922.
The Nevada Historical Society provided me with original correspondence, including a letter by John T. Reid to his business partner, Kirby Thomas. Reid wrote, "When I showed this to Dr. Matthew, he stated immediately, that it certainly was a shoe sole, then he retracted in this, that 'it could not be, for there was no man on Earth during the Triassic age'...It was an after thought of his that it was a concretion, for he stated at the time when we were alone and without the presence of any other person that it was a fossil, and as to this, there could be no question whatever." Reid and Ballou also point out that photomicrographs taken at Rockefeller Institute reveal every stitch and twist of the thread.
If that is not incredible enough, Reid also refers to a human fossil from Triassic limestone and a modern horse's hoof and foreleg from Cretaceous coal in Utah.
The best source of information on ooparts is Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael L. Cremo and Richard Thompson. Cremo and Thompson are Hindu mystics, who consider ooparts evidence of the Hindu concept of the cyclical return of humanity. Nevertheless, their facts are irrefutable. Michael L. Cremo also answered his critics in Forbidden Archeology's Impact,
Time Travel: A New Perspective, by J. H. Brennan, is probably the only book to suggest time travel as an explanation for ooparts, and it is based mainly on the work of Cremo and Thompson. The NBC documentary, "The Mysterious Origins of Man," hosted by Charlton Heston, also dealt with anomalous artifacts, but it never mentioned the possibility of time travel. And Charles Fort wrote about ooparts as early as 1920.
I know how insane all this sounds, and personally, I do not take time travel seriously. Nor has anyone ever found an oopart that could not have been made thousands of years ago, but any civilization capable of traveling backwards in time would make us seem like baboons. Still, survival on Precambrian Earth would require as much technological sophistication as survival on Mars. And unlike most Forteana, ooparts do not vanish. Ooparts merely gather dust in museum drawers. Let's rescue the ooparts from the museum drawers!
And do not dismiss the idea of time travel to times before the invention of time travel and before humans existed. Hundreds of out of place artifacts (ooparts) have been uncovered in rock strata millions of years older than the human race. Most date back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, because such anomalies seem ridiculous, nowadays. Paleontologists are also concerned about giving ammunition to the creationists.
There are exceptions, including flattened metallic tubes discovered in late Cretaceous chalk in Saint-Jean de Livit, France in 1968. These can still be found in the geomorphology department of the University of Caen.
Stephen Barnath also discovered human bones in 8.7 million-year-old volcanic rock in Placer County, California in 1989. This region yielded numerous ooparts, dating back 55 million years, during the California gold rush.
The oldest ooparts of all are inexplicable grooved metallic spheres discovered by South African gold miners in 2.8 billion-year-old rock. These are still being found and are on display at the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa.
One of the most incredible and best documented ooparts is a fossilized shoe sole discovered in 225 million-year-old Triassic limestone in Nevada in 1917. Nevada United Mining Company employee Alfred Knapp discovered the fossil and showed it to mining engineer and amateur archaeologist and paleontologist, John T. Reid in 1922.
According to the article, "Mystery of the Petrified Shoe-Sole," by Dr. W. H. Ballou, New York American, October 8, 1922: Reid "showed the fossil to Dr. James F. Kemp, geologist of Columbia University: Professors H. F. Osborn, W. D. Matthew and E. O. Hovey of the American Museum of Natural History. All these men reached the same conclusion, in effect ' it was the most remarkable imitation of an artificial object they had ever seen...These experts agreed, however that the rock formation was Triassic, and manufactures of shoes agreed that originally, the specimen was a hand-welted sole. Dr. W. D. Matthew wrote a brief report on the find, declaring that while all the semblances of a shoe sole were present, including the threads with which it had been sewn, it was only a remarkable imitation, a lusus nature, or 'freak of nature'." One can also download "Fossil Under Lens Like Man-Made Shoe," New York Times, Aug. 13, 1922.
The Nevada Historical Society provided me with original correspondence, including a letter by John T. Reid to his business partner, Kirby Thomas. Reid wrote, "When I showed this to Dr. Matthew, he stated immediately, that it certainly was a shoe sole, then he retracted in this, that 'it could not be, for there was no man on Earth during the Triassic age'...It was an after thought of his that it was a concretion, for he stated at the time when we were alone and without the presence of any other person that it was a fossil, and as to this, there could be no question whatever." Reid and Ballou also point out that photomicrographs taken at Rockefeller Institute reveal every stitch and twist of the thread.
