Crackpot
Crackpot Theory
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 16 2012, 07:52 PM)
Operators are associative. You dispute?
They are associative as long as by associative you mean what the word actually means.
( A + B ) + C = A + ( B + C )
But thats not relevent.
This theory questions the time part of the wave equation.
You mean you question it. Why? Why not question the ∂²Ψ/∂x² part instead, or the ∂²Ψ/∂y² part or the ∂²Ψ/∂z² part? Like I said, the relativistically correct version, the Klein Gordon equation has a time part ∂²Ψ/∂t² opperating in the same fassion as those other opperators so time doesn't really stand out as anything but just a coordinate.
They are associative as long as by associative you mean what the word actually means.
( A + B ) + C = A + ( B + C )
But thats not relevent.
QUOTE
This theory questions the time part of the wave equation.
You mean you question it. Why? Why not question the ∂²Ψ/∂x² part instead, or the ∂²Ψ/∂y² part or the ∂²Ψ/∂z² part? Like I said, the relativistically correct version, the Klein Gordon equation has a time part ∂²Ψ/∂t² opperating in the same fassion as those other opperators so time doesn't really stand out as anything but just a coordinate.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jan 17 2012, 06:27 AM)
They are associative as long as by associative you mean what the word actually means.
( A + B ) + C = A + ( B + C )
But thats not relevent.
You mean you question it. Why? Why not question the ∂²Ψ/∂x² part instead, or the ∂²Ψ/∂y² part or the ∂²Ψ/∂z² part? Like I said, the relativistically correct version, the Klein Gordon equation has a time part ∂²Ψ/∂t² opperating in the same fassion as those other opperators so time doesn't really stand out as anything but just a coordinate.
Let me condense the article (post) here:
1. We arguably assume time is not real. Controversial assumption.
2. In that case, we need to remove time from the well-accepted uncertainty in momentum-space (redefine velocity) and replace it with a spatial sequence.
3. Doing so leads directly to the spatial dimension per frame 10^-19 meters from wave mechanics.
4. Independently, without wave mechanics, relativity leads directly to the same 10^-19 meters (subject to the gravitational force at the location.)
5. Macroscopically, this is only a transformation of variables and has no day-to-day experiential meaning, but for small or large things relative to day-to-day experience it is a physical change from the old models.
6. Our synapse experiences a continuous "time" from a contiguous spatial sequence for any dimension less than 10^-16 to 10^-18 meters. We strongly resist the concept of sequential space and cling to the concept of time.
Assuming time is not physically real (arguably) leads to the dimension per spatial frame 10^-19 meters. You can calculate it any way using any accepted physical discipline and it will still be 10^-19 meters.
( A + B ) + C = A + ( B + C )
But thats not relevent.
You mean you question it. Why? Why not question the ∂²Ψ/∂x² part instead, or the ∂²Ψ/∂y² part or the ∂²Ψ/∂z² part? Like I said, the relativistically correct version, the Klein Gordon equation has a time part ∂²Ψ/∂t² opperating in the same fassion as those other opperators so time doesn't really stand out as anything but just a coordinate.
Let me condense the article (post) here:
1. We arguably assume time is not real. Controversial assumption.
2. In that case, we need to remove time from the well-accepted uncertainty in momentum-space (redefine velocity) and replace it with a spatial sequence.
3. Doing so leads directly to the spatial dimension per frame 10^-19 meters from wave mechanics.
4. Independently, without wave mechanics, relativity leads directly to the same 10^-19 meters (subject to the gravitational force at the location.)
5. Macroscopically, this is only a transformation of variables and has no day-to-day experiential meaning, but for small or large things relative to day-to-day experience it is a physical change from the old models.
6. Our synapse experiences a continuous "time" from a contiguous spatial sequence for any dimension less than 10^-16 to 10^-18 meters. We strongly resist the concept of sequential space and cling to the concept of time.
Assuming time is not physically real (arguably) leads to the dimension per spatial frame 10^-19 meters. You can calculate it any way using any accepted physical discipline and it will still be 10^-19 meters.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 17 2012, 09:23 PM)
Let me condense the article (post) here:
1. We arguably assume time is not real. Controversial assumption.
2. In that case, we need to remove time from the well-accepted uncertainty in momentum-space (redefine velocity) and replace it with a spatial sequence.
3. Doing so leads directly to the spatial dimension per frame 10^-19 meters from wave mechanics.
4. Independently, without wave mechanics, relativity leads directly to the same 10^-19 meters (subject to the gravitational force at the location.)
5. Macroscopically, this is only a transformation of variables and has no day-to-day experiential meaning, but for small or large things relative to day-to-day experience it is a physical change from the old models.
6. Our synapse experiences a continuous "time" from a contiguous spatial sequence for any dimension less than 10^-16 to 10^-18 meters. We strongly resist the concept of sequential space and cling to the concept of time.
Assuming time is not physically real (arguably) leads to the dimension per spatial frame 10^-19 meters. You can calculate it any way using any accepted physical discipline and it will still be 10^-19 meters.
Thx to all. For some reason, I am not able to respond to your ID's through my email ID.
In this theory, the speed of light (speed of anything) is bounded because nothing could have a higher "velocity" than the effective spatial sequence itself. Nothing could be more impossible. The sequential "speed" should bound everything.
1. We arguably assume time is not real. Controversial assumption.
2. In that case, we need to remove time from the well-accepted uncertainty in momentum-space (redefine velocity) and replace it with a spatial sequence.
3. Doing so leads directly to the spatial dimension per frame 10^-19 meters from wave mechanics.
4. Independently, without wave mechanics, relativity leads directly to the same 10^-19 meters (subject to the gravitational force at the location.)
5. Macroscopically, this is only a transformation of variables and has no day-to-day experiential meaning, but for small or large things relative to day-to-day experience it is a physical change from the old models.
6. Our synapse experiences a continuous "time" from a contiguous spatial sequence for any dimension less than 10^-16 to 10^-18 meters. We strongly resist the concept of sequential space and cling to the concept of time.
Assuming time is not physically real (arguably) leads to the dimension per spatial frame 10^-19 meters. You can calculate it any way using any accepted physical discipline and it will still be 10^-19 meters.
Thx to all. For some reason, I am not able to respond to your ID's through my email ID.
In this theory, the speed of light (speed of anything) is bounded because nothing could have a higher "velocity" than the effective spatial sequence itself. Nothing could be more impossible. The sequential "speed" should bound everything.
Just looking at the current geoid. Have tests been done to compare the relativistic effects of gravity at physical sea level in areas of different 'measured' strengths, say the southern tip of India where gravity is fairly weak compared to some Pacific island where the gravity is much stronger. Both points being the same height above sea level and the same latitude. This should show a difference in aging from earth's gravity differences only, since the speeds will be equal.
Then the other way round.., with measurements, again at sea level, but this time both at similar measured gravity strengths... One taken at the equator and one at one of the tropics. This to show the relativistic effects from velocity only.
Just curious. I'm sure the entire planet is aging at various rates in all of it's different areas... But what is the amount of difference fastest to slowest. And what the implications might be if any. ?? I'll bet there are some...
Then the other way round.., with measurements, again at sea level, but this time both at similar measured gravity strengths... One taken at the equator and one at one of the tropics. This to show the relativistic effects from velocity only.
Just curious. I'm sure the entire planet is aging at various rates in all of it's different areas... But what is the amount of difference fastest to slowest. And what the implications might be if any. ?? I'll bet there are some...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 19 2012, 01:59 AM)
Just looking at the current geoid. Have tests been done to compare the relativistic effects of gravity at physical sea level in areas of different 'measured' strengths, say the southern tip of India where gravity is fairly weak compared to some Pacific island where the gravity is much stronger. Both points being the same height above sea level and the same latitude. This should show a difference in aging from earth's gravity differences only, since the speeds will be equal.
Then the other way round.., with measurements, again at sea level, but this time both at similar measured gravity strengths... One taken at the equator and one at one of the tropics. This to show the relativistic effects from velocity only.
Just curious. I'm sure the entire planet is aging at various rates in all of it's different areas... But what is the amount of difference fastest to slowest. And what the implications might be if any. ?? I'll bet there are some...
I thought about it and here is my response to your electron idea - please check the math:
The gravitational force between a small atom nucleus (using one AMU) and an electron should be ~ (10^-27 Kg) ÷ ((10^-10)^2) = 10^-7 Newton.
This means we can neglect the gravitational force from the planet center of gravity.
The energy of an electron in a standard small atomic orbit, for example, should be ~ 14 x 10^-19 Joules (14 electron volts) so the energy is ~ 10^-18 Joules.
The frame size b for a standard electron in atomic orbit should then be ~ 10^-18 Joules ÷ 10^-7 Newton = 10^-11 meters.
This is a factor of 10^8 larger for the electron than the earth-gravity boundary dimension 10^-19.
So a standard electron is 10^8 more likely to slip out of our space in its atomic configuration than if it were farther away from the atomic nucleus.
The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
Any order-of-magnitude mistakes?
Then the other way round.., with measurements, again at sea level, but this time both at similar measured gravity strengths... One taken at the equator and one at one of the tropics. This to show the relativistic effects from velocity only.
Just curious. I'm sure the entire planet is aging at various rates in all of it's different areas... But what is the amount of difference fastest to slowest. And what the implications might be if any. ?? I'll bet there are some...
I thought about it and here is my response to your electron idea - please check the math:
The gravitational force between a small atom nucleus (using one AMU) and an electron should be ~ (10^-27 Kg) ÷ ((10^-10)^2) = 10^-7 Newton.
This means we can neglect the gravitational force from the planet center of gravity.
The energy of an electron in a standard small atomic orbit, for example, should be ~ 14 x 10^-19 Joules (14 electron volts) so the energy is ~ 10^-18 Joules.
The frame size b for a standard electron in atomic orbit should then be ~ 10^-18 Joules ÷ 10^-7 Newton = 10^-11 meters.
This is a factor of 10^8 larger for the electron than the earth-gravity boundary dimension 10^-19.
So a standard electron is 10^8 more likely to slip out of our space in its atomic configuration than if it were farther away from the atomic nucleus.
The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
Any order-of-magnitude mistakes?
And now, I begin to suspect that there is no such list or magic computer solution for the general solution.
Chong-Yun Chao. "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras" Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 13, 6 (Dec., 1962), pp. 903-906
Lawrence J. Corwin and Frederick P. Greenleaf. Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups and Their Applications Cambridge University Press, 1990, Page 210
There are uncountably many nilpotent Lie algebras of dimension >= 10. (Do I know what that means? Only that there is no explicit list. There might be a parameterized list of families or it might be horrible.)
But since you know a 6-d subalgebra and the vastly simplifying isomorphism solutions, and already have done tons of heavy lifting, perhaps the specific solution(s) will turn out to be tractable.
Wecht's paper helps, but I'm not at all up to speed on the notation and concepts.
Chong-Yun Chao. "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras" Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 13, 6 (Dec., 1962), pp. 903-906
Lawrence J. Corwin and Frederick P. Greenleaf. Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups and Their Applications Cambridge University Press, 1990, Page 210
There are uncountably many nilpotent Lie algebras of dimension >= 10. (Do I know what that means? Only that there is no explicit list. There might be a parameterized list of families or it might be horrible.)
But since you know a 6-d subalgebra and the vastly simplifying isomorphism solutions, and already have done tons of heavy lifting, perhaps the specific solution(s) will turn out to be tractable.
Wecht's paper helps, but I'm not at all up to speed on the notation and concepts.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 19 2012, 02:53 AM)
I thought about it and here is my response to your electron idea - please check the math:
The gravitational force between a small atom nucleus (using one AMU) and an electron should be ~ (10^-27 Kg) ÷ ((10^-10)^2) = 10^-7 Newton.
This means we can neglect the gravitational force from the planet center of gravity.
The energy of an electron in a standard small atomic orbit, for example, should be ~ 14 x 10^-19 Joules (14 electron volts) so the energy is ~ 10^-18 Joules.
The frame size b for a standard electron in atomic orbit should then be ~ 10^-18 Joules ÷ 10^-7 Newton = 10^-11 meters.
This is a factor of 10^8 larger for the electron than the earth-gravity boundary dimension 10^-19.
So a standard electron is 10^8 more likely to slip out of our space in its atomic configuration than if it were farther away from the atomic nucleus.
The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
Any order-of-magnitude mistakes?
norgeboy. The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
use the continuity of time as metric, yeah, that is not possible, to get any kind of metric out from a continuity.
I think you address one of the really deep problems or paradoxes, how to imagine the underlying first principle behind time. Or for that sake behind any quality that takes a metric. It takes a metric to get a metric. Nasty problem
The gravitational force between a small atom nucleus (using one AMU) and an electron should be ~ (10^-27 Kg) ÷ ((10^-10)^2) = 10^-7 Newton.
This means we can neglect the gravitational force from the planet center of gravity.
The energy of an electron in a standard small atomic orbit, for example, should be ~ 14 x 10^-19 Joules (14 electron volts) so the energy is ~ 10^-18 Joules.
The frame size b for a standard electron in atomic orbit should then be ~ 10^-18 Joules ÷ 10^-7 Newton = 10^-11 meters.
This is a factor of 10^8 larger for the electron than the earth-gravity boundary dimension 10^-19.
So a standard electron is 10^8 more likely to slip out of our space in its atomic configuration than if it were farther away from the atomic nucleus.
The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
Any order-of-magnitude mistakes?
norgeboy. The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
use the continuity of time as metric, yeah, that is not possible, to get any kind of metric out from a continuity.
I think you address one of the really deep problems or paradoxes, how to imagine the underlying first principle behind time. Or for that sake behind any quality that takes a metric. It takes a metric to get a metric. Nasty problem
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 19 2012, 02:53 AM)
I thought about it and here is my response to your electron idea - please check the math:
The gravitational force between a small atom nucleus (using one AMU) and an electron should be ~ (10^-27 Kg) ÷ ((10^-10)^2) = 10^-7 Newton.
This means we can neglect the gravitational force from the planet center of gravity.
The energy of an electron in a standard small atomic orbit, for example, should be ~ 14 x 10^-19 Joules (14 electron volts) so the energy is ~ 10^-18 Joules.
The frame size b for a standard electron in atomic orbit should then be ~ 10^-18 Joules ÷ 10^-7 Newton = 10^-11 meters.
This is a factor of 10^8 larger for the electron than the earth-gravity boundary dimension 10^-19.
So a standard electron is 10^8 more likely to slip out of our space in its atomic configuration than if it were farther away from the atomic nucleus.
The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
Any order-of-magnitude mistakes?
Sorry but that last math was messed up and off by orders of magnitude.
This is more accurate:
From the text, E/m = F(sub-
x b.
For a simple H electron in the tightest orbit, E/m = (14eV x (10^-19 J/eV))/(10^-30 kg) = 10^12 J/kg.
So b is large ~ 10-7 meters. Bigger than the atomic diameter.
The gravitational force between a small atom nucleus (using one AMU) and an electron should be ~ (10^-27 Kg) ÷ ((10^-10)^2) = 10^-7 Newton.
This means we can neglect the gravitational force from the planet center of gravity.
The energy of an electron in a standard small atomic orbit, for example, should be ~ 14 x 10^-19 Joules (14 electron volts) so the energy is ~ 10^-18 Joules.
The frame size b for a standard electron in atomic orbit should then be ~ 10^-18 Joules ÷ 10^-7 Newton = 10^-11 meters.
This is a factor of 10^8 larger for the electron than the earth-gravity boundary dimension 10^-19.
So a standard electron is 10^8 more likely to slip out of our space in its atomic configuration than if it were farther away from the atomic nucleus.
The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
Any order-of-magnitude mistakes?
Sorry but that last math was messed up and off by orders of magnitude.
This is more accurate:
From the text, E/m = F(sub-
x b.For a simple H electron in the tightest orbit, E/m = (14eV x (10^-19 J/eV))/(10^-30 kg) = 10^12 J/kg.
So b is large ~ 10-7 meters. Bigger than the atomic diameter.
QUOTE (niels+Jan 19 2012, 12:59 PM)
norgeboy. The wave mechanic uncertainty principle, in some ways, reflects this using the continuity of time as a metric.
use the continuity of time as metric, yeah, that is not possible, to get any kind of metric out from a continuity.
I think you address one of the really deep problems or paradoxes, how to imagine the underlying first principle behind time. Or for that sake behind any quality that takes a metric. It takes a metric to get a metric. Nasty problem
Thanks. Units are a problem when you try to get rid of one of them.
use the continuity of time as metric, yeah, that is not possible, to get any kind of metric out from a continuity.
I think you address one of the really deep problems or paradoxes, how to imagine the underlying first principle behind time. Or for that sake behind any quality that takes a metric. It takes a metric to get a metric. Nasty problem
Thanks. Units are a problem when you try to get rid of one of them.
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 19 2012, 08:35 AM)
And now, I begin to suspect that there is no such list or magic computer solution for the general solution.
Chong-Yun Chao. "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras" Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 13, 6 (Dec., 1962), pp. 903-906
Lawrence J. Corwin and Frederick P. Greenleaf. Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups and Their Applications Cambridge University Press, 1990, Page 210
There are uncountably many nilpotent Lie algebras of dimension >= 10. (Do I know what that means? Only that there is no explicit list. There might be a parameterized list of families or it might be horrible.)
But since you know a 6-d subalgebra and the vastly simplifying isomorphism solutions, and already have done tons of heavy lifting, perhaps the specific solution(s) will turn out to be tractable.
Wecht's paper helps, but I'm not at all up to speed on the notation and concepts.
is this for real?
happily, i'm ending this post.
Chong-Yun Chao. "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras" Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 13, 6 (Dec., 1962), pp. 903-906
Lawrence J. Corwin and Frederick P. Greenleaf. Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups and Their Applications Cambridge University Press, 1990, Page 210
There are uncountably many nilpotent Lie algebras of dimension >= 10. (Do I know what that means? Only that there is no explicit list. There might be a parameterized list of families or it might be horrible.)
But since you know a 6-d subalgebra and the vastly simplifying isomorphism solutions, and already have done tons of heavy lifting, perhaps the specific solution(s) will turn out to be tractable.
Wecht's paper helps, but I'm not at all up to speed on the notation and concepts.
is this for real?
happily, i'm ending this post.
If using time in equations has limits and using a % of c as an alternative this might help solve the "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras". Do not give up. Don't make me write the paper...LOL.
Well I must say I'm disappointed that people seem to be missing the real point of all this. So here's a little more.
Perhaps I'm not using the required phys-speak, but unfortunately I need to continue with plain English.
The point I make is that relativity is a slowing of 'physical' activity and not time... That it happens at the atomic level but NOT necessarily precisely the electron that causes it to happen. As stated in my first post in the thread.
Beyond that we can in fact relate 'continuity' to metric.
It matters not how light speed was determined. But since is has been, we know the maximum distances anything can travel in any reference frame or duration. So it seems we do have the means to translate mystical time into physical reality.
That m, g, and % c can = a slowing of physical building blocks. That's your relativity as it really needs to be understood.
The concept is good and the math for proving it is simple. Not to mention that it gives solid, reasonable, and consistent answers. The only question is HOW it's done but of course that's not really important. Perhaps we'll even find that using time in the calculations has precluded our ever finding out. That even more things do not operate as we now think. And no one has really proven the need for time either. It just seems to work and it's convienient, so everyone uses it.
I said in my first post that I used electrons because they were an easy visualization. But also that it could be something else even smaller. IF it is not a longer electron path, caused by velocity and other gravity to slow an atom's internal cycle, then there is simply another mechanism for it to happen. The provable facts are there that it does happens They really shouldn't be ignored because the exact method is still a mystery. People accept the big bang do they not..?
There ARE other possible explanations on how atoms may be slowed.
Increasing an objects mass for one. To the point where their atom's forces are fighting each other. Does anyone think that when a sun is pulled into a black hole that its atoms will not be physically affected..? Their physical structures compressed to the point where their natural tendency to repel each other needs to be toned down. Perhaps that potential energy is what is being exhausted from the hole's poles. Just a wild thought, you know..? lol
But they may be toned down to the point where they can no longer even cause light to be created. To me it's more likely that light is not being produced at all, than it is but then being sucked into the hole. It should be obvious nothing works as it normally does at a black hole. Either from speed, mass gravity, or both. I'm sure that time will be shown to not be a part of it. Not to mention that it would have basically stopped anyway.., had it been there.
'What' makes physical slowing happen is the least of our worries when compared to the multitude of math breakdowns, paradoxes, mysteries, and day-dreams that stem from using an imagined concept of 'time'. Think of all the brain power being wasted on creating a mythical universe. I'll stay with the kiss method myself. Isn't that the first rule of any scientific theory or calculation.
Whatever the mechanism.., whether it's increased mass.., or perhaps more than one thing, each acting alone or in tandem, as muons dislodge electrons, I'm sure it's there waiting to be found. When it is we'll have the cosmic aging 'gene' as it were.. Along with a much more of an 'everything' theory.
Just for the record, here's what my theory of relative 'physical slowness' allows and explains.
1. It explains the changes relating to gravity (in any of it's forms) in a way that closely resembles what is currently being explained a 'different' way.
2. It provides a totally natural explanation as to why light travels at the same speed in ALL so called 'time dilations'. Simply because there IS no time dilation... It is the slowing of the _physical_ operating characteristics of the object in question. Time is not a part of the explanation. Time does not exist.
3. It allows a straightforward description regarding the physical operation of the universe. Where all operations can be compared relative to each other very much as they are now. But where calculations are based on a 'physical' maximum speed of the galaxy and not allowed to drift off into 'weirdness'. It replaces the raft that was used to drift on with a dock!
4. It exchanges factors of time based calculations of the cosmos with physical elements that for all intents and purposes are exactly the same. Yet when used to 'prove' the results of time based calculations, the results are phenominally different. Time based theory doesn't prove out. IMHO., time, imagined for use as a measuring tool, has been allowed to become part of the universe. Exactly the thing it's supposed to be measuring. And it's producing mathematical weirdness. Results that are similar to the screeches brought on by 'acoustic' feedback.
5. It uses a very simple formula using physical and natural constricts. As soon as ideas such as folding space, traveling backward or forward in time, multiple us's, and that we are holograms started to appear.., man should have realized what was going wrong. Btw, I've been wondering where the original for that hologram would come from. lol
6. It explains how a ship traveling in space for 20 years, according to them, can return to rest here on earth and find everyone dead of old age. They were being kept in a galactic freezer for 100 years. Somewhat suspended animation... Time played no part in it.
To reiterate, a snapshot of the universe will record everything happening at that particular instant, even though some 'processes' are going on at a slower physical rate. A GPS clock among others. They all see the flashbulb at the same instant, even though some speeding 'relativistic' clock may think that less time had elapsed before and then again after the snapshot was taken.., than observations made from a slower moving, lower gravity, faster rate of change pov would record.
Think about it... The earth itself having areas of different gravity, ergo aging, the 'layers' currently used for dating may eventually be found to be in the 'wrong' order. lol Or when living things that have evolved in a low gravity area move to a high gravity area. They would be seen as being in advance of the new location and others in it.
Measurements taken on how fast the universe is expanding may have been viewed and made from areas of high gravity. Ditto perhaps with that neutrino's speed. Ha! We'll see what their explanation is when they find it was not in excess of c.
Of course I have no idea how 'much' aging difference could actually happen between these examples in any given period. They're just illustration of 'possible' discoveries that may come from this new thinking.
I expect those who are not afraid of the concept, of opening a can of worms, or being mocked by those in the box, will simply accept that it works, and then carry on to prove it... When they're happy with their findings they'll come forth.
Just remember I told you so first...
Perhaps I'm not using the required phys-speak, but unfortunately I need to continue with plain English.
The point I make is that relativity is a slowing of 'physical' activity and not time... That it happens at the atomic level but NOT necessarily precisely the electron that causes it to happen. As stated in my first post in the thread.
Beyond that we can in fact relate 'continuity' to metric.
It matters not how light speed was determined. But since is has been, we know the maximum distances anything can travel in any reference frame or duration. So it seems we do have the means to translate mystical time into physical reality.
That m, g, and % c can = a slowing of physical building blocks. That's your relativity as it really needs to be understood.
The concept is good and the math for proving it is simple. Not to mention that it gives solid, reasonable, and consistent answers. The only question is HOW it's done but of course that's not really important. Perhaps we'll even find that using time in the calculations has precluded our ever finding out. That even more things do not operate as we now think. And no one has really proven the need for time either. It just seems to work and it's convienient, so everyone uses it.
I said in my first post that I used electrons because they were an easy visualization. But also that it could be something else even smaller. IF it is not a longer electron path, caused by velocity and other gravity to slow an atom's internal cycle, then there is simply another mechanism for it to happen. The provable facts are there that it does happens They really shouldn't be ignored because the exact method is still a mystery. People accept the big bang do they not..?
There ARE other possible explanations on how atoms may be slowed.
Increasing an objects mass for one. To the point where their atom's forces are fighting each other. Does anyone think that when a sun is pulled into a black hole that its atoms will not be physically affected..? Their physical structures compressed to the point where their natural tendency to repel each other needs to be toned down. Perhaps that potential energy is what is being exhausted from the hole's poles. Just a wild thought, you know..? lol
But they may be toned down to the point where they can no longer even cause light to be created. To me it's more likely that light is not being produced at all, than it is but then being sucked into the hole. It should be obvious nothing works as it normally does at a black hole. Either from speed, mass gravity, or both. I'm sure that time will be shown to not be a part of it. Not to mention that it would have basically stopped anyway.., had it been there.
'What' makes physical slowing happen is the least of our worries when compared to the multitude of math breakdowns, paradoxes, mysteries, and day-dreams that stem from using an imagined concept of 'time'. Think of all the brain power being wasted on creating a mythical universe. I'll stay with the kiss method myself. Isn't that the first rule of any scientific theory or calculation.
Whatever the mechanism.., whether it's increased mass.., or perhaps more than one thing, each acting alone or in tandem, as muons dislodge electrons, I'm sure it's there waiting to be found. When it is we'll have the cosmic aging 'gene' as it were.. Along with a much more of an 'everything' theory.
Just for the record, here's what my theory of relative 'physical slowness' allows and explains.
1. It explains the changes relating to gravity (in any of it's forms) in a way that closely resembles what is currently being explained a 'different' way.
2. It provides a totally natural explanation as to why light travels at the same speed in ALL so called 'time dilations'. Simply because there IS no time dilation... It is the slowing of the _physical_ operating characteristics of the object in question. Time is not a part of the explanation. Time does not exist.
3. It allows a straightforward description regarding the physical operation of the universe. Where all operations can be compared relative to each other very much as they are now. But where calculations are based on a 'physical' maximum speed of the galaxy and not allowed to drift off into 'weirdness'. It replaces the raft that was used to drift on with a dock!
4. It exchanges factors of time based calculations of the cosmos with physical elements that for all intents and purposes are exactly the same. Yet when used to 'prove' the results of time based calculations, the results are phenominally different. Time based theory doesn't prove out. IMHO., time, imagined for use as a measuring tool, has been allowed to become part of the universe. Exactly the thing it's supposed to be measuring. And it's producing mathematical weirdness. Results that are similar to the screeches brought on by 'acoustic' feedback.
5. It uses a very simple formula using physical and natural constricts. As soon as ideas such as folding space, traveling backward or forward in time, multiple us's, and that we are holograms started to appear.., man should have realized what was going wrong. Btw, I've been wondering where the original for that hologram would come from. lol
6. It explains how a ship traveling in space for 20 years, according to them, can return to rest here on earth and find everyone dead of old age. They were being kept in a galactic freezer for 100 years. Somewhat suspended animation... Time played no part in it.
To reiterate, a snapshot of the universe will record everything happening at that particular instant, even though some 'processes' are going on at a slower physical rate. A GPS clock among others. They all see the flashbulb at the same instant, even though some speeding 'relativistic' clock may think that less time had elapsed before and then again after the snapshot was taken.., than observations made from a slower moving, lower gravity, faster rate of change pov would record.
Think about it... The earth itself having areas of different gravity, ergo aging, the 'layers' currently used for dating may eventually be found to be in the 'wrong' order. lol Or when living things that have evolved in a low gravity area move to a high gravity area. They would be seen as being in advance of the new location and others in it.
Measurements taken on how fast the universe is expanding may have been viewed and made from areas of high gravity. Ditto perhaps with that neutrino's speed. Ha! We'll see what their explanation is when they find it was not in excess of c.
Of course I have no idea how 'much' aging difference could actually happen between these examples in any given period. They're just illustration of 'possible' discoveries that may come from this new thinking.
I expect those who are not afraid of the concept, of opening a can of worms, or being mocked by those in the box, will simply accept that it works, and then carry on to prove it... When they're happy with their findings they'll come forth.
Just remember I told you so first...
Word salad.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 20 2012, 06:20 PM)
Well I must say I'm disappointed that people seem to be missing the real point of all this. So here's a little more.
Perhaps I'm not using the required phys-speak, but unfortunately I need to continue with plain English.
The point I make is that relativity is a slowing of 'physical' activity and not time... That it happens at the atomic level but NOT necessarily precisely the electron that causes it to happen. As stated in my first post in the thread.
Beyond that we can in fact relate 'continuity' to metric.
It matters not how light speed was determined. But since is has been, we know the maximum distances anything can travel in any reference frame or duration. So it seems we do have the means to translate mystical time into physical reality.
That m, g, and % c can = a slowing of physical building blocks. That's your relativity as it really needs to be understood.
The concept is good and the math for proving it is simple. Not to mention that it gives solid, reasonable, and consistent answers. The only question is HOW it's done but of course that's not really important. Perhaps we'll even find that using time in the calculations has precluded our ever finding out. That even more things do not operate as we now think. And no one has really proven the need for time either. It just seems to work and it's convienient, so everyone uses it.
I said in my first post that I used electrons because they were an easy visualization. But also that it could be something else even smaller. IF it is not a longer electron path, caused by velocity and other gravity to slow an atom's internal cycle, then there is simply another mechanism for it to happen. The provable facts are there that it does happens They really shouldn't be ignored because the exact method is still a mystery. People accept the big bang do they not..?
There ARE other possible explanations on how atoms may be slowed.
Increasing an objects mass for one. To the point where their atom's forces are fighting each other. Does anyone think that when a sun is pulled into a black hole that its atoms will not be physically affected..? Their physical structures compressed to the point where their natural tendency to repel each other needs to be toned down. Perhaps that potential energy is what is being exhausted from the hole's poles. Just a wild thought, you know..? lol
But they may be toned down to the point where they can no longer even cause light to be created. To me it's more likely that light is not being produced at all, than it is but then being sucked into the hole. It should be obvious nothing works as it normally does at a black hole. Either from speed, mass gravity, or both. I'm sure that time will be shown to not be a part of it. Not to mention that it would have basically stopped anyway.., had it been there.
'What' makes physical slowing happen is the least of our worries when compared to the multitude of math breakdowns, paradoxes, mysteries, and day-dreams that stem from using an imagined concept of 'time'. Think of all the brain power being wasted on creating a mythical universe. I'll stay with the kiss method myself. Isn't that the first rule of any scientific theory or calculation.
Whatever the mechanism.., whether it's increased mass.., or perhaps more than one thing, each acting alone or in tandem, as muons dislodge electrons, I'm sure it's there waiting to be found. When it is we'll have the cosmic aging 'gene' as it were.. Along with a much more of an 'everything' theory.
Just for the record, here's what my theory of relative 'physical slowness' allows and explains.
1. It explains the changes relating to gravity (in any of it's forms) in a way that closely resembles what is currently being explained a 'different' way.
2. It provides a totally natural explanation as to why light travels at the same speed in ALL so called 'time dilations'. Simply because there IS no time dilation... It is the slowing of the _physical_ operating characteristics of the object in question. Time is not a part of the explanation. Time does not exist.
3. It allows a straightforward description regarding the physical operation of the universe. Where all operations can be compared relative to each other very much as they are now. But where calculations are based on a 'physical' maximum speed of the galaxy and not allowed to drift off into 'weirdness'. It replaces the raft that was used to drift on with a dock!
4. It exchanges factors of time based calculations of the cosmos with physical elements that for all intents and purposes are exactly the same. Yet when used to 'prove' the results of time based calculations, the results are phenominally different. Time based theory doesn't prove out. IMHO., time, imagined for use as a measuring tool, has been allowed to become part of the universe. Exactly the thing it's supposed to be measuring. And it's producing mathematical weirdness. Results that are similar to the screeches brought on by 'acoustic' feedback.
5. It uses a very simple formula using physical and natural constricts. As soon as ideas such as folding space, traveling backward or forward in time, multiple us's, and that we are holograms started to appear.., man should have realized what was going wrong. Btw, I've been wondering where the original for that hologram would come from. lol
6. It explains how a ship traveling in space for 20 years, according to them, can return to rest here on earth and find everyone dead of old age. They were being kept in a galactic freezer for 100 years. Somewhat suspended animation... Time played no part in it.
To reiterate, a snapshot of the universe will record everything happening at that particular instant, even though some 'processes' are going on at a slower physical rate. A GPS clock among others. They all see the flashbulb at the same instant, even though some speeding 'relativistic' clock may think that less time had elapsed before and then again after the snapshot was taken.., than observations made from a slower moving, lower gravity, faster rate of change pov would record.
Think about it... The earth itself having areas of different gravity, ergo aging, the 'layers' currently used for dating may eventually be found to be in the 'wrong' order. lol Or when living things that have evolved in a low gravity area move to a high gravity area. They would be seen as being in advance of the new location and others in it.
Measurements taken on how fast the universe is expanding may have been viewed and made from areas of high gravity. Ditto perhaps with that neutrino's speed. Ha! We'll see what their explanation is when they find it was not in excess of c.
Of course I have no idea how 'much' aging difference could actually happen between these examples in any given period. They're just illustration of 'possible' discoveries that may come from this new thinking.
I expect those who are not afraid of the concept, of opening a can of worms, or being mocked by those in the box, will simply accept that it works, and then carry on to prove it... When they're happy with their findings they'll come forth.
Just remember I told you so first...
If you knew how ridiculous you are you wouldn't be so disappointed. You don't have a clue about relativity. The post you wrote about having big changes in g_earth as you walked the planet is fuking ignorant. g_earth surface top of Mt. Everest = 9.822453 ms^-2, g_earth surface sea level = 9.844876. A delta of 0.022423 ms^-2. Ever hear of common sense? Ever hear of spell checking?
Perhaps I'm not using the required phys-speak, but unfortunately I need to continue with plain English.
The point I make is that relativity is a slowing of 'physical' activity and not time... That it happens at the atomic level but NOT necessarily precisely the electron that causes it to happen. As stated in my first post in the thread.
Beyond that we can in fact relate 'continuity' to metric.
It matters not how light speed was determined. But since is has been, we know the maximum distances anything can travel in any reference frame or duration. So it seems we do have the means to translate mystical time into physical reality.
That m, g, and % c can = a slowing of physical building blocks. That's your relativity as it really needs to be understood.
The concept is good and the math for proving it is simple. Not to mention that it gives solid, reasonable, and consistent answers. The only question is HOW it's done but of course that's not really important. Perhaps we'll even find that using time in the calculations has precluded our ever finding out. That even more things do not operate as we now think. And no one has really proven the need for time either. It just seems to work and it's convienient, so everyone uses it.
I said in my first post that I used electrons because they were an easy visualization. But also that it could be something else even smaller. IF it is not a longer electron path, caused by velocity and other gravity to slow an atom's internal cycle, then there is simply another mechanism for it to happen. The provable facts are there that it does happens They really shouldn't be ignored because the exact method is still a mystery. People accept the big bang do they not..?
There ARE other possible explanations on how atoms may be slowed.
Increasing an objects mass for one. To the point where their atom's forces are fighting each other. Does anyone think that when a sun is pulled into a black hole that its atoms will not be physically affected..? Their physical structures compressed to the point where their natural tendency to repel each other needs to be toned down. Perhaps that potential energy is what is being exhausted from the hole's poles. Just a wild thought, you know..? lol
But they may be toned down to the point where they can no longer even cause light to be created. To me it's more likely that light is not being produced at all, than it is but then being sucked into the hole. It should be obvious nothing works as it normally does at a black hole. Either from speed, mass gravity, or both. I'm sure that time will be shown to not be a part of it. Not to mention that it would have basically stopped anyway.., had it been there.
'What' makes physical slowing happen is the least of our worries when compared to the multitude of math breakdowns, paradoxes, mysteries, and day-dreams that stem from using an imagined concept of 'time'. Think of all the brain power being wasted on creating a mythical universe. I'll stay with the kiss method myself. Isn't that the first rule of any scientific theory or calculation.
Whatever the mechanism.., whether it's increased mass.., or perhaps more than one thing, each acting alone or in tandem, as muons dislodge electrons, I'm sure it's there waiting to be found. When it is we'll have the cosmic aging 'gene' as it were.. Along with a much more of an 'everything' theory.
Just for the record, here's what my theory of relative 'physical slowness' allows and explains.
1. It explains the changes relating to gravity (in any of it's forms) in a way that closely resembles what is currently being explained a 'different' way.
2. It provides a totally natural explanation as to why light travels at the same speed in ALL so called 'time dilations'. Simply because there IS no time dilation... It is the slowing of the _physical_ operating characteristics of the object in question. Time is not a part of the explanation. Time does not exist.
3. It allows a straightforward description regarding the physical operation of the universe. Where all operations can be compared relative to each other very much as they are now. But where calculations are based on a 'physical' maximum speed of the galaxy and not allowed to drift off into 'weirdness'. It replaces the raft that was used to drift on with a dock!
4. It exchanges factors of time based calculations of the cosmos with physical elements that for all intents and purposes are exactly the same. Yet when used to 'prove' the results of time based calculations, the results are phenominally different. Time based theory doesn't prove out. IMHO., time, imagined for use as a measuring tool, has been allowed to become part of the universe. Exactly the thing it's supposed to be measuring. And it's producing mathematical weirdness. Results that are similar to the screeches brought on by 'acoustic' feedback.
5. It uses a very simple formula using physical and natural constricts. As soon as ideas such as folding space, traveling backward or forward in time, multiple us's, and that we are holograms started to appear.., man should have realized what was going wrong. Btw, I've been wondering where the original for that hologram would come from. lol
6. It explains how a ship traveling in space for 20 years, according to them, can return to rest here on earth and find everyone dead of old age. They were being kept in a galactic freezer for 100 years. Somewhat suspended animation... Time played no part in it.
To reiterate, a snapshot of the universe will record everything happening at that particular instant, even though some 'processes' are going on at a slower physical rate. A GPS clock among others. They all see the flashbulb at the same instant, even though some speeding 'relativistic' clock may think that less time had elapsed before and then again after the snapshot was taken.., than observations made from a slower moving, lower gravity, faster rate of change pov would record.
Think about it... The earth itself having areas of different gravity, ergo aging, the 'layers' currently used for dating may eventually be found to be in the 'wrong' order. lol Or when living things that have evolved in a low gravity area move to a high gravity area. They would be seen as being in advance of the new location and others in it.
Measurements taken on how fast the universe is expanding may have been viewed and made from areas of high gravity. Ditto perhaps with that neutrino's speed. Ha! We'll see what their explanation is when they find it was not in excess of c.
