Scientific Forums


Pages: (35) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> The Natural Theory Of Space Quantum, An "on the edge" Theory without "time"
norgeboy
Posted: Jan 8 2012, 01:08 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 8-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


The Natural Theory of Space Quantum 2011


Abstract:

Physical space is shown to be a contiguous growth. Wave mechanics and Newtonian (through Einstein) mechanics can be united in the absence of a time t.


Introduction:

Space is not the existing illusion of our senses; instead, space is quantized and defines itself physically per the (Fibonacci ) infinite sequence:


with seed values


The ratios converge:





Where the “golden ratio”






Fibonacci Space:

Adding to, subtracting from, retracing within, and all physics regarding space quanta are events within at least one quantum and changing only at quantum borders (boundaries) per the natural sequence.

For example, the “speed of light” c (Einstein ) is limited because the particle (photon) does not truly travel through (Newtonian ) time and continuous space.

In fact, the particle travels through contiguous space quanta, one by one.

In the Newtonian sense of velocity through continuous space, there should be no limit to velocity. In quantum space, the analogy to Newtonian velocity is the spatial travel across quantum boundaries. Each boundary crossing is the “same” event for light and its velocity is bounded by c in the “sense” of a time t.

There is no real time t; instead, the “particles” travel only in space from one quantum to an adjacent quantum.

As the “growth” sequence itself, successive quanta are different in “size” by the factor:

φ = 1.618


The illusion of Newtonian time should cause a quantifiable perception of the speed of light c relative to space quanta:



Accept: c is the perceived absolute electromagnetic velocity and measurement velocity as known today.

Assume: physical reality is a transition from one region to the next region in space.

Then: particles with subatomic sizes on the order of space quantum boundaries may not traverse the boundary in the same way our senses perceive the transition. This serves to gauge the boundaries between spatial regions.

And: very spatially large and/or “distant” entities may be misrepresented by our sensual (time) measurements by the factor 1.618 for each spatial boundary from our innate sense and our measurements.

And: we as humans experience only the sensual approximation of Newtonian and Euclidean continuity.



Physical relevance is solely the traverse across spatial quantum boundaries.


A two dimensional visualization of quantum spatial boundaries is suggested by the Fibonacci spiral .







A Five Dimensional View of the Spiral:

Physically, we cannot achieve 2 from 0 and 1. We can only achieve 1 from 0 and 1. Following, we can achieve 2 from the adjacency of 1 and 1. And so on.

Since we live in three dimensions, we can easily see the two dimensional intersection within the Euclidean spiral, i.e. the linearity of the spiral intersects with a maximum of three adjacent two dimensional regions.

Space itself, as we know it, is three dimensional. If we lived in five dimensions, we could easily see the three dimensional intersection of a two-dimensional “spiral” with “five” regions of three dimensional space per the natural sequence.

We do not live in five dimensions; instead, we live in three.

The natural sequence begins with the seed values 0 and 1. Perhaps we could visualize 3 from 5 and 5 from 8. But we cannot visualize 3 from 4 or 8 from 9. Physical relevance is solely the traverse across adjacent natural boundaries.

Wave Mechanics:

Wave mechanic principles (Schrodinger ) show:



and so the approximation

ΔxΔk ≥ O(1).

One result (ramification) is a temporally related uncertainty in measurements.

Wave mechanics mathematically defines observations (perceptions) differing from Newtonian continuity; however, wave mechanics is a physical discipline that utilizes the concept of time t,

e.g. Δk depends on a perceived time t (and mass m)

The mathematical (Fourier ) representations (transformations) are not physically real in the sense of a time t.

Boundary Size:

One possible (sensual) estimation in one dimension of spatial boundary size (between adjacent quantum) could be suggested by:


(Width of boundary)2 = Constant x (Time required sensually for continuity)

(In similar mathematical form to E=mc2.)

Using orders of magnitude 10-27 “sec-cm” suggested by wave mechanics and estimating the “speed” of sensory communication in the range 10-3 sec – 10-6 sec, we would then estimate the magnitude:

b ~ 10-16 to 10-18 meters (for example)


Contiguity of space quantum should be mathematically defined beginning with the natural sequence. That is beyond the scope of this letter.


Intermediate Review:


While we can mathematically achieve 2 from 0 and 1, we cannot physically achieve two from nothing and something.

Each space quantum “experiences” only each of its boundaries.

The juxtaposition of space is physical reality. The sense of time serves to approximate
physical laws and works well within the bounds of our senses.




Indications:

Entropy:


What we call entropy is in fact a “direction” through Fibonacci space that incorporates an increase in “size” throughout the sequence per the “golden” or “natural” ratio φ.

We cannot propel ourselves 10 meters across the Planet Earth’s surface without an “energy” (the units of which are not a real function of “time”) and similarly a subatomic “particle” cannot propel itself across a spatial quantum boundary without energy.

This serves to increase the “energy” in the following quantum by the factor φ and gives rise to the concept of entropy.


Small Particles:


Spatially (relatively) small particles (entities) with enough energy should have no problem traversing the boundary from one quantum to the next as directed by the entropy of space.

Spatially and massively (energetically) small particles may not be able to traverse the boundaries at all.

In that case, such “particles” could be left behind in space and would not entropically move forward. It seems possible such particles could in fact remain “backward” in the entropical sense.


