This is a reply to another thread that I wish to start over as a new orginal topic. Thanyou. ----
I would like to point out here that if space is expanding in between the galaxies this is not the same as them moving apart in preexisting space. Motion through space has as a consequence an effect on time. This effect is known as the transverse Doppler effect. This effect is the slowdown of clocks that are in high speed motion.
If galaxies are not in high speed motion but are becoming more distant because space is expanding in between then they cannot be said to be experiencing the slowdown of clocks (or the transverse Doppler effect.) This means that time for all galaxies including the most distant is basically the same as for us here. This is universal time and this is close to the fastest time possible. Here on Earth we are subject to nearly the fastest time possible where are time here is effected by the Earth's gravity and motion through space .
The past is not in the distance. Instead there is a universal now that corresponds to the entire universe. The surface of the hypersphere is the form of the entire universe.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick
While SOME of the relative motion of all galaxies is due to the expansion of space, that is not the whole story. And while every galaxy does probably experience time in a simular manner, the speed of light limits how close to that real time we can observe those other galaxies. So looking into the distance we see those galaxies as they were that far into the past, by the time the light reaches us those galaxies have aged and changed at the same rate we do and they also can only see us as we were that many years ago.
Grumpy
While SOME of the relative motion of all galaxies is due to the expansion of space, that is not the whole story. And while every galaxy does probably experience time in a simular manner, the speed of light limits how close to that real time we can observe those other galaxies. So looking into the distance we see those galaxies as they were that far into the past, by the time the light reaches us those galaxies have aged and changed at the same rate we do and they also can only see us as we were that many years ago.
Grumpy
Nick,
Do you not understand the concept of a light year? Or do you think Einstein was wrong when he came to the realization of a universal speed limit?
Grumpy,
Glad to see you putting your $.02 worth in again. I've missed your insights.
Do you not understand the concept of a light year? Or do you think Einstein was wrong when he came to the realization of a universal speed limit?
Grumpy,
Glad to see you putting your $.02 worth in again. I've missed your insights.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 15 2007, 01:50 AM)
Nick
While SOME of the relative motion of all galaxies is due to the expansion of space, that is not the whole story. And while every galaxy does probably experience time in a simular manner, the speed of light limits how close to that real time we can observe those other galaxies. So looking into the distance we see those galaxies as they were that far into the past, by the time the light reaches us those galaxies have aged and changed at the same rate we do and they also can only see us as we were that many years ago.
Grumpy
The past is not in the distance; only the now. What we see in space-time is information that has traveled a large distance but nontheless we recieve it now.
While SOME of the relative motion of all galaxies is due to the expansion of space, that is not the whole story. And while every galaxy does probably experience time in a simular manner, the speed of light limits how close to that real time we can observe those other galaxies. So looking into the distance we see those galaxies as they were that far into the past, by the time the light reaches us those galaxies have aged and changed at the same rate we do and they also can only see us as we were that many years ago.
Grumpy
The past is not in the distance; only the now. What we see in space-time is information that has traveled a large distance but nontheless we recieve it now.
Nick. Do you mean that a second here is the same as a second elsewhere in the Universe, that time proceeds at a set rate?
What old light shows us is how other parts of our galaxy/the Universe looked like in the past but now what they look like now since light travels at one light year per year.
What old light shows us is how other parts of our galaxy/the Universe looked like in the past but now what they look like now since light travels at one light year per year.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 16 2007, 07:46 AM)
Nick. Do you mean that a second here is the same as a second elsewhere in the Universe, that time proceeds at a set rate?
No. Time rate can vary with intense gravity. But most places in the universe are low gravity. Therfor you can expect them to be experiencing near fastest time. Because most places in the universe have near fastest time timerate for these places timerate are all nearly the same. I call this standard time. It is only slow time that sets things apart. But not really.
Now is everywhere but time can be passing at different timerates in this NOW. That is what it boils down to.
There is only the now everywhere. But the rate of time laps might vary from place to place. Time can move at different rates but it still is ALWAYS NOW-EVERYWHERE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
No. Time rate can vary with intense gravity. But most places in the universe are low gravity. Therfor you can expect them to be experiencing near fastest time. Because most places in the universe have near fastest time timerate for these places timerate are all nearly the same. I call this standard time. It is only slow time that sets things apart. But not really.
Now is everywhere but time can be passing at different timerates in this NOW. That is what it boils down to.
There is only the now everywhere. But the rate of time laps might vary from place to place. Time can move at different rates but it still is ALWAYS NOW-EVERYWHERE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
OK - let's all synchronize our watches. Alpha Centauri, what time have you got?
Alpha Centauri????
Alpha Centauri????
Hello all
One underpinning that is used to derive the current theory of "expanding space" is the assumption that the rate of time flow in the past is the same as it is now. The question is how would you test/prove this assumption to be valid?
One underpinning that is used to derive the current theory of "expanding space" is the assumption that the rate of time flow in the past is the same as it is now. The question is how would you test/prove this assumption to be valid?
QUOTE (Montec+Feb 16 2007, 09:41 PM)
Hello all
One underpinning that is used to derive the current theory of "expanding space" is the assumption that the rate of time flow in the past is the same as it is now. The question is how would you test/prove this assumption to be valid?
It's true in principle.
The question is at Time Zero was time going infinitely slow and sped up to the speed of time we know now as fastest time.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
One underpinning that is used to derive the current theory of "expanding space" is the assumption that the rate of time flow in the past is the same as it is now. The question is how would you test/prove this assumption to be valid?
It's true in principle.
The question is at Time Zero was time going infinitely slow and sped up to the speed of time we know now as fastest time.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
what does it mean to tell the voyager 1 space probe to power down now ? will it power down now ? when it does power down who's now will it be ?
if a universal experience can not be shared, then is it universal ?
if a universal experience can not be shared, then is it universal ?
QUOTE (kjw+Feb 17 2007, 04:36 AM)
what does it mean to tell the voyager 1 space probe to power down now ? will it power down now ? when it does power down who's now will it be ?
if a universal experience can not be shared, then is it universal ?
NOW is in the distance. Anyplace is NOW.
Right here is now and overthere is now.
Everything in the universe is happening at once albeit possibly at different rates because of gravity-motion.
if a universal experience can not be shared, then is it universal ?
NOW is in the distance. Anyplace is NOW.
Right here is now and overthere is now.
Everything in the universe is happening at once albeit possibly at different rates because of gravity-motion.
QUOTE
Everything in the universe is happening at once albeit possibly at different rates because of gravity-motion.
Nick if a command is given to Voyager 1 to power down now, it does not power down now.
if it does not power down when the command is given, then Voyager 1 and the command centre have different nows.
if the same now can not be shared by different entities at the same time, it can not be described as universal.
QUOTE (kjw+Feb 17 2007, 04:54 AM)
Nick if a command is given to Voyager 1 to power down now, it does not power down now.
if it does not power down when the command is given, then Voyager 1 and the command centre have different nows.
if the same now can not be shared by different entities at the same time, it can not be described as universal.
They have there own NOWS seperated by distance.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE
They have there own NOWS separated by distance
and since the distance prevents the two experiencing simultaneous nows, the two nows are not universal.
in your quote above you have agreed to this by stating the nows are individual and not the same, so the point is made and agreed, there is no universal now.
Nick. What you are saying is that for a set circumstance, time will move at a set rate anywhere in the Universe. OK! Time obeys a universal law.
Using NOW in this context confuses some in that a universal NOW is impossible because of time taken for light to move. Even a universal time on Earth is impossible. While we all experience our "present" at the same time, we are often far enough away that we cannot experience the "present" of others.
Using NOW in this context confuses some in that a universal NOW is impossible because of time taken for light to move. Even a universal time on Earth is impossible. While we all experience our "present" at the same time, we are often far enough away that we cannot experience the "present" of others.
QUOTE (Montec+Feb 16 2007, 09:41 PM)
Hello all
One underpinning that is used to derive the current theory of "expanding space" is the assumption that the rate of time flow in the past is the same as it is now. The question is how would you test/prove this assumption to be valid?
Radiance from very distant sources. If time was once slower, then light would have since sped up and so the sources would become brighter than they should be. The reverse if time had once been faster.
Planetary orbits. If the Earth moves through space at 66,000 mph now and because of that is 93,000,000 miles from our sun, suppose time was slower, then it would move slower through space and so be in a closer orbit (and a lot hotter), and vice versa.
Radioactive isotopes would be more radioactive if time moved faster (thus having shorter half lives) and stars would burn brighter thus consuming their fuel a lot quicker and living shorter lives.