Of course I have no idea how 'much' aging difference could actually happen between these examples in any given period. They're just illustration of 'possible' discoveries that may come from this new thinking.
I expect those who are not afraid of the concept, of opening a can of worms, or being mocked by those in the box, will simply accept that it works, and then carry on to prove it... When they're happy with their findings they'll come forth.
Just remember I told you so first...
If you knew how ridiculous you are you wouldn't be so disappointed. You don't have a clue about relativity. The post you wrote about having big changes in g_earth as you walked the planet is fuking ignorant. g_earth surface top of Mt. Everest = 9.822453 ms^-2, g_earth surface sea level = 9.844876. A delta of 0.022423 ms^-2. Ever hear of common sense? Ever hear of spell checking?
QUOTE
The point I make is that relativity is a slowing of 'physical' activity and not time...
Physically indistinguishable, and thus a physically meaningless distinction.
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 20 2012, 07:33 PM)
If you knew how ridiculous you are you wouldn't be so disappointed. You don't have a clue about relativity. The post you wrote about having big changes in g_earth as you walked the planet is fuking ignorant. g_earth surface top of Mt. Everest = 9.822453 ms^-2, g_earth surface sea level = 9.844876. A delta of 0.022423 ms^-2. Ever hear of common sense? Ever hear of spell checking?
Well I just checked the entire post you quoted and found conveniently had an extra i and phenomenally had an i instead of an e... Was that too much to live with..?
And as for my musing on the geoid, that's what it was. For one it's how other things are brought to mind. As for the amount of differences., the geoid is not about insignificant mountains. Do you in fact know what I'm talking about..? It seems not.
I try NOT to follow the leader with no ideas of my own. You might spend your time doing better things, if you have them to do, instead of finding fault over things that matter not. Just mho.., you know..? But thanks for helping others to realize what I meant.., if they hadn't already.
Well I just checked the entire post you quoted and found conveniently had an extra i and phenomenally had an i instead of an e... Was that too much to live with..?
And as for my musing on the geoid, that's what it was. For one it's how other things are brought to mind. As for the amount of differences., the geoid is not about insignificant mountains. Do you in fact know what I'm talking about..? It seems not.
I try NOT to follow the leader with no ideas of my own. You might spend your time doing better things, if you have them to do, instead of finding fault over things that matter not. Just mho.., you know..? But thanks for helping others to realize what I meant.., if they hadn't already.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 20 2012, 07:42 PM)
Physically indistinguishable, and thus a physically meaningless distinction.
You still can't grasp the idea that if you exclude time from the calculations, the answers won't be able to say it can be folded it or traveled in...? That's a pretty good distinction. lol
Get back to me when you understand what I'm saying...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 20 2012, 02:09 PM)
You still can't grasp the idea that if you exclude time from the calculations, the answers won't be able to say it can be folded it or traveled in...? That's a pretty good distinction. lol
Get back to me when you understand what I'm saying...
You obviously don't understand the calculations, as the speed of light limit guarantees that time travel is not possible. Notions such as "folded" space or time travel are fiction and speculation, nothing more. A physicist saying that the math indicates that all processes should work equally well reversed in time doesn't imply time travel, as the math is a modeling tool for reality, not reality itself. In reality, things like thermodynamics tell us that time is not reversible.
If you exclude time from calculations you have a completely static universe.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 20 2012, 08:01 PM)
Well I just checked the entire post you quoted and found conveniently had an extra i and phenomenally had an i instead of an e... Was that too much to live with..?
And as for my musing on the geoid, that's what it was. For one it's how other things are brought to mind. As for the amount of differences., the geoid is not about insignificant mountains. Do you in fact know what I'm talking about..? It seems not.
I try NOT to follow the leader with no ideas of my own. You might spend your time doing better things, if you have them to do, instead of finding fault over things that matter not. Just mho.., you know..? But thanks for helping others to realize what I meant.., if they hadn't already.
You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You.
And as for my musing on the geoid, that's what it was. For one it's how other things are brought to mind. As for the amount of differences., the geoid is not about insignificant mountains. Do you in fact know what I'm talking about..? It seems not.
I try NOT to follow the leader with no ideas of my own. You might spend your time doing better things, if you have them to do, instead of finding fault over things that matter not. Just mho.., you know..? But thanks for helping others to realize what I meant.., if they hadn't already.
You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2012, 11:08 PM)
Not quite.
And yet it moves!
The 'real' dynamics occurs irrespective of our calculations of it.
The observations are made and plotted along various energy-space dimensions on a graph against an abstract 'calculation' dimension we call time.
The former occurs 'for real' while the latter is 'calculated'....hence 'time' is secondary and dependent on the energy-space dynamics, not the other way round.
So your 'static universe' comment applies only to the 'calculated universe/phenomena' and not to the real primary' universe/phenomena'.
Time is convenient for that calculation but not determinant of it like energy-space is.
Sorry, out of time (hehehe). Cheers until next visit.
.
That's complete nonsense but at least it's your nonsense.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2012, 05:08 PM)
And yet it moves!
Trolling crank.
Trolling crank.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 20 2012, 10:14 PM)
You obviously don't understand the calculations, as the speed of light limit guarantees that time travel is not possible. Notions such as "folded" space or time travel are fiction and speculation, nothing more. A physicist saying that the math indicates that all processes should work equally well reversed in time doesn't imply time travel, as the math is a modeling tool for reality, not reality itself. In reality, things like thermodynamics tell us that time is not reversible.
If you exclude time from calculations you have a completely static universe.
So if they're fiction why is there even 'speculation'. What are people smoking who come up with this stuff. It's pretty popular crap on the TV science program... Ranks right up there with ghosts and aliens...
And when you realize that the universe is not going to go static just because we change the way we look at it, you might then want to consider what I'm talking about. It will answer a lot of real questions... Instead of what we're currently 'speculating' on... Worm holes..? lol Man's imagined 'time' is polluting our perception of the universe.
If you exclude time from calculations you have a completely static universe.
So if they're fiction why is there even 'speculation'. What are people smoking who come up with this stuff. It's pretty popular crap on the TV science program... Ranks right up there with ghosts and aliens...
And when you realize that the universe is not going to go static just because we change the way we look at it, you might then want to consider what I'm talking about. It will answer a lot of real questions... Instead of what we're currently 'speculating' on... Worm holes..? lol Man's imagined 'time' is polluting our perception of the universe.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 20 2012, 06:26 PM)
So if they're fiction why is there even 'speculation'. What are people smoking who come up with this stuff. It's pretty popular crap on the TV science program... Ranks right up there with ghosts and aliens...
There (bolded) is your answer.
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 20 2012, 10:37 PM)
You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You.
Illiterate? Coming from someone who doesn't know what the Geoid is.., and even thinks I misspelled it's name...
Actually the only reason I'm answering this is to help get my post count up to where I can PM people occasionally... Those who seem to really know what they're talking about.
Here's a clue for you. Google whatever you're going to try and blast before you do the blasting... It will likely eliminate a lot of the posts you make because you'll learn the other guy does know what he's talking about. And it will help people think that you may not be a troll...
Illiterate? Coming from someone who doesn't know what the Geoid is.., and even thinks I misspelled it's name...
Actually the only reason I'm answering this is to help get my post count up to where I can PM people occasionally... Those who seem to really know what they're talking about.
Here's a clue for you. Google whatever you're going to try and blast before you do the blasting... It will likely eliminate a lot of the posts you make because you'll learn the other guy does know what he's talking about. And it will help people think that you may not be a troll...
QUOTE
It's pretty popular crap on the TV science program...
Which is obviously where you get all your knowledge from.
Just another in a long line of cranks who don't know *** about physics but feel they're qualified to post about it.
Deleted... Sent to wrong person in error.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 21 2012, 12:58 AM)
Which is obviously where you get all your knowledge from.
Just another in a long line of cranks who don't know *** about physics but feel they're qualified to post about it.
AlexG
Actually I don't watch TV as such... I only have basic cable.., and much of that is also crap. I don't believe in aliens, or ghosts, or time as part of the cosmos. But I hope your post made you feel good.
Post #32...
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2012, 11:08 PM)
Not quite.
And yet it moves!
The 'real' dynamics occurs irrespective of our calculations of it.
The observations are made and plotted along various energy-space dimensions on a graph against an abstract 'calculation' dimension we call time.
The former occurs 'for real' while the latter is 'calculated'....hence 'time' is secondary and dependent on the energy-space dynamics, not the other way round.
So your 'static universe' comment applies only to the 'calculated universe/phenomena' and not to the real primary' universe/phenomena'.
Time is convenient for that calculation but not determinant of it like energy-space is.
Sorry, out of time (hehehe). Cheers until next visit.
.
Exactly... As I've explained to him myself.
I knew they wouldn't understand what you said. They've both admitted that already...
And btw.., you seem to have a very appropriate nom de plume..
Post #33.
@RC,
At the end of every chapter in any (science style) textbook you will find 'Exercises' - these aren't a joke - unless you can do them you have just wasted your time reading the chapter. I admit it has taken me many years to be able to complete the most elementary exercises in SR but that isn't the point. It is the combination of the yadayada in the text and THEN being able to use it that brings it all together to the point where you possess the knowledge and can move on to the next chapter. If you can't (or don't) do the exercises then you have made no progress.
The calculations at the end of the chapter are where it (SR) is at. If you can't do them you're nowhere near being able to write your own chapter.
-C2.
At the end of every chapter in any (science style) textbook you will find 'Exercises' - these aren't a joke - unless you can do them you have just wasted your time reading the chapter. I admit it has taken me many years to be able to complete the most elementary exercises in SR but that isn't the point. It is the combination of the yadayada in the text and THEN being able to use it that brings it all together to the point where you possess the knowledge and can move on to the next chapter. If you can't (or don't) do the exercises then you have made no progress.
The calculations at the end of the chapter are where it (SR) is at. If you can't do them you're nowhere near being able to write your own chapter.
-C2.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 21 2012, 12:58 AM)
Which is obviously where you get all your knowledge from.
Just another in a long line of cranks who don't know *** about physics but feel they're qualified to post about it.
And Alex... Why would I 'want' to know *** about physics when I believe the whole concept is wrong. How much time do you spend studying things that you know in your heart to be wrong. ??
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 20 2012, 08:31 PM)
And Alex... Why would I 'want' to know *** about physics when I believe the whole concept is wrong. How much time do you spend studying things that you know in your heart to be wrong. ??
Just another bag of hammers.
Nice of you to admit your ignorance.
Dismissed.
Just another bag of hammers.
Nice of you to admit your ignorance.
Dismissed.
QUOTE (Confused1+Jan 21 2012, 01:24 AM)
@RC,
At the end of every chapter in any (science style) textbook you will find 'Exercises' - these aren't a joke - unless you can do them you have just wasted your time reading the chapter. I admit it has taken me many years to be able to complete the most elementary exercises in SR but that isn't the point. It is the combination of the yadayada in the text and THEN being able to use it that brings it all together to the point where you possess the knowledge and can move on to the next chapter. If you can't (or don't) do the exercises then you have made no progress.
The calculations at the end of the chapter are where it (SR) is at. If you can't do them you're nowhere near being able to write your own chapter.
-C2.
Good comments. It's a great path. The path I'm familiar with. No stressful timetable as with the classroom studies. Devote all the time you need to reach the solution. Lot's of fun for me. Very relaxing mental exercise. Then you get the opportunity to go over the derivation of famous theoretical tests for a theory like GR. Beautiful. Learn from the scientific literature. Wow.
At the end of every chapter in any (science style) textbook you will find 'Exercises' - these aren't a joke - unless you can do them you have just wasted your time reading the chapter. I admit it has taken me many years to be able to complete the most elementary exercises in SR but that isn't the point. It is the combination of the yadayada in the text and THEN being able to use it that brings it all together to the point where you possess the knowledge and can move on to the next chapter. If you can't (or don't) do the exercises then you have made no progress.
The calculations at the end of the chapter are where it (SR) is at. If you can't do them you're nowhere near being able to write your own chapter.
-C2.
Good comments. It's a great path. The path I'm familiar with. No stressful timetable as with the classroom studies. Devote all the time you need to reach the solution. Lot's of fun for me. Very relaxing mental exercise. Then you get the opportunity to go over the derivation of famous theoretical tests for a theory like GR. Beautiful. Learn from the scientific literature. Wow.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2012, 08:27 PM)
Been there; done that already.
Then demonstrate some understanding of existing physics already.
Then demonstrate some understanding of existing physics already.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 21 2012, 12:58 PM)
Then demonstrate some understanding of existing physics already.
i think RC has on more than one occasion.
i think RC has on more than one occasion.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 21 2012, 01:31 AM)
And Alex... Why would I 'want' to know *** about physics when I believe the whole concept is wrong. How much time do you spend studying things that you know in your heart to be wrong. ??
You are a complete ignoramus. That may be a 'new crackpot reason' for remaining scientific illiterate at all cost.
You are a complete ignoramus. That may be a 'new crackpot reason' for remaining scientific illiterate at all cost.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 21 2012, 12:45 AM)
Illiterate? Coming from someone who doesn't know what the Geoid is.., and even thinks I misspelled it's name...
Actually the only reason I'm answering this is to help get my post count up to where I can PM people occasionally... Those who seem to really know what they're talking about.
Here's a clue for you. Google whatever you're going to try and blast before you do the blasting... It will likely eliminate a lot of the posts you make because you'll learn the other guy does know what he's talking about. And it will help people think that you may not be a troll...
Dumb fuk. That wasn't me.
You're some low esteem punk spewing nonsense on the net. Actually you suffer from illusory superiority Dunning Kruger effect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Are you the dumb fuk who thinks there is high gravity and low gravity depending where your standing on the Earth? If you don't want to study physics because your heart tells you it's wrong at least get some common sense.
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 20 2012, 10:37 PM)
You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You.
Are you and synthsin75 the same person? Both of you seem to get very confused and forget what you've posted. Check out my post of 1-21 at 12:45 AM referring to your post of 1-20 at 10:37 PM.
In any case.., here's a little piece on the Geoid which you've just admitted knowing nothing about. Just trying to help...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...a-nasa-science/
I said I wasn't the person who you thought misspelled Geiod. You're a bigger nitwit than first thought. This is what I said in that post you linked:
"You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You."
That's what I said. Where do I misspell or even mention Geoid? I was referring to just about everything I read in your posts.
I'll say it again:
"You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You."
Hi C2.
Been there; done that already. Now it's time for further exploration/thinking. That's all.
For example, when Einstein "did the exercises at the end of the textbooks chapters" in his day, he found cause to question the efficacy of such when working towards greater 'completeness' of scientific understanding/modeling. I am not saying everyone who questions thus is 'an Einstein'.
It's just that, because one can just do the exercises, it doesn't mean one need not think further towards a more complete reality modeling which may one day BECOME part of 'the textbooks' you seem to hold up as the be-all and end-all of what one can achieve in the way of true understanding. The status quo will change inevitably, just as Einstein (and others before him) caused the prior status quo to inevitably change because no complete real understanding was in the offing from that status quo. That's all.
Every question that challenges that status quo is not by definition 'wrong'. It's merits or otherwise 'will out' only after YEARS of resistence and inertia and examination (hopefully not with preconclusionary arguments) by those who are so satisfied with the status quo/textbooks that they do not want to (or fear to) explore beyond that status quo. It's only natural. It happens all the time, even in the sciences. History is replete with examples of cases where individuals were not satisfied with 'just doing the exercises', and in so doing 'enraged' the all-too-human proponents of the status quo until new understanding dawned.
And anyway, it's not as if one is questioning the efficacy of SR/GR Relativity or the Quantum Theory models for what they CAN DO, it is more of wanting these models to DO MORE by improving the perspective and simplifying the model to the REAL PRIME ASPECTS and re-working everything in those more streamlined terms.
If what you want is more of the same, then by all means stick to the textbooks. You will be most familiar with the status quo, but will still have no inkling of the next big step/understanding that will inevitably arise from all the current diverse discourse about EVERYTHING, including the 'time' concept' as used by our models.
No biggie. You go your way; I'll go mine. Cheers!
.
Hear, hear... There should never be satisfaction...
Actually this one isn't bad except for people *like* brucep, AlexG, synthsin75, fairy, and others who cannot tolerate new thought.., or who are simply trolls with no real knowledge of their own at all.
This from the idiot who has stated he doesn't believe in physics and therefore has never learned any.
For a real physics site, try http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php. No woo-woo crap allowed. Only mainstream science.
These are figures of speech to indicate 'order' in our observational/thinking constructs.
For example, we put "1" before "2" on the number line; and "3" after "2" etc....but that line is a 'static' (ie, timeless) mathematical construct along which number-location points 'occur' as timeless defined locations. So there it is only used to indicate 'spatial' along-the-line 'order' which involves no 'time' as any 'real' thing/condition (just as we make use of points on a 'graph' LINE drawn and used to indicate 'order' along an abstract and STATIC MATHEMATICAL 'timeLINE' analytical construct where we define/identify certain points (of timeless instants) abstractly based on the graphing of information on the other graph 'axes' representing the abstract information of the actual observed dynamics (from which OTHER PRIOR dynamics the 'time' standard used in that graph is ultimately derived from).
As for the supposedly-dynamical 'time' motif itself, it is so inculcated 'without question' at an early age and so its reality/priority status compared to space goes unquestioned in the minds of some. Scientists have also grown up and been inadvertently educated to unwittingly substitute the 'abstract' of time for the 'concrete' of relative-'in space' order; hence the current questions about the 'reality' of 'time' as 'existing' rather than just being derived/manufactured (from actual motion/change in/through space) as an abstract tool for our obesrvational, analytical and 'modeling' convenience.
Cheers.
.
RC...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
People use whatever unproven and misunderstood statements they find that seem to them to fit their thinking. Such as a couple of s75's favorite quotes.
(wiki)
1. The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe with time.
2. In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time.
(/wiki)
When they would be more correct written as follows:
"The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe."
And
"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object."
Neither require the appendage of a human imagined 'time' factor to be correct. Even IF time was real.
So those inclusions of 'time' are just someone's idea that the definitions needed to be *qualified*. As though it might happen some other way. As if 'movement' or 'increase in distance' couldn't have been understood without mentioning time.
Gad, even the prefix 'In physics' is another unneeded qualification.
Motion is motion no matter where it's moving.
Take care...
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 21 2012, 05:44 AM)
Dumb fuk. That wasn't me. You're some low esteem punk spewing nonsense on the net. Actually you suffer from illusory superiority Dunning Kruger effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Are you the dumb fuk who thinks there is high gravity and low gravity depending where your standing on the Earth? If you don't want to study physics because your heart tells you it's wrong at least get some common sense.
Are you and synthsin75 the same person? Both of you seem to get very confused and forget what you've posted. Check out my post of 1-21 at 12:45 AM referring to your post of 1-20 at 10:37 PM.
In any case.., here's a little piece on the Geoid which you've just admitted knowing nothing about. Just trying to help...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...a-nasa-science/
You're some low esteem punk spewing nonsense on the net. Actually you suffer from illusory superiority Dunning Kruger effect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Are you the dumb fuk who thinks there is high gravity and low gravity depending where your standing on the Earth? If you don't want to study physics because your heart tells you it's wrong at least get some common sense.
Are you and synthsin75 the same person? Both of you seem to get very confused and forget what you've posted. Check out my post of 1-21 at 12:45 AM referring to your post of 1-20 at 10:37 PM.
In any case.., here's a little piece on the Geoid which you've just admitted knowing nothing about. Just trying to help...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...a-nasa-science/
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 21 2012, 07:10 AM)
Are you and synthsin75 the same person? Both of you seem to get very confused and forget what you've posted. Check out my post of 1-21 at 12:45 AM referring to your post of 1-20 at 10:37 PM.
