Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: time and carbon dating

  1. #1 time and carbon dating 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: time and carbon dating 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote 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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Certainly not in relation to the two time dimensions mentioned in the recent New Scientist article, that I think SS is referrring to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Show me the math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    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.

    ..............................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote 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.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •