Thread: the assumption of time

This is a jump from the last post, but one of the features we take for granted with science is "time". We assume time is linear, that time has a beginning and an end, like ultimately there was the beginning where there was no time, and in the end there will be no time, from a big bang to a big end. This is not a psuedo science post here. I am highlighting that science is confused with what it considers as a primary principal and a secondary principal.

Time cannot be proved to exist. It only exists relevant to a system of space going through change, through flux. Time, as a concept, is secondary to the primary concept of "change", of "flux", that physics does all it can to primarily explain. The simplest concept of "change", or "flux", is for instance one system tranforming into another system, "A" becomming "B" owing to whatever law of space-time; that flux, that change, whatever it is, is registered as a passage of "time". Time does not CAUSE flux or change. Time does not create the laws of physics. Time is a secondary feature of the laws of space-time. Time is HOW all the laws of space/matter interact together.

I think what I am getting at is that time is a "secondary concept", yet that doesn't stop some who try to create primary concepts regarding time, like the big bang. Creating ideas like the Big Bang are nonsensical, because time is not a primary feature of anything. To say when time began is to make time a primary feature. If we can't prove the beginning of time, we should work with what we "can" prove.

I am not saying we have been mislead by those who promote ideas central to making time a primary concept, I am suggesting that the future holds a great process of revision regarding what is real science and what is pseudo science.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

This is a jump from the last post, but one of the features we take for granted with science is "time". We assume time is linear, that time has a beginning and an end, like ultimately there was the beginning where there was no time, and in the end there will be no time, from a big bang to a big end. This is not a psuedo science post here. I am highlighting that science is confused with what it considers as a primary principal and a secondary principal.

Time cannot be proved to exist. It only exists relevant to a system of space going through change, through flux. Time, as a concept, is secondary to the primary concept of "change", of "flux", that physics does all it can to primarily explain. The simplest concept of "change", or "flux", is for instance one system tranforming into another system, "A" becomming "B" owing to whatever law of space-time; that flux, that change, whatever it is, is registered as a passage of "time". Time does not CAUSE flux or change. Time does not create the laws of physics. Time is a secondary feature of the laws of space-time. Time is HOW all the laws of space/matter interact together.

I think what I am getting at is that time is a "secondary concept", yet that doesn't stop some who try to create primary concepts regarding time, like the big bang. Creating ideas like the Big Bang are nonsensical, because time is not a primary feature of anything. To say when time began is to make time a primary feature. If we can't prove the beginning of time, we should work with what we "can" prove.

I am not saying we have been mislead by those who promote ideas central to making time a primary concept, I am suggesting that the future holds a great process of revision regarding what is real science and what is pseudo science.

I see several problems with your view of time but I'll only take the (ahem!) time to mention just one of them. You say time is linear but any decent physicist would take GREAT issue with that!

You also fail to understand the importance of spacetime - in which the two elements, space and time - are so closely related that they cannot be separated. I suggest you do a little studying before trying to take on the whole scientific community with your misunderstandings. :wink: You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime and I suggest you actually study it rather than simply just reading through it.

One of the great styles of science is to carry-on-assuming.......

I do not think time is linear (please read what I posted "carefully").

I am suggesting that the great implication of people thinking there was a big bang is that time then should be linear, you know, beginning to end linear.........that sort of linear. I am sorry if I confused that with other sorts of "linear" you had in mind.

Once again, if you read the post carefully, you would understand that I suggested time is the feature itself of how all the laws of space "interact". Um, I think that suggests I consider space and time to be linked.......um, yes, that's right, "linked". How therefore you think I made a mistake in saying space and time are not linked, mmmmmmm.

To quote what you directed me to:
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the space-time continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, the universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large amount of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels".

Mmmm, wow........thanks for the tip........I'll get a tattoo that can describe that as a symbol as well.

C'mon. You are going to tell me that modern science, well, the way it is taught, allows NO ROOM for debate on the axioms? I hope you are a "happy product of your system".

On of the great things about science in this day and age is that it represewnts the conquest itself of explaining and ultimately harnessing the very force that keeps us earthbound, gravity. If I am going to be lead to believe that science has forgotten the liberal art of "experimenting with theories" because one has to do as one is told as taught or be failed, I actually truly hope "philosophy" gets the gong in explaining space-time through a theory of perception.........they deserve it, if of course I am lead to believe enough that there is no room for intelligent debate on the axioms of space-time, as we construct and employ them.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

One of the great styles of science is to carry-on-assuming.......

I do not think time is linear (please read what I posted "carefully").

I am suggesting that the great implication of people thinking there was a big bang is that time then should be linear, you know, beginning to end linear.........that sort of linear. I am sorry if I confused that with other sorts of "linear" you had in mind.

Once again, if you read the post carefully, you would understand that I suggested time is the feature itself of how all the laws of space "interact". Um, I think that suggests I consider space and time to be linked.......um, yes, that's right, "linked". How therefore you think I made a mistake in saying space and time are not linked, mmmmmmm.

To quote what you directed me to:
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the space-time continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, the universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large amount of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels".

Mmmm, wow........thanks for the tip........I'll get a tattoo that can describe that as a symbol as well.

C'mon. You are going to tell me that modern science, well, the way it is taught, allows NO ROOM for debate on the axioms? I hope you are a "happy product of your system".

On of the great things about science in this day and age is that it represewnts the conquest itself of explaining and ultimately harnessing the very force that keeps us earthbound, gravity. If I am going to be lead to believe that science has forgotten the liberal art of "experimenting with theories" because one has to do as one is told as taught or be failed, I actually truly hope "philosophy" gets the gong in explaining space-time through a theory of perception.........they deserve it, if of course I am lead to believe enough that there is no room for intelligent debate on the axioms of space-time, as we construct and employ them.

There's always room for debate - but only where there IS room for debate. Meaning things that extend beyond present tried and proven facts. Things like "before the Big Bang" will always be open to speculation since we've no way of proving what the universe was like then. But most of it will be nothing more than philosophical speculation - which is actually worthless - rather than scientific. Perhaps one day the GUT will be formalized, tested and proven. If so, that will give us at least a shadow of a hint what the pre-Big Bang conditions were.

Meanwhile, you are simply wasting your efforts attempting to confront the professionals. Are you more qualified - somehow - than the best highly-skilled theoretical physicists who have spent decades looking at those questions? Somehow, I really, really doubt it. Care to explain yourself? And just why we would want to pay any attention to your thoughts?

Sorry for not properly introducing myself.

I am a developer, a scientific research agency developer, looking for someone who has similar thoughts to the research I am proposing. I am looking for someone, a consortium, who can represent the link between the current scientific community and a new theory and associated technology of space-time.

I am not looking for brown-nosers, I am looking for people I can make an offer to regarding some up-coming research work into a new field of science......people I can trust because they were genuine from the start.

Does that handle that question of yours?

This global forum is giving me a good idea of what type of personality traits I should be expecting, or rather, avoiding.

