5Likes
December 28th, 2011, 06:49 AM
How should this theory be released to the public?
What measures should be taken to ensure none are offended, and that all considerations of belief in concepts contained therein of space-time are acknowledged?
Basically, what "signs" should we be looking for when this theory becomes apparent, what types of introduction, address, and so on. ?. To reassure us that proper planning has gone into the offering.
Nice advertising.
You're a Republican, right?
What do you think of Ron Paul?
STC has already been "cracked", see Dave's link. Or perhaps you are referring to something else? What is it, about space-time, that requires "cracking"? What is the code you refer to, if it is not the space time code referred to in Dave's link?Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Science does not care if it offends people (ask Galileo!). Science is science. For instance, the Earth has been scientifically shown to be older than 6000 years, so there is no consideration for the beliefs of young earth creationists, who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. They have been scientifically shown to be wrong. Tough.
I don't understand the question.
You know, like a theory that explains a "map of time". Spatially, in the exlanation, like it explains history.........
(Ha ha ha ha haaaaaa)
We have that already, don't we? We have a map of time that starts 13.7 billion years ago.
I must ask, due to both your response to Dave, and your ha ha's to me, is this simply a trolling thread? Are you seriously asking a question about our understanding of the nature of time and how we should explain our discoveries to people who might be offended by it? Who on Earth could be offended by science? What on Earth has that got to do with physics, the subject of the forum you posted the question in?
Um, trolling. No. When I laugh, or whatever, it's honesty. I enjoy. I don't mean to make you paranoid.
As for this post, a gran unified theory of space-time has often made people squeamish, the idea of it, the whole possibility of it representing a type of God-like anvil. Do the math. Is physics prepared to be open to those who like the idea of a God-like anvil of technology?
Look, point taken. It's a pretty retarded question. Consider thread closed.
( and looking back, the ha ha ha comment was a giveaway in that I thought it a little rough that physics could represent "history", like this is the thing that must be thought of first, what is left to physics alone, and what can be spoken of universally. Personally, I would hesitate using the idea of history in the theory of space-time, I would avoid ideas of the big bang, that time line )
Last edited by theQuestIsNotOver; December 29th, 2011 at 02:20 AM.
Okay, fair enough - but from my point of view, your question was obviously loaded.
I have never heard of anybody getting squeamish over the possibility of a grand unified theory, but then again I have never considered the possibility that it represents a "god like anvil" of technology. I don't even know what that means! What math shows this, and to whom? (What I mean here is, who would put such a ridiculous interpretation on the data and why?)
All we think we know is that the universe used to be a lot hotter and denser, and now it is cooler and less dense. This leads to the conclusion of a Big-Bang. If a GUT can get us around the singularity and we find, for instance, a previously collapsing universe, or that the observable universe was caused by the clashing of two hyper dimensional membranes, why should that upset anyone?
The God-like anvil I speak of is being able to join the dots theoretically between gravity and electromagnetism. Is that not the task for a G.U.T.? In joining those dots, it will then be possible to create gravity using an e-m field, in theory, as a type of associational induction when all the parameters between those two engergies are known in reference to one another. Picture that world.
The problem I have is if the idea of a big-bang is used in the theory, which precludes an entire description of evolution. Bye bye God, right? Throw away lessons of morality, and welcome to the jungle.
Physics can be explained in the here and now. A detail of how everything allegedly began is not required, it's fatuous.
Not necessarily.
There is no connection between big bang cosmology and evolution (except in the minds of creationists).The problem I have is if the idea of a big-bang is used in the theory, which precludes an entire description of evolution.
And that is another bizarre leap of logic. What does morality have to do with the big bang or evolution?Throw away lessons of morality, and welcome to the jungle.
Spacetime ? what spacetime ? Spacetime is a conceptual approach just as the euclid system. But has there ever been one euclid system with one source ? Oh wait yes, maybe there where some churches that adopted it for that with the earth in the middle.
The moment a time 0 is set with a clock it,s using a clock as stopwatch. Time never stops, the clock doesn,t stop but the moment t=0 (not time is zero but time coordinate) is like frozen with this. It,s picking a point and that makes up for a local spacetime. The local taking of this point, setting it, is information and the coordinate can,t travel faster or slower as light (or maybe faster as neutron ?). This means the lightfront Einstein is speaking of travels - more or less - simultaneously with the coordinate t=0 and therefor always stays at t=0 for the local spacetime that is started with making use of a clock as a stopwatch. Not like :..."Hello hello ...Stop..telegram from mars here..stop..". But more like : "stop ...hello hello.. Stop...telegram from mars here.....stop. The information wrapped/packaged between the stops as emitted coordinates.
Experimental this comes out if local distances and timedistances between the local clock and the local lightsource (or radio whatever) is all taken into account. Often this distance is very small for the scale of experiments and then neglected. For instance the distance in a satelite between an atomclock and a device that emits gps signals. Maybe two or three - imaginary - steps for an astronaut.
Last edited by Ghrasp; December 29th, 2011 at 03:14 PM.
excellent answers. All of them.
My case: it's good getting a better idea of how prepared we are, how thoughtful we have been, taking a look at worst case scenario's of logic and outcome, and dealing with them with a good initial plan.
In that case I think I see what you mean, but you have it backwards.
Only if the beginnings of the universe remain unexplained, can we retain the notion that "god" did it. So, the Big-Bang could have been caused by god. But if we find a cause for the Big Bang, all we do is push that notion back further.
Science can never disprove the existence of a god like creator - so stop worrying about it!
That's what Gallileo was told, right?
But I see "your" point as well.
