To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The Natural Theory Of Space Quantum
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

norgeboy
The Natural Theory of Space Quantum 2011


Abstract:

Physical space is shown to be a contiguous growth. Wave mechanics and Newtonian (through Einstein) mechanics can be united in the absence of a time t.


Introduction:

Space is not the existing illusion of our senses; instead, space is quantized and defines itself physically per the (Fibonacci ) infinite sequence:


with seed values


The ratios converge:





Where the “golden ratio”






Fibonacci Space:

Adding to, subtracting from, retracing within, and all physics regarding space quanta are events within at least one quantum and changing only at quantum borders (boundaries) per the natural sequence.

For example, the “speed of light” c (Einstein ) is limited because the particle (photon) does not truly travel through (Newtonian ) time and continuous space.

In fact, the particle travels through contiguous space quanta, one by one.

In the Newtonian sense of velocity through continuous space, there should be no limit to velocity. In quantum space, the analogy to Newtonian velocity is the spatial travel across quantum boundaries. Each boundary crossing is the “same” event for light and its velocity is bounded by c in the “sense” of a time t.

There is no real time t; instead, the “particles” travel only in space from one quantum to an adjacent quantum.

As the “growth” sequence itself, successive quanta are different in “size” by the factor:

φ = 1.618


The illusion of Newtonian time should cause a quantifiable perception of the speed of light c relative to space quanta:



Accept: c is the perceived absolute electromagnetic velocity and measurement velocity as known today.

Assume: physical reality is a transition from one region to the next region in space.

Then: particles with subatomic sizes on the order of space quantum boundaries may not traverse the boundary in the same way our senses perceive the transition. This serves to gauge the boundaries between spatial regions.

And: very spatially large and/or “distant” entities may be misrepresented by our sensual (time) measurements by the factor 1.618 for each spatial boundary from our innate sense and our measurements.

And: we as humans experience only the sensual approximation of Newtonian and Euclidean continuity.



Physical relevance is solely the traverse across spatial quantum boundaries.


A two dimensional visualization of quantum spatial boundaries is suggested by the Fibonacci spiral .







A Five Dimensional View of the Spiral:

Physically, we cannot achieve 2 from 0 and 1. We can only achieve 1 from 0 and 1. Following, we can achieve 2 from the adjacency of 1 and 1. And so on.

Since we live in three dimensions, we can easily see the two dimensional intersection within the Euclidean spiral, i.e. the linearity of the spiral intersects with a maximum of three adjacent two dimensional regions.

Space itself, as we know it, is three dimensional. If we lived in five dimensions, we could easily see the three dimensional intersection of a two-dimensional “spiral” with “five” regions of three dimensional space per the natural sequence.

We do not live in five dimensions; instead, we live in three.

The natural sequence begins with the seed values 0 and 1. Perhaps we could visualize 3 from 5 and 5 from 8. But we cannot visualize 3 from 4 or 8 from 9. Physical relevance is solely the traverse across adjacent natural boundaries.

Wave Mechanics:

Wave mechanic principles (Schrodinger ) show:



and so the approximation

ΔxΔk ≥ O(1).

One result (ramification) is a temporally related uncertainty in measurements.

Wave mechanics mathematically defines observations (perceptions) differing from Newtonian continuity; however, wave mechanics is a physical discipline that utilizes the concept of time t,

e.g. Δk depends on a perceived time t (and mass m)

The mathematical (Fourier ) representations (transformations) are not physically real in the sense of a time t.

Boundary Size:

One possible (sensual) estimation in one dimension of spatial boundary size (between adjacent quantum) could be suggested by:


(Width of boundary)2 = Constant x (Time required sensually for continuity)

(In similar mathematical form to E=mc2.)

Using orders of magnitude 10-27 “sec-cm” suggested by wave mechanics and estimating the “speed” of sensory communication in the range 10-3 sec – 10-6 sec, we would then estimate the magnitude:

b ~ 10-16 to 10-18 meters (for example)


Contiguity of space quantum should be mathematically defined beginning with the natural sequence. That is beyond the scope of this letter.


Intermediate Review:


While we can mathematically achieve 2 from 0 and 1, we cannot physically achieve two from nothing and something.

Each space quantum “experiences” only each of its boundaries.

The juxtaposition of space is physical reality. The sense of time serves to approximate
physical laws and works well within the bounds of our senses.




Indications:

Entropy:


What we call entropy is in fact a “direction” through Fibonacci space that incorporates an increase in “size” throughout the sequence per the “golden” or “natural” ratio φ.

We cannot propel ourselves 10 meters across the Planet Earth’s surface without an “energy” (the units of which are not a real function of “time”) and similarly a subatomic “particle” cannot propel itself across a spatial quantum boundary without energy.

This serves to increase the “energy” in the following quantum by the factor φ and gives rise to the concept of entropy.


Small Particles:


Spatially (relatively) small particles (entities) with enough energy should have no problem traversing the boundary from one quantum to the next as directed by the entropy of space.

Spatially and massively (energetically) small particles may not be able to traverse the boundaries at all.

In that case, such “particles” could be left behind in space and would not entropically move forward. It seems possible such particles could in fact remain “backward” in the entropical sense.


Massive Energy:

For example, a “large energy between” two relatively small “particles” should easily provide a contiguous directional result through the entropic spatial sequence.

Per the natural sequence of space, mass does not bend (warp) space; instead, space is physically real and unalterable directly by mass (matter) and is independent of the sense of time.

Matter is defined by mass and “consumes” and exists in real space, e.g. our sun has a relatively large mass and “uses” a large amount of space as we know it.

The sun follows across all quantum boundaries along with us.


Space Warp:

The bending of space around mass is not physically real in three dimensions; instead, it is a sensation (illusion) from our innate continuous imagination of spatial contiguity.

The alteration (warping) of three dimensional space can take place through (within) five dimensions per the natural sequence, but cannot take place within three or “four” dimensions. The natural sequence is physical, not arithmetical, and five follows directly from three.


Negative entropy:

Negative entropy can only be achieved through five (maybe three) dimensions. Nothing can be achieved through four dimensions.

Intermediate Summary:

Time is not physically real. It is a neurological simulation of continuity from a real spatially contiguous universe.

There is energy and space. There is no time t.

The idea of a physical time t would mean that “time is continuous, directional, has no real dimension except as previously indicated by a clock, was created somehow unknown to anyone, but still has a real physical significance.” This writing holds that view to be unreconcilable.


An Eight Dimensional View:


In Fibonacci space, our 3-dimensional experience intersects with eight separate five dimensional regions at each boundary.

The boundaries are supposed to be relatively small in a spatial (and energetical) sense.

In the entropical sense, an energy compatible with a boundary region could exist “within” a boundary neither moving forward or backward.

In that case, it seems the specific energy may experience one, several, or all of the intersections.

At such an event, the energy (particle) could traverse among three-dimensional regions of our (experiential) Fibonacci space.

Indications:


Least Energetic Level:

In our experience, everything “falls” to the lowest energy state.

An example would be water flowing through a drain from a sink into a pipe through another pipe and into an urban main drain system leading into a waste water retreatment plant.

The water obeys our perceived law of gravity and falls through pipes “heading” and “directionalized” toward the center of the Earth where the water would experience no other energy realtively speaking. If the water could in fact reach Earth’s center of gravity, it would have fallen into a weightless environment as if the water were in orbit and falling “off” the edge of the Earth.

Similarly, chemical states react into the lowest binding energy form until some larger applied energy can change the state.


Lowest Entropic Level:

The lowest entropical level should be “backward” along the path to higher entropy, i.e. a change of direction toward lower entropy.

In the absence of forward entropical (motion) direction, it seems a particle (entity, maybe having a mass) may seek a lower (backward) entropical state, e.g. a particle within a spatial boundary may be able to traverse various boundaries and may “gravitate” downward in the energetical sense in a similar way to the experience in our three dimensional world.


The Square Law Relationship:

The Einstein2 square law relationship E=mc2 is also dealt with in the Schrodinger6 equation and also in many perceived natural forces like sound and gravity.

The Schrodinger equation needs to include “i”, i.e. the square root of negative one.

Similarly, the natural sequence could proceed in a “negative” direction with the seed values 0 and -1 with physical reality being a “square” and with all ratios matching the positive sequence.

But mathematics is a measurement result of physics, not the other way around.


Negative Entropy:

Negative entropy could be mathematically resolved by an “inverse or reverse” sequence, but physically real negative entropy should only be three-dimensionally achieved through the spatial via-ways resulting from intersecting spatial and energetical boundaries.


Intermediate Conclusion:

Space is not subject to our views of arithmetic; instead, space is defined by the natural sequence. Contrary to our sensations, time is not physically real. Time is a good measurement approximation in our macroscopic physical world and “historically” is built into all units of energy, measures, and our perceptions.

Space and energy directionally build the concept of entropy.

The dimensionality following from Fibonacci space also implies boundaries. The boundary dimensions are suggested by quantum (wave) mechanics.

Negative entropy should be achieved by exacting the correct energy. Not the most or least energy; instead, the correct energy corresponding to the spatial boundary.

Dimensional Fibonacci Space Regarding Negative Entropy:

A one dimensional existance and a two dimensional existance would (should) be negative (reverse or backward) from our entropical position, while 5 and 8 dimensions should be entropically positive (forward) from our position in three dimensional Fibonacci space.

Some (intelligently small) life forms (here with us) biologically move (“autonomically think”) in only one or two dimensions from their (cellular and multi-cellular) internal sense.

We neuroligically move (live) in three dimensions after 700 million “years” of evolution and there “remain” one and two dimensional creatures and forms that somehow live here in three dimensions along with us and even within us.

As a crude example, a garden vine is directionally one-dimensional as a growth, but in three dimensions we can see its full expansion in space.

We do not conceptually or spatially live in one or two dimensions; instead, we live in three.

We can easily see (experience) one or two dimensions as with the spiral, but we cannot experience 5 or 8 dimensions from any of 3 or 2 or 1 dimensional space.


An Adjustment to Boundary Size:

From quantum mechanics, the boundary size has been approximated at

b ~ 10-16 - 10-18 meters.

From special relativity,

c is bounded and ~ 109 meters per second.

c is an upper bound. The perceived velocity is bounded in Fibonacci space by the number of boundary crossings in our perceived one second of time t.

Then there are ~ 109 crossings in one perceived second using a Joule measurement system.

From quantum mechanics, we had bounded the (minimum) number of crossings using sensory (neurological) requirements in the range 103 – 106 per perceived second.

A special relativity estimation of the boundary size b:


b2 = constant ÷ (number of boundries experienced in one perceived second)


b2 = (small constant) x 10-30 x 10-9 (again using the constant h from wave maechanics)

b ~ 10-19 – 10-20 meters

Boundary Energy:

Estimating in Fibonacci space without wave mechanics:

Energy per unit mass can be equated to (109)2 Joules for each perceived second. One perceived second corresponds to 109 physical events (boundaries) so there are an implied 1 Joule (appx.) per kilogram per average one-dimensional spatial boundary event.

In that case, one kilogram (103 gram) requires 1 Joule and one microgram (10-6 gram) requires 10-9 Joules as an energy associacted with a single boundary.

For example, a “force” required to propel one gram in one-dimensional space for a perceived 10-9 sec would be calculated from the following:



10-3 Joules = Force(F) x b

Then b = 10-3 ÷ F (meters)

Assuming our perceived force of gravity at Earth’s surface (our experience) and following the general theory of relativity, then:

b ~ 10-3 ÷ (10 meters sec-2 x 10-3 kg) = 10-1 x (10-9)2


And b ~ 10-19 meters.


Review:


The Fibonacci boundary size in one dimension is estimated as:

b ≤ 10-16 – 10-18 meters using wave mechanics and neurological time requirements

b ~ 10-19 – 10-20 meters using special relativity and wave mechanics

b ~ 10-19 meters using only relativity and no wave mechanics


Indications:

Boundaries have Barrier Energies

Some Specific Energies do not move Entropically Forward

There are no Real Functions of Time (t)

There is only Energy lost (left Backward) in the Entropical Transition of Space

The Energies left Entropically behind should have Ramifications for other Energies moving Forward without them

First we understand the Barriers, then we can begin to understand Negative Entropy

Once we understand Negative Entropy, perhaps we could begin to understand Dimensional Forward Entropy

We Probably did not Achieve Three Dimensions without First Achieving One and Two


The Force Fb Relating to Boundary Size:

The force F we used to calculate boundary size applies to the force of gravity between a mass on the Earth’s surface and the Earth itself. That is our experience and corresponds to boundary size b for us here.