If that is not incredible enough, Reid also refers to a human fossil from Triassic limestone and a modern horse's hoof and foreleg from Cretaceous coal in Utah.
The best source of information on ooparts is Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael L. Cremo and Richard Thompson. Cremo and Thompson are Hindu mystics, who consider ooparts evidence of the Hindu concept of the cyclical return of humanity. Nevertheless, their facts are irrefutable. Michael L. Cremo also answered his critics in Forbidden Archeology's Impact,
Time Travel: A New Perspective, by J. H. Brennan, is probably the only book to suggest time travel as an explanation for ooparts, and it is based mainly on the work of Cremo and Thompson. The NBC documentary, "The Mysterious Origins of Man," hosted by Charlton Heston, also dealt with anomalous artifacts, but it never mentioned the possibility of time travel. And Charles Fort wrote about ooparts as early as 1920.
I know how insane all this sounds, and personally, I do not take time travel seriously. Nor has anyone ever found an oopart that could not have been made thousands of years ago, but any civilization capable of traveling backwards in time would make us seem like baboons. Still, survival on Precambrian Earth would require as much technological sophistication as survival on Mars. And unlike most Forteana, ooparts do not vanish. Ooparts merely gather dust in museum drawers. Let's rescue the ooparts from the museum drawers!
the matter is created by the spacetime,due at the differents energy states,that are
deformed by spontaneous symmetry breaking -pt-of the primordial vaccum,that
go generating the spacetime continuos,and of those warping the matter appear
as different osccilations of the wave-frequences,that is interlinked to the speeds
that define the distict metrics of the spacetime continuos in the 4-dimension universe,that to increase the it power of symmetry,admmiting a 5-dimension SO
(3,2),that is (4,1) to inversion in PT,with the complex conjugated given the proper
spacetime with the speed,have the transformation by rotation,that is given by
spinorial topology - geometry,W'=iu'->w*=-iv'(x,y,z,t),equal the charge conjugation,C
PT does appear the connection of space and time in spacetime continuos,and cpt,normalize that breakdown,doing appear the CPT.as the reversion symmetric
spatio-temporal between the that call of past and future.
i am wanting the origin,the foundaments of the spacetime of STR,through of mathematical-physics process.
I don't belive that the einstennian theories be absurds.maybe it cannot to explain all the effects that have of the sensations originated from the exterior world.
thence need quantic theory,superstring,greater greater than 4,and others.
deformed by spontaneous symmetry breaking -pt-of the primordial vaccum,that
go generating the spacetime continuos,and of those warping the matter appear
as different osccilations of the wave-frequences,that is interlinked to the speeds
that define the distict metrics of the spacetime continuos in the 4-dimension universe,that to increase the it power of symmetry,admmiting a 5-dimension SO
(3,2),that is (4,1) to inversion in PT,with the complex conjugated given the proper
spacetime with the speed,have the transformation by rotation,that is given by
spinorial topology - geometry,W'=iu'->w*=-iv'(x,y,z,t),equal the charge conjugation,C
PT does appear the connection of space and time in spacetime continuos,and cpt,normalize that breakdown,doing appear the CPT.as the reversion symmetric
spatio-temporal between the that call of past and future.
i am wanting the origin,the foundaments of the spacetime of STR,through of mathematical-physics process.
I don't belive that the einstennian theories be absurds.maybe it cannot to explain all the effects that have of the sensations originated from the exterior world.
thence need quantic theory,superstring,greater greater than 4,and others.
QUOTE (mk+Apr 29 2007, 08:25 AM)
“Einstein showed that time is affected by motion, and his theories have been demonstrated experimentally by comparing time on an atomic clock that has traveled around the earth on a jet. It’s slower than a clock on earth.”
And all the while, the universe expanded at the same rate. Maybe time is absolute after all. Or maybe time simply doesn’t exist. Maybe there is just the motion of the universe within the three real dimensions and our own creation of an imaginary dimension called time used to describe it.
