Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By mysticalbullshat
  • 1 Post By mysticalbullshat
  • 1 Post By mysticalbullshat
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Observations on Time

  1. #1 Observations on Time 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Hello,
    Recently (two days back) I published a paper called observations on time 2012. You can download it from here: IOSR-JAP Feel free to scrutinize the paper, but no bad language, personal insults, anything anti-civilized. Keep your posts strictly professional and logical. Thank you!

    Sincerely
    Sai Prahlad K


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your paper is unconvincing. It currently fails on three levels:

    1) Style: amateurish, i.e. non-professional. Use of emotive and subjective terminology. While content should rightly triumph over style, poor style will discourage readers from reading further.

    These weaknesses are well illustrated in the Abstract.

    The main purpose of this paper is to present the author’s observations on time to you, the world. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to define time in a new way that has never been presented before. The potential bombshell in the paper is the unification of thermodynamics with general relativity.

    "to you, the world"
    Informal, lighweight expression that has no place in a serious document.

    "consistently eluded the greatest scholars" A debatable point that contains an implicit arrogance that is out of place in a serious document.

    "define time in a new way that has never been presented before." Obviously, if it is new then it has never been presented before. Sloppy writing that has not been subject to any editing and is wholly out of place in a serious document.

    "The potential bombshell in the paper .." Jaded, tabloid expression that has no place in a serious document.

    So here, within the most important paragraph of your paper, the bait that attracts readers to proceed, you have four instances of writing that has no place in a serious document. Do you think some reworking might be appropriate?

    2. You introduce facts that are incidental to your argument. For example, you detail the energy production of the sun and it impact on the Earth, noting that our (presumably humanity's) energy needs for a year could be supplied by the sun in a second. Yet your point is simply that objects emit energy, the bulk of your statements are irrelevant. This is true of most if not all of the examples you provide.

    3. You make errors of fact. For example, you appear not to understand the difference between a black body and a black hole.

    4. You make unwarranted and undemonstrated conclusions. The most obvious and the one that is central to your argument is your claim that it is change that causes time. You have totally failed to provide evidence to support this contention. You have made a number of statements about change then jumped to an unsubstantiated conclusion.


    While the foregoing is highly critical of your work I trust you will find it civilised. I might advise you to try again, but frankly I think you would be wasting your time. I would recommend some serious study of the topics that interest you. Before you seek to overturn current thinking it is probably wise to have a better understanding of it.


    Last edited by John Galt; August 17th, 2012 at 08:24 AM. Reason: Correct formatting errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    In addition to John's comments, I would add a couple of things:

    You say that, "All matter above absolute zero degree temperature releases thermal radiation". This is only true if that body is hotter then the surroundings. An ice cube in a warm room will absorb energy. Given that you claim that "release of energy is time", does this mean that ice cubes are travelling backwards in time?

    You attempt to define time in terms of change, but consider something like a muon. This will decay after an average of about 2.2 Ás. This is a fundamental particle so there is nothing to change while it is "waiting" to decay. Time passes with no change.

    "A perfect black body is a body that absorbs and stores information, indefinitely" - that is not the definition of a black body.

    Also, you distinguish black body radiation and thermal radiation; but black body radiation is thermal radiation (with a specific spectrum).

    I fail to see the relevance of most of the "observation" sections. Perhaps you need to be a little more explicit about why solar radiation, eyesight, metabolism, etc are relevant to the definition of time.

    "The Reason atomic clocks show different times in differing altitudes is because of gravity and the release of energy" - I don't believe this is correct; it is only because of the differences in gravity. It has nothing to do with the release of energy.

    How do your observations on time relate to variable time dilation in special and general relativity?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    First of all guys thank you very much for your comments, it is civilized. I had no help when creating the paper and my english is not that good; If I had your guidance earlier I would not have made such mistakes. I agree with your points in my abstract.

    Please give me the opportunity to explain my theory: 1st (important) Please look at the video in this link: Time the Destroyer | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine Professor Andy Albrecht calls entropy as destruction, I call his observation release of energy, or transformation of energy. In my paper, I wrote 'change causes time', but I really meant change is time, change = time.

    On the difference between black holes and black body: It is not that I can't tell the difference. But I meant it in this sense: If energy is not emited or released\reflected then it is impossible to see the object. It will look black, invisible, and if it doesn't release energy it will be like a black hole. But I can't call it a black hole because gravitational potential is very low. So what I have written is only the description of an object that doesn't release energy.