Finally, I am not confronting professionals. I am looking for a unique professional with that extra edge into the unknowns. If you read the download on the simple one-page invitation website, you would realize what I am on about. Don't like blowing my own personal agenda though, as many of you have misinterpreted. I am looking for someone to communicate with regarding a development proposal I have.

.......now, for the benefit of that fortunate candidate, if you don't like a post I present, ignore it......that's how I treat all posts that I don't find relevant to my presence here in this forum.

I dunno, dude. Time is irrelevant without a frame of perspective, so I fail to see how it can impact the universe directly.

I am presenting the case for a new look at a theory of time, in highlighting the inconsistencies of logic in contemporary science's current employment of time and it's associated primary theories (such as the big bang). To be as simple as possible, I am presenting the case that "time" is how the forces of space work their way with one another. As for a reference of time (to cut the long story (of the download I have available) short), I present the case that we could exist, as we do, consciously, in this perpetual "now" zone, a zone that represents how that universal play of the field-forces interacts with itself.....how an imbalanced system is forever trying to balance itself, and that process of a system of space-forces balancing itself is "time".......yet, it is registered only "now"......as always: memory and forewarning are just echoes, patterns, eddies of what was and what will be........as an available theory that validates all known field forces suggests.

So what you're saying is that if we remove the concept of time, the universe falls apart?

...

I'd argue that if you have no concept of the coming and going of time, the kettle will still boil.

No, I am not saying that.

I am saying you cannot eliminate the concept of time because the forces of space-matter seek definition........balance.......: and that incurs time. To remove time is to basically not conceptualize anything.

its half half, everytime is shematic perspective if you wish

though space time technically exists?

I'd argue that time is only relevant to an observer.

If an observer wishes to describe or calculate the impact of two bodies, time may have relevance...but without the observer the two bodies will still collide.

I fail to see how time is becoming an endemic property of the physical universe.

Time may only be relevant to the observer but it still passes if there is no one to observe it. It may not be a physical property of our universe but it is still a central part of it.

Originally Posted by Dimension

It may not be a physical property of our universe but it is still a central part of it.

I disagree.

The passage of time only exists in the context of a observer. Without an observer, things just continue on ceaselessly. It's just one event after another, without any more order than the precedence of events before.

As Einstein once said, "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."

In this sense, it is noted that there are events that happen before others. From an observation standpoint, we can assign temporal properties such as "before, after, then, now," etc. Without that observation, the universe just proceeds according to the causation of continuity.

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

There's always room for debate - but only where there IS room for debate. Meaning things that extend beyond present tried and proven facts. Things like "before the Big Bang" will always be open to speculation since we've no way of proving what the universe was like then. But most of it will be nothing more than philosophical speculation - which is actually worthless - rather than scientific. Perhaps one day the GUT will be formalized, tested and proven. If so, that will give us at least a shadow of a hint what the pre-Big Bang conditions were.

Meanwhile, you are simply wasting your efforts attempting to confront the professionals. Are you more qualified - somehow - than the best highly-skilled theoretical physicists who have spent decades looking at those questions? Somehow, I really, really doubt it. Care to explain yourself? And just why we would want to pay any attention to your thoughts?

Only when there is room for debate? I have never heard such closed-minded arrogance. Worthless philosophical speculation? The professionals must not be confronted, these "best" highly skilled theoretical physicists who have spent decades looking at these questions? But don't have an answer.

Hmmn.

TIME EXPLAINED

Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is so very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. You form a mental map of the world using your senses and your brain. You use this mental map to think, and you are so immersed in it that you can’t see things the way they really are. You are locked into an irrational conviction that clocks run, that days pass, that time flows, and that a journey takes a length of time.

It takes steely logic to break out of this conditioning. First of all we need to look at your senses and the things you experience. Let’s start with sight. Look at the picture below:



Squares A and B are the same colour. They’re the same shade of grey. The apparent difference in colour is an illusion. Look at it from a narrow angle and you'll realise I'm right. What this tells you is that colour is subjective. It isn’t a real property of things in the world. It’s perception, a quale, it’s in your head. A photon doesn’t actually have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a frequency. What’s it’s got is a motion.

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.



Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. This pressure of air or water is not some property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us that pressure is derived from motion.

You can also feel kinetic energy. If a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s impacted your chest you would feel it for sure. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, and relative motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that stove and you feel that heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of motion.




Taste is chemical in nature, and somewhat primitive. Most of your sense of taste is in fact your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a man called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it probably never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, ontological things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with time.

So, what is time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom...

So, a second is nine billion periods of radiation. But what is a period? We know that radiation is electromagnetic in nature, the thing we commonly call light. We also know that light has a frequency. So let’s look at frequency:

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ

This says frequency is the reciprocal of the period T, and is also velocity v divided by wavelength λ . Combining the two, we can say T = λ / v, which means a period T is a wavelength λ divided by a velocity v. To try to find out more, we can drill down into wavelength and velocity. We know that a wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...

And we know already that a velocity is a distance divided by a time. So if a period is a wavelength divided by a velocity, that means a period is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. So let’s do some simple mathematics. Let’s work it through. We can combine T = λ / v and v = λ / t and write it down as:

T = λ / ( λ / t).

Then we can cancel out the λs to get:

T = 1/(1/t)

Then we cancel the double reciprocal to leave:

T = t

The answer we get is T = t. A period of time is a period of time. This mathematical definition of time is circular. What is its true nature? How do we dig down and get to the bottom of it? Let’s look at frequency some more. What’s the definition in English?

Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

Our unit of time is the second. Frequency is the number of events per second. A second is nine billion periods of electromagnetic radiation. A period of radiation is an electromagnetic event, caused by an electromagnetic event happening inside an atom. For an event to happen, something has to move. Some component of the caesium atom has to travel some distance. A hyperfine transition is to do with magnetic dipole movement, a flip-flop interaction between the nucleus and an electron. It’s magnetic, so it’s electromagnetic in nature. Like the electron is electromagnetic in nature. Like the photon is electromagnetic in nature, because the photon is the “mediator“ of the electromagnetic field. So in some simple respect, we can consider some vital component of the atom to be electromagnetic just like light.



The answer comes with a rush. It’s basically light moving inside the atom, and it’s travelling a distance. It does it nine billion times, and we call that a second. Then we use this second to measure the speed of light. We measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light. In caesium atoms, in hydrogen atoms, in our own atoms, in the atoms of everything. No wonder it never changes.

And so the penny drops: the mathematics is circular because time is circular. The interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. But you need events, not frozen timeless intervals to mark out the time. The events aren’t in the time, the time is in the events. Because time is merely the measure of events, of change, measured against some other change. And for things to change, there has to be motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

You don’t need regular atomic motion to mark out time. Any regular motion will do. Yes, we counted nine billion oscillations and called it second. One, two, three… nine billion. But you don’t have to count hyperfine transitions in a caesium atom. You could count beans in a bucket. Ping, ping, ping, chuck them in, regular as clockwork.