One underpinning that is used to derive the current theory of "expanding space" is the assumption that the rate of time flow in the past is the same as it is now. The question is how would you test/prove this assumption to be valid?
Radiance from very distant sources. If time was once slower, then light would have since sped up and so the sources would become brighter than they should be. The reverse if time had once been faster.
Planetary orbits. If the Earth moves through space at 66,000 mph now and because of that is 93,000,000 miles from our sun, suppose time was slower, then it would move slower through space and so be in a closer orbit (and a lot hotter), and vice versa.
Radioactive isotopes would be more radioactive if time moved faster (thus having shorter half lives) and stars would burn brighter thus consuming their fuel a lot quicker and living shorter lives.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 17 2007, 07:12 AM)
suppose time was slower
Thus the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Time slows near the sun.
MERCURY PAUSES OR MOVES SLOW IN THAT SLOWER TIME.
The Shapiro effect is another example of slowing time/light. Where time slows everything including light slows because of the contracted space-time metric in gravity.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
Thus the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Time slows near the sun.
MERCURY PAUSES OR MOVES SLOW IN THAT SLOWER TIME.
The Shapiro effect is another example of slowing time/light. Where time slows everything including light slows because of the contracted space-time metric in gravity.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 17 2007, 05:34 PM)
Thus the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Time slows near the sun.
MERCURY PAUSES OR MOVES SLOW IN THAT SLOWER TIME.
The Shapiro effect is another example of slowing time/light. Where time slows everything including light slows because of the contracted space-time metric in gravity.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
Nick. It is a fact that things move slower in heavier gravity. This is not time slowing down but heavier gravity slowing things down.
If Mercury paused, it would quickly head sunwards at great speed. If Mercury moved faster, it would be in a larger orbit so a self fulfilling prophecy. As to those 43 arc seconds a century, maybe :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...cury_orbit.html
How does time slow light down? Light does not undergo time dilation because photons are massless. You can force light to go around a longer path due to gravity distortion, or through a denser medium, like Venus's atmosphere at 90 times Earth atmospheric density as with Shapiro but light travelling through a gravitation field will still travel at C speed.
How does light fall? Do you mean night fall? Water fall? Old fool?
MERCURY PAUSES OR MOVES SLOW IN THAT SLOWER TIME.
The Shapiro effect is another example of slowing time/light. Where time slows everything including light slows because of the contracted space-time metric in gravity.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
Nick. It is a fact that things move slower in heavier gravity. This is not time slowing down but heavier gravity slowing things down.
If Mercury paused, it would quickly head sunwards at great speed. If Mercury moved faster, it would be in a larger orbit so a self fulfilling prophecy. As to those 43 arc seconds a century, maybe :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...cury_orbit.html
How does time slow light down? Light does not undergo time dilation because photons are massless. You can force light to go around a longer path due to gravity distortion, or through a denser medium, like Venus's atmosphere at 90 times Earth atmospheric density as with Shapiro but light travelling through a gravitation field will still travel at C speed.
How does light fall? Do you mean night fall? Water fall? Old fool?
Hello kaneda
From studying gravity and its affects, time slows in a gravity well. As you exit a gravity well the flow of time will speed up. This is a proven fact that is used in everyday GPS devices. We have also measured the change in energy/frequency of light as it exits a gravity well. It is red shifted. The question is, does the red shift come from the change in gravity or the change in time flow or both. Or are time and gravity tied together like electric and magnetic fields. In any case the change in the rate of time from a slower to a faster state results in a red shift. What do we see happening to the light that was emitted long ago?
From studying gravity and its affects, time slows in a gravity well. As you exit a gravity well the flow of time will speed up. This is a proven fact that is used in everyday GPS devices. We have also measured the change in energy/frequency of light as it exits a gravity well. It is red shifted. The question is, does the red shift come from the change in gravity or the change in time flow or both. Or are time and gravity tied together like electric and magnetic fields. In any case the change in the rate of time from a slower to a faster state results in a red shift. What do we see happening to the light that was emitted long ago?
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 18 2007, 08:40 AM)
Nick. It is a fact that things move slower in heavier gravity. This is not time slowing down but heavier gravity slowing things down.
If Mercury paused, it would quickly head sunwards at great speed. If Mercury moved faster, it would be in a larger orbit so a self fulfilling prophecy. As to those 43 arc seconds a century, maybe :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...cury_orbit.html
How does time slow light down? Light does not undergo time dilation because photons are massless. You can force light to go around a longer path due to gravity distortion, or through a denser medium, like Venus's atmosphere at 90 times Earth atmospheric density as with Shapiro but light travelling through a gravitation field will still travel at C speed.
How does light fall? Do you mean night fall? Water fall? Old fool?
More gravity is slower time kaneda.
Mercury pauses because its motion slows be avery small amount. It would not fall into the sun kaneda!!!
Time slows light by it slowing. It's simple.
Light falls because gravity changes its motion. It causes it to follow the curves of space and also it slows it down due to the time slowdown we've been talking about.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
If Mercury paused, it would quickly head sunwards at great speed. If Mercury moved faster, it would be in a larger orbit so a self fulfilling prophecy. As to those 43 arc seconds a century, maybe :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...cury_orbit.html
How does time slow light down? Light does not undergo time dilation because photons are massless. You can force light to go around a longer path due to gravity distortion, or through a denser medium, like Venus's atmosphere at 90 times Earth atmospheric density as with Shapiro but light travelling through a gravitation field will still travel at C speed.
How does light fall? Do you mean night fall? Water fall? Old fool?
More gravity is slower time kaneda.
Mercury pauses because its motion slows be avery small amount. It would not fall into the sun kaneda!!!
Time slows light by it slowing. It's simple.
Light falls because gravity changes its motion. It causes it to follow the curves of space and also it slows it down due to the time slowdown we've been talking about.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
So in a way time is an construct of gravity :)
And gravity is an construct of mass.
and mass is an construct of particles
And particles are an construct of waves? foam? one idimensional strings?
And those warps space
who is a construct of ...time?
And no were need we to discuss where those consciousnesses that discuss those questions origin.
And gravity is an construct of mass.
and mass is an construct of particles
And particles are an construct of waves? foam? one idimensional strings?
And those warps space
who is a construct of ...time?
And no were need we to discuss where those consciousnesses that discuss those questions origin.
Nick. Through a ball in the air on a heavy gravity world and the fact that it does not go so high is not due to time but gravity.
It slows by 43 arc seconds a century. A gnat's whisker. The sun is not a sphere.
Gravity does not slow down light. It can red shift or blue shift it. It can make it take a longer path due to bending space but gravity can not slow it down.
It slows by 43 arc seconds a century. A gnat's whisker. The sun is not a sphere.
Gravity does not slow down light. It can red shift or blue shift it. It can make it take a longer path due to bending space but gravity can not slow it down.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 19 2007, 09:12 AM)
Nick. Through a ball in the air on a heavy gravity world and the fact that it does not go so high is not due to time but gravity.
It slows by 43 arc seconds a century. A gnat's whisker. The sun is not a sphere.
Gravity does not slow down light. It can red shift or blue shift it. It can make it take a longer path due to bending space but gravity can not slow it down.
BUT TIME (SLOWING) IS PART OF GRAVITY. BECAUSE IT SLOWS LIGHT SLOWS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- PARTICLES COLLIDE --
It slows by 43 arc seconds a century. A gnat's whisker. The sun is not a sphere.
Gravity does not slow down light. It can red shift or blue shift it. It can make it take a longer path due to bending space but gravity can not slow it down.
BUT TIME (SLOWING) IS PART OF GRAVITY. BECAUSE IT SLOWS LIGHT SLOWS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- PARTICLES COLLIDE --
Besides slower time one also needs to look at the affects of entropy increasing due to the expansion. If we expand a gas under pressure, an endothermic result will occur, or the IR signiture will red shift. Take a canister of gas, open the valve, and measure the IR of the stationary canister, even the stationary canister will show a red shift. If we add motion to entropy expansion we get double red shift. Add gravity and a slower time affect and we get more red shift. We ignor 2 out of 3, because bigger universe size numbers are more impressive.
Dark matter and dark energy display all the affects on would expect from an entropy expansion. Because it is enothermic, it will not give off energy but will appear like negative light or dark.
Currently they are trying to run experiements to determine the nature of dark matter. It is suppose to be something tough to do, due to its elusive nature. This doesn't make sense. If it can barely be made and if and when we are able to make it, with extreme energy, and will turn back to what we already have (in the lab), how does it last in space under low energy conditions?