The gravity-space force itself is a function of the square of space (r2) and the sum of two masses m1 and m2 in a one dimensional sense.

A lower force of space-gravity, for example on our moon, implies a larger boundary dimension and a larger energy “barrier” than we experience here.

For example, in a different gravitational environment:

1. Since we apparently lose certain internal energies (“age”) at each boundary, those energies could be altered (could become larger) through larger boundaries (barriers) than we experience here.

2. In locations with small Fb and a corresponding large boundary, larger energies should be able to experience spatial intersections that only small energies experience here.

A weightless environment, for example an “orbit around” a large mass should only affect the boundary (barrier) size by the effective radius change regarding the real force Fb.


The Square Law in Higher Dimensions:

For us here, there are fundamental square law forces like sound and gravity.

In 5 dimensions, we should experience “cubed” law forces, and so on.


Indications:

The Nearest Large Boundaries (Biggest Holes) in Space:

The nearest large boundaries to us are at the nearest regions of lowest Fb.

That should be exactly in between the moon and Earth centers of gravity on a Euclidean straight line. Unfortunatley, the line moves continually and “quickly” in 3 dimensions.

The location along the line(s) is easy to calculate and is the simple cancellation points of the two opposing gravitational square law forces. The region is relatively small and traverses in space quickly as we see it, i.e. it “orbits around” the planet.


More Distant Boundaries:

And so the Earth-surface boundary size is 10-19 meters and the boundary b would need to increase in width by the factor 1010 as an order of magnitude approximation to pass a single atom, one-dimensionally speaking.

Since gravity is a square law here, that would imply 105 x this planet’s radius, or 50,000 Earth-diameters.

That is a long way for our technology. It is better to use canceling forces from nearby mass to achieve low Fb.



Conclusions:

Fibonacci space is real. The concept of time is not physically real.

Many measurements innately use time and so do all of our perceptions and especially our language(s).

Energy and space are real. They both grow directionally.

Sometimes, we represent our three-dimensional world with our derived three-dimensional mathematics and we become confused (overwhelmed) and cannot soundly (physically) enter into the sequence of natural growth.

Reconciling the natural sequence should lead to an understanding that cannot be achieved in three dimensions alone.

Reverse and dimensional forward entropy are likely waiting for our own enlightenment.

Technology exists to achieve the nearest broad interesctions.



References:
Bryslon
Hi,

This is most ridiculous of all, reducing time.
And how to you want to unify Einstein with Newton with time reduced?
Have you got a basic glimpse of what time is?
Ameriwannica
I agree with most of this...i think i found only one thing out of all this id question
albert2
universe is "eternally here and now" that is in a continuous change
time is just numerical order of change
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html
photo_guy
While not a physicist I've been delving for 50 years. So here's my contribution to the theory of everything. smile.gif

I agree that we should stop considering 'time' as a force in and of itself. We need to drop it from calculations regarding the cosmos.

That idea goes against the grain I know, but that's what this 'new theorys' section is for, eh? And I'm happy to find others who think similarly... Unfortunately I'm not up on conversational lingo so to be clear I've gone more verbose, in plain english, with a little setup preamble and some 'reiteration' too.

Humans 'imagine' so they've come up with a way to know when to set down for dinner when the food is ready. It's been very helpful for humans to be able to sync in our society. But it's a convenience thing. An illusion built around physical structures. Not really a force in itself that can be measured or managed.

So used to using time in society, it's a difficult concept to accept that everything in the cosmos is just 'happening', at any instant you measure it. That there is no real 'past' or 'future', time dilation, or anything that can be folded or traveled in, connected with those happenings. That there is simply a natural and physical progression of changes going on. Whether it be towards growing, decaying, moving from point A to point B, or what have you. Things just 'happen' caused by forces that 'can' be measured.

Everything in the cosmos 'happens' on it's own. Nothing in the cosmos needs 'time' to do what it has to do. It just does it, using other means.

Everything is constantly at a *point* of change, where every object will be found to be changing at its own particular rate. Everything changes in various degrees relative to everything else. Similar to cutting the side off an apple and the outside face being smaller than the inner face. That is simply the physical 'point' where the change happened. The rate of change (in face sizes) being dependent only on how far out from the core the measurement is done. Which of course has nothing to do with 'time'. Or other slices done at different locations.

Likewise the observed relative age of an object compared to another is not a 'time' difference but a physical difference. The slowing of the mechanics of the basic elements of one object more than another. Similar to putting a steak in the freezer. Life goes on outside the freezer.., and time does not change in the freezer either. But the steak has slowed down. It may think it has traveled through time when it's warmed back up, but in reality it was merely being kept younger physically. The cosmos does something similar., using other means.

The speed of light is thee maximum speed. The speed of the galaxy. Nothing can surpass it. It is a standard we can all rely on. That speed may be 'approached' by electrons and other bits and particles but never exceeded. They being the same bits and particles that make up everything in the cosmos. So we know the faster moving of them will be changing slower, or less, over any given distance travelled. And every physical trait of what they're a part of will then have the same lower rate of change. So it will be less 'used up'. Kept physically younger than what did not move as far or as fast.

I like to use electrons in this posit. Maybe they'll turn out to be something else, even more basic perhaps..? But the idea is here.

I understand most electrons are already traveling as fast as they can, at some speed near c. And usually they will be orbiting a nucleus while helping to make up a particular atom.

When that atom moves from point A to point B, an electron in orbit around it has a longer path to travel than if the atom had stayed at rest. Since electrons can't speed up to make up for that extra distance, they will take longer to orbit the moving atom. Orbits in line with the direction of travel will do moving elliptical orbits.., and those perpendicular will follow along in a spiral. Both will simply be keeping up with the nucleus which is traveling in a straight line. But the orbits in both cases will show the same extra distance traveled to complete each orbit.

So if the electron's orbit takes longer it will naturally and physically slow down that atom's 'operating cycle'. All that it's supposed to be doing as its normal function. Being part of molecules, etc. That slowness would then be in those molecules and on up to whatever structures they were a part of.., such as humans and spaceships.

Therefore, seen from a rest state.., such a traveling ship would take longer to rust.., the clock would take longer to move to the next second marker, as the GPS satellite clocks do. And of course for the passengers to grow older.

So.., with everything being equal, the speed of light is like the finish line on a race track. But during the race that finish line is constantly moving further and further away from the horses running towards it. And with their various speeds, each horse will be dropping back from the finish line by different amounts. All the horses will be spaced out on the track and their distances from each other will become longer and longer. That lengthening being their relative 'physical ages'.

It follows that if an atom were travelling at the speed of light, its electrons would be racing in a straight line alongside or behind, trying to get around the nucleus. But they wouldn't be able to. Some say this is stopping 'time'. But for those particular atoms it would only be the equivalent of having their individual functions stopped... Like being cryogenically frozen solid. Except for some freezer burn, nothing changes.

But that's not time dilation nor time travel. Because there is no time to dilate. Just an illusion caused by the various rates or speeds that an object's basic elements work at. Each variation brought on by it's particular velocity, and gravity.

Calculations need to be done on what is real. Distance is real. It can replace all calculations that use time.

The distance a bit or object travels in a particular measurement can be compared to the distance light traveles in that same interval. The measured objects would then have a speed of perhaps .9999999 c to 0 c. Units of distance can be substituted for units of time. Parsecs instead of light years.., etc.

'Velocity' needs no distance vs time definition at all. Light speed is the maximum speed. The speed of the universe. It is 100% velocity. It goes *fast* and it *can't* be slowed. No matter how fast you're travelling.

So doesn't that *prove* it..? It does to me.

Velocity brings on inertia which is gravity by another name. Gravity therefore seems to be thee cause of the various rates of physical 'slowerness' in everything that moves in the cosmos.

For one to say that gravity does NOT affect electrons, they must argue that velocity over distance (inertia) is not gravity. And also explain how an electron's orbit would NOT be made longer by the distance the atom travels. Or how the electron would be able to make up for it otherwise. Not to mention what keeps the electrons circling their nucleus in the first place. Gravity..! Or not...??

We also consider gravity of nearby large objects. Such as the moon causing the tides. What basic part of water is being pulled on.? If not thee most elemental parts of both hydrogen and oxygen, would it not pull one more than the other? And perhaps turn the water into it's constituent gases..? But not. So it seems the moon's gravity is pulling on both kinds of atoms equally.

It may be pulling only the nuclei, only the electrons, or both. Any of which will add distance to an electron's path around its nucleus. But I tend to go with just the electrons being affected.

Accelleration is inertia, and is the gravity that counters the gravity of the nucleus. It follows that the electron's path would be further distended by the gravity of the earth in one direction as well as the moon in the other. An electrons orbit could be made to look quite wobbly in fact.

Going beyond slowing down atomic functions and differences in the rates of physical change.

Atoms have a positive charge when they're short of electrons. Negative when they have too many. What then if the atom is in balance with the correct number of electrons but because of velocity they're more 'distant' from the nuclei than they 'should' be. Electrons with distended orbits are more distant so one should expect to see a slight positive charge on ALL atoms. That all atoms would have an 'offset' in the positive direction. Negative atoms as well. They being less negative than they would be otherwise.

To go further, do we have a cosmos full of slightly more positive than negative atoms trying to repel from each other..? Except for those who have lumped up by coincidental collisions, etc., which slows down their velocity and so reduces their positive offset. Being 'captured' they become part of a larger mass gravity object which overpowers their their individual, weakened, repulsion tendancy.

There's more on how atoms may be both dark energy in a free near c state, and dark matter in the captured state.

That where they were wisping closer in the cosmos there were more collisions for them to be 'captured'. That being the 'web' or structure that galaxies seem to have formed on.

All this is over my head as far as the exact properties of an atom, etc... I understand that electrons are now considered to be some kind of blur but they apparently 'work' the same. In any case, I'll leave the details to anyone who cares.

My contention is that time should be replaced in calculations of the cosmos. Can someone say why it cannot.? Disregarding of course that it's needed to support all the current speculations I've been hearing in the last couple of years. That's putting the cart before the horse.


Btw.., can someone tell me why I cannot PM or email others here..? Is it because I am a newbie? I've asked the site support but no response. Thanks.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 10 2012, 12:39 PM)
I agree that we should stop considering 'time' as a force in and of itself.  We need to drop it from calculations regarding the cosmos.

Since when is time a "force"?! blink.gif

F = ma
a = dv/dt
F = m(dv/dt)
Bryslon
Hi,

I can say that ideas of reducing / replacing fundamentals like time, doesn't make sense, because whatever you gonna name it, it will be always there.
Have a look on standard model and see how much complexility its there.
It's no less and no more, and time is just right, there is one photon there and what do you think Photon will look like with time stripped? Will it be jumping?
niels
QUOTE (Bryslon+Jan 10 2012, 08:58 PM)
Hi,

I can say that ideas of reducing / replacing fundamentals like time, doesn't make sense, because whatever you gonna name it, it will be always there.
Have a look on standard model and see how much complexility its there.
It's no less and no more, and time is just right, there is one photon there and what do you think Photon will look like with time stripped? Will it be jumping?

IMO time cannot be reduced like a force, because time is belomging to a measuring system, which means that time is being involved when an observation is being made.

An observation involve human mind, and perhaps it is useful to see human mind as a kind of analog system, something that translate Universe (noumenal world) into what we humans refer to as our real physical world, the world that is perceived by our physical senses and presented to the human mind as this vivid and strong impression of a dynamically changing 3D reality with noises / smells / gravitational feel / trembling / light vision etc etc. Mathematics and physics can be seen as a digital system, where our mind switches into a caculating measuring mode / trying to get best fit between analog and digital mode, respectively.

I am a bit confused about Synthsin / in this thread questioning that time is a force and in another thread fighting for the view that time is necessary for change to happen. It would seem that this inconsistency is because of mixing noumenal and phenomenal world uncritically.
photo_guy
synthsin75

I agree is isn't a force... I called it force for lack of a better word. I could have said entity, concept, confusion factor, etc. Since I don't believe it belongs in any category.