Going back in time isn’t just going back to before the mistake or tragedy you hope to prevent, it’s going back to a smaller universe…one where the earth and stars are in the position they were in originally at that destination time in the past. This hardly seems relative. The differing clocks can not be in two different size universes. The atomic clock in motion simply recorded time at a different pace, if it could observe it, this clock would not have seen the expansion of the universe change.
The above is only my opinion, you of course have the right to your own opinion no matter how wrong that opinion might be;-)
mk
The guy that had the hanger space next to mine and was supposed to fly the route for the time evluation never conmmented. He apparently noticed no difference. wbw (Anyway it is a localized observation of doubtful ontological value.) WBW
And all the while, the universe expanded at the same rate. Maybe time is absolute after all. Or maybe time simply doesn’t exist. Maybe there is just the motion of the universe within the three real dimensions and our own creation of an imaginary dimension called time used to describe it.
Going back in time isn’t just going back to before the mistake or tragedy you hope to prevent, it’s going back to a smaller universe…one where the earth and stars are in the position they were in originally at that destination time in the past. This hardly seems relative. The differing clocks can not be in two different size universes. The atomic clock in motion simply recorded time at a different pace, if it could observe it, this clock would not have seen the expansion of the universe change.
The above is only my opinion, you of course have the right to your own opinion no matter how wrong that opinion might be;-)
mk
The guy that had the hanger space next to mine and was supposed to fly the route for the time evluation never conmmented. He apparently noticed no difference. wbw (Anyway it is a localized observation of doubtful ontological value.) WBW
Time is a literal dimension: imaginary distance. A unit of time can be expressed as the distance light travels in a vacuum, in a given length of time, times i. Furthermore, the Pythagorean theorem still applies if the sides of the right triangle are units of time, expressed in this fashion. For example, if two sides of a right triangle are 3 years and 4 years, the hypotenuse will be 5 years. Check it out, 3i light years squared plus 4i light years squared equals 5i light years squared. And at speeds faster than light imaginary distance becomes real, and real distance becomes imaginary.
I admit that I am a layman, and this is merely my understanding of what I read. I would like to hear from qualified physicists.
I admit that I am a layman, and this is merely my understanding of what I read. I would like to hear from qualified physicists.
FOLDING SPACE for the purpose of time travel works like this:
A Hurricane or Tornado has hot and cold spinning in a circle... if you have Hot Nuclear Fission and Cold Nuclear fusion mixed together spinning in a circle like a hurricane or tornado this will fold space and open up a hole (funnel) in space. Atomic Flux would occure in a Nuclear Tornado.
Atomic Leval Hot and Cold spinning in circle will open the gate.
Go to:
angelfire.com/realm3/time_machine
-Joshua Adam Shaw (TN).
A Hurricane or Tornado has hot and cold spinning in a circle... if you have Hot Nuclear Fission and Cold Nuclear fusion mixed together spinning in a circle like a hurricane or tornado this will fold space and open up a hole (funnel) in space. Atomic Flux would occure in a Nuclear Tornado.
Atomic Leval Hot and Cold spinning in circle will open the gate.
Go to:
angelfire.com/realm3/time_machine
-Joshua Adam Shaw (TN).
Dimensions are typically represented graphically as mutually
orthogonal/perpendicular lines.
The idea being that a projection of one onto another produces a point at the
origin. This is equivalent to the three lines/axes representing independent
variables.
In relativity the interval
(dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 = (ct)^2 is an equality.
Given x,y, and z, t is determined, i.e. it is a dependent variable. When the ct
term is transposed to the other side you get
(dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2 = 0
Some don't like the '-' term, (it spoils the symmetry)
and thus generalize using the i^2 = -1 concept to obtain
(dx)^2 +(dy)^2 +(dz)^2 + (ict)^2 = 0
As a tool it facilitates calculations and can be interpreted as an 'imaginary'
part of a complex variable.
This does not make it a dimension equivalent to the spatial terms.
orthogonal/perpendicular lines.
The idea being that a projection of one onto another produces a point at the
origin. This is equivalent to the three lines/axes representing independent
variables.
In relativity the interval
(dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 = (ct)^2 is an equality.