    Ice cubes are macroscopic objects, though they absorb energy, they also emit\release it. All my observations only say that energy is released, that is the change that is happening in all levels. Muon 'decays' that is change. Photons for example have no mass, they can't release energy. Therefore, there is no 'time' for photons. Note: High energy photons release energy.

    On gravitational time dilation, Release of energy or transformation of energy is directly related to gravity. If you don't have gravity then everything will simply spread out becoming less dense (as the universe expands). Since we have gravity this doesn't happen (atleast not immediately). An object closer to a black hole doesn't release much energy or transformations that occur inside the body is less. But if it is in empty space, transformations occur rapidly (differences in nano scales or little less).

    Time according to common belief: it is a new dimension. I say it is not, it is related to space and energy i.e. space and energy creates time. Release of energy\ transformations of energy creates the flow of time, because release of energy causes change.

    This is a supplement I wrote on the paper: Observation A
    1. Take a clock
    2. Observe the changes happening in the clock, and note the passing of time.
    3. Time period 15 seconds to 1 hour.
    Result
    When time passes: energy is released from the clock, by the means of sound (tick, tick, tick) and as photons (thermal radiation). This release of energy is the change that was happening in the clock when time was flowing forward.
    Simple mathematical representation: (this is what I realized when I made the observation)

    Mathematical expression would be like: Time = energy released\radiated away
    Note: There is no absolute way to define the quantity of energy radiated away\released, because it depends on what system or object you are observing and at what gravitational potential; if it is a macroscopic object it can be measured to a certain level of accuracy, but if it is a microscopic object like an electron or a proton it will be difficult to measure; this is due to the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality.
    Applying the formula in observation A (note the formula itself is only a description)
    When 1 second is passed = 1 unit or amount of energy is released
    When 2 seconds have passed = 2 units of energy is released
    When 15 seconds have passed = 15 units of energy is released
    When 1 minute has passed = 60 units of energy is released…and so on

    If energy is not released or time stops then, the values would not change. Example 40 seconds = 40 units of energy released. The values would neither increase nor decrease. As all matter and anti-matter is above absolute zero degree temperature, energy will always be released as thermal radiation. Hence, time won’t stop... except inside black-holes, but black-holes too release energy as Hawking radiation.

    If time is reversed then both values would decrease. Example 39 seconds = 39 units of energy released, 38 seconds = 38 units of energy released. So even if we did have a time machine we can only use it to reverse time, not time travel to the past. The biggest difficulty of building a time machine is finding a way to undo all events accrued in space; events such as moving of an atom to movement of the galaxies to shrinking of space\dark energy.

    Applying the formula in Observation C
    1 second = 1 billion Kg of energy released
    10 seconds = 10 billion Kg of energy released… and so on
    ***********************************

    My theory is related to the big bang. I'm sorry for my sloppy english. I'm not an expert, I'm only a learner.
    Look below (past few posts) for essential points in my paper
    Last edited by Sai Prahlad K; August 18th, 2012 at 06:11 PM. Reason: pointing the direction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Honestly, the abstract I wrote is a copy and pasted words taken from wiki. I did not know how to write an abstract for this paper. I tried asking people for help, knowing my ignorance but I did not get any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Hi Sai,
    I appreciate the difficulty of working in a foreign language. I abandoned my own efforts in that direction many years ago.

    However, I do feel your basic idea is faulty and that is the more important issue. I'll look at your further thoughts over the weekend and try to respond on Monday.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Thank you John for saying you will reanalyze my work. I believe, my basic idea is not faulty but my use of the English language. Down below you will find my core ideas for the theory. Sincerely
    Last edited by Sai Prahlad K; August 18th, 2012 at 06:06 PM. Reason: elephant in the room?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Dear John,
    This is the core of my theory\idea: Release of energy causes change.

    Logically, any change, can be called as time (including motion). But if one thinks time as different thing\dimension, as a separate entity. Then, it will not be true for them. So it is a matter of perspective.

    In the introduction, I said:change and motion are the same. So if release of energy causes change, then it also causes motion. The indirect question is what causes force and motion? All this is interrelated (force motion and time).

    Near the end of my paper I said: release of energy is force. I said it based on this example: when you push a object, you release \ transform and transfer energy.

    If release of energy is force, and force causes motion. Then, what causes these two? My hypothesis for this is space and dark energy, I gave this in my conclusion.

    Therefore, I'm saying that time is motion. I guess I should have written this in my paper, my bad!

    Note: the word 'transformation' of energy is something that I realized today, when I saw that lecture by Professor Andy. If I knew that before, I would have used that word in my paper as substitute for the term release of energy.