Bryslon

If time wasn't included in calculations by the person doing the calculating, it wouldn't be a factor in any of them.

It especially couldn't lead to ideas of folding the 'space/time' continuum, 'time dilation', etc. One cannot dilate something that does not exist. I know those ideas are fun to think about but it seems to me they're really leading everyone astray. What's the problem with NOT using time in the calculations....? People should try it. They might like it. smile.gif

Use real measurements such as speed relative to c... Where c is NOT 300,000,000 meters/sec. but simply the Max..! 100% Velocity... Everything else being something slower. Everything becomes much clearer when time is left out of the thinking and, as I have done, come to see everything as operating at different rates of physical speed only. The speed of their constituent atoms... It all makes sense. At least in my humble opinion... smile.gif

And yes, if you look at the photon without time, it would still be doing its thing. It doesn't need time to do what it has to do at any instant... Humans are the only ones seeing it as 'time' when it moves in their models, so they feel they need to attach a time frame to it. In fact the models were surely designed with the concept of time in mind in the first place. But the photon is only doing at any instant what is to be done. It's not planning or remembering or understanding at all what it is doing. Much less needing 'time' to help it along.

It seems human's have introduced the element of time to make the cosmos compatible with their own brains. But the cosmos has no brain. It works with gravity in it's various forms and a few other 'results', etc... Pressure, Action/Reaction, etc. And it is for all intents and purposes eternity. To introduce time when calculating the cosmos brings on visions of divide by zero. lol


And can someone let me in on what it takes to PM another member..? When I try to PM or email I'm told that I don't have permission. Thanks

synthsin75
Without a physical sequence and timing of events there would be no causation.
norgeboy
Our experience with "free thought" and "new thought" is that forums and journals are pre-disposed to "ban" it. Especially in the US.

In that event, we would prefer to continue discussion through mevking1@gmail.com instead of losing communication through the thread.

Thank you.

photo_guy
QUOTE (niels+Jan 10 2012, 10:41 PM)
IMO time cannot be reduced like a force, because time is belonging to a measuring system, which means that time is being involved when an observation is being made.

An observation involve human mind, and perhaps it is useful to see human mind as a kind of analog system, something that translate Universe (noumenal world) into what we humans refer to as our real physical world, the world that is perceived by our physical senses and presented to the human mind as this vivid and strong impression of a dynamically changing 3D reality with noises / smells / gravitational feel / trembling / light vision etc etc. Mathematics and physics can be seen as a digital system, where our mind switches into a calculating measuring mode / trying to get best fit between analog and digital mode, respectively.

I am a bit confused about Synthsin / in this thread questioning that time is a force and in another thread fighting for the view that time is necessary for change to happen. It would seem that this inconsistency is because of mixing noumenal and phenomenal world uncritically.



I understand time is a measurement system... And I did mention time being used to assist with the human mind's ability to perceive things, as you've suggested... In fact I'm probably able to understand any of the arguments made as to why it's being used... But the real problem is that we've let it get out of hand. We've turned a convenient way of measuring into a monster... We have transformed our measurement system into part of the cosmos itself. We call it space/time...

I have a human mind too.., and can see how things simply work at various 'speeds' without an idea of 'time'.., dilation or otherwise. IOW.., that a snapshot of the universe will record everything 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 'relativistic' clock may show that less time has elapsed before and then after that snapshot than observations made from a slower rate of change pov would record. That's a pretty good indication that time really isn't a factor, is it not..?

Everything in the cosmos is under a relativistic slowness to some degree or another. Distances, speed (inertia) and the strength of mass gravity affecting us at any particular time are the only things that determine our position in the never ending horse race. So we really don't need to inject time into calculations too. At any measuring point you will see something different, that's all. We're watching a movie where each frame gives a measurement, but the film knows nothing of time.

??



photo_guy
norgeboy...

Unfortunately I've seen it elsewhere... Hopefully not here...

In any case, thanks for the add..., and mine is febaker@olm1.com..
For anyone who might care to continue this off-line if necessary.





Robittybob1
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 11 2012, 01:05 AM)
norgeboy...

Unfortunately I've seen it elsewhere... Hopefully not here...

In any case, thanks for the add..., and mine is febaker@olm1.com..
For anyone who might care to continue this off-line if necessary.

You'll be right as rain on here for there are no mods at the moment.
photo_guy
Causation would not be eliminated by not using the concept of time.

For instance, velocity = distance/time can be replaced with Velocity = % c... Whether it's a particle or a planet.

With c being the speed of light, the maximum speed of the universe.

And % c determined by comparing an object's distance covered to light's distance covered in the same interval.

Without using time... Roughly, if light covers 300,000,000 meters in the same interval that an object covers 3 meters.., we know the object's velocity is .00000001 c. Just stop thinking relative time differences and switch to gravity induced 'physical aging' differences. That being the relative speed at which an object 'functions'. Which is inversely proportional to it's physical speed (inertia) and other gravitational influences. Use parsecs and other distance measurements instead of meters/sec, light-years, etc.

It might not be as convienient as using time, but instead of all its inherent confusion, folding of the space time continuum and so on.., one should come to see how everything is relative in their individual constantly changing 'physical' age differences, not time differences. Time does not change even though physical manifestations make it appear so. Not to mention that it doesn't exist in the first place. So the biggest benefit will be that there won't be any folding going on.

It then stands to reason that in it's stead will be other, significantly more correct, outlooks on the operation of the cosmos. Relativity relates to the rate of physical growth and degredation. Not man's imagined 'time'.

It's hard to express my thoughts in writing and I know my examples are super simplistic. While the speeds, distances, and other aspects of the cosmos are staggering to say the least. But it's all the same math.

And since I'm not so up on calc., it would be nice if someone could show some current relativity calculation using its 'time' based formula.., compared to the same using a velocity (inertia) = 'slowness' based counter part. See where it takes you.

There's a lot more to it of course. I can't even imagine how difficult some of the rethinking would be about, much less done. Just considering that all the electrons that make up a GPS satellite have their orbits lengthened, and functioning slowed, by gravitational pulls from several directions. Inertia, centrifugal force, the moon, earth, and more. All at once.

But I'm sure these various pulls can eventually be separately measured and quantified. I envision an atom's cloud of electrons simulated on a monitor showing gravity induced bulges all over it's surface. And they named for their source. With each bulge's extra length measured against had it not been there.., to indicate how much 'slowness' each pull imparts to the atoms they make up. Where it would take us is anyone's guess. smile.gif

But whatever and however.., it will certainly be better to use only what's absolutely known and physically measurable to arrive at a truer understanding of the cosmos.

IMHO...
Matador
Hi photo guy



I was hoping i could join in this discussion as i need a few things cleared up from people that are expert in the field such as yourself.

QUOTE
Causation would not be eliminated by not using the concept of time.

For instance, velocity = distance/time can be replaced with Velocity = % c... Whether it's a particle or a planet.

With c being the speed of light, the maximum speed of the universe.

And % c determined by comparing an object's distance covered to light's distance covered in the same interval.




Does that also suggest that the invariance from the time interval (when s<1) could cause fringe bands appearing in the causation continuum?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Causation would not be eliminated by not using the concept of time.

For instance, velocity = distance/time can be replaced with Velocity = % c... Whether it's a particle or a planet.

With c being the speed of light, the maximum speed of the universe.

And % c determined by comparing an object's distance covered to light's distance covered in the same interval.




Does that also suggest that the invariance from the time interval (when s<1) could cause fringe bands appearing in the causation continuum?

Without using time... Roughly, if light covers 300,000,000 meters in the same interval that an object covers 3 meters.., we know the object's velocity is .00000001 c. Just stop thinking relative time differences and switch to gravity induced 'physical aging' differences. That being the relative speed at which an object 'functions'. Which is inversely proportional to it's physical speed (inertia) and other gravitational influences. Use parsecs and other distance measurements instead of meters/sec, light-years, etc.



Conversly, at t<1 s>1 and so forth etc will these 'physical aging' differences be a sequence of its own 'functions' BUT inversely proportional?


QUOTE
It might not be as convienient as using time, but instead of all its inherent confusion, folding of the space time continuum and so on.., one should come to see how everything is relative in their individual constantly changing 'physical' age differences, not time differences. Time does not change even though physical manifestations make it appear so. Not to mention that it doesn't exist in the first place. So the biggest benefit will be that there won't be any folding going on.

It then stands to reason that in it's stead will be other, significantly more correct, outlooks on the operation of the cosmos. Relativity relates to the rate of physical growth and degredation. Not man's imagined 'time'.

It's hard to express my thoughts in writing and I know my examples are super simplistic. While the speeds, distances, and other aspects of the cosmos are staggering to say the least. But it's all the same math.

And since I'm not so up on calc., it would be nice if someone could show some current relativity calculation using its 'time' based formula.., compared to the same using a velocity (inertia) = 'slowness' based counter part. See where it takes you.

There's a lot more to it of course. I can't even imagine how difficult some of the rethinking would be about, much less done. Just considering that all the electrons that make up a GPS satellite have their orbits lengthened, and functioning slowed, by gravitational pulls from several directions. Inertia, centrifugal force, the moon, earth, and more. All at once.


Ok, ive sent your request to Belloni, Alberto abelloni@mail.cern.ch


We should hear from him soon.




Stay in touch. Im working on something BIG







smile.gif
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 11 2012, 10:23 AM)
Causation would not be eliminated by not using the concept of time.

For instance, velocity = distance/time can be replaced with Velocity = % c... Whether it's a particle or a planet.

With c being the speed of light, the maximum speed of the universe.

c = d/t

It's still a speed and still requires time. Just because you cannot see the time when writing c doesn't change that c means a specific d/t.
Matador
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 12 2012, 06:54 AM)
c = d/t

It's still a speed and still requires time. Just because you cannot see the time when writing c doesn't change that c means a specific d/t.

dont ignore my postulated limit
photo_guy
Matador

Good to have your input. smile.gif

Well.., first of all you're using conversational terminology which I've already said I'm not up on. But I'll do my best. smile.gif

Question 1.

If fringe bands relate to the 2 slits and coherent light mixing, then it's n/a.
If fringe bands mean various rock groups then it's also n/a.
And I guess I'll say n/a in any case...
You relate to the 'invariance' from the time interval. If I'm understanding you correctly the time interval is variable so there can be no invariance.


Question 2.

One thing I might have said better... Instead of 'switch to gravity induced physical aging differences', which indicates a continuing 'time' related process, would have been 'switch to gravity induced slowing of function differences'. Iow where gravity slows the physical mechanics of those clocks more or less than the observer's clocks... Such as happens with GPS clocks for instance. Their physical operations are physically slower, from at least the atomic level... Not bought about by time dilation.

And you did just remind me that I've neglected to mention that I'm referring to everything from the pov of the observer being at rest on earth. A pov from our moon, which I hear did split from the earth at some time in the past.., would now see the earth as being much older than itself. Which of course it would physically be. Not time wise.

And that second question included a time factor. Which to me already makes it sort of moot.


One thing I'd like to ask is that if you send any request to Alberto Belloni, that you send my entire posit. All my posts so it can be more fully understood.

And if you can redo your questions in plainer, less physicist, wording, I might do better at answering them too.

Thanks.

Matador
Thank you photo-guy for clearing that up.

I have emailed the whole thread to alberto belloni.





It is difficult to use 'plain' wording at times, as the exact meaning needs to be conveyed in a way so that both parties intepret it as the same thing. This is where symbolism (mathematics) will help a lot.

When i postulate 'fringe bands' at s >1 i mean the warping of the space-time continuum to give a flat boundry less plane in Minkowsky space.


Hope that helps.
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 11 2012, 08:54 PM)
c = d/t

It's still a speed and still requires time. Just because you cannot see the time when writing c doesn't change that c means a specific d/t.


synthsin75

I have to back up a bit... Sorry, but it's another case of thinking everyone knew what I was thinking..., as with the pov.

Ok so we KNOW the speed of light. 300,000,000/sec. But that's not the way to go.