Dark matter and dark energy display all the affects on would expect from an entropy expansion. Because it is enothermic, it will not give off energy but will appear like negative light or dark.
Currently they are trying to run experiements to determine the nature of dark matter. It is suppose to be something tough to do, due to its elusive nature. This doesn't make sense. If it can barely be made and if and when we are able to make it, with extreme energy, and will turn back to what we already have (in the lab), how does it last in space under low energy conditions?
Let's talk about the elusive nature of dark matter. If it had an origin with real matter near the big bang then it ought to be mixed together completely. Things ought to be made up mostly of it; the solar system and the earth for example.
But somehow it is confined to surrounding rather than permeating through galaxies. If there is 7.5 times as much of it than there is real matter how come the earth isn't made mostly of it? Dark matter is fudge.
Why we don't see universal expansion on the level of the small is that it would be near infinitesimal at the quantum scales. It takes very large distances to show up. That is why it is currently being applied only to galactic distance and nothing smaller. But I believe it is happening there at these smaller levels; that it is happening to galaxies themselves. Primordial galaxies started off compact but have been stretched out by expansion to what we see now. And of course this includes the evolution of our galaxy the Milky Way.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
But somehow it is confined to surrounding rather than permeating through galaxies. If there is 7.5 times as much of it than there is real matter how come the earth isn't made mostly of it? Dark matter is fudge.
Why we don't see universal expansion on the level of the small is that it would be near infinitesimal at the quantum scales. It takes very large distances to show up. That is why it is currently being applied only to galactic distance and nothing smaller. But I believe it is happening there at these smaller levels; that it is happening to galaxies themselves. Primordial galaxies started off compact but have been stretched out by expansion to what we see now. And of course this includes the evolution of our galaxy the Milky Way.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
Nick. It is said that dark matter only reacts due to gravity but that would mean that every star, planet, etc as it moved through space would hoover the stuff up. We go around our sun which is heading towards Vega which is rotating in our galaxy which is (apparently) undergoing expansion. If dark matter existed, then there should be quite a bit of it on Earth since it is not capable of reaching Earth's escape velocity. Yet we have found none.
The reason why dark matter was invented is that the Earth is apparently moving around the galaxy at around 175 mps which is above it's escape velocity so should fly off. Unless our measurement of speed is wrong, our understanding of gravity on such scales is wrong, or dark matter or something similar exists, the galaxy would have drifted apart in less than a billion years.
If our galaxy has been expanding for ten billion years thatw ould suggest that everything was a lot closer together originally which would mean that some areas would never have expanded, and others would have collapsed into super-massive black holes. The fact that our galaxy has "arms" would not suggest a uniform expansion.
The reason why dark matter was invented is that the Earth is apparently moving around the galaxy at around 175 mps which is above it's escape velocity so should fly off. Unless our measurement of speed is wrong, our understanding of gravity on such scales is wrong, or dark matter or something similar exists, the galaxy would have drifted apart in less than a billion years.
If our galaxy has been expanding for ten billion years thatw ould suggest that everything was a lot closer together originally which would mean that some areas would never have expanded, and others would have collapsed into super-massive black holes. The fact that our galaxy has "arms" would not suggest a uniform expansion.
Hello Nick, et al.
Have you seen this paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0402/0402024.pdf .
Here is an excerpt
Have you seen this paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0402/0402024.pdf .
Here is an excerpt
QUOTE
In this paper it is shown that the previous Hubble law can be explained in
another way, as a consequence of the change of the gravitational potential in
the universe. Hence it will follow that such large velocities among the galaxies
are only apparent, because the main effect is the red shift, and the red shift
appears according to additional gravitational potential V in the universe, which
changes linearly (or almost linearly) with the time, i.e. ∂V/∂t ≈ const.
another way, as a consequence of the change of the gravitational potential in
the universe. Hence it will follow that such large velocities among the galaxies
are only apparent, because the main effect is the red shift, and the red shift
appears according to additional gravitational potential V in the universe, which
changes linearly (or almost linearly) with the time, i.e. ∂V/∂t ≈ const.
I BELIEVE WE SEE SPACE STRETCHING/EXPANSION THAT IS EQUIVALANT TO MOTION. THE HYPERSPHERE IS EVER EXPANDING FORMING NEW MATTER. THIS IS TIME'S EQUIVALENCE TO ETERNITY.
Hello Nick
Did you read this http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0402/0402024.pdf ?
Here is another quote to pique your interest
Doesn't this tie into your "fastest time"?
Did you read this http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0402/0402024.pdf ?
Here is another quote to pique your interest
QUOTE
Since ∂V/∂t < 0, in the past the time in the universe was slower than now,
and in future it will be faster than now.
and in future it will be faster than now.
Doesn't this tie into your "fastest time"?
Nick. In your hypersphere, does space expand by stretching or forming new matter? You seem to claim both.
QUOTE
I BELIEVE WE SEE SPACE STRETCHING/EXPANSION THAT IS EQUIVALANT TO MOTION. THE HYPERSPHERE IS EVER EXPANDING FORMING NEW MATTER. THIS IS TIME'S EQUIVALENCE TO ETERNITY.
Montec. I think what Nick means by "fastest time" is our present rate of progress ; 1 sec/sec, but that we can go slower due to time dilation.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 21 2007, 07:14 AM)
Nick. In your hypersphere, does space expand by stretching or forming new matter? You seem to claim both.
YES. BOTH ARE HAPPENING kaneda. Space is growing and new matter is forming also.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
YES. BOTH ARE HAPPENING kaneda. Space is growing and new matter is forming also.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. How can new space form? The fact that it happens at an exactly uniform rate, just the right amount, would suggest an intelligence behind it. Where does this new space come from, space which has grown from zero to over a hundred billion light years across?
New matter? From where? If it could come from a quantum vacuum it would suggest there would only be a strictly limited amount of it there that would have run out billions of years ago. The casual formation of protons and electrons would not form naturally into useful hydrogen.
An expanding hypersphere without additional energy would reach an ever lower energy state (ie: space would cool till it reached absolute zero) till expansion was forced to stop. The temperature of space seems to have always been about 2.7K .
New matter? From where? If it could come from a quantum vacuum it would suggest there would only be a strictly limited amount of it there that would have run out billions of years ago. The casual formation of protons and electrons would not form naturally into useful hydrogen.
An expanding hypersphere without additional energy would reach an ever lower energy state (ie: space would cool till it reached absolute zero) till expansion was forced to stop. The temperature of space seems to have always been about 2.7K .
NEW ENERGY COMES FROM GOD.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 22 2007, 08:31 AM)
Nick. How can new space form?
New matter? From where?
An expanding hypersphere without additional energy would reach an ever lower energy state (ie: space would cool till it reached absolute zero) till expansion was forced to stop. The temperature of space seems to have always been about 2.7K .
Space and Matter are (possibly) the result of composite forces which, rather than energy, is the actual basis of the material world. As forces, rather than energy, their supply - if exquisitely balanced by an 'intelligence', would never be diminuished. How energy could be derived from these forces without 'consumption' takes longer to explain. I don't pretend to know the reason for the temperature balance, only a general idea of the basic possibilities involved. Forgive me for intruding if my (possible) knowledge is impudent.
New matter? From where?
An expanding hypersphere without additional energy would reach an ever lower energy state (ie: space would cool till it reached absolute zero) till expansion was forced to stop. The temperature of space seems to have always been about 2.7K .
Space and Matter are (possibly) the result of composite forces which, rather than energy, is the actual basis of the material world. As forces, rather than energy, their supply - if exquisitely balanced by an 'intelligence', would never be diminuished. How energy could be derived from these forces without 'consumption' takes longer to explain. I don't pretend to know the reason for the temperature balance, only a general idea of the basic possibilities involved. Forgive me for intruding if my (possible) knowledge is impudent.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 22 2007, 08:31 AM)
Nick. How can new space form? The fact that it happens at an exactly uniform rate, just the right amount, would suggest an intelligence behind it.
SPACE EXPANSION IS IN RATE INCREASING.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
SPACE EXPANSION IS IN RATE INCREASING.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 24 2007, 12:47 AM)
NEW ENERGY COMES FROM GOD.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. If you are going to say goddidit, then you are wasting your time here as the ultimate cop out is the answer to anything which normally requires the use of a brain.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. If you are going to say goddidit, then you are wasting your time here as the ultimate cop out is the answer to anything which normally requires the use of a brain.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 21 2007, 07:17 AM)
Montec. I think what Nick means by "fastest time" is our present rate of progress ; 1 sec/sec, but that we can go slower due to time dilation.
THERE IS A FASTEST CLOCK AND IT BELONGS TO LIGHT.