    Well, That is all for now.
    Thank you for reading
    Sincerely
    Sai Prahlad k
    Last edited by Sai Prahlad K; August 17th, 2012 at 10:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Dear Strange
    I split thermal radiation and black body radiation because I wanted to describe how a black body would look like (to imagine if you like). The focus audience for my paper is everyone. Maybe that is the problem...One more thing, I said in my paper Change is also motion (it is in my introduction).

    @all: Lorenzo Maccone's theory:
    Physicist Proposes Solution to Arrow-of-Time Paradox This is what I said will happen in observation X. But How I got to this point is different from professor Lorenzo Maccone's. I used my math idea (given above) to come to this point. But essentially we both say the same thing.

    FAQs:
    ****************
    The purpose of observations: eye sight, metabolism, solar radiation etc is to show you that energy is released or being transferred in all things. And this transformation causes change.

    Change is time.
    Time is change.
    Change is also motion.
    Motion is also change.
    Time is motion
    Motion is time.

    ****************
    Release of energy is force -> Force causes motion -> therefore, force causes time. Hence, Release of energy is time.

    ****************
    Release of energy (force) is nothing but transformation of energy.
    ****************
    What is time?
    Answer: It is motion, or any change.

    How is time created?
    Answer: By force.

    What triggered time in the early universe, at the big bang?
    Answer: Empty space and dark energy

    What causes force, motion and time?
    Answer: Space and Dark energy

    Do photons have time?
    Answer: For photons time is infinite. Photons don't stay at one place, they mingle, merge and spread like a wave in the entire cosmos. They are always in motion, so is everything in the cosmos. Every particle is a wave, the duality.

    What causes this motion?
    Answer: Classical answer force. Modern answer: Dark energy and empty space.

    What happens to an object which releases energy constantly?
    Answer: The object will become less and less dense.

    But we see particles and things that are stable in the universe, how is your previous answer correct?
    Answer: The force of gravity controls and limits the release of energy. It conserves energy. Gravity decides whether energy should be transferred\released or not. For example: If one lives near a black hole, then time for him will be slow than the rest of the cosmos. This happens because the transformations that occur in the body is less, the changes are less. But in empty space things work the opposite due to dark energy.

    What happens when energy is no longer released?
    Answer: Time will stop. No changes will take place.

    How will such an object look alike?
    Answer: Like a black hole (invisible) without gravity effects. Another example: like a perfect black body.

    Is there a place in the universe where time stops?
    Answer: Inside black holes. Because inside black holes there is no force and motion. Another model: A universe with only photons will have no time, not in the sense time will stop, but time will flow infinitely, until gravity or something interferes.

    Is it possible to time travel, visit the past?
    Answer: No. But if there is a way to reverse all events then yes. But when one reverses events information will be destroyed (along with them) so one can only reverse time, not travel to the past.

    ****************
    I created a blog: Observations on Time 2012

    Thank you for reading. And please post critics, if you find any (like strange and John did). Because only with questions we can make progress. And I sincerely apologize if my paper is misleading or cryptic (not straight forward).

    Thank you
    Sai Prahlad K


    The task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees. -Erwin Scgrodinger

    Last edited by Sai Prahlad K; August 18th, 2012 at 02:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Flowchart version of my paper (given below) if it didn't load visit my blog: Observations on Time 2012 or try using http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0IaF_LqXsA...wchart+pic.png Thank you!!!

    My flowchart pic.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    I couldn't be bothered to try and address most of this nonsense. But these are so obviously wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    What happens when energy is no longer released?
    Answer: Time will stop. No changes will take place.

    How will such an object look alike?
    Answer: Like a black hole (invisible) without gravity effects. Another example: like a perfect black body.
    Black holes have gravity effects. They also interact with the universe around them.

    Black bodies radiate energy and cool down.

    So neithe of these are good examples of things where time has "stopped".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    Flowchart version of my paper (given below) if it didn't load visit my blog: Observations on Time 2012 or try using http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0IaF_LqXsA...wchart+pic.png Thank you!!!

    My flowchart pic.jpg
    Meaningless. Where is the maths?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I couldn't be bothered to try and address most of this nonsense. But these are so obviously wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    What happens when energy is no longer released?
    Answer: Time will stop. No changes will take place.

    How will such an object look alike?
    Answer: Like a black hole (invisible) without gravity effects. Another example: like a perfect black body.
    Black holes have gravity effects. They also interact with the universe around them.

    Black bodies radiate energy and cool down.

    So neithe of these are good examples of things where time has "stopped".
    strange I was giving the description of an object that doesn't release energy. I did not say it was black holes in the above post. It is not my fault for your passive reading. Also I removed black body in my paper (different one).