You’re sitting there counting beans into the bucket, ping, ping, ping, regular as clockwork. Now, what is the direction of time? The only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans you’re throwing. A fuller bucket is not the direction of time. More beans is not the direction of time. The direction of time is the direction of your counting, and I could have asked you to count the beans out of the bucket. There is no real direction. It’s as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 →

It’s imaginary, so you cannot actually point in this direction. Nor can an arrow. There is no Arrow of Beans, so there is no Arrow of Time. And since there’s no direction, there’s no direction you can possibly travel in. And since you can’t travel, you can’t travel a length, and a length can’t pass you by. It’s all abstraction, a false concept rooted in the language we use to think. Yet we never ever think about what the words actually mean. Instead we say the clock is running slow as if a clock is an athlete. We say the day went quickly but it didn’t go anywhere. We say years pass, but they don’t go by like buses.



The only directions that are there, are the directions of the spatial motions that make the events that we use to measure the intervals between the other events. What’s there is the motion of light, the motion of atoms, and the motion of clocks, buses, and rivers. What’s there is the motion of the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars. And these motions are being counted, incremented, added up. We count regular atomic motion to use as a ratio against some other motion, be it of light, clocks, or buses. All of these things have motion, both internal motion and travelling motion. And all those motions are real, with real directions in space. But the time direction isn't real. It's as imaginary as a trip to nine billion.

That's why the past is only in your head, in your memory, in your records. It isn’t a place you can travel to. It’s just the places where things were. All those places that are still here in the universe. And while the past is the sum of all nows, now lasts for no time at all. Because there’s no time like the present, and time needs events, and when you take away the events, you take away the time. A second isn’t some slice of spacetime. It’s just nine billion motions of a caesium atom. Accelerate to half the speed of light and a second is still nine billion motions of a caesium atom. But there's only half the local motion there used to be, because the other half is already doing the travelling motion through space. That’s why time dilates.

It’s easy to understand time dilation. Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat in your heart, a second of your time. If you’re motionless with respect to me I see you ticking like this: |||. If you flash by in a spaceship, I see you ticking like this: /\/\/\. If you could reach c and we know you can’t, you wouldn’t tick at all. Your time would flatline like this ______ because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. You wouldn’t tick for me, you wouldn’t tick for you, and you wouldn’t tick for anybody else in the universe.

That’s the thing we’re interested in. The universe. That’s the thing that’s out there, the thing we’re a part of, the thing we’re trying to understand. It’s full of motion, and this is what it’s like:



What can you see? What can you measure? You can measure the height. You can measure the width. And if it wasn't just a picture you could measure the depth. That's three Dimensions, with a capital D because we have freedom of movement in those dimensions. What else can you see? What else can you measure? You might imagine a fourth dimension, a time dimension. But the picture comes from the wikipedia temperature page. It’s a gif, a moving image, and in that image, those red and blue dots are moving. The thing you can measure is temperature.

Temperature is an aspect of heat, an emergent property, a derived effect of atomic and molecular motion. When you measure the temperature, you are measuring an aggregate motion. If you were one of those dots, you would not talk of climbing to a “higher temperature”. There is no real height. You can’t literally climb to a higher temperature. Hence we don’t call temperature a dimension. But people did. Temperature used to be called a dimension, but the word has gradually changed from its original meaning of “measure”, and is now assumed to be something that offers a degree of freedom, something you can move through.

We are immersed in time like the dots are immersed in temperature. It’s a different measure, but just as we cannot travel in temperature because there is no real height, we cannot travel in time because there is no real length. Because time is a dimension with a small d. There is no degree of freedom. I can hop backwards a metre but not backwards a second. Because time is a measure of change rather than a measure of place, and it has no absolute units, because you can only measure one change of place against another. It’s a relative measure of motion. The units are relative, and that’s what Special Relativity was telling us all along.

Special Relativity tells us that your relative velocity alters your measurement of space and time compared to everybody else. You increase your relative velocity and space appears to contract while time dilates by a factor of √(1-v2/c2). If you travel at .99c, space appears to contract to one seventh of its former size. So your trip to a star seven light years away only takes you a year. But physics is about the universe, and in that universe it took you seven years. The star didn’t become a disc because you flashed by. The space in the universe didn’t really contract because you travelled through it. But your time did.



Einstein didn’t seem to understand the full meaning of Special Relativity until later in life. It’s daunting. Perhaps he kept it under his hat while he struggled to explain it all in terms that people would find acceptable and conclusive. In the early days he was certainly influenced by Hermann Minkowski, a father-figure whose forename was the same as Einstein’s actual father. It was Minkowski who turned time into the fourth dimension:

The mathematics of his revolutionary paper on Special Relativity was relatively elementary, and at first he resisted its reformulation in terms of four-dimensional space-time by his former teacher Hermann Minkowski, complaining that “since the mathematicians pounced on relativity theory I no longer understand it myself”.

Einstein went along with it. But later he seemed a little hesitant with the Twins Paradox in 1918. He used acceleration from General Relativity as the explanation, but this explanation didn’t account for passing clocks. It’s hard to be sure what he was thinking. But a couple of years later in 1920 he gave an address at the University of Leyden:

..according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

There’s a clue in there. He doesn’t talk about spacetime, he talks about space. When you read the history I think you can see his thinking. He started off by saying there is no absolute time, using a postulate that says the the speed of light is always measured to be the same. In more general terms this is known as Lorentz Invariance, wherein the “laws” of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. But Einstein knew there were no literal laws in physics. Just postulates, models, theories. And he knew about inertial reference frames. He knew they weren’t real, and that the caution is that the observer’s own velocity is always deemed to be zero. He knew they don’t explain why the speed of light is always the same. I think he knew why for a while. He kept saying “time is suspect”, but I don’t think anybody wanted to hear it. It it wasn’t until Godel had broken the ice in Princeton that Einstein felt he could even talk about what Special Relativity really meant:

In his response to Godel's paper in the Schilpp volume, Einstein acknowledged that "the problem here disturbed me at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity." This problem he described as follows: "Is what remains of temporal connection between world-points in the theory of relativity an asymmetrical relation (like time, intuitively understood, and unlike space), or would one be just as much justified to assert A is before B as to assert that A is after B? The issue could also be put this way: is relativistic space-time in essence a space or a time."

Godel didn’t “find a way to time travel” with his rotating universe. He merely used this conjecture to demonstrate that time could not have passed if you could visit the past. Einstein was with Godel on this, and understood full well the implications:

It is a widely known but insufficiently appreciated fact that Albert Einstein and Kurt Godel were best friends for the last decade and a half of Einstein's life. They walked home together from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study every day; they shared ideas about physics, philosophy, politics, and the lost world of German-Austrian science in which they had grown up. What is not widely known is that in 1949 Godel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist. He added a philosophical argument that demonstrates, by Godel's lights, that as a consequence, time does not exist in our world either. If Godel is right, Einstein has not just explained time; he has explained it away... (this and above quotes from A World Without Time: The forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein by Palle Yourgrau)



That’s the true meaning of Special Relativity. Time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see three dimensions, and motion through them. So it’s 3+1 dimensions at best.