In any case.., here's a little piece on the Geoid which you've just admitted knowing nothing about. Just trying to help...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...a-nasa-science/
I said I wasn't the person who you thought misspelled Geiod. You're a bigger nitwit than first thought. This is what I said in that post you linked:
"You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You."
That's what I said. Where do I misspell or even mention Geoid? I was referring to just about everything I read in your posts.
I'll say it again:
"You don't know what you're talking about. It's nonsense coming from a scientific illiterate. You."
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 19 2012, 08:35 AM)
And now, I begin to suspect that there is no such list or magic computer solution for the general solution.
Chong-Yun Chao. "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras" Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 13, 6 (Dec., 1962), pp. 903-906
Lawrence J. Corwin and Frederick P. Greenleaf. Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups and Their Applications Cambridge University Press, 1990, Page 210
There are uncountably many nilpotent Lie algebras of dimension >= 10. (Do I know what that means? Only that there is no explicit list. There might be a parameterized list of families or it might be horrible.)
But since you know a 6-d subalgebra and the vastly simplifying isomorphism solutions, and already have done tons of heavy lifting, perhaps the specific solution(s) will turn out to be tractable.
Wecht's paper helps, but I'm not at all up to speed on the notation and concepts.
It would be more proper to credit the originator of statements you make.
What you say above is a post made by rpenner on 9-3-08 at 2:22 pm in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84715
Chong-Yun Chao. "Uncountably Many Nonisomorphic Nilpotent Lie Algebras" Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 13, 6 (Dec., 1962), pp. 903-906
Lawrence J. Corwin and Frederick P. Greenleaf. Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups and Their Applications Cambridge University Press, 1990, Page 210
There are uncountably many nilpotent Lie algebras of dimension >= 10. (Do I know what that means? Only that there is no explicit list. There might be a parameterized list of families or it might be horrible.)
But since you know a 6-d subalgebra and the vastly simplifying isomorphism solutions, and already have done tons of heavy lifting, perhaps the specific solution(s) will turn out to be tractable.
Wecht's paper helps, but I'm not at all up to speed on the notation and concepts.
It would be more proper to credit the originator of statements you make.
What you say above is a post made by rpenner on 9-3-08 at 2:22 pm in http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84715
Hi,
Confused1: if it takes you many years to do elementary Sr excersice, you are narcissistic dumbfuk.
It makes your average IQ far on the left below 1% of population.
For a math guy first presented with theory it should take him day or two to do the first excersice.
Also setting a 5 year goal to complete simplest SR excersice is fuckig disturbing.
Confused1: if it takes you many years to do elementary Sr excersice, you are narcissistic dumbfuk.
It makes your average IQ far on the left below 1% of population.
For a math guy first presented with theory it should take him day or two to do the first excersice.
Also setting a 5 year goal to complete simplest SR excersice is fuckig disturbing.
QUOTE (Brylson+)
Confused1: if it takes you many years to do elementary Sr excersice, you are narcissistic dumbfuk.
It makes your average IQ far on the left below 1% of population.
For a math guy first presented with theory it should take him day or two to do the first excersice.
Also setting a 5 year goal to complete simplest SR excersice is fuckig disturbing.
Fair comment. If you had the ability to complete any of the exercises in any physics book you probably wouldn't be writing the nonsense that you post here.
-C2.
It makes your average IQ far on the left below 1% of population.
For a math guy first presented with theory it should take him day or two to do the first excersice.
Also setting a 5 year goal to complete simplest SR excersice is fuckig disturbing.
Fair comment. If you had the ability to complete any of the exercises in any physics book you probably wouldn't be writing the nonsense that you post here.
-C2.
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 21 2012, 07:38 AM)
I said I wasn't the person who you thought misspelled Geiod.
You just misspelled it yourself... lol
In any case, you didn't deny not knowing about the Geoid, so I shouldn't expect you'd know how it's spelled.
Is it possible that people might stay on thread..?
No posts unless related to pro or con opinions..? Of the theory or idea..? Not opinions of the poster? 'Netiquette', you know..?
Such as my point that the earth is aging differently in different areas..? That the results of measurements might be affected depending on where they were made..? What with differing velocities taken a different latitudes., and now especially at the more extremes of known gravity strengths..?
Has any consideration been given to this possibility..?
You just misspelled it yourself... lol
In any case, you didn't deny not knowing about the Geoid, so I shouldn't expect you'd know how it's spelled.
Is it possible that people might stay on thread..?
No posts unless related to pro or con opinions..? Of the theory or idea..? Not opinions of the poster? 'Netiquette', you know..?
Such as my point that the earth is aging differently in different areas..? That the results of measurements might be affected depending on where they were made..? What with differing velocities taken a different latitudes., and now especially at the more extremes of known gravity strengths..?
Has any consideration been given to this possibility..?
Hi, folks. I was reading about the infamous double-slit experiment for the umpteenth time recently and started wondering what limited researchers as far as the size of the molecule or particle they used to generate the interference pattern?
I know that physicists have conducted the experiment with Buckminsterfullerene (a molecule with up to 60 or 70 carbon atoms), but was just curious what was stopping them from using megahuge molecules and/or super small manmade particles in an attempt to ascertain the range of size where decoherence might begin to be observed.
Thanks.
I know that physicists have conducted the experiment with Buckminsterfullerene (a molecule with up to 60 or 70 carbon atoms), but was just curious what was stopping them from using megahuge molecules and/or super small manmade particles in an attempt to ascertain the range of size where decoherence might begin to be observed.
Thanks.
QUOTE (cornell78+Jan 21 2012, 08:07 PM)
Hi, folks. I was reading about the infamous double-slit experiment for the umpteenth time recently and started wondering what limited researchers as far as the size of the molecule or particle they used to generate the interference pattern?
I know that physicists have conducted the experiment with Buckminsterfullerene (a molecule with up to 60 or 70 carbon atoms), but was just curious what was stopping them from using megahuge molecules and/or super small manmade particles in an attempt to ascertain the range of size where decoherence might begin to be observed.
Thanks.
Cute... lol
The size of the slit maybe..?
Or how much you can pick up...?
Interference patterns are known for what they are...
No matter what or who brings them about.
Post # 38
I know that physicists have conducted the experiment with Buckminsterfullerene (a molecule with up to 60 or 70 carbon atoms), but was just curious what was stopping them from using megahuge molecules and/or super small manmade particles in an attempt to ascertain the range of size where decoherence might begin to be observed.
Thanks.
Cute... lol
The size of the slit maybe..?
Or how much you can pick up...?
Interference patterns are known for what they are...
No matter what or who brings them about.
Post # 38
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 21 2012, 10:41 PM)
Interference patterns are known for what they are...
No matter what or who brings them about.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I was looking for a serious answer to a serious question, and I'm afraid your response didn't come close to qualifying.
But no matter, as after I posted my inquiry, I found the abstract to the paper written by the researchers who conducted the double-slit experiment using the big so-called "buckyball" molecules.
Abstract
Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves has been observed for massive particles such as electrons, atoms and dimers, small van der Waals clusters, and neutrons. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.
Apparently the size (ie, mass) of the particles that can be used in this type of experiment is currently restricted by limitations in the interferometry techniques used to produce the interference patterns. Figured it was something like that which was precluding the investigation into quantum superposition of heavier objects.
No matter what or who brings them about.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I was looking for a serious answer to a serious question, and I'm afraid your response didn't come close to qualifying.
But no matter, as after I posted my inquiry, I found the abstract to the paper written by the researchers who conducted the double-slit experiment using the big so-called "buckyball" molecules.
Abstract
Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves has been observed for massive particles such as electrons, atoms and dimers, small van der Waals clusters, and neutrons. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.
Apparently the size (ie, mass) of the particles that can be used in this type of experiment is currently restricted by limitations in the interferometry techniques used to produce the interference patterns. Figured it was something like that which was precluding the investigation into quantum superposition of heavier objects.
QUOTE (cornell78+Jan 21 2012, 11:36 PM)
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I was looking for a serious answer to a serious question, and I'm afraid your response didn't come close to qualifying.
But no matter, as after I posted my inquiry, I found the abstract to the paper written by the researchers who conducted the double-slit experiment using the big so-called "buckyball" molecules.
Abstract
Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves has been observed for massive particles such as electrons, atoms and dimers, small van der Waals clusters, and neutrons. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.
Apparently the size (ie, mass) of the particles that can be used in this type of experiment is currently restricted by limitations in the interferometry techniques used to produce the interference patterns. Figured it was something like that which was precluding the investigation into quantum superposition of heavier objects.
Good post. The Post_op nitwit [picture_guy] is recovering from a lobotomy. Finding your answer in the scientific literature is the way to go. This forum has recently lost it's moderator and has already taken it's last breath.
But no matter, as after I posted my inquiry, I found the abstract to the paper written by the researchers who conducted the double-slit experiment using the big so-called "buckyball" molecules.
Abstract
Quantum superposition lies at the heart of quantum mechanics and gives rise to many of its paradoxes. Superposition of de Broglie matter waves has been observed for massive particles such as electrons, atoms and dimers, small van der Waals clusters, and neutrons. But matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics, metrology and lithography. Here we report the observation of de Broglie wave interference of C60 molecules by diffraction at a material absorption grating. This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behaviour has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment. Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence, suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.
Apparently the size (ie, mass) of the particles that can be used in this type of experiment is currently restricted by limitations in the interferometry techniques used to produce the interference patterns. Figured it was something like that which was precluding the investigation into quantum superposition of heavier objects.
Good post. The Post_op nitwit [picture_guy] is recovering from a lobotomy. Finding your answer in the scientific literature is the way to go. This forum has recently lost it's moderator and has already taken it's last breath.
QUOTE (cornell78+Jan 21 2012, 11:36 PM)
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I was looking for a serious answer to a serious question, and I'm afraid your response didn't come close to qualifying.
But no matter, as after I posted my inquiry, I found the abstract to the paper written by the researchers who conducted the double-slit experiment using the big so-called "buckyball" molecules.
Abstract
Snipped - N/A
Apparently the size (ie, mass) of the particles that can be used in this type of experiment is currently restricted by limitations in the interferometry techniques used to produce the interference patterns. Figured it was something like that which was precluding the investigation into quantum superposition of heavier objects.
What you might want to know if you're serious, and not brucep alias synthsin75.., and it being your first post, you'll get more and better answers if you start your own thread with the question or subject it's about, instead of dropping in on someone else's conversation.
In any case, I'm glad you found your answer.
Ciao.
But no matter, as after I posted my inquiry, I found the abstract to the paper written by the researchers who conducted the double-slit experiment using the big so-called "buckyball" molecules.
Abstract
Snipped - N/A
Apparently the size (ie, mass) of the particles that can be used in this type of experiment is currently restricted by limitations in the interferometry techniques used to produce the interference patterns. Figured it was something like that which was precluding the investigation into quantum superposition of heavier objects.
What you might want to know if you're serious, and not brucep alias synthsin75.., and it being your first post, you'll get more and better answers if you start your own thread with the question or subject it's about, instead of dropping in on someone else's conversation.
In any case, I'm glad you found your answer.
Ciao.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 21 2012, 02:27 AM)
Hi C2.
Been there; done that already. Now it's time for further exploration/thinking. That's all.
For example, when Einstein "did the exercises at the end of the textbooks chapters" in his day, he found cause to question the efficacy of such when working towards greater 'completeness' of scientific understanding/modeling. I am not saying everyone who questions thus is 'an Einstein'.
It's just that, because one can just do the exercises, it doesn't mean one need not think further towards a more complete reality modeling which may one day BECOME part of 'the textbooks' you seem to hold up as the be-all and end-all of what one can achieve in the way of true understanding. The status quo will change inevitably, just as Einstein (and others before him) caused the prior status quo to inevitably change because no complete real understanding was in the offing from that status quo. That's all.
Every question that challenges that status quo is not by definition 'wrong'. It's merits or otherwise 'will out' only after YEARS of resistence and inertia and examination (hopefully not with preconclusionary arguments) by those who are so satisfied with the status quo/textbooks that they do not want to (or fear to) explore beyond that status quo. It's only natural. It happens all the time, even in the sciences. History is replete with examples of cases where individuals were not satisfied with 'just doing the exercises', and in so doing 'enraged' the all-too-human proponents of the status quo until new understanding dawned.
And anyway, it's not as if one is questioning the efficacy of SR/GR Relativity or the Quantum Theory models for what they CAN DO, it is more of wanting these models to DO MORE by improving the perspective and simplifying the model to the REAL PRIME ASPECTS and re-working everything in those more streamlined terms.
If what you want is more of the same, then by all means stick to the textbooks. You will be most familiar with the status quo, but will still have no inkling of the next big step/understanding that will inevitably arise from all the current diverse discourse about EVERYTHING, including the 'time' concept' as used by our models.
No biggie. You go your way; I'll go mine. Cheers!
.
Hear, hear... There should never be satisfaction...
Ok, here's what can be done... lol
All those who are locked into thinking time exists can continue to do so... They can continue to create the inconsistencies, paradoxes, loose strings, etc. that exist with their way of thinking...
But those who know there truly is no time in the cosmos can compute the universe without it.., and arrive at a true and basic understanding of it. I've detailed a way that might be done earlier in this thread. What they do will be somewhat like working behind the scenes to produce a musical. Or in the kitchen of a banquet hall where there is a wedding dinner to prepare.. Back where everything really happens... Where one develops the fluff and pageantry that makes the staged show appear as the controlling majority wants it to be seen.
But it will be the 'minority' who will get the awards... Because they will be presenting the means for it to 'appear' as was wished to be seen. While working back stage with the real lights, ropes, and curtain mechanisms, or with the grease and fire, they will know what's correct.., what's real... But also they will be able to change that which is basic and true into complicated, exotic, but pretty much just 'showy' presentation, with nothing much going for it except that it makes people happy.
When cake layers are crooked they can put on enough icing to make it appear straight. They can develop complicated mathematical formulas and acceptable rates of error, etc. to 'explain' why things aren't working out for the time users. And how to *make* them work... And the time users will not even know they're being hoodwinked. They will continue to say 'See, we were right all the time'. But it will be those working behind the scenes and just pretending to be participants who will get the credit for their 'solutions'.
The correct thinking trend will continue to grow until someone discovers that all those right answers are really coming from NOT using time. That it was all a ruse... lol
When all those people behind the scenes are found to be pulling all the strings and that it is they who were putting out time based explanations for time to 'appear' real, there will surely be many believers who still want to go back and kill their grandfathers. Unfortunately they won't be able to.
So you see.., the 'no time' theory can be made very good use of... Finding the real answers while solving or eliminating the perceived difficulties that occur using time based calculations by adding smoke and mirrors. lol Cause when you already know the answer you can arrive at it any way you choose...
Ya know what I mean..?
All those who are locked into thinking time exists can continue to do so... They can continue to create the inconsistencies, paradoxes, loose strings, etc. that exist with their way of thinking...
But those who know there truly is no time in the cosmos can compute the universe without it.., and arrive at a true and basic understanding of it. I've detailed a way that might be done earlier in this thread. What they do will be somewhat like working behind the scenes to produce a musical. Or in the kitchen of a banquet hall where there is a wedding dinner to prepare.. Back where everything really happens... Where one develops the fluff and pageantry that makes the staged show appear as the controlling majority wants it to be seen.
But it will be the 'minority' who will get the awards... Because they will be presenting the means for it to 'appear' as was wished to be seen. While working back stage with the real lights, ropes, and curtain mechanisms, or with the grease and fire, they will know what's correct.., what's real... But also they will be able to change that which is basic and true into complicated, exotic, but pretty much just 'showy' presentation, with nothing much going for it except that it makes people happy.
When cake layers are crooked they can put on enough icing to make it appear straight. They can develop complicated mathematical formulas and acceptable rates of error, etc. to 'explain' why things aren't working out for the time users. And how to *make* them work... And the time users will not even know they're being hoodwinked.
They will continue to say 'See, we were right all the time'. But it will be those working behind the scenes and just pretending to be participants who will get the credit for their 'solutions'. The correct thinking trend will continue to grow until someone discovers that all those right answers are really coming from NOT using time. That it was all a ruse... lol
When all those people behind the scenes are found to be pulling all the strings and that it is they who were putting out time based explanations for time to 'appear' real, there will surely be many believers who still want to go back and kill their grandfathers. Unfortunately they won't be able to.
So you see.., the 'no time' theory can be made very good use of... Finding the real answers while solving or eliminating the perceived difficulties that occur using time based calculations by adding smoke and mirrors. lol Cause when you already know the answer you can arrive at it any way you choose...
Ya know what I mean..?
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 21 2012, 11:54 PM)
This forum has recently lost it's moderator and has already taken it's last breath.
bruce, if this particular physics forum is petering out can you recommend any better ones?
I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about the subject from time to time. I'd like to find a forum where guys who are formally trained and experienced in this area don't mind answering serious questions from laymen who are interested in their field of expertise.
bruce, if this particular physics forum is petering out can you recommend any better ones?
I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about the subject from time to time. I'd like to find a forum where guys who are formally trained and experienced in this area don't mind answering serious questions from laymen who are interested in their field of expertise.
QUOTE (cornell78+Jan 23 2012, 09:51 AM)
bruce, if this particular physics forum is petering out can you recommend any better ones?
I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about the subject from time to time. I'd like to find a forum where guys who are formally trained and experienced in this area don't mind answering serious questions from laymen who are interested in their field of expertise.
Actually this one isn't bad except for people *like* brucep, AlexG, synthsin75, fairy, and others who cannot tolerate new thought.., or who are simply trolls with no real knowledge of their own at all.
So they rant, use foul language, and name call from inside their own very small boxes, with no supporting arguments to back themselves up. Except for the occasional, often out of date, textbook memorization they've done.
So you might try http://www.sciforums.com, along with keeping tabs here... That forum has some of the same but seems to keep it more in control...
Btw, I apologize for misreading your first post but 'interference patterns' had a direct and negative connection to my previous post. Unfortunately I gave those others too much credit for being able to think up something so subtle.
I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about the subject from time to time. I'd like to find a forum where guys who are formally trained and experienced in this area don't mind answering serious questions from laymen who are interested in their field of expertise.
Actually this one isn't bad except for people *like* brucep, AlexG, synthsin75, fairy, and others who cannot tolerate new thought.., or who are simply trolls with no real knowledge of their own at all.
So they rant, use foul language, and name call from inside their own very small boxes, with no supporting arguments to back themselves up. Except for the occasional, often out of date, textbook memorization they've done.
So you might try http://www.sciforums.com, along with keeping tabs here... That forum has some of the same but seems to keep it more in control...
Btw, I apologize for misreading your first post but 'interference patterns' had a direct and negative connection to my previous post. Unfortunately I gave those others too much credit for being able to think up something so subtle.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 23 2012, 07:33 AM)
Actually this one isn't bad except for people *like* brucep, AlexG, synthsin75, fairy, and others who cannot tolerate new thought.., or who are simply trolls with no real knowledge of their own at all.
This from the idiot who has stated he doesn't believe in physics and therefore has never learned any.
For a real physics site, try http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php. No woo-woo crap allowed. Only mainstream science.
QUOTE (cornell78+Jan 23 2012, 09:51 AM)
bruce, if this particular physics forum is petering out can you recommend any better ones?
I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about the subject from time to time. I'd like to find a forum where guys who are formally trained and experienced in this area don't mind answering serious questions from laymen who are interested in their field of expertise.
Both mentioned in this thread
http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php
http://www.sciforums.com/
From Google Groups
This is fairly new and moderated [allows some 'nutcase'].