THERE IS A FASTEST CLOCK AND IT BELONGS TO LIGHT.
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 24 2007, 10:15 PM)
THERE IS A FASTEST CLOCK AND IT BELONGS TO LIGHT.
But you claim light can slow down.
Light actually has no clock since it always travels at C.
But you claim light can slow down.
Light actually has no clock since it always travels at C.
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 25 2007, 02:35 PM)
But you claim light can slow down.
YES AS EINSTEIN HAS SAID IT GOES SLOWER IN SLOWER TIME.
IT STILL MUST BE GAUGED BY TIME.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
YES AS EINSTEIN HAS SAID IT GOES SLOWER IN SLOWER TIME.
QUOTE
Light actually has no clock since it always travels at C.
IT STILL MUST BE GAUGED BY TIME.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 25 2007, 05:41 PM)
YES AS EINSTEIN HAS SAID IT GOES SLOWER IN SLOWER TIME.
IT STILL MUST BE GAUGED BY TIME.
Where did Einstein say that? Please give the full quote.
Only when measured.
Wow, Nick! I go away for a week and look what I miss!!
I had no idea that you had the ability to:
- write in lowercase,
- write in full sentences,
- give examples,
- or explain your thoughts in a manor where a logical person could follow.
Good job in proving the contrary. Now you just need take this sort of initiative in all your posts
---
Here's my thoughts on the matter (I could be wrong):
There is a universal "now". Time propagates at the same rate everywhere. However, it will take time for other people to hear you say "now" due to the speed limit. Therefore, by the time they get the message, it will be later.
Also, gravity does not influence time.
I had no idea that you had the ability to:
- write in lowercase,
- write in full sentences,
- give examples,
- or explain your thoughts in a manor where a logical person could follow.
Good job in proving the contrary. Now you just need take this sort of initiative in all your posts
---
Here's my thoughts on the matter (I could be wrong):
There is a universal "now". Time propagates at the same rate everywhere. However, it will take time for other people to hear you say "now" due to the speed limit. Therefore, by the time they get the message, it will be later.
Also, gravity does not influence time.
Latrosicarius. I think the idea of the Universal Now is that all people can experience the same time at the same time, which is not even possible on Earth.
If gravity did infuence time, then time would flow ever slower on more massive objects ; stars, dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes. Since it is believed possible for a neutron star to rotate at 100,000 mps this is unlikely to say the least.
Nick has taken to quoting Einstein. He ran out of comments so started making up his own.
If gravity did infuence time, then time would flow ever slower on more massive objects ; stars, dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes. Since it is believed possible for a neutron star to rotate at 100,000 mps this is unlikely to say the least.
Nick has taken to quoting Einstein. He ran out of comments so started making up his own.
I think I understand what is being expressed here.
Nick, everything is happening now, regardless of its place in the universe. We just are not privy to that information till light gets around to delivering it for us, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a "practical" universal now.
Yes, light appears to slow down in a gravity well. But that is an illusion, as Kaneda and others have pointed out to you.
Say i had 2 runners. Both have had equal training time and such, so both travel at the same speed.
Suppose one runner follows the track around to the finish, but the other runs straight through the middle to get to the same place. Is the runner on the outside of the track slower than the one that traversed a shorter distance? Or did it simply take him longer because he had further to go?
This same effect is seen in our universe in it most dramatic as an "Gravity Lens"
The speed of light is always C regardless of its starting point, or what it encounters along the way. Otherwise , any light exiting a gravity field would do so at a much slower velocity, and eventually cease to move, due to the accumulative effect of its interactions with every gravity field it encounters, including its own. Considering photons have no mass, this is patently absurd.
Sincerely,
Oxensraiser?
Nick, everything is happening now, regardless of its place in the universe. We just are not privy to that information till light gets around to delivering it for us, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a "practical" universal now.
Yes, light appears to slow down in a gravity well. But that is an illusion, as Kaneda and others have pointed out to you.
Say i had 2 runners. Both have had equal training time and such, so both travel at the same speed.
Suppose one runner follows the track around to the finish, but the other runs straight through the middle to get to the same place. Is the runner on the outside of the track slower than the one that traversed a shorter distance? Or did it simply take him longer because he had further to go?
This same effect is seen in our universe in it most dramatic as an "Gravity Lens"
The speed of light is always C regardless of its starting point, or what it encounters along the way. Otherwise , any light exiting a gravity field would do so at a much slower velocity, and eventually cease to move, due to the accumulative effect of its interactions with every gravity field it encounters, including its own. Considering photons have no mass, this is patently absurd.
Sincerely,
Oxensraiser?
QUOTE (Oxensraiser?+Mar 28 2007, 04:48 PM)
I think I understand what is being expressed here.
Nick, everything is happening now, regardless of its place in the universe. We just are not privy to that information till light gets around to delivering it for us, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a "practical" universal now.
This is precisely my point OX. Out there right now accross the entire universe things are happening. The past is not in the distance; information in the form of light IS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick, everything is happening now, regardless of its place in the universe. We just are not privy to that information till light gets around to delivering it for us, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a "practical" universal now.
This is precisely my point OX. Out there right now accross the entire universe things are happening. The past is not in the distance; information in the form of light IS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 28 2007, 03:03 PM)
Latrosicarius. I think the idea of the Universal Now is that all people can experience the same time at the same time, which is not even possible on Earth.
kaneda, that's not what I mean exactly. I am in agreement with how Ox phrased it:
kaneda, that's not what I mean exactly. I am in agreement with how Ox phrased it:
QUOTE (Oxensraiser?+)
everything is happening now, regardless of its place in the universe. We just are not privy to that information till light gets around to delivering it for us, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a "practical" universal now.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Mar 29 2007, 04:35 PM)
kaneda, that's not what I mean exactly. I am in agreement with how Ox phrased it:
QUOTE (Oxensraiser?+)
everything is happening now, regardless of its place in the universe. We just are not privy to that information till light gets around to delivering it for us, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a "practical" universal now.
THERE IS ALWAYS A NOW AND NOTHING ELSE ENTIRELY. LIGHT CARRIES INFORMATION ONLY ABOUT THE PAST. IT IS NOT THE PAST.
THERE IS A PRACTICAL UNIEVRSAL NOW. IT IS JUST NOT LIGHT/TIME BOUND.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
THERE IS ALWAYS A NOW AND NOTHING ELSE ENTIRELY. LIGHT CARRIES INFORMATION ONLY ABOUT THE PAST. IT IS NOT THE PAST.
THERE IS A PRACTICAL UNIEVRSAL NOW. IT IS JUST NOT LIGHT/TIME BOUND.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 29 2007, 11:43 PM)
THERE IS ALWAYS A NOW AND NOTHING ELSE ENTIRELY. LIGHT CARRIES INFORMATION ONLY ABOUT THE PAST. IT IS NOT THE PAST.
THERE IS A PRACTICAL UNIEVRSAL NOW. IT IS JUST NOT LIGHT/TIME BOUND.
Nick, you are confusing as all hell, and I have the feeling you are being obstinate on purpose. I have seen you phrase yourself better in the past.
Please rationalize what you are saying and perhaps give an analogy.
THERE IS A PRACTICAL UNIEVRSAL NOW. IT IS JUST NOT LIGHT/TIME BOUND.
Nick, you are confusing as all hell, and I have the feeling you are being obstinate on purpose. I have seen you phrase yourself better in the past.
Please rationalize what you are saying and perhaps give an analogy.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Mar 30 2007, 06:15 PM)
Nick, you are confusing as all hell, and I have the feeling you are being obstinate on purpose. I have seen you phrase yourself better in the past.
Please rationalize what you are saying and perhaps give an analogy.
The whole universe exists at once as an hypersphere. time throughout the universe is happening all at once. This is the NOW. There is always a NOW and it's everywhere. That simply is all that exists.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Please rationalize what you are saying and perhaps give an analogy.
The whole universe exists at once as an hypersphere. time throughout the universe is happening all at once. This is the NOW. There is always a NOW and it's everywhere. That simply is all that exists.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 30 2007, 06:30 PM)
The whole universe exists at once as an hypersphere. time throughout the universe is happening all at once. This is the NOW. There is always a NOW and it's everywhere. That simply is all that exists.
Nick, rephrasing yourself does not help. Do you understand the concept of an analogy?
Nick, rephrasing yourself does not help. Do you understand the concept of an analogy?
LAT what kind of wild goose chase are you trying to lead me to?