The speed of light was always the problem, and time was always the answer. Because at the speed of light there’s no time left for anything else to happen. It’s why c isn’t really a speed, because you run out of time trying to get there. And if there’s no time, there’s no speed, because speed is distance divided by time. The thing called c is a conversion factor, between the measure of distance and the measure we call time. It’s the motion that’s king, the velocity of light that defines your very metres and your seconds. Your velocity shouldn’t be measured by the things it defines. It should be measured as a fraction of c, in “natural units”. Because it’s motion we see, and c is the ultimate motion, how fast things happen, the inescapable property of photons and those electromagnetic things from which we’re made. From which the universe is made.

The universe is not a block universe, it is a world in motion. The worldlines are only in mathematical space, and in your head. There’s no place that’s the future, and no place that’s the past. There’s only this place, and the time is always now. We don’t travel in time at one second per second. We don't travel in time at all. Relativistic clocks don’t travel in time at different rates, they travel through the universe at fractions of c. When they collide, they collide at the same location and at the same time, whatever their faces say is local time. To travel backwards in time we'd need to unevent events, we’d need negative motion. But motion is motion whichever way it goes. You can’t have negative motion, just as you can’t have negative distance. Just as you can’t have negative carpets. So you can’t travel in time. There are no time travel paradoxes, because there is no time travel, and there is no time travel because time is just a relative measure of motion. And motion is travel. You can’t travel through travel.

So those celebrity physicists who talk earnestly of time machines are wrong. Dead wrong. Not even wrong. You wonder how they can get it so wrong. And all those folk who puzzle about the beginning of time are chasing a dream. There never was any beginning of time. Time didn’t start thirteen point seven billion years ago. Because time didn’t start in the first place. It was motion that started in the first place. It was a place, not a time. And it’s this place, the place we call the universe, marked out by every light path you can track through timeless space. That’s how far we’ve come. A long long way, in no time at all.

But now we can move on. Because now we’ve got the key, Einstein’s key, the key that unlocks all the doors in physics: spacetime is a space.

Originally Posted by Farsight

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

There's always room for debate - but only where there IS room for debate. Meaning things that extend beyond present tried and proven facts. Things like "before the Big Bang" will always be open to speculation since we've no way of proving what the universe was like then. But most of it will be nothing more than philosophical speculation - which is actually worthless - rather than scientific. Perhaps one day the GUT will be formalized, tested and proven. If so, that will give us at least a shadow of a hint what the pre-Big Bang conditions were.

Meanwhile, you are simply wasting your efforts attempting to confront the professionals. Are you more qualified - somehow - than the best highly-skilled theoretical physicists who have spent decades looking at those questions? Somehow, I really, really doubt it. Care to explain yourself? And just why we would want to pay any attention to your thoughts?

Only when there is room for debate? I have never heard such closed-minded arrogance. Worthless philosophical speculation? The professionals must not be confronted, these "best" highly skilled theoretical physicists who have spent decades looking at these questions? But don't have an answer.

Hmmn.

You seem to have penchant for twisting words so that they no longer carry their original intent.

I'm not even going to attempt to reply to the rest of those misguided (on purpose, I believe) thoughts but will address the last part.

Yes, it's true they don't have the answers yet - but they are working on them. And it has to be THE height of arrogance/delusion or something similar to even imagine that someone with less than a tenth of the training and experience is somehow going to find an answer the the professionals could not. That's sheer nonsense to think about, much less to expect!!

Originally Posted by Farsight

I have never heard such closed-minded arrogance.

You need to get out more.

If space hadn't any time,it would disappear immediately.The existence of the SPACE creates its TIME, then the SPACE has “Past”, “Present” and “Future”.

The SPACE dimension like frames of film, contains all messages in space at the time ,and The Time Dimension like the film. Suppose the SPACE as the point, then the TIME would be the line.

We can argue for hours about what time is:

We all agree that time moves at a fixed rate.

We all agree that time is eveywhere uniformly having a space-system change at a variable rate.

We all agree that time is measured indepedently to the varying rates of change of a space-system.

Most of us have degrees we achieved at University in being taught about what time is and what it is not.

It is interesting though. We say that time is independant to space, we measure time by how we measure how the system of space "changes" for us to measure that there is such a thing as time, yet we do not suggest that the rate of change of a space-system could be "directly" associated to the concept itself of time. We just say time is linear and moves at a fixed rate, the 4th dimension, when that could be a simple if not very false assumption. Yet, we have degrees and titles that bases itself on our learning that time is linear and constant.

If this offends anyone, as I have learnt, I am sorry. But I think the future of a G.U.T theory will specify the link between time and a rate of change of a space-system. I think a G.U.T. theory will not present the case that time is linear and uniform.

Sorry, but people who think time is linear and uniform could be cyclopian in their view of space-time. (I apologize to any administrators if they think I am sitting down behind a computer screaming these ideas across in an emotional tirade).

As an addendum to my medical studies (which were University based) I have developed a theory outlining a new appraisal of time and it's relation to space. The theory bases itself on a mathematical algorithm of our thought-thinking ability, the logic of our perception, and it presents the case that "time" is in fact directly related to the "movement" of space-systems (matter). In then constructing a mathematical algorithm that accommodated for those new axiom structures for space and time, I was able to derive quite accurately the equations for a circle and sphere, together with the correct value for pi. So, to cut a long story short, I may have something in proposing this new theory. Catch it at the www link below. It's a hefty read, well, it has been a hefty research project, but, I am doing my best to introduce the basic tenets of that theory to this forum, although others may think otherwise. Basically, I have developed the equations for a sphere on the premise that time represents directly the nature of change of space. That should be remarkable to theoretical physicists.

Crack-pot theories lack proof: they lack the substance of equations. The theory I have generated is "new", taken full-use of a classical education, and is backed up by valid equations. I have proof a new set of space-time axioms exist that explains the same reality as what contemporary axioms explain.

I think its quite obvious time is measurement of motion.(or you could say "memories of measured motion)

or you can say time is motion.

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

You seem to have penchant for twisting words so that they no longer carry their original intent.

No, I don't twist words. Your "That's sheer nonsense to think about" bears testament to your arrogance.

I'm not even going to attempt to reply to the rest of those misguided (on purpose, I believe) thoughts but will address the last part.

You can not reply rationally. It's too much of a psychological barrier for you. Your current concept of "a length of time" is too deeply imprinted. It is a conviction, and you are unable to examine your convictions rationally. That's why we have suicide bombers, YECs, fashion, and unsatisfactory recent progress in physics.

Yes, it's true they don't have the answers yet - but they are working on them. And it has to be THE height of arrogance/delusion or something similar to even imagine that someone with less than a tenth of the training and experience is somehow going to find an answer the the professionals could not. That's sheer nonsense to think about, much less to expect!!