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...ndations/topics
sci.physics.research
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...opics?hl=en&lnk
For the war against cranks and crackpots try sci.physics.relativity. Some knowledgeable physicists post here along with world class nut cases. Fun place.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...vity/topics?lnk
I can't believe there isn't somebody responsible for this site. At the Google sites read Tom Roberts posts. Think about keeping the same handle.
brucep
I'm an aerospace engineer by profession and not a physicist, but I enjoy reading about the subject from time to time. I'd like to find a forum where guys who are formally trained and experienced in this area don't mind answering serious questions from laymen who are interested in their field of expertise.
Both mentioned in this thread
http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php
http://www.sciforums.com/
From Google Groups
This is fairly new and moderated [allows some 'nutcase'].
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...ndations/topics
sci.physics.research
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...opics?hl=en&lnk
For the war against cranks and crackpots try sci.physics.relativity. Some knowledgeable physicists post here along with world class nut cases. Fun place.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...vity/topics?lnk
I can't believe there isn't somebody responsible for this site. At the Google sites read Tom Roberts posts. Think about keeping the same handle.
brucep
"Think about keeping the same handle" What is your view?
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 23 2012, 06:25 PM)
This from the idiot who has stated he doesn't believe in physics and therefore has never learned any.
For a real physics site, try http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php. No woo-woo crap allowed. Only mainstream science.
AlexG... As usual you name call and twist... I've never said I don't believe in physics and therefore haven't learned any. I simply don't believe in the fantasy of 'time' being a part of the cosmos so I'm not going to study all the math that's been derived from it. That which is causing 'implied' multiple dimensions, time travel, holograms, bending space, and of course time dilation. That time itself actually slows down around areas of higher gravity. lol Time.., which has never been proved to exist in the first place.
The only thing that slows is the matter thusly preserved... By gravity... Whether it be animal, vegetable, or minteral... It is simply operating at slower rates of physical aging, growth or decay... Whichever applies. That explains ALL the gobble-de-gook. Lose time and you have the theory of everything. Of course you do not want to admit wasting all those years you've put into it... Oh well... Younger physicists will be learning to start on the right foot.
Other than you believing in that unneeded quantity, we're probably pretty much together... Except I don't call names... Apparently being somewhat more mentally mature.
Now I should give some credit to brucep... He did not this time.
Points made by a civil person make much more of an impression...
For a real physics site, try http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php. No woo-woo crap allowed. Only mainstream science.
AlexG... As usual you name call and twist... I've never said I don't believe in physics and therefore haven't learned any. I simply don't believe in the fantasy of 'time' being a part of the cosmos so I'm not going to study all the math that's been derived from it. That which is causing 'implied' multiple dimensions, time travel, holograms, bending space, and of course time dilation. That time itself actually slows down around areas of higher gravity. lol Time.., which has never been proved to exist in the first place.
The only thing that slows is the matter thusly preserved... By gravity... Whether it be animal, vegetable, or minteral... It is simply operating at slower rates of physical aging, growth or decay... Whichever applies. That explains ALL the gobble-de-gook. Lose time and you have the theory of everything. Of course you do not want to admit wasting all those years you've put into it... Oh well... Younger physicists will be learning to start on the right foot.
Other than you believing in that unneeded quantity, we're probably pretty much together... Except I don't call names... Apparently being somewhat more mentally mature.
Now I should give some credit to brucep... He did not this time.
Points made by a civil person make much more of an impression...
Even though you don't believe time exists, in you rebuttal to Alex you use a lot of expressions which depend on the concept of time (I think they do!).
Like e.g "Time.., which has never been proved to exist in the first place." Never and first relate to time, don't they?
Like e.g "Time.., which has never been proved to exist in the first place." Never and first relate to time, don't they?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 23 2012, 09:03 PM)
These are figures of speech to indicate 'order' in our observational/thinking constructs.
For example, we put "1" before "2" on the number line; and "3" after "2" etc....but that line is a 'static' (ie, timeless) mathematical construct along which number-location points 'occur' as timeless defined locations. So there it is only used to indicate 'spatial' along-the-line 'order' which involves no 'time' as any 'real' thing/condition (just as we make use of points on a 'graph' LINE drawn and used to indicate 'order' along an abstract and STATIC MATHEMATICAL 'timeLINE' analytical construct where we define/identify certain points (of timeless instants) abstractly based on the graphing of information on the other graph 'axes' representing the abstract information of the actual observed dynamics (from which OTHER PRIOR dynamics the 'time' standard used in that graph is ultimately derived from).
As for the supposedly-dynamical 'time' motif itself, it is so inculcated 'without question' at an early age and so its reality/priority status compared to space goes unquestioned in the minds of some. Scientists have also grown up and been inadvertently educated to unwittingly substitute the 'abstract' of time for the 'concrete' of relative-'in space' order; hence the current questions about the 'reality' of 'time' as 'existing' rather than just being derived/manufactured (from actual motion/change in/through space) as an abstract tool for our obesrvational, analytical and 'modeling' convenience.
Cheers.
.
RC...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
People use whatever unproven and misunderstood statements they find that seem to them to fit their thinking. Such as a couple of s75's favorite quotes.
(wiki)
1. The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe with time.
2. In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time.
(/wiki)
When they would be more correct written as follows:
"The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe."
And
"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object."
Neither require the appendage of a human imagined 'time' factor to be correct. Even IF time was real.
So those inclusions of 'time' are just someone's idea that the definitions needed to be *qualified*. As though it might happen some other way.
As if 'movement' or 'increase in distance' couldn't have been understood without mentioning time. Gad, even the prefix 'In physics' is another unneeded qualification.
Motion is motion no matter where it's moving.
Take care...
Cranks abound.
I'm sorry to be so boring, but more accurate math says the boundary spatial dimension is in fact 10-21 meters instead of 10-19. I was only off by a factor of 100 after all...
The energy per spatial boundary should in fact be E-sub-b = F-sub-b x B where B = one b (unit change, there is no other way to do it, need to get rid of time t.)
E-sub-b = 10 m/sec2 x m x B
So E/m = 10-15 J per B
OK?
Now you can stop making fun of photo-guy and make fun of me instead.
E/m = 680 eV.
The energy per spatial boundary should in fact be E-sub-b = F-sub-b x B where B = one b (unit change, there is no other way to do it, need to get rid of time t.)
E-sub-b = 10 m/sec2 x m x B
So E/m = 10-15 J per B
OK?
Now you can stop making fun of photo-guy and make fun of me instead.
E/m = 680 eV.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 24 2012, 07:35 PM)
I'm sorry to be so boring, but more accurate math says the boundary spatial dimension is in fact 10-21 meters instead of 10-19. I was only off by a factor of 100 after all...
The energy per spatial boundary should in fact be E-sub-b = F-sub-b x B where B = one b (unit change, there is no other way to do it, need to get rid of time t.)
E-sub-b = 10 m/sec2 x m x B
So E/m = 10-15 J per B
OK?
Now you can stop making fun of photo-guy and make fun of me instead.
E/m = 680 eV.
on the planet surface. elsewhere, it changes of course.
The energy per spatial boundary should in fact be E-sub-b = F-sub-b x B where B = one b (unit change, there is no other way to do it, need to get rid of time t.)
E-sub-b = 10 m/sec2 x m x B
So E/m = 10-15 J per B
OK?
Now you can stop making fun of photo-guy and make fun of me instead.
E/m = 680 eV.
on the planet surface. elsewhere, it changes of course.
680 eV should apply to any bound mass.
For example, an electron in the tightest bound state for H has an energy ~ 10 eV and a mass ~ 10-30 kg.
If the electron were alone in space, it would have an E/m of 10^12 J and has no problem traversing anything anywhere using 1 eV ~ 10-19 J.
A huge complicated hydro-carbon molecule has many subtle states that could be altered by 680 eV.
680 eV should be a quantum energy of go-or-no-go.
Yes?
For example, an electron in the tightest bound state for H has an energy ~ 10 eV and a mass ~ 10-30 kg.
If the electron were alone in space, it would have an E/m of 10^12 J and has no problem traversing anything anywhere using 1 eV ~ 10-19 J.
A huge complicated hydro-carbon molecule has many subtle states that could be altered by 680 eV.
680 eV should be a quantum energy of go-or-no-go.
Yes?
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 24 2012, 07:46 PM)
on the planet surface. elsewhere, it changes of course.
norgeboy
I'm happy to see you're still working at it...
Now I have this post I wrote in response to a quote in another thread...
But it grew to apply so much more to this thread that I'm putting it here... I have to say, it was a lot of fun writing, no matter where it goes... lol
From the thread "Intervention Required - Warning"
On any particular day there will be a number of people who wake up believing the are Jesus Christ Mk2. Society at large has to judge the value of their claim on the grounds of ability to produce miracles (or not). In the context of a physics forum one has to judge the value of any revelatory claim in the light of its ability to (at the very least) match up with experimental results.
The current local (and temporal) revelations involve dismissing time as a factor required to determine the location of an event in (x,y,z,t) space - this takes us back to a point over a hundred years ago where the 'scientific community' knew there was something missing (without time) but couldn't put it together well enough to make sense of it. Lorentz even wrote the equations of "What it MUST be like.." but couldn't make sense of what he had written (at the time).
The situation isn't just one of introducing the 'revelationist' to the physics and observations of the last 150 years - it is also a matter of dealing with the 'Jesus Christ' syndrome. We all have our different ways of approaching the situation.
IMO there should be a requirement to match existing experimental results - others will make the (more stringent) condition that any revelation should exceed the predictions of mainstream physics and predict (correctly) some new phenomenon.
-C2.
Edit for spelling - spell check turned typo'd 'revelation' into 'revaluation' - not quite what I intended!
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently... lol
I used to be an athiest until I realized *I* was God.
But let's do away with anyone thinking they're Jesus Christ just because something profound has come to them.
To use a couple of stylized examples..., Benjamin Franklin, it is said, discovered electricity by simply following up on his perceptions. With obviously no practical knowledge at all. I wouldn't have tried what he did knowing what I know.
Another of my favorite analogies is Freud founding the discipline of psychoanalysis. He didn't go to college to become a psychiatrist. He was smart enough to develop it by himself. He was even smart enough to know it wasn't the final answer... Ala Einstein... And neither of them had anything previous to 'match up' to...
Einstein was Aspie btw... One who's brain is 'wired differently'. It gave him the ability to see and follow logical paths 'almost' correctly and 'almost' instantaneously. So on that one point alone I would exclude any possibility of s75 being aspie. lol
So not that things are miracles... They just are as they are. As they've always been. The most astounding thing here is that the human race has evolved an amazinging powerful need to self limit. Using a very destructive drive to squash people who, and ideas that, rise above the norm. What Nietzsche called the 'herd instinct'. What I call the 'hive instinct'.
For instance...
In the context of a physics forum one has to judge the value of any revelatory claim in the light of its ability to (at the very least) match up with experimental results.
That clearly expects even more by the inclusion of 'at the very least'. But a forum is not where one would go if they had everything worked out and proven. Is it..? Wouldn't one go to some academy or official organization to present a paper to the world instead...?
In any case, most new ideas DO match up with not just experimental results, but very established and accepted results too. The 'results' are usually what produce a new idea on how it happens. New considerations of them. Not the other way round. 'At the very least', they do then match up.
So why the antagonism..? The new idea is what it is... People have them all the time. Let them happen. You may even benefit from one or two. The bad ones will die out through 'evolution'.
Mine for instance has been said by others in this thread to yield the exact same results as the method used now. Ah..! So does that mean it 'matches up'..? I think so.
The only change I've suggested is that measurements of velocity be seen as distance traveled in a particular measurement period.., compared to the distance traveled by c in that same measurement period... The results then being a % of c velocity, instead of a 'time' based velocity. The same thing, as proclaimed by all... Right or wrong..?
The current method of using time based measurements is said to be a necessity, a shortcut, a means to an end. And that there is a vast amount of data that supports the use of time in the calculations of the cosmos. Not that it IS the way to go, but that it simply seems to work... For the most part.
Well is doesn't work very well... Over all the 150 years mentioned in the quote, including the inclusion of time, there are many occasions where it does NOT work out. There has been something missing for sure. It wasn't 'time'.., but the knowledge that explains what is *truly* happening out there. That being exactly the same as what's happening in your body and all around us now too. The missing link to the theory of everything.
I've said for years that we're using the wrong math. Going back to at least 2008. So I am suggesting here that we stop fudging the results with the use of time in our calculations. If my method of stating distance and the current method of stating distance both come up with the very same distance.., why not try it..? They obviously 'match up'.
Here's where you get your last paragraph's wishes fulfilled. I'll quote it to make it easier to find and read...
IMO there should be a requirement to match existing experimental results - others will make the (more stringent) condition that any revelation should exceed the predictions of mainstream physics and predict (correctly) some new phenomenon.
There already are very similar 'requirements'. But I'll forego they seem to have been set up by mainstream physics to protect *against* new phenomenon...
In any case, my predication does 'match up' with both experimental and established and accepted, results for the most part. It only differs where those established results are wrong and my method points that out.
The 'revelation' part as you call it does exceed the predictions of mainstream physics, and does predict correctly (do the math, I think you'll find it works..) a 'new' phenomenon...
Of course there are no new phenomenons... Only those that were previously unknown. Even more correctly and much more profoundly my method lays out with the utmost certainty that the entire current concept of the cosmos will come tumbling down... It think that qualifies as something new, don't you... ?? lol
We know the *physical* distance c will travel in any given measurement period. So time as such is not needed as a factor in any future measurements of velocity. Because it has been admitted to and accepted here that my method of determining an object's percent of c velocity.., as opposed to another's time based velocity would work out to be exactly the same physical speed. That's very cool. Or my predicted 'theory of everything' would blow up right here.
But since my method of measuring distance vs % c does not use the concept of time, time would not, should not, and need not, be carried into further calculations of the cosmos either. Then, with human imagined time removed from our trains of thought, the concept of the cosmos should and will become very much clearer to us all.
Removing time will create disallusion... At 'the very least'. lol It will very naturally remove any possibility of 'stopping' time.., or of travel in it forward or back. Most of all it will eliminate the idea that gravity *slows time*, as in 'time dilation'. Simply because the cosmos will not know it has to do that when we don't tell it to.
There will be other profound 'revelations'. Such as there being no bending or folding of space... No worm holes... No black-hole hologram projections... No unlimited number of multiple universes... It will likely eliminate the big bang theory too.
With gravity induced 'rates of physical change' substituted for gravity induced 'time dilation', we will come to see that the operation of every atom in the universe is simply 'physically' slowed in its operation by gravity. There is an amazing quantity of evidence that this happens... It is simply couched in the wrong terms. That is, time is given the credit when in fact time does not exist... We have eliminated it using our 'exactly the same result' method of measuring velocity.
Looking at the current Geoid, one can see that various areas of earth have been aging faster than other areas. Whether you retain the illusion of time dilation caused by gravity or use my posit... We know the moon, once a part of earth is now very much physically younger than the earth. We will learn that all the objects in the universe are relative to each other in actual *physical* age.., not that a mystical, unseen, imagined area and quantity of 'time' has been slowed down around each of them separately and continuously. Arrghhh... Did I really need to say that..?
It may be found too that measurements requiring very fine line accuracy were taken at the wrong places on earth. The results skewed in either direction by the earth's corresponding amounts of gravity difference. That the actual measuring environment and equipment is physically 'slower' in Australia than it is India.., so a neutrino for instance may be seen to be traveling faster that it should be.
More speculation... As in conversation mode. Just musing. But you might see where it can lead, not using time.., if you want to.
Considering that in nature, spinning stabilizes. Whether it be a top on a table or a galaxy in the cosmos. Spinning happens all the time. Whirlpools develop when there is emptiness for the water to spin towards. A sink drain for instance. Or other matter spinning into the tremendous mass gravity of a black hole. I think there are a few laws of physical dynamics around to help explain how it all works. Or we can just admit that it does from observations made.
When the attraction lessens.., the spin looses it's kinetic energy and goes static. Like lily pads quietly floating on the water after the cave below became filled. The spin dissipates... Sometimes a hole simply becomes too big to spin around. That may be found to be case with a black hole that became so large that the spin slows. When that happened, there would be a period where those objects that had passed the point of no return were be pulled directly into it, and all beyond that point would continue in 'orbit' as it were.
This is seen to be happening now, is it not..? Black holes that have stopped pulling anything in.? Look at any star/planet system in fact. Isn't that how their spinning came to be stabilized.
As for light escaping, I've already speculated here that the gravity of a black hole does not pull light into it, but that it prevents it from being created. After swallowing all those stars, every atom has been smashed, and that is the exhausted energy seen coming from the poles of the holes. The easiest way out for it. Since there is no further ability to produce reactions, etc. no light is able to be produced.
White dwarfs eventually become black dwarfs. Could they not with their tremendous gravity, the beginning of a new black hole.? The reason there are so many of them..?
Most of what I say will/may be found, by NOT using time in the calculations. I am convinced that math model is bad and my thoughts are MHO and much 'speculation' for sure... But I still believe many of my analogies and concepts will be found to hold water when the math is done. And of course when examined using math that is not based on any concept of 'time'... I have stirrings in my gut about other aspects but haven't thought about them enough.
But.., at bottom, there is only one basic fact that needs to be corrected. To see where it takes us... It is that man has introduced time into the cosmos.., and the cosmos is now seen to be as bizarre as man...
But it's never to late to fix things. They did so from the previous dark age... A substantial amount at least.
We need to look at the universe without the forth dimension. Only those where known nature rules... Physical ages and physical rates of change are what truly run the universe. There are be no depressions in time webs to climb out of... Everything will simply be physically not chronologically older or younger than everything else else. That's where the relativity is.
I know some of you won't think that's profound enough to merit checking. Those will be the ones who deserve to lose.
Ciao for now.
norgeboy
I'm happy to see you're still working at it...
Now I have this post I wrote in response to a quote in another thread...
But it grew to apply so much more to this thread that I'm putting it here... I have to say, it was a lot of fun writing, no matter where it goes... lol
QUOTE (Confused1+Jan 24 2012, 02:42 AM)
From the thread "Intervention Required - Warning"
On any particular day there will be a number of people who wake up believing the are Jesus Christ Mk2. Society at large has to judge the value of their claim on the grounds of ability to produce miracles (or not). In the context of a physics forum one has to judge the value of any revelatory claim in the light of its ability to (at the very least) match up with experimental results.
The current local (and temporal) revelations involve dismissing time as a factor required to determine the location of an event in (x,y,z,t) space - this takes us back to a point over a hundred years ago where the 'scientific community' knew there was something missing (without time) but couldn't put it together well enough to make sense of it. Lorentz even wrote the equations of "What it MUST be like.." but couldn't make sense of what he had written (at the time).
The situation isn't just one of introducing the 'revelationist' to the physics and observations of the last 150 years - it is also a matter of dealing with the 'Jesus Christ' syndrome. We all have our different ways of approaching the situation.
IMO there should be a requirement to match existing experimental results - others will make the (more stringent) condition that any revelation should exceed the predictions of mainstream physics and predict (correctly) some new phenomenon.
-C2.
Edit for spelling - spell check turned typo'd 'revelation' into 'revaluation' - not quite what I intended!
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently... lol
I used to be an athiest until I realized *I* was God.
But let's do away with anyone thinking they're Jesus Christ just because something profound has come to them.
To use a couple of stylized examples..., Benjamin Franklin, it is said, discovered electricity by simply following up on his perceptions. With obviously no practical knowledge at all. I wouldn't have tried what he did knowing what I know.
Another of my favorite analogies is Freud founding the discipline of psychoanalysis. He didn't go to college to become a psychiatrist. He was smart enough to develop it by himself. He was even smart enough to know it wasn't the final answer... Ala Einstein... And neither of them had anything previous to 'match up' to...