There is only the NOW; EVERYWHERE. Information about the past is not the past itself. It's not hard to understand but you need to change your thinking LATRO.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
There is only the NOW; EVERYWHERE. Information about the past is not the past itself. It's not hard to understand but you need to change your thinking LATRO.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 30 2007, 06:39 PM)
LAT what kind of wild goose chase are you trying to lead me to?
There is only the NOW; EVERYWHERE. Information about the past is not the past itself. It's not hard to understand but you need to change your thinking LATRO.
I'm not trying to lead you to any goose; I'm trying to figure out what the heck you are saying. If I understand you correctly, then we are of the same opinion.
Please scroll up and read my posts and tell me if we are on the same page.
There is only the NOW; EVERYWHERE. Information about the past is not the past itself. It's not hard to understand but you need to change your thinking LATRO.
I'm not trying to lead you to any goose; I'm trying to figure out what the heck you are saying. If I understand you correctly, then we are of the same opinion.
Please scroll up and read my posts and tell me if we are on the same page.
Please post your opinion again LAT as I cannot find it on pages 3 or 4.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 30 2007, 07:35 PM)
Please post your opinion again LAT as I cannot find it on pages 3 or 4.
You must not be looking too hard. It's the first post at the top of this page (page 4).
I often suspect that you don't read anything people write since (1) you never seem to understand simple concepts that people keep telling you, and (2) you never answer the questions people ask of you.
You must not be looking too hard. It's the first post at the top of this page (page 4).
I often suspect that you don't read anything people write since (1) you never seem to understand simple concepts that people keep telling you, and (2) you never answer the questions people ask of you.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Mar 30 2007, 10:00 PM)
You must not be looking too hard. It's the first post at the top of this page (page 4).
I often suspect that you don't read anything people write since (1) you never seem to understand simple concepts that people keep telling you, and (2) you never answer the questions people ask of you.
I am saying that the NOW is a more practical view of the universe than a more light/time bound view may be LATRO.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
I often suspect that you don't read anything people write since (1) you never seem to understand simple concepts that people keep telling you, and (2) you never answer the questions people ask of you.
I am saying that the NOW is a more practical view of the universe than a more light/time bound view may be LATRO.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Hello Nick
You said
I agree with you.
Can you define a hypersphere.
You said
QUOTE
The whole universe exists at once as an hypersphere. time throughout the universe is happening all at once. This is the NOW. There is always a NOW and it's everywhere. That simply is all that exists.
I agree with you.
Can you define a hypersphere.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Mar 31 2007, 01:29 AM)
Hello Nick
You said
I agree with you.
Can you define a hypersphere.
WELL HARRY IT IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. JUST AS A SPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A CIRCLE THE HYPERSPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A SPHERE. IT IS A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPHERE SO TO SPEAK. AND THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WE SEE IS THE HYPERSPHERE EXPANDING.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THANK YOU HARRY
AND BEST WISHES
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
You said
I agree with you.
Can you define a hypersphere.
WELL HARRY IT IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. JUST AS A SPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A CIRCLE THE HYPERSPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A SPHERE. IT IS A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPHERE SO TO SPEAK. AND THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WE SEE IS THE HYPERSPHERE EXPANDING.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THANK YOU HARRY
AND BEST WISHES
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 31 2007, 02:43 AM)
WELL HARRY IT IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. JUST AS A SPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A CIRCLE THE HYPERSPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A SPHERE. IT IS A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPHERE SO TO SPEAK. AND THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WE SEE IS THE HYPERSPHERE EXPANDING.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THANK YOU HARRY
AND BEST WISHES
Aww man, how come you explain stuff in detail when Harry asks you, but whenever I ask you, you just repeat what you said last time?
You like harry more than me, don't you
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THANK YOU HARRY
AND BEST WISHES
Aww man, how come you explain stuff in detail when Harry asks you, but whenever I ask you, you just repeat what you said last time?
You like harry more than me, don't you
NOW IS EVERYWHERE IN SPACE-TIME. I CANNOT BE ANY CLEARER LAT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Hello Nick
Smile,,,,,,,Thank you for the thank you
You said
Do we actually see the sphere expanding?
No way
Does the universe expand?
No way
Where do you think the centre is?
If there was a centre, no body knows.
A mitake that man has made in history is thinking that he is the centre.
Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm
Do we actually see the sphere expanding?
No way
Does the universe expand?
No way
Where do you think the centre is?
If there was a centre, no body knows.
A mitake that man has made in history is thinking that he is the centre.
Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm
Like Ptolemy's epicycles, these distortions disappear when we refocus our vision to accept the way these galaxies are distributed as the more accurate measure of distance, and reject the "first guess" hypothesis that redshift equals distance that has dominated astronomy for 80 years.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
Fingers of God
Keep on reading the rest of the link.
Smile,,,,,,,Thank you for the thank you
You said
QUOTE
WELL HARRY IT IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. JUST AS A SPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A CIRCLE THE HYPERSPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A SPHERE. IT IS A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPHERE SO TO SPEAK. AND THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WE SEE IS THE HYPERSPHERE EXPANDING.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
Do we actually see the sphere expanding?
No way
Does the universe expand?
No way
Where do you think the centre is?
If there was a centre, no body knows.
A mitake that man has made in history is thinking that he is the centre.
Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| WELL HARRY IT IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. JUST AS A SPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A CIRCLE THE HYPERSPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A SPHERE. IT IS A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPHERE SO TO SPEAK. AND THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WE SEE IS THE HYPERSPHERE EXPANDING. THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE. |
Do we actually see the sphere expanding?
No way
Does the universe expand?
No way
Where do you think the centre is?
If there was a centre, no body knows.
A mitake that man has made in history is thinking that he is the centre.
Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm
Like Ptolemy's epicycles, these distortions disappear when we refocus our vision to accept the way these galaxies are distributed as the more accurate measure of distance, and reject the "first guess" hypothesis that redshift equals distance that has dominated astronomy for 80 years.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
Fingers of God
QUOTE
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm
The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.
These three diagrams are called "pie charts" because of their resemblance to slices of pie. Our position (the Earth) is at the bottom point in all cases. Distance (away from the Earth) is measured along the straight edges. In the top left image, we show what a galaxy cluster in Arp's universe would look like without the big bang perspective. It is a family of galaxies and quasars and gaseous clouds of mixed redshifts (in the top diagrams, the large dots are low- redshift, the medium-sized dots are medium-redshift, and the small dots are high redshift). At the center, there is a dominant galaxy -- it's usually the largest galaxy, and the galaxy with the lowest redshift of the cluster. This galaxy is surrounded by low-to-medium redshift galaxies, and toward the edges of the cluster we find the highest redshift galaxies, HII regions, BL Lac objects and quasars.
The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.
These three diagrams are called "pie charts" because of their resemblance to slices of pie. Our position (the Earth) is at the bottom point in all cases. Distance (away from the Earth) is measured along the straight edges. In the top left image, we show what a galaxy cluster in Arp's universe would look like without the big bang perspective. It is a family of galaxies and quasars and gaseous clouds of mixed redshifts (in the top diagrams, the large dots are low- redshift, the medium-sized dots are medium-redshift, and the small dots are high redshift). At the center, there is a dominant galaxy -- it's usually the largest galaxy, and the galaxy with the lowest redshift of the cluster. This galaxy is surrounded by low-to-medium redshift galaxies, and toward the edges of the cluster we find the highest redshift galaxies, HII regions, BL Lac objects and quasars.
Keep on reading the rest of the link.
In an infinite universe, everything must be its own center.
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 31 2007, 03:43 AM)
WELL HARRY IT IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL. JUST AS A SPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A CIRCLE THE HYPERSPHERE IS A DIMENSION ABOVE A SPHERE. IT IS A FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPHERE SO TO SPEAK. AND THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WE SEE IS THE HYPERSPHERE EXPANDING.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THANK YOU HARRY
AND BEST WISHES
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. Why are we moving away from the BB in a four dimensional way rather than in three dimensions? We have found no evidence of a fourth physical dimension. Again for the Nth time, what is inside this hypersphere? From your description it sounds hollow.
And what's with this BEST WISHES for Harry? You definitely like him better than me or Latrosicarius.
THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE IS WHERE THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION AS WE EXPAND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE HYPERSPHERE.
THANK YOU HARRY
AND BEST WISHES
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. Why are we moving away from the BB in a four dimensional way rather than in three dimensions? We have found no evidence of a fourth physical dimension. Again for the Nth time, what is inside this hypersphere? From your description it sounds hollow.
And what's with this BEST WISHES for Harry? You definitely like him better than me or Latrosicarius.
The universe expanding is a space-stretch. Distance grows in space. That is my theory.