Given x,y, and z, t is determined, i.e. it is a dependent variable. When the ct
term is transposed to the other side you get
(dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (ct)^2 = 0
Some don't like the '-' term, (it spoils the symmetry)
and thus generalize using the i^2 = -1 concept to obtain
(dx)^2 +(dy)^2 +(dz)^2 + (ict)^2 = 0
As a tool it facilitates calculations and can be interpreted as an 'imaginary'
part of a complex variable.
This does not make it a dimension equivalent to the spatial terms.
simpleisthoughtfasterthanlight
simpleisthoughtfasterthanlightsorrybutmathasapurescienceisnotabsulutenorisspaceandtime
Good rainy day material to read.
I am open with a clear mind, somethings are not meant for us to know just yet..
But lets now forget all that has happened since we have evolved as humans..
Time has also moved along with us..
Hey..I'm a medium, who talks to dead people..
Better than reading today's headlines..
Astral Travel to the past.. our souls are constantly moving...here, and there..
Yesterday, and beyond..
We have lived it, and have traveled to the past...
Souls!!!
Maggie R.
I am open with a clear mind, somethings are not meant for us to know just yet..
But lets now forget all that has happened since we have evolved as humans..
Time has also moved along with us..
Hey..I'm a medium, who talks to dead people..
Better than reading today's headlines..
Astral Travel to the past.. our souls are constantly moving...here, and there..
Yesterday, and beyond..
We have lived it, and have traveled to the past...
Souls!!!
Maggie R.
the elliptic and the hyperbolic geometry has intrisically the time as function of motions of the 4-dimensional worlds.then the time is the metric of 3D( already that
these coordinates are combinatorial);generating the geometry 4-dimensional of
hyperbolic and elliptic geometries-verified by minkowski and riemann.then the
geometries are deformations of linear geometry,that combine of several ways
space and time in spacetime continuos.then the space and time are variables,because the time and space into of the transformations from space into
time and time into space generate asymmetries,because the time is the deformation of the space3D.then the transformations by rotations are not symmetrics,then the transformations by the speeds of opposed spins,are not equivalent to inertial systems in relative motions.then the relativity of the motion
change space and time in conformal transformations.this lead us the think in physical objects whether moving in strip of mobius or bottle of klein.
these coordinates are combinatorial);generating the geometry 4-dimensional of
hyperbolic and elliptic geometries-verified by minkowski and riemann.then the
geometries are deformations of linear geometry,that combine of several ways
space and time in spacetime continuos.then the space and time are variables,because the time and space into of the transformations from space into
time and time into space generate asymmetries,because the time is the deformation of the space3D.then the transformations by rotations are not symmetrics,then the transformations by the speeds of opposed spins,are not equivalent to inertial systems in relative motions.then the relativity of the motion
change space and time in conformal transformations.this lead us the think in physical objects whether moving in strip of mobius or bottle of klein.
QUOTE (Guest_mott.carl+Jun 13 2007, 10:26 PM)
strip of mobius or bottle of klein.
sounds like something off a dinner menu!
sorry, I coudn't resist.
sounds like something off a dinner menu!
sorry, I coudn't resist.
then says me:what your difficulty,and i will want response its.
thank your very much for your reply
once the our mind is salad,and believe be the that are reading.please read,LACAN
phyti is a fruit in brasil.I also resist not,is ETHANOL
thank your very much for your reply
once the our mind is salad,and believe be the that are reading.please read,LACAN
phyti is a fruit in brasil.I also resist not,is ETHANOL
In support of Plexus' comment
Following Plexus' line of reasoning.
"Time" is the small "t" in a black box mathematical model. There is an unfortunate deep, philosophical misconception, concerning Michelson and Morley's experiment and "time", that has become an urban myth.
In all other fields of science, except for physics, it is an absolute truth that there must be a physical explanation for changes. If an experiment is repeated and the result changes, there must be a physical change. (i.e. Something changed, from the first to second time the experiment is repeated.)
For example, in chemistry, if the rate of a reaction slows down, when a experiment is repeated, a Chemist does not state the physical reason for the reaction slowing down, is that time has slowed down, or that time is different in one corner of her laboratory that another, or that time is different on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
Time is not a knob that is adjusted by the "God of Physics" when matter moves.