Einstein was Aspie btw... One who's brain is 'wired differently'. It gave him the ability to see and follow logical paths 'almost' correctly and 'almost' instantaneously. So on that one point alone I would exclude any possibility of s75 being aspie. lol
So not that things are miracles... They just are as they are. As they've always been. The most astounding thing here is that the human race has evolved an amazinging powerful need to self limit. Using a very destructive drive to squash people who, and ideas that, rise above the norm. What Nietzsche called the 'herd instinct'. What I call the 'hive instinct'.
For instance...
QUOTE ( you above.+)
In the context of a physics forum one has to judge the value of any revelatory claim in the light of its ability to (at the very least) match up with experimental results.
That clearly expects even more by the inclusion of 'at the very least'. But a forum is not where one would go if they had everything worked out and proven. Is it..? Wouldn't one go to some academy or official organization to present a paper to the world instead...?
In any case, most new ideas DO match up with not just experimental results, but very established and accepted results too. The 'results' are usually what produce a new idea on how it happens. New considerations of them. Not the other way round. 'At the very least', they do then match up.
So why the antagonism..? The new idea is what it is... People have them all the time. Let them happen. You may even benefit from one or two. The bad ones will die out through 'evolution'.
Mine for instance has been said by others in this thread to yield the exact same results as the method used now. Ah..! So does that mean it 'matches up'..? I think so.
The only change I've suggested is that measurements of velocity be seen as distance traveled in a particular measurement period.., compared to the distance traveled by c in that same measurement period... The results then being a % of c velocity, instead of a 'time' based velocity. The same thing, as proclaimed by all... Right or wrong..?
The current method of using time based measurements is said to be a necessity, a shortcut, a means to an end. And that there is a vast amount of data that supports the use of time in the calculations of the cosmos. Not that it IS the way to go, but that it simply seems to work... For the most part.
Well is doesn't work very well... Over all the 150 years mentioned in the quote, including the inclusion of time, there are many occasions where it does NOT work out. There has been something missing for sure. It wasn't 'time'.., but the knowledge that explains what is *truly* happening out there. That being exactly the same as what's happening in your body and all around us now too. The missing link to the theory of everything.
I've said for years that we're using the wrong math. Going back to at least 2008. So I am suggesting here that we stop fudging the results with the use of time in our calculations. If my method of stating distance and the current method of stating distance both come up with the very same distance.., why not try it..? They obviously 'match up'.
Here's where you get your last paragraph's wishes fulfilled. I'll quote it to make it easier to find and read...
QUOTE ( you above.+)
IMO there should be a requirement to match existing experimental results - others will make the (more stringent) condition that any revelation should exceed the predictions of mainstream physics and predict (correctly) some new phenomenon.
There already are very similar 'requirements'. But I'll forego they seem to have been set up by mainstream physics to protect *against* new phenomenon...
In any case, my predication does 'match up' with both experimental and established and accepted, results for the most part. It only differs where those established results are wrong and my method points that out.
The 'revelation' part as you call it does exceed the predictions of mainstream physics, and does predict correctly (do the math, I think you'll find it works..) a 'new' phenomenon...
Of course there are no new phenomenons... Only those that were previously unknown. Even more correctly and much more profoundly my method lays out with the utmost certainty that the entire current concept of the cosmos will come tumbling down... It think that qualifies as something new, don't you... ?? lol
We know the *physical* distance c will travel in any given measurement period. So time as such is not needed as a factor in any future measurements of velocity. Because it has been admitted to and accepted here that my method of determining an object's percent of c velocity.., as opposed to another's time based velocity would work out to be exactly the same physical speed. That's very cool. Or my predicted 'theory of everything' would blow up right here.
But since my method of measuring distance vs % c does not use the concept of time, time would not, should not, and need not, be carried into further calculations of the cosmos either. Then, with human imagined time removed from our trains of thought, the concept of the cosmos should and will become very much clearer to us all.
Removing time will create disallusion... At 'the very least'. lol It will very naturally remove any possibility of 'stopping' time.., or of travel in it forward or back. Most of all it will eliminate the idea that gravity *slows time*, as in 'time dilation'. Simply because the cosmos will not know it has to do that when we don't tell it to.
There will be other profound 'revelations'. Such as there being no bending or folding of space... No worm holes... No black-hole hologram projections... No unlimited number of multiple universes... It will likely eliminate the big bang theory too.
With gravity induced 'rates of physical change' substituted for gravity induced 'time dilation', we will come to see that the operation of every atom in the universe is simply 'physically' slowed in its operation by gravity. There is an amazing quantity of evidence that this happens... It is simply couched in the wrong terms. That is, time is given the credit when in fact time does not exist... We have eliminated it using our 'exactly the same result' method of measuring velocity.
Looking at the current Geoid, one can see that various areas of earth have been aging faster than other areas. Whether you retain the illusion of time dilation caused by gravity or use my posit... We know the moon, once a part of earth is now very much physically younger than the earth. We will learn that all the objects in the universe are relative to each other in actual *physical* age.., not that a mystical, unseen, imagined area and quantity of 'time' has been slowed down around each of them separately and continuously. Arrghhh... Did I really need to say that..?
It may be found too that measurements requiring very fine line accuracy were taken at the wrong places on earth. The results skewed in either direction by the earth's corresponding amounts of gravity difference. That the actual measuring environment and equipment is physically 'slower' in Australia than it is India.., so a neutrino for instance may be seen to be traveling faster that it should be.
More speculation... As in conversation mode. Just musing. But you might see where it can lead, not using time.., if you want to.
Considering that in nature, spinning stabilizes. Whether it be a top on a table or a galaxy in the cosmos. Spinning happens all the time. Whirlpools develop when there is emptiness for the water to spin towards. A sink drain for instance. Or other matter spinning into the tremendous mass gravity of a black hole. I think there are a few laws of physical dynamics around to help explain how it all works. Or we can just admit that it does from observations made.
When the attraction lessens.., the spin looses it's kinetic energy and goes static. Like lily pads quietly floating on the water after the cave below became filled. The spin dissipates... Sometimes a hole simply becomes too big to spin around. That may be found to be case with a black hole that became so large that the spin slows. When that happened, there would be a period where those objects that had passed the point of no return were be pulled directly into it, and all beyond that point would continue in 'orbit' as it were.
This is seen to be happening now, is it not..? Black holes that have stopped pulling anything in.? Look at any star/planet system in fact. Isn't that how their spinning came to be stabilized.
As for light escaping, I've already speculated here that the gravity of a black hole does not pull light into it, but that it prevents it from being created. After swallowing all those stars, every atom has been smashed, and that is the exhausted energy seen coming from the poles of the holes. The easiest way out for it. Since there is no further ability to produce reactions, etc. no light is able to be produced.
White dwarfs eventually become black dwarfs. Could they not with their tremendous gravity, the beginning of a new black hole.? The reason there are so many of them..?
Most of what I say will/may be found, by NOT using time in the calculations. I am convinced that math model is bad and my thoughts are MHO and much 'speculation' for sure... But I still believe many of my analogies and concepts will be found to hold water when the math is done. And of course when examined using math that is not based on any concept of 'time'... I have stirrings in my gut about other aspects but haven't thought about them enough.
But.., at bottom, there is only one basic fact that needs to be corrected. To see where it takes us... It is that man has introduced time into the cosmos.., and the cosmos is now seen to be as bizarre as man...
But it's never to late to fix things. They did so from the previous dark age... A substantial amount at least.
We need to look at the universe without the forth dimension. Only those where known nature rules... Physical ages and physical rates of change are what truly run the universe. There are be no depressions in time webs to climb out of... Everything will simply be physically not chronologically older or younger than everything else else. That's where the relativity is.
I know some of you won't think that's profound enough to merit checking. Those will be the ones who deserve to lose.
Ciao for now.
Nothing directly to do with physics, but you should read "Oration on the Dignity of Man" (Mirandola 1486) my friend, unless you already have. It's best without the translation.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 24 2012, 02:46 PM)
To use a couple of stylized examples..., Benjamin Franklin, it is said, discovered electricity by simply following up on his perceptions. With obviously no practical knowledge at all. I wouldn't have tried what he did knowing what I know.
Another of my favorite analogies is Freud founding the discipline of psychoanalysis. He didn't go to college to become a psychiatrist. He was smart enough to develop it by himself. He was even smart enough to know it wasn't the final answer... Ala Einstein... And neither of them had anything previous to 'match up' to...
Einstein was Aspie btw... One who's brain is 'wired differently'. It gave him the ability to see and follow logical paths 'almost' correctly and 'almost' instantaneously. So on that one point alone I would exclude any possibility of s75 being aspie. lol
Benjamin Franklin didn't "discover" electricity, as electricity was known prior to 1600. Franklin based his research on work done by Gilbert, von Guericke, etc.. Freud studied under Charcot, who was a neurologist and hypnotist, prior to developing psychoanalysis. And it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.
That's just a very small taste of how inaccurate your assertions tend to be. Thinking that developments in science just spring, fully-formed, into the minds of these men rather than a progressive evolution of prior knowledge.
Another of my favorite analogies is Freud founding the discipline of psychoanalysis. He didn't go to college to become a psychiatrist. He was smart enough to develop it by himself. He was even smart enough to know it wasn't the final answer... Ala Einstein... And neither of them had anything previous to 'match up' to...
Einstein was Aspie btw... One who's brain is 'wired differently'. It gave him the ability to see and follow logical paths 'almost' correctly and 'almost' instantaneously. So on that one point alone I would exclude any possibility of s75 being aspie. lol
Benjamin Franklin didn't "discover" electricity, as electricity was known prior to 1600. Franklin based his research on work done by Gilbert, von Guericke, etc.. Freud studied under Charcot, who was a neurologist and hypnotist, prior to developing psychoanalysis. And it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.
That's just a very small taste of how inaccurate your assertions tend to be. Thinking that developments in science just spring, fully-formed, into the minds of these men rather than a progressive evolution of prior knowledge.
Well that's complete delusional bullshit. I would like to see your equation of motion since you make this claim:
"Mine for instance has been said by others in this thread to yield the exact same results as the method used now. Ah..! So does that mean it 'matches up'..? I think so."
Let's find out if we can derive the following result from your equation of motion?
Derive the natural precession of Mercury's [or any other object orbiting in the weak field] perihelion.
Start with the Schwarzschild metric [geometric units] setting theta at 0.
dTau^2 = (1-2M/r)dt^2 - dr^2/(1-2M/r) - r^2(dphi)^2
Substituting constants of geodesic motion E/m and L/m for dt and dphi
dt = [(E/m)/(1-2M/r)]dTau
dphi = [(L/m)/r^2]dTau
solving for this expression which relates squared values for radial motion (dr/dTau)^2, energy per unit mass (E/m)^2, and the effective potential per unit mass (V/m)^2 = (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2]).
(dr/dTau)^2 = +/- (E/m)^2 - (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2])
Taking some license for the weak field and multiplying through by 1/2 after multiplying out the squared effective potential
1/2(dr/dTau)^2 = 1/2(E/m)^2 - [1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3]
setting (V/m)^2 = U/m
U/m = 1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3
1st derivative
d(U/m)/dr = M/r^2 - (L/m)^2/r^3 + 3M(L/m)^2/r^4
2nd derivative d'2(U/m)/dr'2 = rate of radial oscillation = w^2_r
w^2_r = M(r-6M)/r^3(r-3M]
without writing down details the rate of angular velocity becomes
w^2_phi ~ (dphi/dTau)^2 = M/r^2(r-3M}
Both are really close in the weak field. We could approximate a large value for r and we would have Newton's result M/r^3 for both radial rate of oscillation and rate of angular velocity but we would end up with a wrong answer that GR orbits and Newton orbits are the same.
So here it comes
w^2_phi - w^2_r = 6M^2/r^3(r-3M)
This is the difference so we can find a factor x M/r^3 which closely approximates 6M^2/r^3(r-3M)
That factor is 6M/r
(6M/r)(M/r^3} = 6M^2/r^4
The last step is further license for the weak field taking the root of the factor and doing the approximation
(6M/r)^1/2 ~ 1/26M/r) = 3M/r
So a very close approximation for the rate of orbital precession, in the weak field [our solar system] is 3M/r. You can plug in numbers for and get the right answer.
3M_Sun = 4431m
r_mean Mercury = 5.8x10^10 meters
415.1539069 revolutions in 100 Earth years
360 degrees per year
3600 arcseconds per degree
etc...
See if that matches up. Details please.
"Mine for instance has been said by others in this thread to yield the exact same results as the method used now. Ah..! So does that mean it 'matches up'..? I think so."
Let's find out if we can derive the following result from your equation of motion?
Derive the natural precession of Mercury's [or any other object orbiting in the weak field] perihelion.
Start with the Schwarzschild metric [geometric units] setting theta at 0.
dTau^2 = (1-2M/r)dt^2 - dr^2/(1-2M/r) - r^2(dphi)^2
Substituting constants of geodesic motion E/m and L/m for dt and dphi
dt = [(E/m)/(1-2M/r)]dTau
dphi = [(L/m)/r^2]dTau
solving for this expression which relates squared values for radial motion (dr/dTau)^2, energy per unit mass (E/m)^2, and the effective potential per unit mass (V/m)^2 = (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2]).
(dr/dTau)^2 = +/- (E/m)^2 - (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2])
Taking some license for the weak field and multiplying through by 1/2 after multiplying out the squared effective potential
1/2(dr/dTau)^2 = 1/2(E/m)^2 - [1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3]
setting (V/m)^2 = U/m
U/m = 1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3
1st derivative
d(U/m)/dr = M/r^2 - (L/m)^2/r^3 + 3M(L/m)^2/r^4
2nd derivative d'2(U/m)/dr'2 = rate of radial oscillation = w^2_r
w^2_r = M(r-6M)/r^3(r-3M]
without writing down details the rate of angular velocity becomes
w^2_phi ~ (dphi/dTau)^2 = M/r^2(r-3M}
Both are really close in the weak field. We could approximate a large value for r and we would have Newton's result M/r^3 for both radial rate of oscillation and rate of angular velocity but we would end up with a wrong answer that GR orbits and Newton orbits are the same.
So here it comes
w^2_phi - w^2_r = 6M^2/r^3(r-3M)
This is the difference so we can find a factor x M/r^3 which closely approximates 6M^2/r^3(r-3M)
That factor is 6M/r
(6M/r)(M/r^3} = 6M^2/r^4
The last step is further license for the weak field taking the root of the factor and doing the approximation
(6M/r)^1/2 ~ 1/26M/r) = 3M/r
So a very close approximation for the rate of orbital precession, in the weak field [our solar system] is 3M/r. You can plug in numbers for and get the right answer.
3M_Sun = 4431m
r_mean Mercury = 5.8x10^10 meters
415.1539069 revolutions in 100 Earth years
360 degrees per year
3600 arcseconds per degree
etc...
See if that matches up. Details please.
So we have known d-phi/d-t = +/- 2 pie i divided by h and then x energy x phi.
It's best to just say it instead of using confusing nomenclature and it's easier to write with the tools on this forum...
Then (delta-x)^2 = h-bar x delta t or larger. Yes?
It's best to just say it instead of using confusing nomenclature and it's easier to write with the tools on this forum...
Then (delta-x)^2 = h-bar x delta t or larger. Yes?
and do not forget, in this theory there is no t or delta t.
we need to use the transformation t = cB
where B is a single boundry
I don't like it either, but there is no time t.
where B is a single boundry
I don't like it either, but there is no time t.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 24 2012, 10:02 PM)
.
Hi photo_guy.
It's important to make the distinction between 'experimentalist' discoveries/exploration (Franklin finding that lightning involved electricity, which electricity per se was already known to exist) and 'theoretical' innovation/exploration (Einstein's paradigm-shifting SR/GR, which came totally 'out of the blue' for the prior paradigm 'models').
Cheers.
.
RC..
There may have been a bit of what I was writing for at the time involved in how it came out. The other thread. More philosophical than technically precise. I did in fact grate over the wording as I typed it, it being recalled from another's short description of him, but continued on anyway. I understand electricity was known of before Ben but he is very much remembered breaking new ground by not limiting himself to accepted methods. That was my point.
As for exotic math, I have to say it's mostly beyond me. I am not a physicist and have never worked with calculus... I have trouble with Algebra now. Way back when, I went to far working it out in my head so when it came time for needing paper I was lost. I got more into it in the 80's but it's a distant memory again.
So as for Einstein's paradigm.., mine is probably more 'out of the blue' than his. But I'm still confident it's more correct.
Now I have company coming in less than an hour. Talk again at 7 am est.
Take care.
Hi photo_guy.
It's important to make the distinction between 'experimentalist' discoveries/exploration (Franklin finding that lightning involved electricity, which electricity per se was already known to exist) and 'theoretical' innovation/exploration (Einstein's paradigm-shifting SR/GR, which came totally 'out of the blue' for the prior paradigm 'models').
Cheers.
.
RC..
There may have been a bit of what I was writing for at the time involved in how it came out. The other thread. More philosophical than technically precise. I did in fact grate over the wording as I typed it, it being recalled from another's short description of him, but continued on anyway. I understand electricity was known of before Ben but he is very much remembered breaking new ground by not limiting himself to accepted methods. That was my point.
As for exotic math, I have to say it's mostly beyond me. I am not a physicist and have never worked with calculus... I have trouble with Algebra now.
Way back when, I went to far working it out in my head so when it came time for needing paper I was lost. I got more into it in the 80's but it's a distant memory again. So as for Einstein's paradigm.., mine is probably more 'out of the blue' than his. But I'm still confident it's more correct.
Now I have company coming in less than an hour. Talk again at 7 am est.
Take care.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 24 2012, 10:04 PM)
So we have known d-phi/d-t = +/- 2 pie i divided by h and then x energy x phi.
It's best to just say it instead of using confusing nomenclature and it's easier to write with the tools on this forum...
Then (delta-x)^2 = h-bar x delta t or larger. Yes?
No.
L^2 does not = M L^2 T^-1
Maybe in crackpotville.
It's best to just say it instead of using confusing nomenclature and it's easier to write with the tools on this forum...
Then (delta-x)^2 = h-bar x delta t or larger. Yes?
No.
L^2 does not = M L^2 T^-1
Maybe in crackpotville.
Any math that cannot be understood in a single dimension in physical terms is just another piece of junk.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 24 2012, 11:35 PM)
Any math that cannot be understood in a single dimension in physical terms is just another piece of junk.
I wrote that last post for the photo-guy; otherwise, so you do not agree with the Schrodinger equation? Then what is next?
I wrote that last post for the photo-guy; otherwise, so you do not agree with the Schrodinger equation? Then what is next?
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 24 2012, 11:33 PM)
No.
L^2 does not = M L^2 T^-1
Maybe in crackpotville.
But I want to pursue this math.
I didn't say what you said, I simply used delta-t in the uncertainty relationship in a way that implies uncertainty is partly (mostly) part of our evolution over 700 million years?
I would rather you dispute the math (so far wrong) instead of just saying crank.
L^2 does not = M L^2 T^-1
Maybe in crackpotville.
But I want to pursue this math.
I didn't say what you said, I simply used delta-t in the uncertainty relationship in a way that implies uncertainty is partly (mostly) part of our evolution over 700 million years?
I would rather you dispute the math (so far wrong) instead of just saying crank.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 24 2012, 11:35 PM)
Any math that cannot be understood in a single dimension in physical terms is just another piece of junk.
More meaningless nonsense from you. Dimensional analysis is 2nd chapter high school physics. The single dimension you're referring to is the' nonsense dimension'.
More meaningless nonsense from you. Dimensional analysis is 2nd chapter high school physics. The single dimension you're referring to is the' nonsense dimension'.
how did you put a "t" in the denomitator? Exactly how?