Kaneda, you have to ask him only 1 thing at a time. Make sure your post is no longer than 1 line :-D
THE HYPERSPHERE IS THE UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 6 2007, 09:09 PM)
Kaneda, you have to ask him only 1 thing at a time. Make sure your post is no longer than 1 line :-D
Latrosicarius. Since Nick is probably going to ignore what I (or anyone else) ask him, I try to get them all out of the way at once.
Latrosicarius. Since Nick is probably going to ignore what I (or anyone else) ask him, I try to get them all out of the way at once.
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 20 2007, 05:49 AM)
THE HYPERSPHERE IS THE UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. Since by your definition the universe is all that there is of the hypersphere (ie : there is nothing inside) then why bother mentioning it regarding gravity when what you are effectively saying is that the universe (itself) is the universal gravitational field?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. Since by your definition the universe is all that there is of the hypersphere (ie : there is nothing inside) then why bother mentioning it regarding gravity when what you are effectively saying is that the universe (itself) is the universal gravitational field?
YOU MEAN THAT THE HYPERSPHERE IS THE SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSE.
Nick, do you realise what a hypersphere is? If the universe is a spherical shaped object, then it's not got the topology of a hypersphere. Why? Because the hypersphere is the surface of the ball.
For instance, a 2-sphere is not the 3 dimensional sphere, but it's surface, you do not include it's inside. Hence, when you keep saying '4 dimensional hypersphere' you are not actually describing the shape you think you are. What you are actually meaning to refer to is a hyper-ball. Then you include the inside of the universe, not just it's 'edge'.
Of course the fact you're not even aware of this important distinction just demonstrates you mindlessly repeat buzzwords you think you understand. You, Ivars and Mott.Carl are all cut from the same cloth clearly.
For instance, a 2-sphere is not the 3 dimensional sphere, but it's surface, you do not include it's inside. Hence, when you keep saying '4 dimensional hypersphere' you are not actually describing the shape you think you are. What you are actually meaning to refer to is a hyper-ball. Then you include the inside of the universe, not just it's 'edge'.
Of course the fact you're not even aware of this important distinction just demonstrates you mindlessly repeat buzzwords you think you understand. You, Ivars and Mott.Carl are all cut from the same cloth clearly.
WE START WITH A CIRCLE
A CIRCLE GENERALIZED TO 3 DIMENSIONS IS A SPHERE
A SPHERE GENERALIZED TO 4 DIMENSIONS IS AN HYPERSPHERE
THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE.
THESE ARE MY DEFINITIONS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
A CIRCLE GENERALIZED TO 3 DIMENSIONS IS A SPHERE
A SPHERE GENERALIZED TO 4 DIMENSIONS IS AN HYPERSPHERE
THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE.
THESE ARE MY DEFINITIONS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. You miss the point. Why is the universe a 4D ball?
Matter starts off as 3D so why should it start to expand in 4D? Evidence?
What is inside the 4D sphere? Where did it come from since the big bang stuff is 3D? Why is it increasing so the hypersphere is getting bigger? What is outside the 4D sphere?
How can space stretch infinitely? If you have new space appearing, where from?
Your definitions are just empty statements which you have offered no evidence for.
Matter starts off as 3D so why should it start to expand in 4D? Evidence?
What is inside the 4D sphere? Where did it come from since the big bang stuff is 3D? Why is it increasing so the hypersphere is getting bigger? What is outside the 4D sphere?
How can space stretch infinitely? If you have new space appearing, where from?
Your definitions are just empty statements which you have offered no evidence for.
The universe is an hypersphere because it is closed kaneda, finite yet unbounded.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
A hyperball is closed too, but it includes the inside of the hypersphere too. Besides, there's plenty more closed 4 dimensional shapes than just spheres. 4-torus for instance. Or a K3 space. Or S²xSxS. Or S³xS. There's others too but you get the picture.
So you see, your logic is far from concrete.
So you see, your logic is far from concrete.
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 22 2007, 11:15 PM)
The universe is an hypersphere because it is closed kaneda, finite yet unbounded.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. If a 3D universe has insufficient material to expand forever, then it is said to be closed and will have a Big Collapse eventually. It is also finite and of course, unbounded since there is nothing outside the universe. No need for a fourth physical dimension using your definitions.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. If a 3D universe has insufficient material to expand forever, then it is said to be closed and will have a Big Collapse eventually. It is also finite and of course, unbounded since there is nothing outside the universe. No need for a fourth physical dimension using your definitions.
The universe curves back on itself in the 4th dimension. That's the hypersphere I am talking about.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Still doesn't justify your claims. There's plenty of objects which are finite but without a boundary, 3 or 4 dimensional and are curved. You just say "Pick a circle and go into 4 dimensions". Why a circle and not something else? No justification at all.
[QUOTE=Nick,Feb 16 2007, 05:50 PM]
There is only the now everywhere.
But the rate of time lapse might vary from place to place.
The time it took for time to reach the observer means that time occurred before the observer received it. Thus, now, there, occurred earlier than now here.
Would you explain how the rate of time is changed gravitationally. Presumably gravity affects the time-space continuum, bending it around massive objects, and this distorts the straight line time and space calculation ? Is this the hypothesis ?
If this is the basis or involvement of time-space expansion, from a center or surface-wise, perhaps 3D or 4D might fall into a more simple explanation.
There is only the now everywhere.
But the rate of time lapse might vary from place to place.
The time it took for time to reach the observer means that time occurred before the observer received it. Thus, now, there, occurred earlier than now here.
Would you explain how the rate of time is changed gravitationally. Presumably gravity affects the time-space continuum, bending it around massive objects, and this distorts the straight line time and space calculation ? Is this the hypothesis ?
If this is the basis or involvement of time-space expansion, from a center or surface-wise, perhaps 3D or 4D might fall into a more simple explanation.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 23 2007, 10:07 PM)
Still doesn't justify your claims. There's plenty of objects which are finite but without a boundary, 3 or 4 dimensional and are curved. You just say "Pick a circle and go into 4 dimensions". Why a circle and not something else? No justification at all.
ALFALFA WHAT ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOUT?
IF YOU FEEL THAT THE FORM OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT HYPERSPHERICAL THEN WHAT OTHER CLOSED FORM IS IT IN YOUR OPINION?
YES. I CLAIM THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE AND AM PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO. IT IS CURVING BACK ON ITSELF IN THE 4TH SPATIAL DIMENSION.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
ALFALFA WHAT ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOUT?
IF YOU FEEL THAT THE FORM OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT HYPERSPHERICAL THEN WHAT OTHER CLOSED FORM IS IT IN YOUR OPINION?
YES. I CLAIM THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE AND AM PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO. IT IS CURVING BACK ON ITSELF IN THE 4TH SPATIAL DIMENSION.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 24 2007, 01:23 AM)
ALFALFA WHAT ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOUT?
Something you obviously don't comprehend.
Something you obviously don't comprehend.
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 24 2007, 01:23 AM)
YES. I CLAIM THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE AND AM PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO. IT IS CURVING BACK ON ITSELF IN THE 4TH SPATIAL DIMENSION.
*sigh*
As I've now pointed out to you several times, the hypersphere is not the only 'finite but unbounded' object which 'curves back on itself in the 4th dimension'. I even gave a list of possible other shapes which do that.
So no, you're not justified because you just arbitrarily pick a hypersphere out of several possible options. But then we all know why you picked a hypersphere, it's because you've never heard of the other shapes because you're so ignorant and have no clue about this stuff.
As I've now pointed out to you several times, the hypersphere is not the only 'finite but unbounded' object which 'curves back on itself in the 4th dimension'. I even gave a list of possible other shapes which do that.
So no, you're not justified because you just arbitrarily pick a hypersphere out of several possible options. But then we all know why you picked a hypersphere, it's because you've never heard of the other shapes because you're so ignorant and have no clue about this stuff.
If all objects or all places in the spatial dimension are an equal time from the Big Bang and the transition from the Big Bang is the time dimension, it should be possible to show that "Now" must be the same throughout the spatial universe.
Absolute "Now" and relative "Now" are the foundations and the difference between the Theory of Absolutes and the Theory of Relativity. Just as Einstein used a thought experiment for relative "Now" or simultaneity, let us consider the same type of thought experiment for Absolute "Now".