No, it isn't. Your comments above are because you refuse to consider new information rationally. You have an utter conviction that an essay entitled TIME EXPLAINED cannot possibly do just that. I really have made a groundbreaking advance (there's far more than TIME EXPLAINED) , and I am an outsider. Look at the history of science. Breakthrough ideas do come from outsiders who are able to take a fresh approach and think outside the box. And there's often fierce resistance from people who consider themselves rational open-minded scientists, but in the end are shown to be quite patently or even absurdly wrong.

Mr Farsight:
After reading "time explained" I'm impressed by the depth of your analysis. You have used reason to strip away the superfluous and exposed the reality, at least as close as we have been.
One of the problems is that people take the theoretical models literally!

Thanks for your thoughts.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

This is a jump from the last post, but one of the features we take for granted with science is "time". We assume time is linear, that time has a beginning and an end, like ultimately there was the beginning where there was no time, and in the end there will be no time, from a big bang to a big end. This is not a psuedo science post here. I am highlighting that science is confused with what it considers as a primary principal and a secondary principal.

Time cannot be proved to exist. It only exists relevant to a system of space going through change, through flux. Time, as a concept, is secondary to the primary concept of "change", of "flux", that physics does all it can to primarily explain. The simplest concept of "change", or "flux", is for instance one system tranforming into another system, "A" becomming "B" owing to whatever law of space-time; that flux, that change, whatever it is, is registered as a passage of "time". Time does not CAUSE flux or change. Time does not create the laws of physics. Time is a secondary feature of the laws of space-time. Time is HOW all the laws of space/matter interact together.

I think what I am getting at is that time is a "secondary concept", yet that doesn't stop some who try to create primary concepts regarding time, like the big bang. Creating ideas like the Big Bang are nonsensical, because time is not a primary feature of anything. To say when time began is to make time a primary feature. If we can't prove the beginning of time, we should work with what we "can" prove.

I am not saying we have been mislead by those who promote ideas central to making time a primary concept, I am suggesting that the future holds a great process of revision regarding what is real science and what is pseudo science.

How upseting... you put it so much more eloquently than I did. I am glad to see that someone questions the material existance of time too. I think it is a tool and no more. I also went and discribed some of the problems this sort of concept sets upon theory's like higher dimensions in my own topic here:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Yet-a...%29.-8221t.php

If I just had an idea, and called it a theory, I would find it difficult to take myself seriously. I had an idea that evolved to a theory, based on the number of pages it represented...........but that wasn't good enough. It wasn't good enough, so I kept that idea which extended into a theory off the promotional block, out of the promotional circuit, because it lacked equations, real equations, equations we know as matters of certainty regarding space-time.

So, now, in having acquired those equations, I have placed the theory on this promotional circuit.

When someone says they have an idea like a theory, but they cannot back their new theory up with equations we know as real, it is difficult for me to comment on what one is saying for me to take seriously.

I applaude anyone with a new theory of time. But one needs to substantiate their theory with equations we know for certainty.

If you would like to judge my own theory, a theory that HAS those required equations, give it a timely and thorough review.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

If I just had an idea, and called it a theory, I would find it difficult to take myself seriously. I had an idea that evolved to a theory, based on the number of pages it represented...........but that wasn't good enough. It wasn't good enough, so I kept that idea which extended into a theory off the promotional block, out of the promotional circuit, because it lacked equations, real equations, equations we know as matters of certainty regarding space-time.

So, now, in having acquired those equations, I have placed the theory on this promotional circuit.

When someone says they have an idea like a theory, but they cannot back their new theory up with equations we know as real, it is difficult for me to comment on what one is saying for me to take seriously.

I applaude anyone with a new theory of time. But one needs to substantiate their theory with equations we know for certainty.

If you would like to judge my own theory, a theory that HAS those required equations, give it a timely and thorough review.

Ahh... I responded to another thread about the effectiveness of math. Math is like time; it is dependant on consistancy, but not on tangibilty. It is confined to the hypothetical. Math takes just as much belief as words, if you ask me. Not to mention that one can just as easily not consider needed factors in equations as in statements.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

... equations we know as real, it is difficult for me to comment on what one is saying for me to take seriously.

I applaude anyone with a new theory of time. But one needs to substantiate their theory with equations we know for certainty.

Note the underlined; they are just as open for debate as anything else. Sometimes complexity isn't a needed critirion for validity. Nor the use of more tools.

Originally Posted by FractalMind

Originally Posted by streamSystems

If I just had an idea, and called it a theory, I would find it difficult to take myself seriously. I had an idea that evolved to a theory, based on the number of pages it represented...........but that wasn't good enough. It wasn't good enough, so I kept that idea which extended into a theory off the promotional block, out of the promotional circuit, because it lacked equations, real equations, equations we know as matters of certainty regarding space-time.

So, now, in having acquired those equations, I have placed the theory on this promotional circuit.

When someone says they have an idea like a theory, but they cannot back their new theory up with equations we know as real, it is difficult for me to comment on what one is saying for me to take seriously.

I applaude anyone with a new theory of time. But one needs to substantiate their theory with equations we know for certainty.

If you would like to judge my own theory, a theory that HAS those required equations, give it a timely and thorough review.

Ahh... I responded to another thread about the effectiveness of math. Math is like time; it is dependant on consistancy, but not on tangibilty. It is confined to the hypothetical. Math takes just as much belief as words, if you ask me. Not to mention that one can just as easily not consider needed factors in equations as in statements.

It is safer to accept that for instance the equations for a circle and sphere are relatively constant............than not.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Originally Posted by FractalMind

Originally Posted by streamSystems

If I just had an idea, and called it a theory, I would find it difficult to take myself seriously. I had an idea that evolved to a theory, based on the number of pages it represented...........but that wasn't good enough. It wasn't good enough, so I kept that idea which extended into a theory off the promotional block, out of the promotional circuit, because it lacked equations, real equations, equations we know as matters of certainty regarding space-time.

So, now, in having acquired those equations, I have placed the theory on this promotional circuit.

When someone says they have an idea like a theory, but they cannot back their new theory up with equations we know as real, it is difficult for me to comment on what one is saying for me to take seriously.

I applaude anyone with a new theory of time. But one needs to substantiate their theory with equations we know for certainty.

If you would like to judge my own theory, a theory that HAS those required equations, give it a timely and thorough review.

Ahh... I responded to another thread about the effectiveness of math. Math is like time; it is dependant on consistancy, but not on tangibilty. It is confined to the hypothetical. Math takes just as much belief as words, if you ask me. Not to mention that one can just as easily not consider needed factors in equations as in statements.

It is safer to accept that for instance the equations for a circle and sphere are relatively constant............than not.

Your comment betrays the statisical nature of math. "Relatively" is the key word. Alas, my view shouldn't merely be built on the faults of others tools and ideas.

I noted the advent of your theory suggesting time as a "loop" and this thread interested me in further reading. Namely the math, but I wasn't able to find any equations in your topic or links to such. I scrolled down in hopes of seeing other members getting directions and found this:

"I know I am aware, I know I reason, but I can't prove that........no one can...........we ultimately depend on being "witnessed", collectively by one another together to prove our existence.