The speed of light has been determined, albeit using time to measure.., but now we have standards of distance, that it travels in particular 'instances'. Those we can use to produce % c for the measured object's speed. That's to keep time OUT of the actual calculations. Percents are good enough to relate the relative physical operating rates that happen within any given instance.

We know the distances light travels in various instances. Use the one most appropriate or make others, more usable for the purpose.

A parsec is one such instance. Light speed for 19 trillion miles. And the 'instant' is 3.26 years... Coincidentally of course. wink.gif So something that travels only 10 trillion miles in that instance will be a bit more than .526 % c.

Accelleration is gravity. Acceleration is slowing everything, at the atomic level at least. The only thing that can slow atoms is acceleration.., or other types of gravity. By causing the lengthening of the distances of their electron orbits. Which slows the atom's 'clock'. Changing rates of velocity can be graphed to show changing rates of slowness produced. Slowness that keeps the atoms 'younger'.

I understand this is mind boggling... At least to my mind. And more so if it's true. lol Maybe I need to be committed but I hope people out there can see where I'm coming from. Because I really believe that including time as a factor in calculations of the universe is causing a major loss of reality. It clear to 'me' that the current time related math is going nowhere. Close but no cigar.

One needs to see the cosmos as a relationship of all the bodies in it, each running their own 'physical' operating cycle. Their current age if you will.., relative to each other. Each bodies operating rate constantly changing, depending on how fast the body is traveling, what other bodies it comes close to, what types of gravity are effecting them... A planet's mass gravity will be countered by centrifugal gravity. No rate change except for what's caused by inertia gravity.

We have a bunch of people randomly placed and moving about in a room... Each one is 'aging' at different rates as they come closer to others, walk faster than those sitting or walking slower, etc. Their watches will show relative differences in time because they are a part of the person. They'll see others aging or themselves becoming older... But the room's time will not change.

And it will not fold up.

I hope I got this right...

Cause I've added my sig. smile.gif
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 12 2012, 01:54 PM)
The speed of light has been determined, albeit using time to measure.., but now we have standards of distance, that it travels in particular 'instances'. Those we can use to produce % c for the measured object's speed. That's to keep time OUT of the actual calculations. Percents are good enough to relate the relative physical operating rates that happen within any given instance.

We know the distances light travels in various instances. Use the one most appropriate or make others, more usable for the purpose.

A parsec is one such instance. Light speed for 19 trillion miles. And the 'instant' is 3.26 years... Coincidentally of course. wink.gif So something that travels only 10 trillion miles in that instance will be a bit more than .526 % c.

Multiple "instances" are a duration, just as your 3.26 years example. You can try to hide the time all you like, but it's always still there.
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 12 2012, 08:11 PM)
Multiple "instances" are a duration, just as your 3.26 years example. You can try to hide the time all you like, but it's always still there.


But my point is that it really doesn't matter how the speed of light was determined. Things will be fine as long as time is not used as a factor in the actual calculations relating to the cosmos. I've cut time out of the picture before any of that begins by referring to the speed of light as simply c. But not c=d/t. It's just the max.., 100%.., of 'possible' speed, that everything is compared to. Time happened to work in our minds to the extent that we found light can travel 19 trillion miles in a known.., but still arbitrary instant.

The 'actual' instant being determining only by what's necessary to see the measured object move all the way from point A to point B. Then the extrapolation takes place to determine it's % of c, compared to c's distance in that same instant. Time as such is really not a part of it. I'm calling the period between A and B an 'instant' to avoid it being likened to sequential and on-going time we use in society.

I don't think 't' should be a factor in any quantum calculation. The symbol should be struck from quantum physics. lol Bold statement, eh? But that's my theory.

That the relative differences between atomic and therefore every objects 'operating rate' be represented by percentage.., determined by their gravity affected orbit times, compared to a standard model. The standard having it's electron cloud a perfect sphere.

Actually I'm sure there wouldn't be any direct replacement in the calculations. The whole thing would have to be redone in whatever direction the previous 'no time' calculations had pointed.

It may not be fun but I think it would give us what's more real . Time only 'sounds' reasonable for explaining the effect. 'Time dilation'... When it's only velocity gravity causing extra length to be added to the orbits of the atoms. It's a matter of geometry., and really a 'physical' thing, that makes the atoms run slower. I just think we need to treat it as such.

??
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 12 2012, 04:02 PM)

But my point is that it really doesn't matter how the speed of light was determined. Things will be fine as long as time is not used as a factor in the actual calculations relating to the cosmos. I've cut time out of the picture before any of that begins by referring to the speed of light as simply c. But not c=d/t. It's just the max.., 100%.., of 'possible' speed, that everything is compared to.

Complete nonsense as c, whether as percent or not, loses all meaning without time because no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise, c=d/t. That is the definition of c.
Matador
Conversely,


E = mc^2



so that



c^2 = E/m



Lets think about this for a minute wink.gif
norgeboy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 11 2012, 12:36 AM)
Without a physical sequence and timing of events there would be no causation.

Thank you regarding causation.

This theory embraces causation but in a different way.

In theory, boundaries/small regions define cause from sequential to subsequent and move forward with no known reverse gear.

Without "time" everything is a real result of energy and space.

Continuing to use our mathematics in more intricate ways could serve to draw our attention away from physics. Mathematics is a "pure" science meaning it does not necessarily reflect physical reality.

We can put our math to better use without the perception of time continuity.

It is possible that nothing is in fact continuous.
Matador
Hi Norgeboy!


It is a pleasure to meet and chat to you. Also, a big

WELCOME TO THE FORUM!



Im Scott Walter, and my e-mail is dongylimited@live.com


Please we can discuss this further, and as i have a large amount of work that is relative to this, im hoping we can exchange information in this manner.


Oops, have to run, but i will check in here quite often
synthsin75
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 12 2012, 06:10 PM)
In theory, boundaries/small regions define cause from sequential to subsequent and move forward with no known reverse gear.

Without "time" everything is a real result of energy and space.

This is scientifically meaningless.
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 13 2012, 01:46 AM)
This is scientifically meaningless.


But how. What part of it can be disputed. There may be something smaller than the atoms and electrons that I've used to base it on.., but the concept remains the same.



Maxila
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 10 2012, 06:27 PM)
And can someone let me in on what it takes to PM another member..? When I try to PM or email I'm told that I don't have permission. Thanks

Hi:

Last I knew, you needed 50 posts to be a member and that opens options like PM's, adding links to your post's , etc. I'm not sure if there is also a minimum time period to be a member in addition to 50 posts.

Maxila
Maxila
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 7 2012, 08:08 PM)
Space is not subject to our views of arithmetic; instead, space is defined by the natural sequence. Contrary to our sensations, time is not physically real. Time is a good measurement approximation in our macroscopic physical world and “historically” is built into all units of energy, measures, and our perceptions.


Hi:

I posted some thoughts on this forum (not a theory), that I was asking others to help me examine. That are in agreement with the quoted reference, and provide a simple empirical explanation for the relativistic evidence on time.

Perhaps you can add your insights in helping me examine them? Here is the thread link if you can look at it http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=30220

Maxila
photo_guy
QUOTE (Maxila+Jan 13 2012, 06:47 PM)
Hi:

Last I knew, you needed 50 posts to be a member and that opens options like PM's, adding links to your post's , etc. I'm not sure if there is also a minimum time period to be a member in addition to 50 posts.

Maxila


Maxila... Many thanks for the info. I hope it's on automatic whatever it is. I figured maybe an admin ok was needed, but with no admin responding I felt a little lost. smile.gif
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 13 2012, 12:20 PM)

But how.  What part of it can be disputed.    There may be something smaller than the atoms and electrons that I've used to base it on.., but the concept remains the same.

It's scientifically meaningless because it doesn't define any terms nor a working, practical relationship between those terms. It's just too vague to qualify. It doesn't even come up to the level of making any claim at all. No one can dispute something which doesn't even make any solid claim.

That's how cranks make their "ideas" impervious to criticism.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 13 2012, 08:13 PM)
It's scientifically meaningless because it doesn't define any terms nor a working, practical relationship between those terms. It's just too vague to qualify. It doesn't even come up to the level of making any claim at all. No one can dispute something which doesn't even make any solid claim.

That's how cranks make their "ideas" impervious to criticism.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706


synthsin75

I'm certainly not a crank. Just seeing that things aren't working as they should be with the concept of time involved. Talking about time travel, multiple us's, or that everything is a hologram projections from black holes. Gad, talk about unproven hypotheses that are being accepted as possible.

My 'claim' is that time does not exist in space. And that it does not contribute in any way to the operation of space functions. I thought that was very clear.

Mine is actually a well thought out concept of physical reality. All the various aspects of what I've said should prove out in the wash. Not to mention those I have not brought up yet. All theories come under testing by many people. So I don't really need to 'prove' mine myself.

If I did I'd have the law of relativity instead of the current theory of relativity. smile.gif

Am I to give the exact distance an electron travels around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom..? That's really not important when all we're saying is that if you move that atom a foot.., the electron's distance of travel will also be increased by a foot. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that. Since the electron can't speed up to cover that extra foot in the same period it would at rest.., there will be a longer, slower, cycle to that atom's operation.

I think that's pretty straight forward too...

If electrons around an atom were completely stopped at some mid point in their orbit I'm sure everyone here would agree that it would be equivalent to stopping 'time' for that atom. But it's only stopping the atom's individual functioning. And I've explained how that can be done by gravity. Not by time fluxuations.

So what is to define..? All I've brought into the picture is c, and gravity in all it's forms. They're already defined. The only thing not defined is what you say is needed. Time. Undefined except as an intangible relationship between two forces that are tangible. The equivalent to multiplying 2 apples x 2 oranges and getting 4 vaporfruit.

As for your link it doesn't apply. It describes a scatterbrain or someone selling something, etc. As for dogmatism, I've been asking people to show where what I say is not possible. ?? I asked that in my last to you in fact... You haven't...

Again.., where is it meaningless.? Where specifically do I err...? Tell me... Looking at just what I've said.., not what you think I should have said.

To be honest I've expected people to be able to do that.., but no one has.

All I hear is that time is needed.., for computing multiples universes and the like.

AlexG
Electrons don't orbit about a nucleus. The Bohr model of the atom has been obsolete for about 50 years now.

QUOTE
I'm certainly not a crank


The evidence indicates otherwise.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 13 2012, 04:26 PM)

synthsin75

I'm certainly not a crank. Just seeing that things aren't working as they should be with the concept of time involved. Talking about time travel, multiple us's, or that everything is a hologram projections from black holes. Gad, talk about unproven hypotheses that are being accepted as possible.

My 'claim' is that time does not exist in space. And that it does not contribute in any way to the operation of space functions. I thought that was very clear.

I was responding to norgeboy, but if you're advocating the same stuff, you've lumped yourself into the same category. I said that he was posting as cranks do, and you've eagerly claimed that shoe to fit you as well...and ran with it.

You cannot refute what is working with things that aren't. You can only refute what does work with something that can be demonstrated to work better. That is how science works. "time travel, multiple us's, or that everything is a hologram projections from black holes" are wholly speculative and does absolutely nothing to diminish the practical and empirical usefulness of time.

"What part of it can be disputed" is specifically mentioned in that link I posted about cranks:
QUOTE
Attempt to shift burden of proof
For the pseudoscientist, the onus is on skeptics to "prove me wrong". The pseudoscientist does not expect to have to provide evidence for his claims. In fact, in most instances he studiously avoids having his claims put to the test.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Attempt to shift burden of proof
For the pseudoscientist, the onus is on skeptics to "prove me wrong". The pseudoscientist does not expect to have to provide evidence for his claims. In fact, in most instances he studiously avoids having his claims put to the test.


My 'claim' is that time does not exist in space. And that it does not contribute in any way to the operation of space functions. I thought that was very clear.

Mine is actually a well thought out concept of physical reality. All the various aspects of what I've said should prove out in the wash. Not to mention those I have not brought up yet. All theories come under testing by many people. So I don't really need to 'prove' mine myself.

If I did I'd have the law of relativity instead of the current theory of relativity.


Then demonstrate your claim. Derive a motion without time. Show us that it can have some practical use.