Two strobe lights L1, and L2 of the same design are synchronized to flash at the same time. The four lights and observer M1 are placed at point (A). Two of the lights L1 and L2 are then moved an equal distance from point (A). All strobes should also be moved in the same manner to prevent a difference in flash rate that could be cause by the movement or rate of movement. If the lights are moved correctly observer M1 still at point A will see lights L1 and L2 flash at the same time. Lights L1 and L2 may move around point A at an equal distance forming a circle of simultaneity. This may be repeated to produce an infinite number of concentric circles. It may then be seen that any action anywhere on the same circle is simultaneous.
If we now move to a new location and repeat the experiment, we will produce another set of concentric circles of simultaneity. The second set of concentric circles will overlap the first set of concentric circles. If any circle of simultaneity intersects another circle of simultaneity, both circles must be simultaneous. It is therefore shown that all locations in space are simultaneous thus agreeing with the Theory of Absolutes.
Absolute "Now" and relative "Now" are the foundations and the difference between the Theory of Absolutes and the Theory of Relativity. Just as Einstein used a thought experiment for relative "Now" or simultaneity, let us consider the same type of thought experiment for Absolute "Now".
Two strobe lights L1, and L2 of the same design are synchronized to flash at the same time. The four lights and observer M1 are placed at point (A). Two of the lights L1 and L2 are then moved an equal distance from point (A). All strobes should also be moved in the same manner to prevent a difference in flash rate that could be cause by the movement or rate of movement. If the lights are moved correctly observer M1 still at point A will see lights L1 and L2 flash at the same time. Lights L1 and L2 may move around point A at an equal distance forming a circle of simultaneity. This may be repeated to produce an infinite number of concentric circles. It may then be seen that any action anywhere on the same circle is simultaneous.
If we now move to a new location and repeat the experiment, we will produce another set of concentric circles of simultaneity. The second set of concentric circles will overlap the first set of concentric circles. If any circle of simultaneity intersects another circle of simultaneity, both circles must be simultaneous. It is therefore shown that all locations in space are simultaneous thus agreeing with the Theory of Absolutes.
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 24 2007, 01:23 AM)
YES. I CLAIM THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE AND AM PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO. IT IS CURVING BACK ON ITSELF IN THE 4TH SPATIAL DIMENSION.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. So this is your idea of proof?
Doh!
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. So this is your idea of proof?
Doh!
Nowtime. We know that matter even at a sub-atomic level responds to gravity (neutron stars, etc). If someone goes to a heavy gravity planet, it can be assumed that not only the person suffers from the effects of the heavier gravity but even their atoms suffer too with the electrons having to work that bit harder. That is how gravity slows down time, by slowing down change.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 24 2007, 07:45 AM)
Something you obviously don't comprehend.
*sigh*
As I've now pointed out to you several times, the hypersphere is not the only 'finite but unbounded' object which 'curves back on itself in the 4th dimension'. I even gave a list of possible other shapes which do that.
So no, you're not justified because you just arbitrarily pick a hypersphere out of several possible options. But then we all know why you picked a hypersphere, it's because you've never heard of the other shapes because you're so ignorant and have no clue about this stuff.
if you think it is an arbitrary choice please show us your pick.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
*sigh*
As I've now pointed out to you several times, the hypersphere is not the only 'finite but unbounded' object which 'curves back on itself in the 4th dimension'. I even gave a list of possible other shapes which do that.
So no, you're not justified because you just arbitrarily pick a hypersphere out of several possible options. But then we all know why you picked a hypersphere, it's because you've never heard of the other shapes because you're so ignorant and have no clue about this stuff.
if you think it is an arbitrary choice please show us your pick.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
No, I didn't say it was an arbitrary choice, I said you were just making an choice you feel is arbitrary because you completely ignore all the other possibilities, probably because you don't even know they exist. A sphere is just about all you can grasp it would seem.
Besides, the overall shape of the universe is more inline with ever so slightly Anti-deSitter space-time or the Robertson-Friedman-Walker space-time. And if you're a fan of string theory, that space-time would be only part of the theory, the universe as whole would be the open space-time combined with the compactified space-time.
And if you're a fan of AdS/CFT, then you'd have the universe as (S^5)x(AdS5) with our visible universe the 4 dimensional surface of the AdS5 space. This gives a strong/weak coupling correspondence between a string theory in the full 10 dimensions and QCD on the 4 dimensional boundary. It's giving some interesting results for particle masses and the original paper to propose such a thing is one of the most cited papers in recent history.
So it would see your guess is far from a forgone conclusion.
Besides, the overall shape of the universe is more inline with ever so slightly Anti-deSitter space-time or the Robertson-Friedman-Walker space-time. And if you're a fan of string theory, that space-time would be only part of the theory, the universe as whole would be the open space-time combined with the compactified space-time.
And if you're a fan of AdS/CFT, then you'd have the universe as (S^5)x(AdS5) with our visible universe the 4 dimensional surface of the AdS5 space. This gives a strong/weak coupling correspondence between a string theory in the full 10 dimensions and QCD on the 4 dimensional boundary. It's giving some interesting results for particle masses and the original paper to propose such a thing is one of the most cited papers in recent history.
So it would see your guess is far from a forgone conclusion.
No. I don't feel it is arbitrary.
There is a reason the distant galaxies are not time dilated. It is because they are not actually moving away through space from you. Instead space is stretching or expanding and distance is growing in the universe therefore there is no Transverse Doppler effect in the distance.
Time doesn't slow because of spatial expansion only by moving through space. This is the reason for the universal now. Now is everywhere in space-time and its rate of passage is nearly always the same.
HOW DO YOU LIKE MY UNIVERSE?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
There is a reason the distant galaxies are not time dilated. It is because they are not actually moving away through space from you. Instead space is stretching or expanding and distance is growing in the universe therefore there is no Transverse Doppler effect in the distance.
Time doesn't slow because of spatial expansion only by moving through space. This is the reason for the universal now. Now is everywhere in space-time and its rate of passage is nearly always the same.
HOW DO YOU LIKE MY UNIVERSE?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (kaneda+Apr 24 2007, 03:02 PM)
Nowtime. We know that matter even at a sub-atomic level responds to gravity (neutron stars, etc). If someone goes to a heavy gravity planet, it can be assumed that not only the person suffers from the effects of the heavier gravity but even their atoms suffer too with the electrons having to work that bit harder. That is how gravity slows down time, by slowing down change.
YOU ARE WRONG. EMPTY (SPACE) TIME CAN BE SLOW. THEREFORE THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE YET TIME IS SLOW. TIME IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY MATTER OCCUPYING IT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
YOU ARE WRONG. EMPTY (SPACE) TIME CAN BE SLOW. THEREFORE THERE IS NOTHING TO CHANGE YET TIME IS SLOW. TIME IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY MATTER OCCUPYING IT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 25 2007, 12:18 AM)
TIME IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY MATTER OCCUPYING IT.
If Time cannot be influenced by matter, then nothing can influence Time, and that goes for slowing it down or speeding it up (dilation). Nick, I want you to show me some kind of evidence to back up the claims you are making in several threads now, regarding Time dilation being a real effect, as if it has been documented and proven to occur.
If Time cannot be influenced by matter, then nothing can influence Time, and that goes for slowing it down or speeding it up (dilation). Nick, I want you to show me some kind of evidence to back up the claims you are making in several threads now, regarding Time dilation being a real effect, as if it has been documented and proven to occur.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 25 2007, 01:15 AM)
If Time cannot be influenced by matter, then nothing can influence Time, and that goes for slowing it down or speeding it up (dilation). Nick, I want you to show me some kind of evidence to back up the claims you are making in several threads now, regarding Time dilation being a real effect, as if it has been documented and proven to occur.
TO CLARIFY: YOU CAN HAVE EMPTY TIME THAT IS SLOWED BY GRAVITY. TO TEST IT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MOVE INTO IT. SOMEHOW DENSE MATTER CAN SLOW TIME. THAT IS GRAVITY. BUT YOU DO NOT NEED MATTER FOR TIME TO EXIST AS EMPTY SPACE-TIME.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
TO CLARIFY: YOU CAN HAVE EMPTY TIME THAT IS SLOWED BY GRAVITY. TO TEST IT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MOVE INTO IT. SOMEHOW DENSE MATTER CAN SLOW TIME. THAT IS GRAVITY. BUT YOU DO NOT NEED MATTER FOR TIME TO EXIST AS EMPTY SPACE-TIME.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 25 2007, 02:13 AM)
TO CLARIFY: YOU CAN HAVE EMPTY TIME THAT IS SLOWED BY GRAVITY. TO TEST IT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS MOVE INTO IT. SOMEHOW DENSE MATTER CAN SLOW TIME. THAT IS GRAVITY. BUT YOU DO NOT NEED MATTER FOR TIME TO EXIST AS EMPTY SPACE-TIME.