In order to save "time" please restrict objections to mathematical objections; otherwise, everyone may suspect you are an idiot just like the last poor fellow who just said 2 + 2 does not = 4.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 25 2012, 12:02 AM)
how did you put a "t" in the denomitator? Exactly how?
h_bar = Mass * Length ^2 * 1/T [T^-1].
You
dx^2 = h_bar dt
So I should have wrote [since I didn't cancel T/T]
L^2 does not = M L^2
If you use geometric units where mass is expressed as length
L^2 does not = L^3
h_bar = Mass * Length ^2 * 1/T [T^-1].
You
dx^2 = h_bar dt
So I should have wrote [since I didn't cancel T/T]
L^2 does not = M L^2
If you use geometric units where mass is expressed as length
L^2 does not = L^3
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 25 2012, 12:22 AM)
In order to save "time" please restrict objections to mathematical objections; otherwise, everyone may suspect you are an idiot just like the last poor fellow who just said 2 + 2 does not = 4.
You think LL=LLL.
If you don't understand dimensional analysis then I would suggest you don't post equations.
You think LL=LLL.
If you don't understand dimensional analysis then I would suggest you don't post equations.
Bruce,
Thank you.
We need to start with the Schrodinger equation and from there move to the uncertainty principle.
The fact is, right or wrong, I have assumed (arguably) that (delta-x)(delta p) = h-bar or larger.
We are now assuming that the time-part of p-space perhaps may not be real.
Assuming that, is there a problem with the math or just the idea?
Marc
Thank you.
We need to start with the Schrodinger equation and from there move to the uncertainty principle.
The fact is, right or wrong, I have assumed (arguably) that (delta-x)(delta p) = h-bar or larger.
We are now assuming that the time-part of p-space perhaps may not be real.
Assuming that, is there a problem with the math or just the idea?
Marc
Because I have reviewed every aspect of Fourier transformations and every Hamiltonian operator. I see no requirement for time t. Do you?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 24 2012, 05:43 PM)
...in order to 'start from scratch'
Hi norgeboy. I try to make a habit of putting a 'space' between any letter likely to cause problems and any enclosing parentheses. Like.... B ). See? No smiley!
Cheers.
.
Much better! Thanks. The face really destroys any concept of seriousness...
QUOTE (How to recognize pseudoscience+)
The presented ideas almost invariably fail to build on existing scientific knowledge, but attempt to "start from scratch", often by claiming that a well-accepted scientific theory is completely wrong.
RC, I guess you've missed that I thought of Bukh's "pixel universe" in high school, Maxila's "shrinking space" some time after that, and have further developed these original ideas of my own since. After a certain point, any originator who genuinely wishes to make a real contribution must evaluate those ideas against the stark reality and learn how to communicate their ideas in useful ways.
And it is only the hopeless "pseudoscientist" who feels they must discard the valid science they do not understand in favor of "starting from scratch".
And it is only the hopeless "pseudoscientist" who feels they must discard the valid science they do not understand in favor of "starting from scratch".
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 25 2012, 12:45 AM)
Bruce,
Thank you.
We need to start with the Schrodinger equation and from there move to the uncertainty principle.
The fact is, right or wrong, I have assumed (arguably) that (delta-x)(delta p) = h-bar or larger.
We are now assuming that the time-part of p-space perhaps may not be real.
Assuming that, is there a problem with the math or just the idea?
Marc
You can build a model without time. Explore.
Time is natural phenomena not something we made up to make things work as RC intimates. Seems like that would be obvious? GR describes key elements in the evolution of this universe. This isn't the best way to express this but....
The time component of the metric in geometric units
(dTau/dt)^2 = 1-2M/r
2M/r is the metric spacetime curvature component. For this model M represents all the matter in the universe and r the distance to the horizon at the edge of the observable universe. Model M=0. You wind up with a matter less expanding universe described by the Minkowski metric.
(dTau/dt)^2 = 1 After removing everything else 'time' and 'space' remain as the only natural phenomena in this model of the universe.
The uncertainty principle is more than dx*dp = ..... It's also dE*dt = .....
Thank you.
We need to start with the Schrodinger equation and from there move to the uncertainty principle.
The fact is, right or wrong, I have assumed (arguably) that (delta-x)(delta p) = h-bar or larger.
We are now assuming that the time-part of p-space perhaps may not be real.
Assuming that, is there a problem with the math or just the idea?
Marc
You can build a model without time. Explore.
Time is natural phenomena not something we made up to make things work as RC intimates. Seems like that would be obvious? GR describes key elements in the evolution of this universe. This isn't the best way to express this but....
The time component of the metric in geometric units
(dTau/dt)^2 = 1-2M/r
2M/r is the metric spacetime curvature component. For this model M represents all the matter in the universe and r the distance to the horizon at the edge of the observable universe. Model M=0. You wind up with a matter less expanding universe described by the Minkowski metric.
(dTau/dt)^2 = 1 After removing everything else 'time' and 'space' remain as the only natural phenomena in this model of the universe.
The uncertainty principle is more than dx*dp = ..... It's also dE*dt = .....
Really RC? Well you're nice and old, so certainly you've had the opportunity to take these ideas much further yourself. So tell me, what is the major problem with the mechanics of a "pixel universe" that wouldn't allow it to be workable in physics. Since I have, I know that there is only one major problem. Likewise, what would keep the mechanics of a "shrinking space" from being viable?
Here's a hint, they share the same flaw.
Since you claim that "it 'occurred' to ... every kid reading/watching/interested in science and science fiction", you should be able to answer these questions easily. If you can, then you have your answer as to why I would dismiss these ideas.
If you can't then you have your answer as to why I am condescending. People who forward ideas as science, which cannot be evaluated by science are not likely to make much progress.
Funny that the fellow who is working on some secret paper is wanting me to share my own progress. So how about you post a summary of your own work before asking for my own? This is only fair.
"In good faith" you know.
Here's a hint, they share the same flaw.
Since you claim that "it 'occurred' to ... every kid reading/watching/interested in science and science fiction", you should be able to answer these questions easily. If you can, then you have your answer as to why I would dismiss these ideas.
If you can't then you have your answer as to why I am condescending. People who forward ideas as science, which cannot be evaluated by science are not likely to make much progress.
Funny that the fellow who is working on some secret paper is wanting me to share my own progress. So how about you post a summary of your own work before asking for my own? This is only fair.
"In good faith" you know.
RC,
So as usual, you just simply refuse to validate anything you say. Figures. Like you've just said, I won't let some crank bait me into presenting something that is not ready. I criticize others bases solely on accepted and verified science, not on my own ideas, as it is the known science that all physics ideas, including my own, must account to.
You cannot justifiably ask for something you are not willing to provide yourself, hypocrite. And apparently your only answer to being fairly asked to provide what you ask for is "STFU".
So as usual, you just simply refuse to validate anything you say. Figures. Like you've just said, I won't let some crank bait me into presenting something that is not ready. I criticize others bases solely on accepted and verified science, not on my own ideas, as it is the known science that all physics ideas, including my own, must account to.
You cannot justifiably ask for something you are not willing to provide yourself, hypocrite. And apparently your only answer to being fairly asked to provide what you ask for is "STFU".
My (arguable) view is that there is no progress without a theory (guess) and subsequent validation.
Instead of talking about L (automatically incorporates time) when time is the question-as-raised is not productive.
Substituting t = cB (one sec = c x one could help transform the math. For example, (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x ^2.
It's not just a transformation of variables. For example, it leads to the quantum energy 680eV/kg.
One of the hormones older folks "run out of" is thyroxine. Please check it out. Can you find any difference of states less than 680 eV?
There are plenty. And none of them could traverse 680 eV without changing.
Instead of talking about L (automatically incorporates time) when time is the question-as-raised is not productive.
Substituting t = cB (one sec = c x one
could help transform the math. For example, (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x ^2.It's not just a transformation of variables. For example, it leads to the quantum energy 680eV/kg.
One of the hormones older folks "run out of" is thyroxine. Please check it out. Can you find any difference of states less than 680 eV?
There are plenty. And none of them could traverse 680 eV without changing.
I guess I'm not good with keyboards. The yellow face needs to be changed to "B)...
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 26 2012, 12:09 AM)
Hi norgeboy. I try to make a habit of putting a 'space' between any letter likely to cause problems and any enclosing parentheses. Like.... B ). See? No smiley!
Cheers.
.
Much better! Thanks. The face really destroys any concept of seriousness...
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 25 2012, 11:53 PM)
My (arguable) view is that there is no progress without a theory (guess) and subsequent validation.
Instead of talking about L (automatically incorporates time) when time is the question-as-raised is not productive.
Substituting t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) could help transform the math. For example, (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2.
It's not just a transformation of variables. For example, it leads to the quantum energy 680eV/kg.
One of the hormones older folks "run out of" is thyroxine. Please check it out. Can you find any difference of states less than 680 eV?
There are plenty. And none of them could traverse 680 eV without changing.
I am trying, without many member privileges, to say that the transformation
t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) is more than a simple transformation of variables.
e.g. (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2 with the necessary liberty of unit change.
I have tried to edit the prior post and I hope it worked. Thanks.
Instead of talking about L (automatically incorporates time) when time is the question-as-raised is not productive.
Substituting t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) could help transform the math. For example, (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2.
It's not just a transformation of variables. For example, it leads to the quantum energy 680eV/kg.
One of the hormones older folks "run out of" is thyroxine. Please check it out. Can you find any difference of states less than 680 eV?
There are plenty. And none of them could traverse 680 eV without changing.
I am trying, without many member privileges, to say that the transformation
t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) is more than a simple transformation of variables.
e.g. (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2 with the necessary liberty of unit change.
I have tried to edit the prior post and I hope it worked. Thanks.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 25 2012, 05:54 PM)
... in lieu of good faith original scientific discourse.
You are hypocritial to the extreme now that I have challenged YOU to justify all your condescension and 'rote' dismissal of niels own efforts.
It's not about me; it's about you and your treatment of niels and his perspectives/opinions and your BOASTING about your own 'pixel universe' ideas/work that you need to justify yourself for.
So get to it or STFU......and stop clogging up yet another thread with your silliness and troll-ego nonsense.
PS: And if you had bothered to read it when I posted that running-summary of the subforum 'comsology special project' to you in that other thread, you would be now perfectly aware of the starting premise and further thrust of my overarching perspective. So your admonition there is as ill-informed as all the rest of your silliness. You're just a 'rote' troll and ill-informed/unoriginal poser. As self-demonstrated.
You seem to think "original" somehow magically removes the criteria for "scientific". I've already explained to you what "good faith" is in that specific context. I've even tried to encourage a discussion under the honest admission of being philosophical, which would remove the criteria you have trouble with when discussing science. Alas, no takers.
I have, long ago, explained to Niels why his idea is unworkable, and there was nothing "rote" about it. Once again, where is that "due diligence" you harp on about?
"Boasting"?! There's no boast in admitting I once held a poor notion. I don't have any "pixel universe work", as I abandon useless ideas.
"STFU"? Why, because I am simply asking of you the exact same thing that you are asking of me? Double standard hypocrite.
And no, you have never offered anything but very vague descriptions in any of your "work" here. Nothing that you have managed to relate to the real world. And by all means keep up all the crank MO talk about "rote" and "unoriginal".
You are hypocritial to the extreme now that I have challenged YOU to justify all your condescension and 'rote' dismissal of niels own efforts.
It's not about me; it's about you and your treatment of niels and his perspectives/opinions and your BOASTING about your own 'pixel universe' ideas/work that you need to justify yourself for.
So get to it or STFU......and stop clogging up yet another thread with your silliness and troll-ego nonsense.
PS: And if you had bothered to read it when I posted that running-summary of the subforum 'comsology special project' to you in that other thread, you would be now perfectly aware of the starting premise and further thrust of my overarching perspective. So your admonition there is as ill-informed as all the rest of your silliness. You're just a 'rote' troll and ill-informed/unoriginal poser. As self-demonstrated.
You seem to think "original" somehow magically removes the criteria for "scientific". I've already explained to you what "good faith" is in that specific context. I've even tried to encourage a discussion under the honest admission of being philosophical, which would remove the criteria you have trouble with when discussing science. Alas, no takers.
I have, long ago, explained to Niels why his idea is unworkable, and there was nothing "rote" about it. Once again, where is that "due diligence" you harp on about?
"Boasting"?! There's no boast in admitting I once held a poor notion. I don't have any "pixel universe work", as I abandon useless ideas.
"STFU"? Why, because I am simply asking of you the exact same thing that you are asking of me? Double standard hypocrite.
And no, you have never offered anything but very vague descriptions in any of your "work" here. Nothing that you have managed to relate to the real world. And by all means keep up all the crank MO talk about "rote" and "unoriginal".
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 26 2012, 04:22 AM)
I am trying, without many member privileges, to say that the transformation
t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) is more than a simple transformation of variables.
e.g. (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2 with the necessary liberty of unit change.
I have tried to edit the prior post and I hope it worked. Thanks.
norgeboy.
We are both very close to gaining a few more privileges... I've been told we need 50 posts.
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I have the uninterpreted version and I'm half way through it... It's not easy. But it clicks...
It's been a busy day. Here's what I recently sent to a physicist at a local college.
The good Doctor just replied, and said, "... your conjecture is really cool!"... I liked that. lol
Then into the cat and other paradox's which are 'indicating something is just not right'.
Here's what I sent, with some new things too. Especially for new readers... Won't hurt for people to understand.
"
Can you please read this and give me your opinion..? I have been delving into quantum physics for 50 years... I understand relativity to a fairly large extent... But I disagree on the way it's being made to come about.
My simple, reasonable, 'therory'... Easily pictured and understood. Nothing weird. No time travel, folded space, et al.
I need to reitterate a bit at first, just to set up the premise.
1. Gravity.., brought on by mass, inertia, and centrifugal, is all the same force.
2. Gravity, in any of its forms, affects everything that moves. And everything is always moving. Whether they be rocks, clocks, automobiles, space ships, human beings, etc. No matter what speed or direction they are moving. Whether they're travelling through space near the speed of light, or simply going to the corner grocery store. Moving through space btw includes the spaceship earth. As it rotates, circles the sun, moves with the milky way and in at least a dozen
other speeds and directions through the cosmos. Gravity is the overall unifying force. It balances and counter balances... How everything is 'kept in place' as it were.
3 To do so, gravity affects everything, down to at least the atomic level and perhaps lower. So every part of what is affected by a given amount of gravity is affected equally. That force being made up of various forms of gravity applied and working as a whole. So that for example, things like tide waters are not pulled apart into their constituent gases.., or other nasty things that would happen if gravity pulled on things 'unequally'.
4. It is a proven fact that any velocity produces an equivalent 'physical operating rate change' in whatever is so moving. That change being inversely proportional to the physical speed of movement. Things 'run' slower the faster they move through space. Everything being relative to a particular point of view and *its* speed of movement through space.
Geo-sync satellites are travelling much faster than we here on the surface of earth because they have so much more distance to cover in one earth rotation. So the GPS clocks have to be made to run faster than they would here on earth to make up for their slower rate of operation in space. If they weren't so corrected they would produce a constantly accumulating error of about six miles per day when reporting locations here on earth.
Those six miles short of a full orbit's worth of operation.., indicate that the satellite is that percentage of an orbit 'younger' than if it had still been on earth.
It's usual to consider a single point of view as being 'at rest'... But it can easily be understood that 'many' objects moving in various directions at different physical speeds, will each have their own particular 'rate of operation', relative to all others. Everything is relative they say.
5. But to be more precise, everything is relative to just one thing. Man has made it time... But in fact it should be the speed of light. The *fastest* speed that *anything* can travel. It is the benchmark of relativity. The operation of all objects physically slows down the more velocity and other gravity they're experiencing. And if an object ever actually reached the speed of light it's operating characteristics would essentially stop altogether. The clock mechanism would not move its hand to the next second marker, steel would not rust, humans would remain in whatever condition they were in physically, for as long as the speed of light was maintained.
Of course it is impossible for anything to actually reach the speed of light, because the energy required to do so would not be able to be produced. For one, the ships ability to produce energy would become part of what was slowed to a halt. Counter productive to say the least.
Still, there are velocities fast and slow from our pov here on earth. Various amounts of gravity interacting with other sources of gravity. The rate of operation caused by gravity slowing the physical operating characteristics of the objects in question, in varying degrees. Then some say that because gravity affects the operating mechanism of a clock, that 'time' is running slower. But there seem to be a number of people who now doubt that time even exists. I for one.
What I see, simplifies it all. There is no 'time dilation' for those who travel through space for 20 years, in their gravity induced partial suspended animation, to then find on their return that 100 years have elapsed on earth and everyone they knew was dead of old age. Time did not slow down. Considering there is no time to actually 'dilate'. Man's 'measured' time continued as it always has on earth, and at the same rate in space where the ship was travelling.
It's only the spaceship and everything it contains that is affected by its own self produced gravity. That gravity slowing all physical operations on that ship and moving at the same speed. ALL operating characteristics are being slowed by gravity only. Like a steak in a freezer, everything is being kept 'younger' while man's idea of time keeps going on as normal, all around them.
Light still speeds away from its forward pointing headlight at the same speed it would hear on earth. But how could this happen if there really was a slowing of time..? Simply because they are measuring it with on board equipment and their own eyes... Which are operating inversely proportionate to their forward speed. Their forward motion is cancelled out in their perception.., but neither the at rest pov imagined time nor the speed of light are changing at all. The beam is blue shifting as they push into the beam from behind.., but their slower perception of it is red shifting it back to normal. That's pretty obvious, straightforward and logical.., is it not..?
Similarly, everyone in the cosmos would see a flash camera taking a shapshot, all at the exact same instant. But the speeding ship would say less time had elapsed before the flash and then after the flash. They are running slow. Man's measured time is still constant. There is no dilation. There is no real time to dilate.
My idea is that Einstein was wrong. He snookered himself when he started using time in the calculations themselves. Time is a human, imagined, measuring tool but it has been allowed to become a monster. Something from our imagination has become a part of the cosmos in all calculations made on it. Indicating weird stuff such as multiple universes, worm holes, space being folded, time travel, holograms from black holes, and the list goes on...
Many thing space needs time to keep itself together. lol In fact the cosmos just happens... It doesn't need a schedule or our imagined help to run.
In my thinking I replace time with another standard. Light speed.., being the standard c... The speed of the galaxy. Understood as 100 PERCENT of any possible speed in the cosmos. But without 'time' being a factor. Eveything then being relative according to the amount of gravity that is caused by accelleration, mass, and centrifugal force. A direct physical slowing of indiviaul objects traveling at various speeds, as affected by gravities and not time.
Measurements can be made by comparing an objects distance covered against the distance light covers in any identical given instant or duration. Then the moving object would be a certain % of c.
We did measure the speed of light using time, but that's all it was good for. Now we know what light will cover in any measurement duration. Time's job is over, before any calculations are done. Before it can do any damage.
Else one would have to say that a pyramid slows time, and then time slows the mechanics of our watch.., and our heart beat too...
Nah, not with me it doesn't.
It is the direct influence of gravity on the physical operating rates of all matter down to the level of the atom or lower... Time plays no part in the cosmos. Einstein was wrong. So that does away with time travel, folded space, multiple universes, black hole holograms, worm holes, etc... Yea! Not using time will not lead anyone astray.
Can you please tell me what you think about this...?
For all this to happen.., atoms (my choice) may be slowed as they are compressed, as mass increases from the effects of gravity. The exact method is not important. Just understanding that it is right will solve many questions. Just as many believe in the big bang without a good explanation...
Many thanks...
t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) is more than a simple transformation of variables.
e.g. (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2 with the necessary liberty of unit change.
I have tried to edit the prior post and I hope it worked. Thanks.
norgeboy.
We are both very close to gaining a few more privileges... I've been told we need 50 posts.