Is there anyone in this forum, who would like to or who can defend the contrary position? What is "space-time". Is or isn't Einstein's model a black box model?
QUOTE
Time Travel is NOT POSSIBLE, because TIME itself doesn't EXIST , except in the minds of Humans
TIME exists only in the same way that 'Tuesday' exists = as a Use·ful Concept that has No Basis in Physical Reality
TIME exists only in the same way that 'Tuesday' exists = as a Use·ful Concept that has No Basis in Physical Reality
Following Plexus' line of reasoning.
"Time" is the small "t" in a black box mathematical model. There is an unfortunate deep, philosophical misconception, concerning Michelson and Morley's experiment and "time", that has become an urban myth.
In all other fields of science, except for physics, it is an absolute truth that there must be a physical explanation for changes. If an experiment is repeated and the result changes, there must be a physical change. (i.e. Something changed, from the first to second time the experiment is repeated.)
For example, in chemistry, if the rate of a reaction slows down, when a experiment is repeated, a Chemist does not state the physical reason for the reaction slowing down, is that time has slowed down, or that time is different in one corner of her laboratory that another, or that time is different on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
Time is not a knob that is adjusted by the "God of Physics" when matter moves.
Is there anyone in this forum, who would like to or who can defend the contrary position? What is "space-time". Is or isn't Einstein's model a black box model?
QUOTE (William Astley+Jun 17 2007, 07:06 PM)
What is "space-time". Is or isn't Einstein's model a black box model?
Of course, the Einstein never explained his space-time model. He even never understood it in full depth (compare his stance to black hole or gravitational waves concepts). But it doesn't means, the space-time concept is BS - many successfully concepts in physics was invented ad-hoc or completely accidentally, without deeper understanding of underlying connections.
By AWT the space-time is simply space modified by Aether density profile. By relativity theory the energy or matter doesn't follows the shortest path in space during spreading, but in space-time, because the energy prefers more dense places of Aether foam for it's spreading. By such way, the relativity is sort of Aether optics, where the time plays a role of Aether density or refraction index coordinate.
Of course, the Einstein never explained his space-time model. He even never understood it in full depth (compare his stance to black hole or gravitational waves concepts). But it doesn't means, the space-time concept is BS - many successfully concepts in physics was invented ad-hoc or completely accidentally, without deeper understanding of underlying connections.
By AWT the space-time is simply space modified by Aether density profile. By relativity theory the energy or matter doesn't follows the shortest path in space during spreading, but in space-time, because the energy prefers more dense places of Aether foam for it's spreading. By such way, the relativity is sort of Aether optics, where the time plays a role of Aether density or refraction index coordinate.
EINSTEIN SAID THAT BECAUSE WE CANNOT MEASURE SPACE WITHOUT DE MARKING IT BY A MATERIAL FRAME THAT WE CAN HAVE NO MOTION THROUGH IT ALONE. BUT SPACE'S INVISIBILITY IS NO PROOF THAT THERE CAN BE NO MOTION THROUGHT IT. IN SHORT MOTION THROUGH SPACE IS NOT A RELATIVE REALLY. 
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 17 2007, 11:18 PM)
BUT SPACE'S INVISIBILITY IS NO PROOF THAT THERE CAN BE NO MOTION THROUGHT IT. IN SHORT MOTION THROUGH SPACE IS NOT A RELATIVE REALLY.
I have an invisible dragon at the end of my garden. It's also silent. And you can walk through it without noticing it. And it doesn't have any smell.
But that's no reason to think I don't have a dragon at the end of my garden....
I have an invisible dragon at the end of my garden. It's also silent. And you can walk through it without noticing it. And it doesn't have any smell.
But that's no reason to think I don't have a dragon at the end of my garden....
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 17 2007, 11:32 PM)
I have an invisible dragon at the end of my garden. It's also silent. And you can walk through it without noticing it. And it doesn't have any smell.
But that's no reason to think I don't have a dragon at the end of my garden....
TIME IS INVISBLE TOO ALPHANUMERIC. TELL THAT TO AMRIT!!
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
But that's no reason to think I don't have a dragon at the end of my garden....
TIME IS INVISBLE TOO ALPHANUMERIC. TELL THAT TO AMRIT!!
