Thread: time and carbon dating

If, and I stress the wrod "if", time operated according to a duality (as some other posts and recent articles suggest), could that effect our equations of carbon-dating.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

If, and I stress the wrod "if", time operated according to a duality (as some other posts and recent articles suggest), could that effect our equations of carbon-dating.

Not as far as I can tell. Why would it?

Certainly not in relation to the two time dimensions mentioned in the recent New Scientist article, that I think SS is referrring to.

IF time moved in two dimensions, it could represent a "surface area" construct of 3 dimensional space, a type of surface tension of space, if time as we perceive it, must be regarded as an overall unified flow, "before" and "after" as one.

Think about that though: time being the surface tension of space.

What is the surface tension of space as a concept?

It's what keeps space together......time keeps space together.

This is not an official theory: it's a proposition.

What is c-squared, the speed of light squared?

What surface area is light actually being reepresented with in that equation?

Conceptualise it.

Just a thought.

Any ideas?

Show me the math.

Ophiolite, I have been trying to tell you I have the math of a dual-time 3d-space matrix. They are "new" equations for space regarding that dual-time. And the "proof" of that mathematics is that I proposed, hypothesised, theoretical spheres/points in that dual-time 3d-space dimension and worked out correctly, step-by-step, the equations, the actual proper equations, for a sphere and circle. I obviously had to also present a theory for pi, correct also.....as it is, compared to conventional theories for the value of pi. The only trouble is, and I mean "trouble", as I have found out, is that the mathematics takes well into 200 pages to explain/.

Que sera sera.

Now, don't get me wrong: I WORSHIP CONTEMPORY PHYSICS. Without contemporary physics, I would not have a sounding board for this new theory of dual-time, I would have no way of comparing my results about the SAME space-time reality.

You would have to agree with me that the "math" would be different to contemporary mon-time math, though, right?

And you may also agree with me that a LOT would need to be explained FIRST before diving straight INTO that new math, right?

Explanations relevant to introducing the idea itself of "dual-time", to answer all the questions of "but why dual time, for what".

My argument for dual time is that DUAL-TIME is more nueromathematically wired than mono-time.

So, in my math, well, before the math, I explain that idea at length.

..............................

Regardless of how much math you say you have, unless you actually show it, it's completely meaningless. If it takes 200 pages, post a link, but you can't just say you have math.

OK.

Post a link?

I'll post three:

http://www.streamsystems.com.au/

Then, "how about my www feature below that can take you straight there".

Or, what about my posting "comment": Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

the www feature below can explain it better.

ONCE AGAIN though, the theory is lengthy, as it should be though. It is a new mathematics for a new proposal for a dual-dimension of time. Of courrrrrse it's going to be lengthy.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Certainly not in relation to the two time dimensions mentioned in the recent New Scientist article, that I think SS is referrring to.

Which article are you referring to? Could you post a link for this one or is it just in the print version so far. You know, I find the NS in my Mailbox 5 to 10 days after the issue comes out in GB.