Yet, what makes me sure of this theory is that it is relevant to "perception", that it is based on a theory of perception. Perception is something we can't prove, we can only validate with witnesses. So, I am looking for witnesses of my theory............and I explain that, namely that the theory is merely a "sighting" of a new world of science and technology yet to be explored or discovered..........that I have merely sighted it."

Just as numbers are built on numbers, your theory is truely defined by other people's number of agreements. It is no more credible, as I've seen it, than my own topic which also openly questions by ideas. You even state that an equation is present, but confess the true nature of the adoption of theories.

I used the term "relatively" as a gross understatement...........sarcasm.

Those who know mathematics are fairly confident (sarcasm) that the equations of a circle and sphere suit all constructs of all proportions of the shape-nature of a circle and sphere.

As for the equations of a circle and sphere I derive for my own theory "find" which any and all are welcome to offer a thorough criticial review of..........they, those equations, are contained in the more appropriate download at the www link below.

My intellectual presence in this forum is not to recite from that download, but to form relevant bridges of conversations with those "interested" in the path I have more than well documented.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I used the term "relatively" as a gross understatement...........sarcasm.

Those who know mathematics are fairly confident (sarcasm) that the equations of a circle and sphere suit all constructs of all proportions of the shape-nature of a circle and sphere.

As for the equations of a circle and sphere I derive for my own theory "find" which any and all are welcome to offer a thorough criticial review of..........they, those equations, are contained in the more appropriate download at the www link below.

My intellectual presence in this forum is not to recite from that download, but to form relevant bridges of conversations with those "interested" in the path I have more than well documented.

Well, holy crap that's a lot of work. I can't wait to finish it and make my own conclusions. It is highly interesting and more so as I continue. I just hope that it isn't going to be yet another theory that becomes built upon some self fufilling ideas. I don't mean to be offensive, but I skimmed to the bottom and saw some crop circle pics and the eye of ra at the top. I just want to see it be a discovery generated by a conglamoration of chance thoughts instead of some research done to self-validate a whimsical vision. But, Im impressed.

The final stage of the book introduces "things" modern science, and modern faith, has failed to explain...........basically, the theory is put to work at explaining "strange phenomena".

As for my own personal quest, there is none..........I even suggest that people rewrite the book and put your name on it.............if you think I am on a personal quest.

I thank you for showing interest in it. It has kept me interested in it for years, the idea of it.........how the book, the theory, writes itself.........that it is actually quite fascinating the more one gets into it.......you get to the point when you ask, "is this for real........seriously". It is, because equations are equations........forming the equations for a circle and sphere was no fluke.

Change occurs in sequence, on change after another. Causing many observers to grasp at straws looking for an "original state" that lead to all the observed changes.

They want a cause at the core/origin of all causes, from which all effects eventually flow. Because most of the causes we observe are effects of some other cause, and most of the effects we observe are the cause of some new
effect.

Those effects we observe in the present haven't served as causes for any new effects yet. But they will.

What's difficult to accept is that we, as the observer, are part of all this. We are a continuous chain of causes that lead to effects, that lead to causes. We have contact with other chains that entertwine with the one we represent, but mostly our present self is the cause of our future self, and our past self is the cause of our present self.

So when you talk about an "observer" as being different from an object being observed, I get a little uneasy, because we are no different from those objects. Factoring the observer into things might tell us what an observer would see, but it also may not accurately describe what's happening in the absolute sense. I suppose its useful in discerning the difference between what we see and what's real.

Still, maybe the circular aspect of time is just from the perspective of an observer? Or do you think it's from the absolute perspective? Or is it where the two meet? Or is it common to both?

Nice.

Now, do the effects contradict the causes?

Can a steady state be achieved that represents what we would term as "general laws of space-time"?

......a steady state where the causes and effects work with one another in an almost repetitve cyclical fashion?

You mean like maybe a time travel scenario? Maybe circular sequence of events?

Example: A time traveler brings the plans for a shrink ray back from the future and gives them to a guy named Joe. Joe patents the device and goes down in history as the inventor. In the future, a man with a time machine at his disposal who is familiar with Joe's device decides to take the plans back in time and give them to Joe.

This would represent a perfectly circular sequence of events. Nobody anywhere actually invented the shrink ray. It just plain exists.

Bottom Line-Time exists and no matter whatever relative motion occurs in the universe realtive to others, time will ALWAYS pass for EVERYONE 1 second, every second. So, instead of arguing what time is, why not think why time moves at 1 second per second, and why forward! :wink:

By one second per second I meant relative to oneself

I don't think one should look at time as moving "forward" or in any direction as it is not an entity of it's own. It is merely motion. The fact that time is observed, is because something has moved and so something was observed and something new was added to the observer experience (added to his memory). If nothing moved, no time would be observed by the observer, although there is no such thing as zero motion. As for time moving forward second by second , I think, it is just a byproduct of day and night having been part of human (or rather, life's) experience for 3 billion odd years.

Time is how long we wait!

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I don't think one should look at time as moving "forward" or in any direction as it is not an entity of it's own. It is merely motion. The fact that time is observed, is because something has moved and so something was observed and something new was added to the observer experience (added to his memory). If nothing moved, no time would be observed by the observer, although there is no such thing as zero motion. As for time moving forward second by second , I think, it is just a byproduct of day and night having been part of human (or rather, life's) experience for 3 billion odd years.

Here's where the observer becomes interesting. Let's examine the following non-contradictory time travel experience:

A man named Joe who owns a time machine decides he wants to blow up a building. The building has tight security, so there's no way he'll ever get within 2 miles of it.

This is true now, but it wasn't true 500 years ago when the whole area was unsettled frontier land.

Joe builds a very big bomb, hops in his time machine, and goes back 500 years. ( The bomb is a remote detonation bomb, with a very sensitive antenna.)

He digs a very deep pit under the site where he knows the building will someday be built, and plants the bomb about 100 feet lower than the lowest part of the building's foundation.

He can be confident that, for the last 500 years, nobody has ever looked for a bomb that far down. (Or in other words, he knows that, for the next 500 years nobody will look there)

He returns to the present. He gets the most powerful radio broadcasting equipment he can find, so he can send the detonation signal to his device under ground where it has now been for over 500 years waiting to be set off.

Question: Did Joe change history, or make it?

Was there an alternate version of the present before he went back in time, or is the version he sees now the only version?

I used to love thinking about paradoxes like these, but of late, I have become more and more convinced that time-travel is impossible. I'd again say a new dimension was created the moment joe arrived and that he went back to the future where there is no bomb.

I was hoping to use the story to illustrate how it's possible for someone to travel time without contradicting the present.

If the bomb sat there for 500 years undetected, then he comes back to a present that is no different from the one he left, as far as he knew when he left.

In the new present that he's created, there's a bomb under the building, but who's to say there wasn't one in the old present?