    On the maths part I don't know how to write maths for the observation.

    Don't call it non sense without understanding the point.
    Last edited by Sai Prahlad K; September 15th, 2012 at 07:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    there is a difference between "it is, it was" and "like, alike". I thought my English was bad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Time is relative.
    Last edited by mysticalbullshat; September 15th, 2012 at 07:38 AM. Reason: haha brownnosing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mysticalbullshat View Post
    Time is relative.
    What do you mean Mr. Msysticalbullshat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    On the maths part I don't know how to write maths for the observation.
    Then we can never know if your speculation has any relation to the real world or if it has any value. I'll stick with my initial assessment until you can produce some testable, quantitative results.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    On the maths part I don't know how to write maths for the observation.
    Then we can never know if your speculation has any relation to the real world or if it has any value. I'll stick with my initial assessment until you can produce some testable, quantitative results.
    Dear Strange,

    did you look at my flowchart?

    and I'm not speculating anything. I gave observations, they are the proof to my claim. I'm not an expert, so I don't know how to write it in maths form. Also feel: maths is unnecessary for something so simple. How would you write the following in maths: Release of energy and transformation of energy causes change? isn't it obvious that it causes change? (if you can please do so, much appreciated). The purpose of observations is to show that 1. energy is released constantly in the universe, 2. it causes change (motion etc) and 3. that is time. So in a way I have given my tested results. What your are expecting is out of my imagination i.e. I don't know what you mean by testable, quantitative results. Also, I'm not asking you to change your assessment; I only gave mine

    Thank you and Sincerely
    Sai
    Last edited by Sai Prahlad K; September 15th, 2012 at 08:18 AM. Reason: grammatical error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    and I'm not speculating anything. I gave observations, they are the proof to my claim.
    And what if I, or someone else, disagree with your "observations" (which are just arbitrary claims)? How do we decide between them?

    Should we accept you baseless claims (such as "What is time? Answer: It is motion, or any change." to which the only possible answer is, "no it isn't") or should we adhere to a theory which has mathematical and evidential support?

    Personally, I'll choose the latter. This is after all a science forum. Testability and evidence rule.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    and I'm not speculating anything. I gave observations, they are the proof to my claim.
    And what if I, or someone else, disagree with your "observations" (which are just arbitrary claims)? How do we decide between them?

    Should we accept you baseless claims (such as "What is time? Answer: It is motion, or any change." to which the only possible answer is, "no it isn't") or should we adhere to a theory which has mathematical and evidential support?

    Personally, I'll choose the latter. This is after all a science forum. Testability and evidence rule.
    You can believe what you want sir.

    But, If you are saying time is not change or motion then, your argument to me doesn't make logical sense. How can time be not change? Time is only observed by change. If there is no change there is no time. How can one predict the age of the something without change? Change is time.

    This is a science forum. Logic is essential. And you yourself sir have said this in one of your previous posts in other threads. If one is saying time is not change then how would that person prove it? I gave my evidence and facts, if that person gives his, then I will learn from his point and move on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    H
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    Hello,Recently (two days back) I published a paper called observations on time 2012. You can download it from here: IOSR-JAP Feel free to scrutinize the paper, but no bad language, personal insults, anything anti-civilized. Keep your posts strictly professional and logical. Thank you! SincereSai Prahlad K
    I can see right from your post that you have these ideas that "time" and "change" are actualities beyond features of human experience.
    Sai Prahlad K likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    But, If you are saying time is not change or motion then, your argument to me doesn't make logical sense. How can time be not change? Time is only observed by change. If there is no change there is no time. How can one predict the age of the something without change? Change is time.
    And yet, there appear to be cases where time passes while no change occurs. The canonical example is muon decay. You can observe a muon. It is no internal moving parts. After a random time (averaging about 2 us) it will decay. No "change" takes place during that time and yet after that time has passed, something happens.

    In general relativity, which is an extremely well tested scientific theory derived from basic physical principles, time is simply another dimension along with the three spatial dimensions. These make up spacetime. Time would continue to exist, as a dimension, even if nothing in the universe changed.

    So, there we have it. Evidence your speculation is wrong. Evidence of the real nature of time.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Muon is in constant motion, so is every particle and every object in the universe. Motion = Time. Motion also = Change. In general relativity I posted the following in my blog:

    This post is based on Einstein's observation: Gravitational time dilation effect

    We say that gravity affects time. "But does it really affect time?"

    Gravity affects matter. It does not affect time! But gravitational time dilation is a fact.