What if though it becomes classed as a "wikileak" and the author treated similarly. For instance, the theory represents data central to technologies agencies have spent years protecting from evil masterminds. What then? Dealing with the sheer inconsistency of political hegemony?
The space time code is broken.
A clear definition of time has elenated your need of concern.
Time is the measurement that quantifies the transition periodbetween the occurrences of events. It can be used to identify the occurrence ofa specific event among the occurrence of other events. Time marks the distinctoccurrence of an event.
Time is a measurement that can be used to quantify thetransition period from one event to another. Time strings together all events inthe sequence of their occurrence; for an observation of time to be valid, thesequence of events must represent the sequence of their occurrence.
Time is the essence of existence. There is no beginning oftime; there is no end of time. There is only a continuous flow of time; frombeyond the beginning to beyond the end.
When an event occurs in time it is locked in the sequence ofits occurrence. It cannot take place before or after that point in time. It is maintained in its sequence ofoccurrence through eternity.
For an observation of a time related even to be true it mustbe held in its sequence of occurrence.
There is not connection between EMF and gravity. They are seperate, distinct, forces. Each of them are one of the seven forces.
Reference: The Beadlingism of Gravity.
The age of the earth is not understood, or determined.
If you build a house from stone, how old is the house?
Clearly, you do not understand the relativity of simultaneity, or have forgotten to apply it to the above.
Absolute nonsense. There are many similarities between the way an EM field works, and the way a gravitational field works. Also, energy is a source of gravity. There are four known forces. Your reference does not exist. Is this your own alternative hypothesis perhaps?
More nonsense. The age of the Earth is known to be around 4.5 billion years. The age of the universe is around 13.7 billion years. That is the maximum age of your stone.
Seven forces? Any evidence to support that claim?
Beadlingism? Now you are just making stuff up.
Perhaps it is you that can not accept a simple truth. My answer is comple with clarity. It does require the reader to clear their mind and then absorb the truth. Perhaps I can help you, but you must help yourself first.
Ther are answers to many concepts; as there are many concepts that do not have an answer. Usually those concepts are founded on a misunderstanding of the fundemental principles.
There is no moment 0 in time, it is in contiuoous flow and always has been. The concept of eternity is difficult to grasp. I remember, as a young child when I first grasped eternity. I got dizzy thinking about it. Just as time never stops, there never was a begining either. it is and always has been in a continuous flow. Spacetime is not a real word, in this reality or any other reality. And you can not relat space and time, one is sequence related, the other is dimensional. Two totally different entities that are not related. Time is not a measurement of distance, it respresents the duration of a transition period.
The seven forces I refer to are the fundamental forces foundassociated with matter. The presently taught forces are confused linking EMFwith Gravity and so. I am not sure where they are at in our scientificcommunity. They are confused. Like children, they like to throw a hand full of children’sjacks against a wall, if one spins clockwise they call it a Quirk, and theirlist of creative interpretations continue.
Of the fundamental forces found in our primordial soup thereare seven. This is not a guess. It is an understanding that has been reachedthrough many hours, days, and years of contemplation. Those concepts arerecorded in the study of Beadlingism’s.
You ask me to name them for you. I ask you, would youunderstand?
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
So what are your magic 7 forces?
The 4 that physics uses are well supported by experimental evidence, so be sure to provide support for any others you list.
I'm off to study "Beadlingism".
This is an interesting question. And allow for the broadest response. So I will venture in with the perspective Ichoose. That being a perspective can only be verbalized use the language to itsoptimum. Which is all tangled up in our understanding of the words we use. Forexample; we talk of time and yet we have a confused understanding of theessence of time. We can improve this situation by bringing a more universalunderstanding of it essence. So I will venture forth. Time is a measurementthat quantifies the duration of the transition period between the occurrencesof events; it strings together all events in their sequence of occurrence. Itis important to recognize that there is a requirement to identify the sequenceof the events being quantified in the expression of time. The transition periodbeing quantified with an expression of time is unlike time itself, time flows steadilyforward in distinct packets, while the transition period being quantified hasdistinct mile markers that have a sequence of occurrence. For an observation oftime to be true, the occurrence of events that establish the quantificationmust be maintained in their sequence of occurrence. Without this conditionbeing held true the observation is not valid. What this means is that a conceptthat tries to combine the two distinct types of observations of space and timeis not a valid observation. We are creative enough to perceive this concept butit is not a valid observation. It violates the truth of maintaining thesequence of occurrence.
Common sense is a gift from God. We should maintain a close relationship with it.
Jack,
KEEP THIS NONSENSE OUT OF THE PHYSICS FORUM! NO PSEUDO-SCIENCE ALLOWED!
Oh the irony.
On the other hand we could formalise the language we use for discussing science and call it, say, "mathematics".
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Stop spouting this nonsense in a physics forum. You are wasting our time.
Gents, thanks for reporting this one. Moved to Pseudo.
So you say. What are they and what is the evidence for them?
Yes it is. Or at least, it is something you have invented.This is not a guess.
And where does one go to study "beadlingisms"? Even Google doesn't seem to have heard of it.Those concepts arerecorded in the study of Beadlingism’s.
We won't know unless you try. And if we don't understand you could always do something like "explain" them.You ask me to name them for you. I ask you, would youunderstand?
Given all the replies, and how this thread was highljacked, I do agree that the idea of cracking the space-time code and being properly ready for that is definitely a "pseudo" thing.
I can't agree more with the move.
Presumably, you are unaware of all the experiments we have performed over the past century that agree with the theory that space and time are intrinsically linked such that they act as a single entity known as space-time.
It should just be released.. Enough said.
He's dead, Dave.
| « The Elephant that Speaks Korean | Atoms, quarks, and God's sense of humor » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