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I have the uninterpreted version and I'm half way through it... It's not easy. But it clicks...
It's been a busy day. Here's what I recently sent to a physicist at a local college.
The good Doctor just replied, and said, "... your conjecture is really cool!"... I liked that. lol
Then into the cat and other paradox's which are 'indicating something is just not right'.
Here's what I sent, with some new things too. Especially for new readers... Won't hurt for people to understand.
"
Can you please read this and give me your opinion..? I have been delving into quantum physics for 50 years... I understand relativity to a fairly large extent... But I disagree on the way it's being made to come about.
My simple, reasonable, 'therory'... Easily pictured and understood. Nothing weird. No time travel, folded space, et al.
I need to reitterate a bit at first, just to set up the premise.
1. Gravity.., brought on by mass, inertia, and centrifugal, is all the same force.
2. Gravity, in any of its forms, affects everything that moves. And everything is always moving. Whether they be rocks, clocks, automobiles, space ships, human beings, etc. No matter what speed or direction they are moving. Whether they're travelling through space near the speed of light, or simply going to the corner grocery store. Moving through space btw includes the spaceship earth. As it rotates, circles the sun, moves with the milky way and in at least a dozen
other speeds and directions through the cosmos. Gravity is the overall unifying force. It balances and counter balances... How everything is 'kept in place' as it were.
3 To do so, gravity affects everything, down to at least the atomic level and perhaps lower. So every part of what is affected by a given amount of gravity is affected equally. That force being made up of various forms of gravity applied and working as a whole. So that for example, things like tide waters are not pulled apart into their constituent gases.., or other nasty things that would happen if gravity pulled on things 'unequally'.
4. It is a proven fact that any velocity produces an equivalent 'physical operating rate change' in whatever is so moving. That change being inversely proportional to the physical speed of movement. Things 'run' slower the faster they move through space. Everything being relative to a particular point of view and *its* speed of movement through space.
Geo-sync satellites are travelling much faster than we here on the surface of earth because they have so much more distance to cover in one earth rotation. So the GPS clocks have to be made to run faster than they would here on earth to make up for their slower rate of operation in space. If they weren't so corrected they would produce a constantly accumulating error of about six miles per day when reporting locations here on earth.
Those six miles short of a full orbit's worth of operation.., indicate that the satellite is that percentage of an orbit 'younger' than if it had still been on earth.
It's usual to consider a single point of view as being 'at rest'... But it can easily be understood that 'many' objects moving in various directions at different physical speeds, will each have their own particular 'rate of operation', relative to all others. Everything is relative they say.
5. But to be more precise, everything is relative to just one thing. Man has made it time... But in fact it should be the speed of light. The *fastest* speed that *anything* can travel. It is the benchmark of relativity. The operation of all objects physically slows down the more velocity and other gravity they're experiencing. And if an object ever actually reached the speed of light it's operating characteristics would essentially stop altogether. The clock mechanism would not move its hand to the next second marker, steel would not rust, humans would remain in whatever condition they were in physically, for as long as the speed of light was maintained.
Of course it is impossible for anything to actually reach the speed of light, because the energy required to do so would not be able to be produced. For one, the ships ability to produce energy would become part of what was slowed to a halt. Counter productive to say the least.
Still, there are velocities fast and slow from our pov here on earth. Various amounts of gravity interacting with other sources of gravity. The rate of operation caused by gravity slowing the physical operating characteristics of the objects in question, in varying degrees. Then some say that because gravity affects the operating mechanism of a clock, that 'time' is running slower. But there seem to be a number of people who now doubt that time even exists. I for one.
What I see, simplifies it all. There is no 'time dilation' for those who travel through space for 20 years, in their gravity induced partial suspended animation, to then find on their return that 100 years have elapsed on earth and everyone they knew was dead of old age. Time did not slow down. Considering there is no time to actually 'dilate'. Man's 'measured' time continued as it always has on earth, and at the same rate in space where the ship was travelling.
It's only the spaceship and everything it contains that is affected by its own self produced gravity. That gravity slowing all physical operations on that ship and moving at the same speed. ALL operating characteristics are being slowed by gravity only. Like a steak in a freezer, everything is being kept 'younger' while man's idea of time keeps going on as normal, all around them.
Light still speeds away from its forward pointing headlight at the same speed it would hear on earth. But how could this happen if there really was a slowing of time..? Simply because they are measuring it with on board equipment and their own eyes... Which are operating inversely proportionate to their forward speed. Their forward motion is cancelled out in their perception.., but neither the at rest pov imagined time nor the speed of light are changing at all. The beam is blue shifting as they push into the beam from behind.., but their slower perception of it is red shifting it back to normal. That's pretty obvious, straightforward and logical.., is it not..?
Similarly, everyone in the cosmos would see a flash camera taking a shapshot, all at the exact same instant. But the speeding ship would say less time had elapsed before the flash and then after the flash. They are running slow. Man's measured time is still constant. There is no dilation. There is no real time to dilate.
My idea is that Einstein was wrong. He snookered himself when he started using time in the calculations themselves. Time is a human, imagined, measuring tool but it has been allowed to become a monster. Something from our imagination has become a part of the cosmos in all calculations made on it. Indicating weird stuff such as multiple universes, worm holes, space being folded, time travel, holograms from black holes, and the list goes on...
Many thing space needs time to keep itself together. lol In fact the cosmos just happens... It doesn't need a schedule or our imagined help to run.
In my thinking I replace time with another standard. Light speed.., being the standard c... The speed of the galaxy. Understood as 100 PERCENT of any possible speed in the cosmos. But without 'time' being a factor. Eveything then being relative according to the amount of gravity that is caused by accelleration, mass, and centrifugal force. A direct physical slowing of indiviaul objects traveling at various speeds, as affected by gravities and not time.
Measurements can be made by comparing an objects distance covered against the distance light covers in any identical given instant or duration. Then the moving object would be a certain % of c.
We did measure the speed of light using time, but that's all it was good for. Now we know what light will cover in any measurement duration. Time's job is over, before any calculations are done. Before it can do any damage.
Else one would have to say that a pyramid slows time, and then time slows the mechanics of our watch.., and our heart beat too...
Nah, not with me it doesn't.
It is the direct influence of gravity on the physical operating rates of all matter down to the level of the atom or lower... Time plays no part in the cosmos. Einstein was wrong. So that does away with time travel, folded space, multiple universes, black hole holograms, worm holes, etc... Yea! Not using time will not lead anyone astray.
Can you please tell me what you think about this...?
For all this to happen.., atoms (my choice) may be slowed as they are compressed, as mass increases from the effects of gravity. The exact method is not important. Just understanding that it is right will solve many questions. Just as many believe in the big bang without a good explanation...
Many thanks...
It seems those who say time can't be replaced are trying to prove their point using time... I don't need to be a physicist to see t in the equations... Trying to prove a point that time is needed by using time based formulae is obviously putting the cart before the horse.
But they complain if you take t out, they will fall apart. Yes they probably will.
Won't many of them be meaningless...? And now, besides time pointing to a lot of weirdness, 'time' is demanding equal rights?
That's like THGTTG elevator having a vote in the decision making process. lol
And this post is mostly to see what my now 50 posts get me.
But they complain if you take t out, they will fall apart. Yes they probably will.
Won't many of them be meaningless...? And now, besides time pointing to a lot of weirdness, 'time' is demanding equal rights?
That's like THGTTG elevator having a vote in the decision making process. lol
And this post is mostly to see what my now 50 posts get me.
I love analogies. There aren't enough of them. Necessary of course to show 'how' unknowns are similar to things people understand. They're used but not nearly enough. People need to see 'how' unknowns can work before they can build a use for them. That use extending right down to even bothering to think about them.
IMHO, giving up time and the ability to compute the cosmos without the concepts and math that have evolved using it will be tantamount to moving from seeing with our eyes using photons to seeing as a bat with sound. Replacing chronological aging with physical aging will be the way to fly in our 'night'.., the cosmos. We will then see reality, with no reflections or mirages.
p.s.
Fifty posts does get the ability to email and PM.
IMHO, giving up time and the ability to compute the cosmos without the concepts and math that have evolved using it will be tantamount to moving from seeing with our eyes using photons to seeing as a bat with sound. Replacing chronological aging with physical aging will be the way to fly in our 'night'.., the cosmos. We will then see reality, with no reflections or mirages.
p.s.
Fifty posts does get the ability to email and PM.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 26 2012, 02:34 PM)
I love analogies. There aren't enough of them. Necessary of course to show 'how' unknowns are similar to things people understand. They're used but not nearly enough. People need to see 'how' unknowns can work before they can build a use for them. That use extending right down to even bothering to think about them.
IMHO, giving up time and the ability to compute the cosmos without the concepts and math that have evolved using it will be tantamount to moving from seeing with our eyes using photons to seeing as a bat with sound. Replacing chronological aging with physical aging will be the way to fly in our 'night'.., the cosmos. We will then see reality, with no reflections or mirages.
p.s.
Fifty posts does get the ability to email and PM.
You're a complete idiot. You want to throw away the tools of research just because you're intimidated by theoretical logic and mathematical logic. You're making a fool of yourself.
IMHO, giving up time and the ability to compute the cosmos without the concepts and math that have evolved using it will be tantamount to moving from seeing with our eyes using photons to seeing as a bat with sound. Replacing chronological aging with physical aging will be the way to fly in our 'night'.., the cosmos. We will then see reality, with no reflections or mirages.
p.s.
Fifty posts does get the ability to email and PM.
You're a complete idiot. You want to throw away the tools of research just because you're intimidated by theoretical logic and mathematical logic. You're making a fool of yourself.
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 26 2012, 04:22 AM)
I am trying, without many member privileges, to say that the transformation
t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) is more than a simple transformation of variables.
e.g. (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2 with the necessary liberty of unit change.
I have tried to edit the prior post and I hope it worked. Thanks.
I can't figure out what you're trying to do. In geometric units everything is expressed as a length.
The distance light travels per second
ct = t_meters
Or dimensionally
LT/T = L
Are you trying to express time as length?
t = cB (one sec = c x one B ) is more than a simple transformation of variables.
e.g. (sec)^-2 = 1/(c x B )^2 with the necessary liberty of unit change.
I have tried to edit the prior post and I hope it worked. Thanks.
I can't figure out what you're trying to do. In geometric units everything is expressed as a length.
The distance light travels per second
ct = t_meters
Or dimensionally
LT/T = L
Are you trying to express time as length?
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 26 2012, 07:14 PM)
You're a complete idiot. You want to throw away the tools of research just because you're intimidated by theoretical logic and mathematical logic. You're making a fool of yourself.
brucep
You just have nooo imagination...
s75.
You're just trying to bring Einstein down to NT level so you can consider yourself an equal. lol Tell me where you find what you claim. That "it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.". How else could he have done it..?
To all..
I have to explain myself to all on another matter.
Just for the record.. I surmised the beginnings of a black hole a bit ago.., I think here in this thread. Now I read the wiki description of their beginnings and it is eerily similar to what I said. But mine was purely a muse. My word I had not read that or any other current info on 'how' black holes were thought to originate. Black holes or any other heavenly bodyies, with the exceptions of those here on earth, aren't necessarily my thing.
I only try to point out that 'time' does not exist and that we need to look at the cosmos in *very* different way, to truly know all that's going on... Instead of being led astray by confounding, extremely exotic, and chaotic math calculations we need to see it as a system that is simply aging from the effects of gravity. More, or less, gravity in various places producing differing amounts of aging accordingly. Physical aging, not chronological aging.
I have no time for anything else. Even if it did exist.
brucep
You just have nooo imagination...
s75.
You're just trying to bring Einstein down to NT level so you can consider yourself an equal. lol Tell me where you find what you claim. That "it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.". How else could he have done it..?
To all..
I have to explain myself to all on another matter.
Just for the record.. I surmised the beginnings of a black hole a bit ago.., I think here in this thread. Now I read the wiki description of their beginnings and it is eerily similar to what I said. But mine was purely a muse. My word I had not read that or any other current info on 'how' black holes were thought to originate. Black holes or any other heavenly bodyies, with the exceptions of those here on earth, aren't necessarily my thing.
I only try to point out that 'time' does not exist and that we need to look at the cosmos in *very* different way, to truly know all that's going on... Instead of being led astray by confounding, extremely exotic, and chaotic math calculations we need to see it as a system that is simply aging from the effects of gravity. More, or less, gravity in various places producing differing amounts of aging accordingly. Physical aging, not chronological aging.
I have no time for anything else. Even if it did exist.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 26 2012, 02:11 PM)
So just because you have had no success in working around the 'problems' in your version of the pixel universe 'idea' you had, you gave up and assumed that no-one else can do it? No wonder you are so dismissive. Ego much?
The scientific endeavour takes all sorts of approaches and minds which don't just 'give up'. Look at string theory/theorists, even after decades of uncertain progress, have they given up and arrogantly assumed no-one else could possibly make something of it?
I did not give up, and my thorough long term rework 'from scratch' project strategy to 'crack it' made all the difference....and you will soon be reading all about it.
You failed. That's OK. No shame in that....UNLESS you allowed preconclusions to get in the way of your original thinking. That way lies 'failure from scratch' and 'unwitting self-defeat'.
You still don't get it. I don't have a "version of the pixel universe idea". I have moved completely beyond that naive visualization and worked toward a mechanism that has some chance of being found or evaluated in the real world. Any idea that does not describe observable physical phenomena cannot be scientifically evaluated. Period.
No ego involved, just any reasonable person's acceptance of the factual criteria of anything we could hope to call science. The "scientific endeavor" takes the scientific method, and string theory will not be accepted science until it can be backed by evidence. That's why the competing LQG hasn't been written off. There's no evidence, as yet, to overwhelmingly prefer one over the other.
You should really try to differentiate between speculation and verified science. Just because scientists speculate doesn't mean that all science is equally speculative.
I didn't fail at anything. Just like any scientific progress, eliminating dead-ends is just as useful. And I haven't provided you with any details of my "original thinking", so you have no basis to judge. Conversely, what you have exposed of yours has proven to be pure crank nonsense, as it doesn't jive with the real world.
More justifications for your hypocritical behavior. Who said I was "satisfied". I was trying to offer Maxila, in his thread, a real means of describing a physical mechanism for his idea, but you and he wouldn't budge off your philosophical conclusions enough to make any scientific progress.
The scientific endeavour takes all sorts of approaches and minds which don't just 'give up'. Look at string theory/theorists, even after decades of uncertain progress, have they given up and arrogantly assumed no-one else could possibly make something of it?
I did not give up, and my thorough long term rework 'from scratch' project strategy to 'crack it' made all the difference....and you will soon be reading all about it.
You failed. That's OK. No shame in that....UNLESS you allowed preconclusions to get in the way of your original thinking. That way lies 'failure from scratch' and 'unwitting self-defeat'.
You still don't get it. I don't have a "version of the pixel universe idea". I have moved completely beyond that naive visualization and worked toward a mechanism that has some chance of being found or evaluated in the real world. Any idea that does not describe observable physical phenomena cannot be scientifically evaluated. Period.
No ego involved, just any reasonable person's acceptance of the factual criteria of anything we could hope to call science. The "scientific endeavor" takes the scientific method, and string theory will not be accepted science until it can be backed by evidence. That's why the competing LQG hasn't been written off. There's no evidence, as yet, to overwhelmingly prefer one over the other.
You should really try to differentiate between speculation and verified science. Just because scientists speculate doesn't mean that all science is equally speculative.
I didn't fail at anything. Just like any scientific progress, eliminating dead-ends is just as useful. And I haven't provided you with any details of my "original thinking", so you have no basis to judge. Conversely, what you have exposed of yours has proven to be pure crank nonsense, as it doesn't jive with the real world.
QUOTE
With that STFU I was referring only to your preconclusionary arrogant condescension and insults in lieu of actually DISCUSSING and not PONTIFICATING from a 'failed mindset' (obviously resulting from your earlier failure in making your ideas work out. No wonder you 'retreated' to being 'satisfied unquestioningly' with the status quo. And no wonder you now only ever bring 'safe' preconclusions and status quo props' for your wounded ego and eschew courteous open-minded fair-minded respectful input here).
More justifications for your hypocritical behavior. Who said I was "satisfied". I was trying to offer Maxila, in his thread, a real means of describing a physical mechanism for his idea, but you and he wouldn't budge off your philosophical conclusions enough to make any scientific progress.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 26 2012, 02:16 PM)
s75.
You're just trying to bring Einstein down to NT level so you can consider yourself an equal. lol Tell me where you find what you claim. That "it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.". How else could he have done it..?
It's called logic and creativity and genius, not some mental disorder. Attributing these things to some mental disorder is just apologetics, or some insistence that anything other than mediocrity can only be by mental defect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fi...esla_and_Newton
You're just trying to bring Einstein down to NT level so you can consider yourself an equal. lol Tell me where you find what you claim. That "it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.". How else could he have done it..?
It's called logic and creativity and genius, not some mental disorder. Attributing these things to some mental disorder is just apologetics, or some insistence that anything other than mediocrity can only be by mental defect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fi...esla_and_Newton
QUOTE (^+)
The evidence that any one of them had autism "seems very thin at best". Glen Elliott, a psychiatrist at the University of California at San Francisco, is unconvinced that either of the scientists had Asperger syndrome, particularly due to the unreliability of diagnoses based on biographical information. Elliot stated that there are a variety of causes that could explain the behaviour of interest, adding that Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait [stereotypically] uncommon among those with Asperger syndrome.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 26 2012, 08:16 PM)
brucep
You just have nooo imagination...
s75.
You're just trying to bring Einstein down to NT level so you can consider yourself an equal. lol Tell me where you find what you claim. That "it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.". How else could he have done it..?
To all..
I have to explain myself to all on another matter.
Just for the record.. I surmised the beginnings of a black hole a bit ago.., I think here in this thread. Now I read the wiki description of their beginnings and it is eerily similar to what I said. But mine was purely a muse. My word I had not read that or any other current info on 'how' black holes were thought to originate. Black holes or any other heavenly bodyies, with the exceptions of those here on earth, aren't necessarily my thing.
I only try to point out that 'time' does not exist and that we need to look at the cosmos in *very* different way, to truly know all that's going on... Instead of being led astray by confounding, extremely exotic, and chaotic math calculations we need to see it as a system that is simply aging from the effects of gravity. More, or less, gravity in various places producing differing amounts of aging accordingly. Physical aging, not chronological aging.
I have no time for anything else. Even if it did exist.
I have plenty imagination. What you call imagination is bullshit. Meaningless bullshit for you to pretend anything you have to say isn't bullshit.
You just have nooo imagination...
s75.
You're just trying to bring Einstein down to NT level so you can consider yourself an equal. lol Tell me where you find what you claim. That "it's highly speculative whether Einstein, who successfully reconciled Maxwell's equations with mechanics, had AS.". How else could he have done it..?
To all..
I have to explain myself to all on another matter.
Just for the record.. I surmised the beginnings of a black hole a bit ago.., I think here in this thread. Now I read the wiki description of their beginnings and it is eerily similar to what I said. But mine was purely a muse. My word I had not read that or any other current info on 'how' black holes were thought to originate. Black holes or any other heavenly bodyies, with the exceptions of those here on earth, aren't necessarily my thing.
I only try to point out that 'time' does not exist and that we need to look at the cosmos in *very* different way, to truly know all that's going on... Instead of being led astray by confounding, extremely exotic, and chaotic math calculations we need to see it as a system that is simply aging from the effects of gravity. More, or less, gravity in various places producing differing amounts of aging accordingly. Physical aging, not chronological aging.
I have no time for anything else. Even if it did exist.
I have plenty imagination. What you call imagination is bullshit. Meaningless bullshit for you to pretend anything you have to say isn't bullshit.
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.