Still attempting to shift the burden of proof. No one is going to prove any of this for you, the least reason being that you don't provide any mechanism to replace the existing and working ones:

QUOTE
Lack of explicit mechanisms
Pseudoscientific theories are often presented as a "just so" story that we are meant to come to believe. The story tells us how the scientists got it wrong, and how the universe "really" works. It details how things came to be the way they are, starting from the "theory's" tenets. What is lacking is any scientific mechanism for how the various events in the story could plausibly have happened.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Lack of explicit mechanisms
Pseudoscientific theories are often presented as a "just so" story that we are meant to come to believe. The story tells us how the scientists got it wrong, and how the universe "really" works. It details how things came to be the way they are, starting from the "theory's" tenets. What is lacking is any scientific mechanism for how the various events in the story could plausibly have happened.


Am I to give the exact distance an electron travels around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom..?


That's a complete non sequitur, and everything about that is "Verbosity/impenetrable language and conceptual hijacking".

QUOTE
So what is to define..? All I've brought into the picture is c, and gravity in all it's forms. They're already defined. The only thing not defined is what you say is needed. Time. Undefined except as an intangible relationship between two forces that are tangible.


If you insist upon there being no time, then the onus is on you to derive simple things like motion without it. You cannot use a term such as c when you deny part of the definition of that term. If time doesn't exist then neither does c until you have proven another definition that can be equally useful in calculating things like speed.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So what is to define..? All I've brought into the picture is c, and gravity in all it's forms. They're already defined. The only thing not defined is what you say is needed. Time. Undefined except as an intangible relationship between two forces that are tangible.


If you insist upon there being no time, then the onus is on you to derive simple things like motion without it. You cannot use a term such as c when you deny part of the definition of that term. If time doesn't exist then neither does c until you have proven another definition that can be equally useful in calculating things like speed.

As for your link it doesn't apply. It describes a scatterbrain or someone selling something, etc. As for dogmatism, I've been asking people to show where what I say is not possible. ?? I asked that in my last to you in fact... You haven't...


Already pointed out many ways that link definitely does apply to you, and both "What part of it can be disputed" and "I've been asking people to show where what I say is not possible." are shifting the burden of proof. So you've even verified it does apply to you in the same breath as your denial.

QUOTE
Again.., where is it meaningless.? Where specifically do I err...? Tell me... Looking at just what I've said.., not what you think I should have said.


Aside from yet again shifting the burden of proof, you have yet to describe any specific mechanism is supposed to work, so you have yet to describe anything which can even start to be compared to the real world. If it cannot be compared to the real world, then there are no specific errors to be pointed out. Just as I said earlier:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Again.., where is it meaningless.? Where specifically do I err...? Tell me... Looking at just what I've said.., not what you think I should have said.


Aside from yet again shifting the burden of proof, you have yet to describe any specific mechanism is supposed to work, so you have yet to describe anything which can even start to be compared to the real world. If it cannot be compared to the real world, then there are no specific errors to be pointed out. Just as I said earlier:

No one can dispute something which doesn't even make any solid claim.


QUOTE
All I hear is that time is needed.., for computing multiples universes and the like.


Time is needed for anything to display an orderly causation from one object to another.
norgeboy
As already stated, the next step from denial and a dislike for free-thought is often to simply "ban" it, especially in the US.

In that case, my email is mevking1@gmail.com

For those who are adamant about the existence of time, then please answer the serious question:

What is time?

And please do not say ... well, it is continuous, directional, and ever-present ... because that is a really unenlightened answer.
synthsin75
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 13 2012, 08:39 PM)
What is time?

And please do not say ... well, it is continuous, directional, and ever-present ... because that is a really unenlightened answer.

QUOTE (wiki+)
Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.
...
An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life.


Simply, it's the duration between events.
norgeboy
I understand.

But that exact same thing happens without time, i.e. a spatial sequence. The math all works out starting with the maximum "velocity."

You could even call it quantum time if you wanted to change nomenclature, but nothing is continuous in this model. The Einstein 10-9 (Joule system) is a maximum because the spatial sequence already travels with that frequency of events.

There is no mysterious "ether" - there is the sequential nature of space.

Before you criticize, and we welcome it, please do not forget what you are in fact saying... "ether... continuity... etc." these things sound ridiculous also.

There is no animosity here, only a search for truth.
Granouille
Synthsin has already answered you: You are ignorant and happy with that state.

Read the stuff that you gloss over in your quest for crank hero. smile.gif
norgeboy
We sense the "ban" approaching.

The first step in solving any problem is called denial.

Standard thought may have a "problem" that it cannot reconcile.

TheDoc
QUOTE (norgeboy+)
We sense the "ban" approaching.

Sadly not, as our moderator recently jumped ship, or got pushed overboard.

Enjoy your sandbox.
brucep
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 14 2012, 02:39 AM)
As already stated, the next step from denial and a dislike for free-thought is often to simply "ban" it, especially in the US.

In that case, my email is mevking1@gmail.com

For those who are adamant about the existence of time, then please answer the serious question:

What is time?

And please do not say ... well, it is continuous, directional, and ever-present ... because that is a really unenlightened answer.

You're lucky I'm not the moderator because I'd immediately ban you for this intellectual dishonesty.

"... the next step from denial and a dislike for free-thought is often to simply "ban" it, especially in the US."

How do you differentiate 'free-thought' from just regular 'thought'? Why would anyone dislike free-thought? Unless in your jargon 'free-thought' means conjuring up bullshit pseudo physics? In that case you should be permanently assigned a 'dunce stool orbit'.
synthsin75
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 13 2012, 09:44 PM)
I understand.

But that exact same thing happens without time, i.e. a spatial sequence. The math all works out starting with the maximum "velocity."

You could even call it quantum time if you wanted to change nomenclature, but nothing is continuous in this model. The Einstein 10-9 (Joule system) is a maximum because the spatial sequence already travels with that frequency of events.

There is no mysterious "ether" - there is the sequential nature of space.

Before you criticize, and we welcome it, please do not forget what you are in fact saying... "ether... continuity... etc." these things sound ridiculous also.

There is no animosity here, only a search for truth.

No, you don't understand. If you understood and still thought you had something, you'd be providing a derivation for something as simple as speed without reference to time. "Spatial sequence"? The only spatial sequence is the static sequence, like hash marks on a ruler. You can only move, or even scan your eyes across those static hash marks with respect to time.

Quantum time is a misnomer, as QM simply uses an absolute time just as it does space. But if you wish to examine the discrete nature of QM, then you need to examine the Schrodinger equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
QUOTE (^+)
Used in physics (specifically quantum mechanics), it is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes in time.


Quantum states do not possess a definite position, even within the absolute space postulated in QM, so changes in a quantum state can ONLY happen with respect to time. Anyway, if you're only relying upon a the QM model, then you cannot account for ANY of the classical domain relative frame phenomena, and definitely cannot derive classical motion.

Only someone completely ignorant of physics would try to associate time with an aether. And considering that all of these facts are easily available to anyone posting to an online forum, with a bare minimum of effort, it is highly doubtful that you are genuinely seeking any truth other than what you think verifies you imaginings.

It's called confirmation bias, and the further removed from precisely communicable derivations the more likely it is.
AlexG
QUOTE
How do you differentiate 'free-thought' from just regular 'thought'?


'Free-thought' is crankspeak for 'I failed 9th grade science'.
norgeboy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 14 2012, 05:01 AM)
No, you don't understand. If you understood and still thought you had something, you'd be providing a derivation for something as simple as speed without reference to time. "Spatial sequence"? The only spatial sequence is the static sequence, like hash marks on a ruler. You can only move, or even scan your eyes across those static hash marks with respect to time.

Quantum time is a misnomer, as QM simply uses an absolute time just as it does space. But if you wish to examine the discrete nature of QM, then you need to examine the Schrodinger equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation


Quantum states do not possess a definite position, even within the absolute space postulated in QM, so changes in a quantum state can ONLY happen with respect to time. Anyway, if you're only relying upon a the QM model, then you cannot account for ANY of the classical domain relative frame phenomena, and definitely cannot derive classical motion.

Only someone completely ignorant of physics would try to associate time with an aether. And considering that all of these facts are easily available to anyone posting to an online forum, with a bare minimum of effort, it is highly doubtful that you are genuinely seeking any truth other than what you think verifies you imaginings.

It's called confirmation bias, and the further removed from precisely communicable derivations the more likely it is.

There are only three proper disputes. Since there are no skeptics with anything tangible to say, here is where a skeptic should start:

1. Norgeboy had no right to use the Schrodinger equation the way he did to calculate his 10-19 meters; therefore, this is mathematically wrong.

2. Norgeboy achieved the same result 10-19 meters 3 times using three independent regimens of accepted physics and his math is perfect; however, his result is simply a transformation of variables and provides to new physics.

-or-

3. Norgeboy cannot use energy per unit mass the way he did using gravitational forces and he is in disagreement with relativity.

Or often it's easier never to think about anything and just ban free thought.
brucep
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 14 2012, 09:07 PM)
There are only three proper disputes. Since there are no skeptics with anything tangible to say, here is where a skeptic should start:

1. Norgeboy had no right to use the Schrodinger equation the way he did to calculate his 10-19 meters; therefore, this is mathematically wrong.

2. Norgeboy achieved the same result 10-19 meters 3 times using three independent regimens of accepted physics and his math is perfect; however, his result is simply a transformation of variables and provides to new physics.

-or-

3. Norgeboy cannot use energy per unit mass the way he did using gravitational forces and he is in disagreement with relativity.

Or often it's easier never to think about anything and just ban free thought.

'free-thought' is just your mantra for 'nobody wants to understand how brilliant I am'. You're pretty confused if you disagree with a theoretical model whose predictions have been empirically confirmed with every test. That's why you're stuck spouting nonsense in public forums.


synthsin75
I never saw you calculated ANYTHING with the Schrodinger equation. Just as any crank would, you simply take a scientific term I bring up and try in vain to make it sound like you've refuted anything.

Notice this whole ploy of saying what should have been refuted rather than addressing anything I said. Just a typical evasion. Nothing to see here.
norgeboy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 14 2012, 10:07 PM)
I never saw you calculated ANYTHING with the Schrodinger equation. Just as any crank would, you simply take a scientific term I bring up and try in vain to make it sound like you've refuted anything.

Notice this whole ploy of saying what should have been refuted rather than addressing anything I said. Just a typical evasion. Nothing to see here.

Did you read this article? Are you a native English speaker?
norgeboy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 14 2012, 10:07 PM)
I never saw you calculated ANYTHING with the Schrodinger equation. Just as any crank would, you simply take a scientific term I bring up and try in vain to make it sound like you've refuted anything.

Notice this whole ploy of saying what should have been refuted rather than addressing anything I said. Just a typical evasion. Nothing to see here.

the 10-16 - 10-18 bound comes directly from the Schrodinger equation...

do you see it or do I need to show you?
norgeboy
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 14 2012, 10:12 PM)
Did you read this article? Are you a native English speaker?

Remember time is in question here (until that idea gets "banned"

There is no real delta t.

A fifth grader could do the same math i did. Can you?
synthsin75
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 14 2012, 04:16 PM)
the 10-16 - 10-18 bound comes directly from the Schrodinger equation...

do you see it or do I need to show you?

...

There is no real delta t.

Meaningless without units.

And yes, show me you math for the Schrodinger equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html

The Schrodinger equation cannot be solved without time.
norgeboy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 14 2012, 10:35 PM)
Meaningless without units.

And yes, show me you math for the Schrodinger equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html

The Schrodinger equation cannot be solved without time.

That just confirms you have not read anything or simply do not understand.

10-19 METERS in a Joule measurement system as in the text.

Time is not the "necessary for units for two-centuries" thing you say it is... it is "convenient for measurements" only.

Do not respond again until you have at least read the original post.

And if you don't even know the Schrodinger equation and cannot do what I did, you should not be reading this.
-Fairy-
Energy and angular frequency both have the same dimensions as the reciprocal of time, and momentum and wavenumber both have the dimensions of inverse length. In practice (post-graduate level and research) they are used interchangeably - to prevent duplication of quantities and reduce the dimensions of related quantities.



Retard.
norgeboy
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 14 2012, 11:42 PM)
Energy and angular frequency both have the same dimensions as the reciprocal of time, and momentum and wavenumber both have the dimensions of inverse length. In practice (post-graduate level and research) they are used interchangeably - to prevent duplication of quantities and reduce the dimensions of related quantities.