    What is wrong here? Our observation (or) Our understanding of time?

    Observations are never wrong. It is our misinterpretation of time that causes this confusion. It is obvious to anyone (who applies logic) that [1] time has something to do with energy (mass; E=Mc2), and [2] Time has something to do with gravity.

    How is gravity created?
    GR: Curvature of space

    What causes space to bend\curve?
    Mass i.e. energy (E=MC2)

    What does gravity affect?
    Time or Matter?

    Classical answer: Gravity affects motion.

    Motion is Time. because Motion is change. and any change can be called as Time.

    Therefore,
    Time = Energy = Mass

    Hence the term should be energy, space and time; not "spacetime". loll
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    time is not only related to space but also related to energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    Muon is in constant motion, so is every particle and every object in the universe.
    You seem to imply that a stationary muon would not decay. That contradicts all known physics. Unless you have some evidence to support this?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    "If there is no change there is no time."
    Good point... Change is the illusion that we see when we look at a progression of states.
    A progression of states is a progression of states through space. This space is called time. The future and past are relative from where you are located in time space.
    Change is the illusionary idea we come up with to cope with the fact that the human dimension of the personal self extends into this space we call time... as we look at it peice by peice, "change" is apparent. As we look at the whole, change becomes just an explanation... Now a "whole dimension of time" is apparent.

    To quote john masefeild:

    "Out of the Earth to rest or range,
    perpetual in perpetual change,
    the unkown passing through the strange,

    ..... it's a good poem, i recommend it.
    Sai Prahlad K likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    Muon is in constant motion, so is every particle and every object in the universe.
    You seem to imply that a stationary muon would not decay. That contradicts all known physics. Unless you have some evidence to support this?
    I said everything is in motion. It is based on wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle. Nothing in the universe stays in one place. There is either motion or decay (change).

    @mystical thank you! will look into it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    There are seven directions.. Up down, north, east, south, west, and inwards. Inwards into the self. Change is something you are discerning inside your self.. Look in the other directions - categorize the experience. There is no change outside the self.
    Sai Prahlad K likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Sai Prahlad K View Post
    I said everything is in motion. It is based on wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle. Nothing in the universe stays in one place.
    Which is irrelevant to the lifetime of the muon. Time passes for a muon, even though nothing changes.

    Yes, obviously, we perceive time through change and motion. That does not mean that time is change and motion. But as this is empty philosophical speculation, rather than science, I will leave you to it.
    Sai Prahlad K likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    It is also scientific Mr strange. Cause if we find a particle that does not change in any way (by motion or decay). then it will be an interesting fact don't you think? But in order to find that we need something like my theory. Well its all for the progress of science. Thanks for replies. Good Day!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Not much in the way of physics has been presented in this thread. I will move it to pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    There are seven directions.. Up down, north, east, south, west, and inwards. Inwards into the self. Change is something you are discerning inside your self.. Look in the other directions - categorize the experience. There is no change outside the self.

    That last is vague..

    I'd say, at least, that the perception of change is a strong feature of the self for as long as there is no other workable idea to account for the series of images presented to the eye representing to the self multiple states of actuality.

    Or umm...

    Lets say part of the lesson of the poem is that all things change, ie, "even change will change".

    How is that possible??? It's not really.. That's the oxymoron. The oxymoron makes you stumble.. hopefully over a nugget of truth.

    ---
    How's my bullshit level???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    mhmm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Not much in the way of physics has been presented in this thread. I will move it to pseudoscience.
    This hurts my feelings. After all the data and observations provided.

    Way of physics: Gave Introduction. observations, results and conclusions. Further more: gave Faqs and flowchart.

    Its not my fault if people read passively(without understanding meaning) and gave comments.

    I lost respect to this forum. Because 1. you don't value logic and 2. you don't like to look at new perspectives.

    This will be my last post in this forum. Delete this thread rather than moving this to pseudoscience.

    Sorry If I'm rude. Also Feel free to remove my account.

    Sincerely
    Sai
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Bye Bye!!
    Your ignorance shall not be missed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    eh, i gave him an elegant answer, he didnt like it. the language barrier is part of the problem. Sorry you had to ban us forever for not having the answer.. Cup already full i guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. This paper makes interesting observations about SR
    By chinglu in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 7th, 2011, 11:17 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 6th, 2011, 05:46 PM
  3. Observations
    By in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 5th, 2007, 06:33 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 18th, 2006, 09:33 AM
  5. Observations of a 16 year old bad speller
    By goodgod3rd in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 29th, 2005, 11:44 PM
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
  •