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WONDERLING: IF SOMETHING CAN CHANGE SIMPLY BY US OBSERVING IT, CAN OTHER ANIMALS EFFECT A CHANGE? OR DO YOU HAVE TO DO AN EXPERIMENT WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO FIND THE STATE OF SOMETHING. I'M ASKING CAUSE EVEN THOUGH JOE DID'NT NOTICE A BOMB, THERE OR NOT, IF ANOTHER ANIMAL NOTICES IT (AN EARTHWORM MAYBE) THEN THE FUTURE IS CHANGED ANYWAY AS FAR AS IT BEING OBSERVED. BUT WHETHER SOMEONE KNOWS ABOUT IT OR NOT, SURELY IT IS STILL THE SAME THING.

What if space-time were also a "conscious/perception" construct?

If you are aware of something that is also aware, then your interest in being aware of space-time doesn't rank. And if it does rank, the issue is an AGENDA of consciousness performance of priority, or rather, priority of performance.

but what is conciousness? Is it simply your senses effecting in the brain? Why then is that different from anything affecting anything else? Maybe the event being sensed and the change in the brain is directly and dynamicaly linked?

One could write a book on that idea, and maybe offer it for free as a download........perhaps with some mathematical equations to substantiate any such suggestions.

would'nt i like to! But i have no science training and i'm not sure if such abook would even be possible, with mathematical substanciations and all

You seek the greatest answer of all.

you mean the existence of a soul? what do you think?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

you mean the existence of a soul? what do you think?

but for everyone's sake, everything is soul.

what do you mean?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

what do you mean?

Existence is all there is and all is made of partless part with one certain property; passing. And it rather can't have 2 separate in nature, cause then they could be separated. So that's what everything experience. Only that.

ok then....

ok then....

Originally Posted by KALSTER

would'nt i like to! But i have no science training and i'm not sure if such abook would even be possible, with mathematical substanciations and all

No, you seek YOUR greatest answer (.......But i have no science training and i'm not sure if such abook would even be possible, with mathematical substanciations and all........)

It sounds to me it is a path you must go on.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WONDERLING: IF SOMETHING CAN CHANGE SIMPLY BY US OBSERVING IT, CAN OTHER ANIMALS EFFECT A CHANGE? OR DO YOU HAVE TO DO AN EXPERIMENT WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO FIND THE STATE OF SOMETHING. I'M ASKING CAUSE EVEN THOUGH JOE DID'NT NOTICE A BOMB, THERE OR NOT, IF ANOTHER ANIMAL NOTICES IT (AN EARTHWORM MAYBE) THEN THE FUTURE IS CHANGED ANYWAY AS FAR AS IT BEING OBSERVED. BUT WHETHER SOMEONE KNOWS ABOUT IT OR NOT, SURELY IT IS STILL THE SAME THING.

Well, here's where, if we had questionable scruples and we wanted to make a lot of money, we could start our own religion/cult, get it incorporated, and go to town.

Suppose the dividing line is whether the observer will ever in their future have access to time travel technology.

Suppose a future generation someday decides to come back in time and make copies of all of us the split second before we die. Or maybe leave a copy in our place to do the dying for us, but rescue the original.

There's no way that could screw with observed history if they did a good job. Every observed death is still observed to have happened, but it just turns out that we didn't know every single person was being saved by a time traveler the whole time the Earth has been going.

Basically, we create the immortality of the soul out of purely scientific and technological arguments. There doesn't have to be a god for there to be an afterlife anymore. At least, not a god per se.

So... it becomes a new religion. A belief in some futuristic counsel that ultimately decides the fate of a person's soul, and does all the miracles and whatnot............ and ......... I don't know the specifics yet. I'll just have to wait until I "get another vision" as the prophet of the new era!!! And if my followers ever get close to figuring me out, I'll just feed them some special cool aid.

if l ron hubbard can start a bogus religion, why not us? seriously though, i was thinking of observation in the quantum mechanics sense. people from the future would effect a change in that sense as well.

Ron Hubbard was a faith of "evolutionary science" personified.

He took advantage: ad ad vantage.

No one had said we came from a volcano.

THE RON DID.

He took what Hawking, that future man, as he would have been to the ron, failed to publicise.

hubbard said we came from a volcano? his added vantage was and is conjured and blatantly false. it disturbs me that high profile celebrities are are popularising this nonsense

NNOOOoooooooo.

You fail to understand.

HUBBARD is a litmus test in this acid bath we call contemporary science.

He's the "filler" of what science fails to properly explain about our evolution_________care of contemporary science and what it fails to explain.

He's one of the SAINTS of modern science, not one of the DALEK FUERERS//////////who paradoxically are a part of the same team of contemporary science and the way they use time--________--"move move move move ".



Has anyone considered the possibility some of the members of this forum are a part of such an "alliance" of total social behavioral collection?

Heeeeeee hi hi hiiiiiiiiiiiiii Ahhhhhhhhh Haaaaaaaa Haaaaaa Ha ha.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

if l ron hubbard can start a bogus religion, why not us? seriously though, i was thinking of observation in the quantum mechanics sense. people from the future would effect a change in that sense as well.

The only observer who matters is the changer.

As long as the future a time traveler creates appears exactly identical to the one they left from their own perspective, they're free to go to town and do whatever they want.

The "only" observor?

Who's going to verify what that observor sees?

Tell me that.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Sorry for not properly introducing myself.

I am a developer, a scientific research agency developer, looking for someone who has similar thoughts to the research I am proposing. I am looking for someone, a consortium, who can represent the link between the current scientific community and a new theory and associated technology of space-time.

I am not looking for brown-nosers, I am looking for people I can make an offer to regarding some up-coming research work into a new field of science......people I can trust because they were genuine from the start.

Does that handle that question of yours?

This global forum is giving me a good idea of what type of personality traits I should be expecting, or rather, avoiding.

Finally, I am not confronting professionals. I am looking for a unique professional with that extra edge into the unknowns. If you read the download on the simple one-page invitation website, you would realize what I am on about. Don't like blowing my own personal agenda though, as many of you have misinterpreted. I am looking for someone to communicate with regarding a development proposal I have.

.......now, for the benefit of that fortunate candidate, if you don't like a post I present, ignore it......that's how I treat all posts that I don't find relevant to my presence here in this forum.

I have been reviewing this matter about time and I have defined in that way that this definition can be verified with the scientific method without failures.

TIME: is the data of reference obtained by the comparison of the motion of physical things.

You won't find a definition of time in any pf the puublications of Einstein or Hawking, actually I think because they don't know at all how to define it but they seem to know how it dilates (?). I wonder how others can't notice this weird situation.

Since 1998 I noticed after some reviews that time doesn't exist physically and by consequence time cannot flow and neither dilate.

Having that science is different than religion and philosophy- which won't require any proof but solely to believe in something- it is essential to review the current theories which are based in the assumed existence of a physical time...because all of them can be proved as false by their lack of a primeval fact or phenomenon from which these theories will attempt to explain further consequences.