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Assuming Ronald Mallett's device works, will we be able to communicate with the future and learn the science and technology of the year ten billion?
Mark Oller
Mark Oller
QUOTE (Mark Oller+Jun 18 2007, 05:15 AM)
Assuming Ronald Mallett's device works, will we be able to communicate with the future and learn the science and technology of the year ten billion?
Mark Oller
THE FUTURE DOESN'T EXIST YET. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO EARN OUR WAY.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
Mark Oller
THE FUTURE DOESN'T EXIST YET. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO EARN OUR WAY.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
If have the informations of the past,we have by symmetry,the informations of the
future,that are the hidden variables,due the curvatures of spacetime in GT,that
permit us think that the future already exist,as flutuactions ferived of the past.then part of spacetime is derived of the past,that keep infinities informations,while the
part of spacetime is the future( where have the informations as hidden variables,through of the continuities of spacetimes,that are up of the our dimensions).the GT permit generate singularities in the spacetime,through of these
curvatures of spacetime,genberated by two opposed rotational systems( spins),that generate closed spacetime curvatures,that are deformations of the tissues of spacetime in CTCs,that are singularities.
then the origin of the quantum phenomenons are due the GTR.
future,that are the hidden variables,due the curvatures of spacetime in GT,that
permit us think that the future already exist,as flutuactions ferived of the past.then part of spacetime is derived of the past,that keep infinities informations,while the
part of spacetime is the future( where have the informations as hidden variables,through of the continuities of spacetimes,that are up of the our dimensions).the GT permit generate singularities in the spacetime,through of these
curvatures of spacetime,genberated by two opposed rotational systems( spins),that generate closed spacetime curvatures,that are deformations of the tissues of spacetime in CTCs,that are singularities.
then the origin of the quantum phenomenons are due the GTR.
QUOTE (William Astley+Jun 17 2007, 04:06 PM)
In support of Plexus' comment
Following Plexus' line of reasoning.
"Time" is the small "t" in a black box mathematical model. There is an unfortunate deep, philosophical misconception, concerning Michelson and Morley's experiment and "time", that has become an urban myth.
In all other fields of science, except for physics, it is an absolute truth that there must be a physical explanation for changes. If an experiment is repeated and the result changes, there must be a physical change. (i.e. Something changed, from the first to second time the experiment is repeated.)
For example, in chemistry, if the rate of a reaction slows down, when a experiment is repeated, a Chemist does not state the physical reason for the reaction slowing down, is that time has slowed down, or that time is different in one corner of her laboratory that another, or that time is different on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
Time is not a knob that is adjusted by the "God of Physics" when matter moves.
Is there anyone in this forum, who would like to or who can defend the contrary position? What is "space-time". Is or isn't Einstein's model a black box model?
we can travel into space only not in time
Following Plexus' line of reasoning.
"Time" is the small "t" in a black box mathematical model. There is an unfortunate deep, philosophical misconception, concerning Michelson and Morley's experiment and "time", that has become an urban myth.
In all other fields of science, except for physics, it is an absolute truth that there must be a physical explanation for changes. If an experiment is repeated and the result changes, there must be a physical change. (i.e. Something changed, from the first to second time the experiment is repeated.)
For example, in chemistry, if the rate of a reaction slows down, when a experiment is repeated, a Chemist does not state the physical reason for the reaction slowing down, is that time has slowed down, or that time is different in one corner of her laboratory that another, or that time is different on Tuesday rather than Wednesday.
Time is not a knob that is adjusted by the "God of Physics" when matter moves.
Is there anyone in this forum, who would like to or who can defend the contrary position? What is "space-time". Is or isn't Einstein's model a black box model?
we can travel into space only not in time
giia curse
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 18 2007, 12:59 AM)
TIME IS INVISIBLE TOO ALPHANUMERIC. TELL THAT TO AMRIT!!
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
in universe all change
in ordinary life time is this change
in science this change is described with numerical order of events that is time into science
most people did not get yet that change run into space only not in time
time is numerical order of change that run into space
VIVA LA VERITA
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
in universe all change
in ordinary life time is this change
in science this change is described with numerical order of events that is time into science
most people did not get yet that change run into space only not in time
time is numerical order of change that run into space
VIVA LA VERITA
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.