Retard.

You have said nothing and also sign your name as "retard."

Are you folks related, e.g. a bunch of naive undergraduates who just manipulate the "forum" together using alternate email ID, etc.?

More constructive thought would be a better service for everyone.




-Fairy-
Hello

Please consider the 3 hyptheticals:

1a) if we are talking about movement with constant velocity on a "flat" torus, represented as rectangle with certain conditions on the boundary, then such motion has no relation to our 3 dimensional world and Farsight has failed to say something meaningful about his own topic.
1b) if we are talking about constant rates of angular parameters in the above parametric diagram (a special case of 1a) then while the path can close on itself, the motion cannot be constant as Farsight described it.
2) if we are talking about a curved torus, a surface in 3 dimensional space, then such a torus is not flat. Motion with a constant velocity which respects that curvature are the geodesics of a torus, and only special cases close on themselves. Only very special cases have constant ratios of velocities, the outer equator (d=R+S), the inner equator (d=R-S), and the meridians (d=0). None of these look like the diagram Farsight uses.

if you put the idea in front of a proper competent physicists, and let them speak for themselVES instead of putting poo poo strawman arguments in their mouth, they'll be able to point out some real obstacles to incorporating the idea into mainstream physics

Physics hasn't stagnated, that's a demonstrably false idea. What you are probably referring to is theoretical physics but that hasn't stagnated either. It's in a tight situation where the models of the 70s and 80s have been so successful that they haven't had any serious challanges, and rather their predictions have been confirmed. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing for theoretical physics novelty would be finding the Higgs, so regardless of the LHC results it'll be good news to many in the community.


YOU hear THAT! Its the hIggs


-Fairy-
More constructive thought would be a better service for everyone.



norgeboy
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 15 2012, 01:16 AM)
Hello

Please consider the 3 hyptheticals:

1a) if we are talking about movement with constant velocity on a "flat" torus, represented as rectangle with certain conditions on the boundary, then such motion has no relation to our 3 dimensional world and Farsight has failed to say something meaningful about his own topic.
1b) if we are talking about constant rates of angular parameters in the above parametric diagram (a special case of 1a) then while the path can close on itself, the motion cannot be constant as Farsight described it.
2) if we are talking about a curved torus, a surface in 3 dimensional space, then such a torus is not flat. Motion with a constant velocity which respects that curvature are the geodesics of a torus, and only special cases close on themselves. Only very special cases have constant ratios of velocities, the outer equator (d=R+S), the inner equator (d=R-S), and the meridians (d=0). None of these look like the diagram Farsight uses.

if you put the idea in front of a proper competent physicists, and let them speak for themselVES instead of putting poo poo strawman arguments in their mouth, they'll be able to point out some real obstacles to incorporating the idea into mainstream physics

Physics hasn't stagnated, that's a demonstrably false idea. What you are probably referring to is theoretical physics but that hasn't stagnated either. It's in a tight situation where the models of the 70s and 80s have been so successful that they haven't had any serious challanges, and rather their predictions have been confirmed. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing for theoretical physics novelty would be finding the Higgs, so regardless of the LHC results it'll be good news to many in the community.


YOU hear THAT! Its the hIggs

Hyp-o-theticals...

The "instant" you can mathematically refute (or even comprehend) the math I have proved, line by line, please let everyone know. Until then, please get back to the undergraduate beer hall. And when you come home after that, please go to sleep before you write anything.
Matador
Thats a challenge!

biggrin.gif

-Fairy-
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 15 2012, 01:25 AM)
Hyp-o-theticals...

The "instant" you can mathematically refute (or even comprehend) the math I have proved, line by line, please let everyone know. Until then, please get back to the undergraduate beer hall. And when you come home after that, please go to sleep before you write anything.

Your on mister!



I have qualifications. My math is strong
synthsin75
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 14 2012, 05:34 PM)
10-19 METERS in a Joule measurement system as in the text.

Joules are still defined with respect to time.
-Fairy-
Jools Jools...


ΔxΔk ≥ O(1).


This approximation is unjust for this case.


And if we look :

ΔxΔk/ΔxΔk = 1.


Your basing your theory on incorrect foundations and that being ΔxΔk.



Hope that has helped.



photo_guy
synthsin75..

Re segments of your post of 1-13 11:27 pm

You WERE responding to me if you'll read back. So you went off half cocked right from the beginning.

The various references you made to a self serving post, wherein someone defines cranks, is a lame alternative for objectively arguing against a new theory. Your entire post seems an attempt to avoid the posit. But I do understand there are elements of human nature that affect some people's thinking. Follow the leader, adore sacred cows, stay within the box, and protect ones $ income being a few of them.

What I've done is to present a new 'theory'... That Einstein was wrong when he included time in his thinking and calculations. That's all. New theories come from new thoughts, do they not..? I ask why anyone would think that the mass of a pyramid would slow down 'time', even if it existed.., and then 'time' in turn would slow down a person's aging process. That's sort of a paradox in itself, is it not..? Isn't change the standard *producer* of time..? lol

So why is an imagined quantity acting as the middle man..? What is so difficult to consider that the gravity of the pyramid is affecting the physical aging process of that person *directly*..?

And if I *proved* it as you say I should.., wouldn't I then have the 'Law of Everything'..? Not the 'Theory of Everything'.

I'll leave the empirical proving of it to those who have more standing in the community.

Btw.., may I refer back to what appears to be your very first post to this site..?

QUOTE (synthsin75+Dec 19 2010, 05:23 AM)
I assume anyone involved in science has to be aware of the fluidity of scientific progress, but it very often seems like many people allow themselves to become the "sheep" of mainstream, or accepted, thought. Even to the degree of stifling progress or displaying a near religious fervor.

I mean if a theory were proposed which ran counter to present precepts, would many people be capable of examining it on its own merits, or would they cling desperately to the "authority" or "valid reference".

Granted, I understand that the investment in ones education can be something quite ingrained.


So now what have you become..?

photo_guy
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 13 2012, 10:31 PM)
Electrons don't orbit about a nucleus.  The Bohr model of the atom has been obsolete for about 50 years now. 



AlexG

I know the atom model now, and that it may be considered in some other way in the future, as our ability to examine and understand increases.

Atoms do however 'operate'.., no matter how they're perceived to do so. Not to mention that 'time' is probably a factor in how that's done too. But please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom. Esp regarding orbitals, wave functions, etc.

Electrons are said to be bound to the nuclei by emf so I don't believe it's out of the question for 'outside gravity' to affect them too. It's just a theory you know... smile.gif And there's still the obvious. That moving atoms from place to place does slow them down.

In any case, I've said I'm only 'using' electrons as a *likely* cause of the natural effects that offer a more real explanation of quantum physics. So instead of nit picking with the goal of defending the use of imaginary 'time'.., just try to stay with the idea of NO time.., and replace the causal with gravity induced effects. You should see that it works better in the end.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 10:16 AM)
synthsin75..

Re segments of your post of 1-13 11:27 pm

You WERE responding to me if you'll read back.  So you went off half cocked right from the beginning.

You need to read more thoroughly, rather than hunting for things to verify your confirmation bias:

QUOTE (me to norgeboy+)
This is scientifically meaningless.

QUOTE (you to me+)
But how. What part of it can be disputed. There may be something smaller than the atoms and electrons that I've used to base it on.., but the concept remains the same.

QUOTE (me to you+)
It's scientifically meaningless [norgeboy's comments] because it doesn't define any terms nor a working, practical relationship between those terms. It's just too vague to qualify. It doesn't even come up to the level of making any claim at all. No one can dispute something which doesn't even make any solid claim.

That's how cranks make their "ideas" impervious to criticism.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111706

QUOTE (you to me+)
I'm certainly not a crank.


You'll notice that I certainly was only talking about norgeboy's comments, and so my comment is explicitly true:

QUOTE (me+)
I was responding to norgeboy, but if you're advocating the same stuff, you've lumped yourself into the same category.


And very troll-like to make accusations without even having the decency to quote what you are referring to.

QUOTE
What I've done is to present a new 'theory'... That Einstein was wrong when he included time in his thinking and calculations. That's all. New theories come from new thoughts, do they not..? I ask why anyone would think that the mass of a pyramid would slow down 'time', even if it existed.., and then 'time' in turn would slow down a person's aging process. That's sort of a paradox in itself, is it not..? Isn't change the standard *producer* of time..?


You haven't presented anything that you can support as being operationally better that current science. Current theory has no true paradoxes. Just ones that seem to be paradoxical to your intuition bias in lieu of actually understanding the current physics. New theories have proven to be useful, in calculating and rigorously analyzing phenomena. You're vague ideas do not rate as theories, nor even hypotheses.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What I've done is to present a new 'theory'... That Einstein was wrong when he included time in his thinking and calculations. That's all. New theories come from new thoughts, do they not..? I ask why anyone would think that the mass of a pyramid would slow down 'time', even if it existed.., and then 'time' in turn would slow down a person's aging process. That's sort of a paradox in itself, is it not..? Isn't change the standard *producer* of time..?


You haven't presented anything that you can support as being operationally better that current science. Current theory has no true paradoxes. Just ones that seem to be paradoxical to your intuition bias in lieu of actually understanding the current physics. New theories have proven to be useful, in calculating and rigorously analyzing phenomena. You're vague ideas do not rate as theories, nor even hypotheses.

I'll leave the empirical proving of it to those who have more standing in the community


It's your onus to prove your own assertions. No one will do this for you.

QUOTE
Btw.., may I refer back to what appears to be your very first post to this site..?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Btw.., may I refer back to what appears to be your very first post to this site..?


I assume anyone involved in science has to be aware of the fluidity of scientific progress, but it very often seems like many people allow themselves to become the "sheep" of mainstream, or accepted, thought. Even to the degree of stifling progress or displaying a near religious fervor.

I mean if a theory were proposed which ran counter to present precepts, would many people be capable of examining it on its own merits, or would they cling desperately to the "authority" or "valid reference".

Granted, I understand that the investment in ones education can be something quite ingrained.


You should, first, be aware of what constitutes an actual theory (as mentioned in my post you quoted):

QUOTE (wiki+)
In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.
...
In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries, like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.


You'll notice that I specified the "merits" of a theory. You have yet to provide any actual merits to evaluate.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 11:17 AM)
Electrons are said to be bound to the nuclei by emf so I don't believe it's out of the question for 'outside gravity' to affect them too.

Wrong again. Gravity is many magnitudes weaker than the EM force, and has no hope to have any effect over EM within an atom.
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 14 2012, 02:53 AM)

Simply, it's the duration between events.


But that's only how humans perceive time. The events would still happen without time.

Just as there is no 'sound' unless there are ears to 'hear' it in our brains... But it's nowhere else.

Humans create time in their brains too. But even worse for time, there are are no physical manifestations of it. It can't be measured, other than by the two events happening, neither of which knows they will be *producing* it for human consumption.

It's an illusion, not a cause.
photo_guy
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 14 2012, 06:49 AM)

'Free-thought' is crankspeak for 'I failed 9th grade science'.

Free thought is thinking outside the box... As Einstein did... Except he got hung up on a strictly human value.

synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 11:41 AM)

But that's only how humans perceive time. The events would still happen without time.

Just as there is no 'sound' unless there are ears to 'hear' it in our brains... But it's nowhere else.

Humans create time in their brains too. But even worse for time, there are are no physical manifestations of it. It can't be measured, other than by the two events happening, neither of which knows they will be *producing* it for human consumption.

It's an illusion, not a cause.

No, a duration between events is what physically allows for any orderly causation. With no duration between events, all events happen at once and causation is meaningless, as only the coincidence of everything to everything else could possibly be determined.

Idiot, sounds are physical, mechanical waves of rarefaction/compression of a medium. They exist as such whether anyone hears them or not.

Just as the perception of sound requires these waves in a medium, so does our perception of time require a physical duration.

QUOTE (wiki+)
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units.

QUOTE (wiki+)
A physical quantity is a physical property of a phenomenon, body, or substance, that can be quantified by measurement.