I have the strong certainty that several scientists (specially physicists)must learn to discern the difference between reality and illusions created by speed and distance because several of their arguments are a clear demonstration of a poor understanding of this difference.

My regards.

I think I replied in a similar manner in another recent post, but I agree that time is insubstantial, but it is registered to our perception as a cyclical thing, that for it to be registered, we say time represents a common marker for us to be able to say a law is valid for all markers of time.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I think I replied in a similar manner in another recent post, but I agree that time is insubstantial, but it is registered to our perception as a cyclical thing, that for it to be registered, we say time represents a common marker for us to be able to say a law is valid for all markers of time.

I disagree with your point by a simple strong reason: What rules the universe is motion.

Lets use any theory about the beginning of our universe, and you can use inclusive the idea that the universe existed as such and that has no beginning or end.

How do you obtain the idea of time?

In any theory or idea about our universe, we find that time appears only after motion is in progress.

For example, before the theory of the Big Bang, Plato already explained such beginning assuming that before the existence of the physical word, that Eternity was the ruler.

The appearance of the physical world made the appearance of time. He explains that with the appearance of the physical universe we observed the cycled motion of stars and planets, and from this observations we learned to calculate time.

He is correct. Without a cycled motion used as a standard you cannot obtain time. You must use the rotation of earth, our cycled orbit around the Sun, the vibration frequency of the atom of Caesium, the bits of your heart, anything which is cycled, and you can obtain the data of reference called time.

Then, motion rules. Without motion you cannot even think about time.

The Big Bang theory actually is the modern copy of the thoughts of Plato in his Timaeus dialogues. Still philosophy and not sciience properly.

For example, there is not a single evidence that space is expanding. Such is an idea without scientific proof.

The current use of the Doppler Effect showes that all the stars are moving away from us. This idea is supporting the Medieval philosophy which says that "we" are the center of the Universe."

When the question about this observation was made, the answer was that regardless of your position in the universe, from any point in the universe you will see that the stars are going away from you.

Lets see, they use a baloon with painted dots in its surface. You inflate the baloon and the dots separate one from another and each dot will see the rest going away from it.

But, our location in the universe is not "at the surface of the universe" but we are "inside the universe", and we see collisions of galaxies by thousands, so, the explanation of an inflated universe is invalid with the presentation of the baloon with painted dots in its surface.

The only accepted evidence to prove that the universe is expanding is to locate the assumed beginning and point it saying: Look at the constellation such and such, right behind it we have observed that the whole universe appears to expand from. This is the only accepted evidence to support an expansion of the universe.

By consequence, we have several theories of science which have born from ancient philosophy, and today is a good moment in history to change these inherited thoughts by a structure based in reality.

Science and philosophy are now two separated branches of knowledge and we must continue the separation of them by reviewing the theories which are based in philosophy and the theories based in facts.

According to the requirements of the scientific method, the validated theories must be based in facts.

I am a little perplexed as to why you disagree with me.

When a construct in motion RETURNS to the same context it was in, it is in the same context, as though some type of universal law or force was being applied to it, as what physics is actually aiming for, a universal law.

When a construct in motion returns to the same context it was in under a universal law relevant to a constant, relevant to a constant force, for instance, that would completely included what we understand of circular motion. In that scenario of motion, time is circular.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I am a little perplexed as to why you disagree with me.

When a construct in motion RETURNS to the same context it was in, it is in the same context, as though some type of universal law or force was being applied to it, as what physics is actually aiming for, a universal law.

When a construct in motion returns to the same context it was in under a universal law relevant to a constant, relevant to a constant force, for instance, that would completely included what we understand of circular motion. In that scenario of motion, time is circular.

The reason why today it has been necessary to invent another "second" is because the rotation of Earth is not perfectly constant. So, we cannot lean on it, some days are longer and some days are shorter. (Notice that I am talking about "days" as the duration of 24 hours and not as day-light changes by the effects of the spinning and orbit of Earh around the Sun.)

No phenomenon repeats itself exactly the same. Even you can hear a musical play of a group or an orchestra and they have differences one with the other.

So, the idea of time as a constant is correct in paper, but this data of reference will have variations when bodies return to their former locations in their motion.

I think that the idea of a universal law is plausible, and instead of "circular" motion I see the universe in a similar scenario but as a continued recycling.

Instead of a univseral law of space being circular?

Can you think of other ways you can explain the curvature of space without entertaining equations relevant to curves?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I am a little perplexed as to why you disagree with me.

When a construct in motion RETURNS to the same context it was in, it is in the same context,

Cite even one example of any construct returning to the same context it was in, that would warrant describing time as circular.

.




You wouldn't live that long, in knowing your faith.





.

So you concede that your claim is mistaken?

No, OK, I will give you an example of circular motion: electron spin.

How about the "orbit" of an electron?

Repeating?

More often than not?

In it's own frame of relativity reference?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

No, OK, I will give you an example of circular motion: electron spin.

How about the "orbit" of an electron?

Repeating?

More often than not?

In it's own frame of relativity reference?

Electrons don't move in circles. Even the electron in a single, isolated hydrogen atom does not move in circles.

"electron spin".

Maybe you can provide for the poor lost souls of this science forum a more worthy way of explaining how an electron "behaaaaaaaves".

Maybe not.

(Maybe in English, and not the soon to be released CANTON version of this theory (2008)).



seriously, what is a spin?

Please, before I stop watching the final rinse.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

"electron spin".

Maybe you can provide for the poor lost souls of this science forum a more worthy way of explaining how an electron "behaaaaaaaves".

Maybe not.

Electrons probably don't actually spin. We have merely named a property of electrons spin, for convenience.
You seem to be having difficulty citing an instance of any construct returning to the same context it was in. Given that this thesis appeared to be central to your argument I am surprised you are having such difficulty.

Well.

Weeeeelllllllll.

Me 2.


"where was I", right?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

"where was I", right?

Confused, disoriented and sadly mistaken. Why not use your imagination for something productive?

why don't I jusst say "ummmmmm".

Just say :yeah thats so good!

"that's soooooooooooooo good".

........Dont stop! I want more!!!

Give it to me! Yeah! give it to me!

Tell me, can science stop me!!!

Nothing can stop you! Just believe!

OK.

By your command.

HG Wells forgot about a lottery.

Ah but HG Wells wasn't a flower amongst a field of grass.

No.

Indeed (mr "gay sensord").

mmmmmmm yeah I can be gentle babe!

OK.

Yes.

I think I can hear the nuns coming now.....

Don't get me into trouble, OK.

time aint circular. its a spiral.

Mmmmm.

Does anyone know of equations that point to space-time being curved?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

Does anyone know of equations that point to space-time being curved?

Yes.

Indeed, there are equations that point to space-time being curved. But are there any equations that directly account for the curvature of space-time?

(I know of only 1 general equation that accounts for a "curvature" of space-time. But are there others, other equations, different ways, "directly" accounting for the curvature of space-time?)

Does this science offer an alternative fuel?

How can mathematics be used to drill space-time for a new fuel?

It's unfair.