I do not recall there ever being an empty Time, as Time is temporal, whereas x,y,z is spatial. Emptiness is spatial.
Furthermore, so far Time dilation has been unproven to me, so you merely saying "Dense matter can slow Time", means nothing to me, without evidence to back up such a statement.
However, I do agree with the part where you say that you don't need matter for Time to exist. You only need Space afaik. But you finish by saying Time exists as 'empty space-time'? That made me
I do not recall there ever being an empty Time, as Time is temporal, whereas x,y,z is spatial. Emptiness is spatial.
Furthermore, so far Time dilation has been unproven to me, so you merely saying "Dense matter can slow Time", means nothing to me, without evidence to back up such a statement.
However, I do agree with the part where you say that you don't need matter for Time to exist. You only need Space afaik. But you finish by saying Time exists as 'empty space-time'? That made me
THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME THING TIME NOT NEEDING MATTER FOR EXISTENCE AND EMPTY TIME.
WHY ARE YOU OF THE ATTITUDE THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVEN TO YOU FOR YOU TO HAVE BELIEF? THIS IS NOT BECOMING OF YOU. OTHERWISE YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE BUSSINESS OF HAVING TO PROVE EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS. THIS IS NOT A POSITION YOU WANT TO BE IN.
I KNOW TIME SLOWS. I HAVE ZERO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
DID YOU KNOW THAT THOUGHT IS DOUBT BASED?
YOU NEED TO GROW.
THERE IS SOMETHING BETTER THAN BEING AN INTELLECTUAL.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
WHY ARE YOU OF THE ATTITUDE THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVEN TO YOU FOR YOU TO HAVE BELIEF? THIS IS NOT BECOMING OF YOU. OTHERWISE YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE BUSSINESS OF HAVING TO PROVE EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS. THIS IS NOT A POSITION YOU WANT TO BE IN.
I KNOW TIME SLOWS. I HAVE ZERO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
DID YOU KNOW THAT THOUGHT IS DOUBT BASED?
YOU NEED TO GROW.
THERE IS SOMETHING BETTER THAN BEING AN INTELLECTUAL.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Bryn Richards
The theory of Relativity is not a theory of real time. It is a theory of the function of observation and clocks.
Real time is past, present, and future. If real time were affected by the concepts of Relativity then an observer, persons or object would move from the present to the past or future of another observer. Since no one and no object has ever been seen to leave the present under any condition of Relativity, Relativity has no effect on real time.
Relativity only affects the physical properties of an object and all objects respond in the same manner to changes of velocity or gravity. All clocking functions of all objects slow down with velocity or under the influence of gravity. All clocking functions indicate real time at zero velocity and in the absence of gravity. The real time condition is also indicated by any clocking function changing at the fastest rate.
Real time is a transition in the time dimension and the rate of transition is influenced by the medium the same as light is influenced by the medium it is in. This is not a dilation of time.
QUOTE
If Time cannot be influenced by matter, then nothing can influence Time, and that goes for slowing it down or speeding it up (dilation). Nick, I want you to show me some kind of evidence to back up the claims you are making in several threads now, regarding Time dilation being a real effect, as if it has been documented and proven to occur.
The theory of Relativity is not a theory of real time. It is a theory of the function of observation and clocks.
Real time is past, present, and future. If real time were affected by the concepts of Relativity then an observer, persons or object would move from the present to the past or future of another observer. Since no one and no object has ever been seen to leave the present under any condition of Relativity, Relativity has no effect on real time.
Relativity only affects the physical properties of an object and all objects respond in the same manner to changes of velocity or gravity. All clocking functions of all objects slow down with velocity or under the influence of gravity. All clocking functions indicate real time at zero velocity and in the absence of gravity. The real time condition is also indicated by any clocking function changing at the fastest rate.
Real time is a transition in the time dimension and the rate of transition is influenced by the medium the same as light is influenced by the medium it is in. This is not a dilation of time.
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 25 2007, 03:03 AM)
WHY ARE YOU OF THE ATTITUDE THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PROVEN TO YOU FOR YOU TO HAVE BELIEF? THIS IS NOT BECOMING OF YOU. OTHERWISE YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE BUSSINESS OF HAVING TO PROVE EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS. THIS IS NOT A POSITION YOU WANT TO BE IN.
Nick, don't get me wrong, but I don't go around saying "Prove it" to people who are trying to theorise stuff. I only say "Prove it", to people who go around saying things as if they are true. I have not once seen you say "This is merely my theory" or "This is only theoretical, however", or "But of course, I cannot prove anything I have said", etc. No, you make statements as if they are true, real and/or proven.
I would just like to see some humility.
Furthermore, if like Time Dilation, you think that it is provable through an experiment, then show us all some URLs which back up your statements, or give us some solid line of reasoning and logic.
I can't recall the number of times I've stated and had to state to people that what I say is only theoretical or cannot be proven, but I've never once seen you say such a thing. Hence why I ask you to prove these things.
Nick, don't get me wrong, but I don't go around saying "Prove it" to people who are trying to theorise stuff. I only say "Prove it", to people who go around saying things as if they are true. I have not once seen you say "This is merely my theory" or "This is only theoretical, however", or "But of course, I cannot prove anything I have said", etc. No, you make statements as if they are true, real and/or proven.
I would just like to see some humility.
Furthermore, if like Time Dilation, you think that it is provable through an experiment, then show us all some URLs which back up your statements, or give us some solid line of reasoning and logic.
I can't recall the number of times I've stated and had to state to people that what I say is only theoretical or cannot be proven, but I've never once seen you say such a thing. Hence why I ask you to prove these things.
IF IT IS MY TRUTH WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE ME PROVE IT TO YOU?
RATHER STRANGE POSITION TO BE IN. *CAN YOU PROVE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN? THAT IS LUDICROUS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
RATHER STRANGE POSITION TO BE IN. *CAN YOU PROVE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN?
THAT IS LUDICROUS.MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 25 2007, 05:03 PM)
IF IT IS MY TRUTH WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE ME PROVE IT TO YOU? RATHER STRANGE POSITION TO BE IN. *CAN YOU PROVE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN? THAT IS LUDICROUS.
I have no idea what you mean by 'Your' truth, that makes no sense. It's either true or it is not. I think perhaps what you should be saying is that it's your "Theory/opinion/belief", rather than truth.
Furthermore, I'm not going around saying anything is or isn't the truth.
THAT IS LUDICROUS. I have no idea what you mean by 'Your' truth, that makes no sense. It's either true or it is not. I think perhaps what you should be saying is that it's your "Theory/opinion/belief", rather than truth.
Furthermore, I'm not going around saying anything is or isn't the truth.
WHAT'S SO DIFFICULT WITH CONCEPT OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE?
THAT CANNOT BE NEGATED.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
THAT CANNOT BE NEGATED.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 25 2007, 07:46 PM)
WHAT'S SO DIFFICULT WITH CONCEPT OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE?
If these are things you only 'believe' to be true, rather than that being factually true, then state that they are merely your 'beliefs', rather than act as though they are fact.
Take Time Dilation for example, you have repeatedly made statements about it, without even once stating that anything you've said, is based upon your 'beliefs', rather than fact. You have shown me no evidence or proof to back up the statements, so therefore they are beliefs and should clearly be expressed as so.
Try it, from now on, if you don't have sufficient evidence or proof of something, then make statements alright, but put in "It is my theory that..." or "It is my belief that.." etc.
That's all I'm after, Nick.
If these are things you only 'believe' to be true, rather than that being factually true, then state that they are merely your 'beliefs', rather than act as though they are fact.
Take Time Dilation for example, you have repeatedly made statements about it, without even once stating that anything you've said, is based upon your 'beliefs', rather than fact. You have shown me no evidence or proof to back up the statements, so therefore they are beliefs and should clearly be expressed as so.
Try it, from now on, if you don't have sufficient evidence or proof of something, then make statements alright, but put in "It is my theory that..." or "It is my belief that.." etc.
That's all I'm after, Nick.
I AM AFTER ABSOLUTE TRUTH MY FRIEND. AND THAT'S A FACT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
lol Nick, you're impossible
THANKYOU
MITCH RAEMSCH -- FALL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- FALL --
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 26 2007, 07:46 AM)
WHAT'S SO DIFFICULT WITH CONCEPT OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE?
And I believe Nick to be an idiot. This is something that has yet to be proved wrong.
THAT CANNOT BE NEGATED.
And I believe Nick to be an idiot. This is something that has yet to be proved wrong.
THAT CANNOT BE NEGATED.
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.