QUOTE (wiki+)
The International System of Units (abbreviated SI from French: Système international d'unités) is the modern form of the metric system and is generally a system of units of measurement devised around seven base units and the convenience of the number ten.

QUOTE (wiki+)
The International System of Units (SI) defines seven units of measure as a basic set from which all other SI units are derived. These SI base units and their physical quantities are:

    * metre for length (US English: meter)
    * kilogram for mass (note: not the gram)
    * second for time
    * ampere for electric current
    * kelvin for temperature
    * candela for luminous intensity
    * mole for the amount of substance.

The SI base quantities form a set of mutually independent dimensions as required by dimensional analysis commonly employed in science and technology. However, in a given realization of these units they may well be interdependent, i.e. defined in terms of each other.
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 14 2012, 10:35 PM)
Meaningless without units.

And yes, show me you math for the Schrodinger equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html

The Schrodinger equation cannot be solved without time.


What about the time independent version.. ?
photo_guy
[QUOTE=synthsin75,Jan 15 2012, 05:31 PM]You need to read more thoroughly, rather than hunting for things to verify your confirmation bias:

And very troll-like to make accusations without even having the decency to quote what you are referring to.

You haven't presented anything that you can support as being operationally better that current science. Current theory has no true paradoxes. Just ones that seem to be paradoxical to your intuition bias in lieu of actually understanding the current physics. New theories have proven to be useful, in calculating and rigorously analyzing phenomena. You're vague ideas do not rate as theories, nor even hypotheses.

It's your onus to prove your own assertions. No one will do this for you.
[/QUOTE]
You should, first, be aware of what constitutes an actual theory (as mentioned in my post you quoted):
[QUOTE=wiki]In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.
...
In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries, like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.[/QUOTE]
You'll notice that I specified the "merits" of a theory. You have yet to provide any actual merits to evaluate.
[/QUOTE]
*******************

Oh man... What a waste of time. Excuse me but YOU are referring back to a post you made to norgeboy Jan 12 at 06:10 PM where you said '*This is* scientifically meaningless... Not the one I'm talking about at all...

If anyone cares, they can go look at your post to ME on 1-13 at 8:13 PM. They will see that you were responding directly to me using basically the same phrase that you used to norgeboy. But different, as noted.

I then responded back directly to you in my post at 10:26 PM.

You then quoted MY post again in responding at 11:27 pm...

You followed with quotes from an opinionated description of a crank or whatever.., for purposes of putting my thinking down.

As for the quotes you list now, they were all mine...

Even the one you NOW identify as you to norgeboy. Your words '*It's* scientifically meaningless...' is a direct response to my post that you quoted and responded to at 8:13 PM. Go look at it.

Then slow down a little...


As for my Theory, the onus is not on me to prove my theory. As I've said before, I have nothing to gain from it. And if I did I'd then have the LAW of Everything.

In any case I personally have no personal need to prove anything. When others understand what I'm putting forth, and it seems they do, they can prove it. And I'm sure they'll do that very well.

As for your very first post to this forum, where you espouse open mindedness to new ideas, you've now changed your tune over the past year.

You're hedging now.., in trying to define the word 'theory' to mean only what you want it to mean, when all one has to do is look up its many definitions in the dictionary.

photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 15 2012, 05:36 PM)
Wrong again. Gravity is many magnitudes weaker than the EM force, and has no hope to have any effect over EM within an atom.

You made a point.., but you really need to stop assuming that the other person is wrong. There are many things to consider...

Of course gravity is relatively weak.., but when you compare a planet's mass to that of an atom's nucleus, you might agree the planet could have the edge..?
brucep
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 08:29 PM)
You should, first, be aware of what constitutes an actual theory (as mentioned in my post you quoted):

*******************

Oh man... What a waste of time. Excuse me but YOU are referring back to a post you made to norgeboy Jan 12 at 06:10 PM where you said '*This is* scientifically meaningless... Not the one I'm talking about at all...

If anyone cares, they can go look at your post to ME on 1-13 at 8:13 PM. They will see that you were responding directly to me using basically the same phrase that you used to norgeboy. But different, as noted.

I then responded back directly to you in my post at 10:26 PM.

You then quoted MY post again in responding at 11:27 pm...

You followed with quotes from an opinionated description of a crank or whatever.., for purposes of putting my thinking down.

As for the quotes you list now, they were all mine...

Even the one you NOW identify as you to norgeboy. Your words '*It's* scientifically meaningless...' is a direct response to my post that you quoted and responded to at 8:13 PM. Go look at it.

Then slow down a little...


As for my Theory, the onus is not on me to prove my theory. As I've said before, I have nothing to gain from it. And if I did I'd then have the LAW of Everything.

In any case I personally have no personal need to prove anything. When others understand what I'm putting forth, and it seems they do, they can prove it. And I'm sure they'll do that very well.

As for your very first post to this forum, where you espouse open mindedness to new ideas, you've now changed your tune over the past year.

You're hedging now.., in trying to define the word 'theory' to mean only what you want it to mean, when all one has to do is look up its many definitions in the dictionary.

He is most interested in sucking you into a never ending debate featuring well placed trolls and obfuscation. This is why s75 is the 'Debate Troll'.
Matador
Trolls trolloing trolls


TTT
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 02:29 PM)
Even the one you NOW identify as you to norgeboy. Your words '*It's* scientifically meaningless...' is a direct response to my post that you quoted and responded to at 8:13 PM. Go look at it.

Yep, it was a response to you. But it was a response ABOUT the comment I made of norgeboy's post. You merely missed that. I used the same words, "scientifically meaningless", explicitly because it was ABOUT that particular post.

Tracking any better yet?

QUOTE
As for my Theory, the onus is not on me to prove my theory. ...

In any case I personally have no personal need to prove anything. When others understand what I'm putting forth, and it seems they do, they can prove it. And I'm sure they'll do that very well.


Yep, undiscerning public will very often be agreeable to vague notions that they don't have the understanding to know it runs contrary to science.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As for my Theory, the onus is not on me to prove my theory. ...

In any case I personally have no personal need to prove anything. When others understand what I'm putting forth, and it seems they do, they can prove it. And I'm sure they'll do that very well.


Yep, undiscerning public will very often be agreeable to vague notions that they don't have the understanding to know it runs contrary to science.

As for your very first post to this forum, where you espouse open mindedness to new ideas, you've now changed your tune over the past year.


No change of tune at all. I'm just as open-minded with any new idea that can be demonstrated to be workable.

QUOTE
You're hedging now.., in trying to define the word 'theory' to mean only what you want it to mean, when all one has to do is look up its many definitions in the dictionary.


That's just because you don't understand the difference between a general definition in a common dictionary and its specific use in a fields such as science and physics.
synthsin75
QUOTE (brucep+Jan 15 2012, 02:53 PM)
He is most interested in sucking you into a never ending debate featuring well placed trolls and obfuscation. This is why s75 is the 'Debate Troll'.

Yet another in a very long string of hit and run comments from a chickshit old, senile and impotent, troll. Hey, if you want to throw in your hat in with obvious cranks, then by your associations you are known.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 02:41 PM)
You made a point.., but you really need to stop assuming that the other person is wrong. There are many things to consider...

Of course gravity is relatively weak.., but when you compare a planet's mass to that of an atom's nucleus, you might agree the planet could have the edge..?

Mass doesn't factor into it, as gravity is just that much weaker than EM.

QUOTE
What about the time independent version.. ?


Ah, you think you have something there, don't you? Just like every crank who doesn't understand the science they parade around in the vain attempt to support their assertions. Do you even know what the time-independent Schrodinger equation is about?

Shall I explain it to you, or would you prefer to remain ignorant?
photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 15 2012, 06:09 PM)
No, a duration between events is what physically allows for any orderly causation. With no duration between events, all events happen at once and causation is meaningless, as only the coincidence of everything to everything else could possibly be determined.

Idiot, sounds are physical, mechanical waves of rarefaction/compression of a medium. They exist as such whether anyone hears them or not.

Just as the perception of sound requires these waves in a medium, so does our perception of time require a physical duration.


QUOTE (wiki+)
The International System of Units (SI) defines seven units of measure as a basic set from which all other SI units are derived. These SI base units and their physical quantities are:

    * metre for length (US English: meter)
    * kilogram for mass (note: not the gram)
    * second for time
    * ampere for electric current
    * kelvin for temperature
    * candela for luminous intensity
    * mole for the amount of substance.

The SI base quantities form a set of mutually independent dimensions as required by dimensional analysis commonly employed in science and technology. However, in a given realization of these units they may well be interdependent, i.e. defined in terms of each other.



Idiot...? Sticks and stones you know... But I've learned in my 72 years of life that the more you name call and ridicule the worse you look when proven wrong.

I agree with your first paragraph entirely. But 'duration' is not caused by 'time'. Because time does not exist except in our imagination. We're imagining that imagined time is causation. Duration between events happens because events happen. They do not require time to happen.., 'on time' as it were.

Of course sound waves are physical. But they're not 'sounds' until that physical compression and decompression of air waves reaches an ear, to travel through its mechanisms and be converted into electrical signals which then cause the brain to sense them in a way we call sound. A noise that in fact is not noisy until it happens in our head.

We can build air pressure devices that do the same thing our larynx and ears do.. Or anything else that causes or reacts to these variations in air pressure. They can recognize air pressure changes that indicate something is happening, even though there are no ears to hear it. Or even at rates ears themselves cannot hear. They can then cause variations.., they can record them, transmit them by radio or wire, make copies of them, and various other operations.., without another actual 'sound' being made... Only when one plays a recording and the air waves are replicated in proximity to an ear can 'sound' be created in a persons brain.

I hold a 1st class FCC Commercial License. Now called 'General' since the industry was deregulated. So give me a 'little' credit, eh? I do understand a few basics.

Time is a similar thing to humans. In that the mind is the only place where it is perceived. One sees the position of a clock's hands so they know in what part of the continuous day they're in. Because the clock is synced to match the rotation of the earth. If they see anything move from place to place they attach a clock to it and perceive the movement's start and stop differences as time. 0 to 60 in 8 seconds and the like. But.., they cannot do with time what they can with sound. Sound has natural physical origins. But time does not. One can't record time, nor copy it, nor transmit it. There is simply no real or physical characteristic to time that can be 'managed'... There is no 'cause' of time. It's a totally imagined thing that fits between happenings so we as humans can express those differences to others. But it cannot be used in ways that MAKE things happen. Such as in calculations causing one to think space can be warped...

Time has no power of it's own. As you say, 'our perception of time requires a physical duration'.

All of the measurements you list are very necessary for exchanging information between humans. They all measure physical properties.., except for 'time'. That one is a man made 'accommodation'... A easier way than saying we're at .58374 percent of the earths rotation around it's axis. Motion exists... Time is our way of expressing it... But time certainly does not *control* motion.























photo_guy
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jan 15 2012, 09:28 PM)
Mass doesn't factor into it, as gravity is just that much weaker than EM.



Ah, you think you have something there, don't you? Just like every crank who doesn't understand the science they parade around in the vain attempt to support their assertions. Do you even know what the time-independent Schrodinger equation is about?

Shall I explain it to you, or would you prefer to remain ignorant?

Right... Mass doesn't factor into anything.

As for the no time version, all I know is what I read...

Perhaps this as per wiki..:

***

Like Newton's 2nd law, the Schrödinger equation can be mathematically transformed into other formulations such as Werner Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, and Richard Feynman's path integral formulation.

Also like Newton's 2nd law, the Schrödinger equation describes time in a way that is *inconvenient* for relativistic theories, a problem that is not as severe in matrix mechanics and completely absent in the path integral formulation.

--

The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of quantum theory which generalizes the action principle of classical mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude.

***

That sounds 'something' like what I'm saying. But as I said in the very beginning.., I'm not up on conversational language nor time based concepts. They're not the way to go. Someone who uses time based calculations to prove that time exists is tilting at windmills.


So thanks but never mind. I'll stay with my theory and heed brucep's advice. Thanks brucep...

The lurkers know my thoughts on the matter and hopefully some of them will be willing and able to see logic behind it.

It's all just a theory, you know..? lol Just MHO...




synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 04:53 PM)
I agree with your first paragraph entirely. But 'duration' is not caused by 'time'. Because time does not exist except in our imagination. We're imagining that imagined time is causation. Duration between events happens because events happen. They do not require time to happen.., 'on time' as it were.

Complete blathering nonsense. Time, itself, is no more causative than space. Both are arenas, and events cannot be fully described without reference to both. Merely defining coordinates in space does not define an event, only a static location.

Events don't happen unless there is a causation, and a causation requires a physically meaningful time in which to place one event in relation to another.

QUOTE
Of course sound waves are physical. But they're not 'sounds' until that physical compression and decompression of air waves reaches an ear, to travel through its mechanisms and be converted into electrical signals which then cause the brain to sense them in a way we call sound. A noise that in fact is not noisy until it happens in our head.


Operationally meaningless philosophy. The perception cannot exist without a physical basis.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Of course sound waves are physical. But they're not 'sounds' until that physical compression and decompression of air waves reaches an ear, to travel through its mechanisms and be converted into electrical signals which then cause the brain to sense them in a way we call sound. A noise that in fact is not noisy until it happens in our head.


Operationally meaningless philosophy. The perception cannot exist without a physical basis.

We can build air pressure devices that do the same thing our larynx and ears do.. Or anything else that causes or reacts to these variations in air pressure. They can recognize air pressure changes that indicate something is happening, even though there are no ears to hear it. Or even at rates ears themselves cannot hear. They can then cause variations.., they can record them, transmit them by radio or wire, make copies of them, and various other operations.., without another actual 'sound' being made... Only when one plays a recording and the air waves are replicated in proximity to an ear can 'sound' be created in a persons brain.


QUOTE (wiki+)
Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.


We can know a sound qualifies under such a definition without ever hearing it ourselves. Science can do this because it doesn't rely solely upon experience, but can extrapolate facts from consistent observations.

You need to differentiate "sound" from "hear":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hear
QUOTE (^+)
hear - to perceive or apprehend by the ear


Sloppily defined terms are antithetical to science.

QUOTE
I hold a 1st class FCC Commercial License. Now called 'General' since the industry was deregulated. So give me a 'little' credit, eh? I do understand a few basics.


That's quite a non sequitur. Piloting is a skill, with a relatively limited amount of knowledge necessary to the performing of that skill, and doesn't in any way imply an understanding of physics in general. Especially when such understanding has not been demonstrated.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I hold a 1st class FCC Commercial License. Now called 'General' since the industry was deregulated. So give me a 'little' credit, eh? I do understand a few basics.


That's quite a non sequitur. Piloting is a skill, with a relatively limited amount of knowledge necessary to the performing of that skill, and doesn't in any way imply an understanding of physics in general. Especially when such understanding has not been demonstrated.

Time is a similar thing to humans.


Yes, it is. Just like hearing requires that there exist a physical source, so does an experience of time.

QUOTE
But.., they cannot do with time what they can with sound. Sound has natural physical origins. But time does not. One can't record time, nor copy it, nor transmit it. There is simply no real or physical characteristic to time that can be 'managed'... There is no 'cause' of time.


Even just being consistent with your own definition of "sound" (i.e. hearing), you cannot do any of those things with the perception of hearing. Can you "record, copy, or transmit" space? No, you can only do those things with impressions and images of space, not the actual space itself. Like time, this is because space isn't a thing or substance. They are arenas.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But.., they cannot do with time what they can with sound. Sound has natural physical origins. But time does not. One can't record time, nor copy it, nor transmit it. There is simply no real or physical characteristic to time that can be 'managed'... There is no 'cause' of time.


Even just being consistent with your own definition of "sound" (i.e. hearing), you cannot do any of those things with the perception of hearing. Can you "record, copy, or transmit" space? No, you can only do those things with impressions and images of space, not the actual space itself. Like time, this is because space isn't a thing or substance. They are arenas.

But it cannot be used in ways that MAKE things happen.


Who said ANYTHING about time "mak[ing] things happen"?!

QUOTE
All of the measurements you list are very necessary for exchanging information between humans. They all measure physical properties.., except for 'time'.


Yes, yes. Just another crank making up definitions to suit their own purpose/intuition.
photo_guy

synthsin75.

FCC is not FAA... You'll just can't understand anything I say.., can you. So be it.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 05:42 PM)
Right...  Mass doesn't factor into anything.

Both the gravitational and EM forces are inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Between atoms, the EM force completely dominates. Only for much larger objects do its positive and negative charges cancel out enough for gravity to have any hope of influence.

QUOTE
As for the no time version, all I know is what I read...

That sounds 'something' like what I'm saying. But as I said in the very beginning.., I'm not up on conversational language nor time based concepts. They're not the way to go. Someone who uses time based calculations to prove that time exists is tilting at windmills.


Nothing you quoted from wiki has anything to do with the time-independent Schrodinger equation (which is a special case, not general), nor sayings anything about time being "illusion", as the integral path is related to the time dependent equation. Just a bit further down that first wiki page you quoted is a section specifically on the time independent equation, so one wonders why you didn't manage to quote anything from it.

You just naively read "describes time in a way that is *inconvenient*" and thought that sounded like a criticism of time, completely oblivious to the difference in relative and absolute time utilized in classical and quantum physics, respectively.

Even so, a solution to the time-dependent equation is the stationary state, so called because it describes no change with an elapse of time. So even though the time independent equation naively sounds like it may support your view, it too is a description with respect to time.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As for the no time version, all I know is what I read...

That sounds 'something' like what I'm saying. But as I said in the very beginning.., I'm not up on conversational language nor time based concepts. They're not the way to go. Someone who uses time based calculations to prove that time exists is tilting at windmills.


Nothing you quoted from wiki has anything to do with the time-independent Schrodinger equation (which is a special case, not general), nor sayings anything about time being "illusion", as the integral path is related to the time dependent equation. Just a bit further down that first wiki page you quoted is a section specifically on the time independent equation, so one wonders why you didn't manage to quote anything from it.

You just naively read "describes time in a way that is *inconvenient*" and thought that sounded like a criticism of time, completely oblivious to the difference in relative and absolute time utilized in classical and quantum physics, respectively.

Even so, a solution to the time-dependent equation is the stationary state, so called because it describes no change with an elapse of time. So even though the time independent equation naively sounds like it may support your view, it too is a description with respect to time.

So thanks but never mind. I'll stay with my theory and heed brucep's advice. Thanks brucep...


See Bruce, your trolling me is now contributing to the nonsense of cranks. Are you proud of yourself?

QUOTE
It's all just a theory, you know..?


No, it isn't. At most, it's a vague notion that hasn't even been defined in communicable scientifically accepted terms.
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 08:00 PM)
synthsin75.

FCC is not FAA... You'll just can't understand anything I say.., can you. So be it.

My mistake, but I'd expect an FCC employee to know less job-related physics than a pilot (by a long shot), so that doesn't help your case any.
norgeboy
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 15 2012, 01:58 AM)
Jools Jools...


ΔxΔk ≥ O(1).


This approximation is unjust for this case.


And if we look :

ΔxΔk/ΔxΔk = 1.


Your basing your theory on incorrect foundations and that being ΔxΔk.



Hope that has helped.

This is exactly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. A simple offshoot from the Schrodinger equation. You dispute?
-Fairy-
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 17 2012, 12:13 AM)
This is exactly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. A simple offshoot from the Schrodinger equation. You dispute?

I dont dispute the Heisenebrg Uncertainty Principle..


I dispute the posters incorrect use and assumoptions based of this law.










AND WHO ARE YOU?
norgeboy
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 15 2012, 06:41 PM)

What about the time independent version.. ?

Super question.

For now, I have used a standard measurement system... for the purpose of exploration, we have only considered unit time to equate perceptions.

Energy is not a subject here, so if we assume unit energy we can get out of the units-of-measure mess for now. At least, that's what I've tried.

In other words, use everything already established and assume we are talking about one unit of measure for the things we question.

Does that make sense or there is a better way? I do not know the correct answer.

-Fairy-
Super question? Answer mine fisrt you spoofswallower
norgeboy
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 17 2012, 12:45 AM)
Super question? Answer mine first you spoofswallower

In the simplest language, there are two delta-t's in the Schrodinger equation.

If we suppose, even briefly, that t is a great approximation but is not physically real, then what do those two t's mean?

The two t's are definitely correct. But maybe only a perception.

What would you choose to substitute in the event you believed the equation was real but time was not?
waitedavid137
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 16 2012, 06:05 PM)
... there are two delta-t's in the Schrodinger equation...

No there aren't.
norgeboy
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jan 17 2012, 01:09 AM)
No there aren't.

The "wave" itself. There are two.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 16 2012, 06:31 PM)
The "wave" itself. There are two.

Here is the Schroodinger wave equation. There are no delta t's as you say.
iћ∂Ψ/∂t = -(ћ²/2m)∇²Ψ + VΨ
norgeboy
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jan 17 2012, 01:46 AM)
Here is the Schroodinger wave equation. There are no delta t's as you say.
iћ∂Ψ/∂t = -(ћ²/2m)∇²Ψ + VΨ

As you can see, there are two "phi's" when reduced and they are unquestionably real. They relate to space and 'time" as we know it.

The single "delta-t" is not real in this theory.
-Fairy-
Its real, your interpretation of the equation isn't
norgeboy
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jan 17 2012, 01:46 AM)
Here is the Schroodinger wave equation. There are no delta t's as you say.
iћ∂Ψ/∂t = -(ћ²/2m)∇²Ψ + VΨ

And thank you for an excellent comment. Feel free to call me a crank-pot later, I have learned to like it.
waitedavid137
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 16 2012, 07:11 PM)
As you can see, there are two "phi's" when reduced and they are unquestionably real. They relate to space and 'time" as we know it.

The single "delta-t" is not real in this theory.

What two phi's? There is one wave function Ψ, Psi not phi there, which is opperated on in three terms. And what delta t?? There is no delta t.
norgeboy
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jan 17 2012, 02:26 AM)
What two phi's? There is one wave function Ψ, Psi not phi there, which is opperated on in three terms.

No no.

There is a "change in phi" on the left of the "=" and a phi on the right of the "=" - the "change in time" for the derivative on the left is held in question in this theory.

-Fairy-
Crackpot
Matador
Being trolled by a 'fairy'



laugh.gif


Have to be kidding right?
waitedavid137
QUOTE (norgeboy+Jan 16 2012, 07:30 PM)
No no.

There is a "change in phi" on the left of the "=" and a phi on the right of the "=" - the "change in time" for the derivative on the left is held in question in this theory.

iћ∂Ψ/∂t = -(ћ²/2m)∇²Ψ + VΨ
Its not a change in really, its a partial derivative of, and it really is in no more question than the partial derivatives with respect to spatial coordinates in the ∇opperator. I also used Ψ spelled Psi for the wave function, not phi and it occurs three times in the equation. Once it is opperated on by the partial derivative with respect to time on the left, once it is opperated on by the second partial derivatives with respect to the spatial coordinates in the middle term and once it is multiplied by the potential on the right hand term. This low velocity limit makes it superficially look like time is somehow opperating differently that the spatial derivative opperators, but to be exact this actually replaced by the Klein-Gordon equation for which the partial time derivative is opperated twice just the same as the spatial partial derivative opperators are done in ∇² here, so relativistically there is no opperational difference between the time partial derivative term and the others.
norgeboy
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jan 17 2012, 02:40 AM)
iћ∂Ψ/∂t = -(ћ²/2m)∇²Ψ + VΨ
Its not a change in really, its a partial derivative of, and it really is in no more question than the partial derivatives with respect to spatial coordinates in the ∇opperator. I also used Ψ spelled Psi for the wave function, not phi and it occurs three times in the equation. Once it is opperated on by the partial derivative with respect to time on the left, once it is opperated on by the second partial derivatives with respect to the spatial coordinates in the middle term and once it is multiplied by the potential on the right hand term. This low velocity limit makes it superficially look like time is somehow opperating differently that the spatial derivative opperators, but to be exact this actually replaced by the Klein-Gordon equation for which the partial time derivative is opperated twice just the same as the spatial partial derivative opperators are done in ∇² here, so relativistically there is no opperational difference between the time partial derivative term and the others.

Thank you.

Operators are associative. You dispute?

This theory questions the time part of the wave equation.

I don't like it either, but it seems to be real.
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.