Massive Energy:

For example, a “large energy between” two relatively small “particles” should easily provide a contiguous directional result through the entropic spatial sequence.

Per the natural sequence of space, mass does not bend (warp) space; instead, space is physically real and unalterable directly by mass (matter) and is independent of the sense of time.

Matter is defined by mass and “consumes” and exists in real space, e.g. our sun has a relatively large mass and “uses” a large amount of space as we know it.

The sun follows across all quantum boundaries along with us.


Space Warp:

The bending of space around mass is not physically real in three dimensions; instead, it is a sensation (illusion) from our innate continuous imagination of spatial contiguity.

The alteration (warping) of three dimensional space can take place through (within) five dimensions per the natural sequence, but cannot take place within three or “four” dimensions. The natural sequence is physical, not arithmetical, and five follows directly from three.


Negative entropy:

Negative entropy can only be achieved through five (maybe three) dimensions. Nothing can be achieved through four dimensions.

Intermediate Summary:

Time is not physically real. It is a neurological simulation of continuity from a real spatially contiguous universe.

There is energy and space. There is no time t.

The idea of a physical time t would mean that “time is continuous, directional, has no real dimension except as previously indicated by a clock, was created somehow unknown to anyone, but still has a real physical significance.” This writing holds that view to be unreconcilable.


An Eight Dimensional View:


In Fibonacci space, our 3-dimensional experience intersects with eight separate five dimensional regions at each boundary.

The boundaries are supposed to be relatively small in a spatial (and energetical) sense.

In the entropical sense, an energy compatible with a boundary region could exist “within” a boundary neither moving forward or backward.

In that case, it seems the specific energy may experience one, several, or all of the intersections.

At such an event, the energy (particle) could traverse among three-dimensional regions of our (experiential) Fibonacci space.

Indications:


Least Energetic Level:

In our experience, everything “falls” to the lowest energy state.

An example would be water flowing through a drain from a sink into a pipe through another pipe and into an urban main drain system leading into a waste water retreatment plant.

The water obeys our perceived law of gravity and falls through pipes “heading” and “directionalized” toward the center of the Earth where the water would experience no other energy realtively speaking. If the water could in fact reach Earth’s center of gravity, it would have fallen into a weightless environment as if the water were in orbit and falling “off” the edge of the Earth.

Similarly, chemical states react into the lowest binding energy form until some larger applied energy can change the state.


Lowest Entropic Level:

The lowest entropical level should be “backward” along the path to higher entropy, i.e. a change of direction toward lower entropy.

In the absence of forward entropical (motion) direction, it seems a particle (entity, maybe having a mass) may seek a lower (backward) entropical state, e.g. a particle within a spatial boundary may be able to traverse various boundaries and may “gravitate” downward in the energetical sense in a similar way to the experience in our three dimensional world.


The Square Law Relationship:

The Einstein2 square law relationship E=mc2 is also dealt with in the Schrodinger6 equation and also in many perceived natural forces like sound and gravity.

The Schrodinger equation needs to include “i”, i.e. the square root of negative one.

Similarly, the natural sequence could proceed in a “negative” direction with the seed values 0 and -1 with physical reality being a “square” and with all ratios matching the positive sequence.

But mathematics is a measurement result of physics, not the other way around.


Negative Entropy:

Negative entropy could be mathematically resolved by an “inverse or reverse” sequence, but physically real negative entropy should only be three-dimensionally achieved through the spatial via-ways resulting from intersecting spatial and energetical boundaries.


Intermediate Conclusion:

Space is not subject to our views of arithmetic; instead, space is defined by the natural sequence. Contrary to our sensations, time is not physically real. Time is a good measurement approximation in our macroscopic physical world and “historically” is built into all units of energy, measures, and our perceptions.

Space and energy directionally build the concept of entropy.

The dimensionality following from Fibonacci space also implies boundaries. The boundary dimensions are suggested by quantum (wave) mechanics.

Negative entropy should be achieved by exacting the correct energy. Not the most or least energy; instead, the correct energy corresponding to the spatial boundary.

Dimensional Fibonacci Space Regarding Negative Entropy:

A one dimensional existance and a two dimensional existance would (should) be negative (reverse or backward) from our entropical position, while 5 and 8 dimensions should be entropically positive (forward) from our position in three dimensional Fibonacci space.

Some (intelligently small) life forms (here with us) biologically move (“autonomically think”) in only one or two dimensions from their (cellular and multi-cellular) internal sense.

We neuroligically move (live) in three dimensions after 700 million “years” of evolution and there “remain” one and two dimensional creatures and forms that somehow live here in three dimensions along with us and even within us.

As a crude example, a garden vine is directionally one-dimensional as a growth, but in three dimensions we can see its full expansion in space.

We do not conceptually or spatially live in one or two dimensions; instead, we live in three.

We can easily see (experience) one or two dimensions as with the spiral, but we cannot experience 5 or 8 dimensions from any of 3 or 2 or 1 dimensional space.


An Adjustment to Boundary Size:

From quantum mechanics, the boundary size has been approximated at

b ~ 10-16 - 10-18 meters.

From special relativity,

c is bounded and ~ 109 meters per second.

c is an upper bound. The perceived velocity is bounded in Fibonacci space by the number of boundary crossings in our perceived one second of time t.

Then there are ~ 109 crossings in one perceived second using a Joule measurement system.

From quantum mechanics, we had bounded the (minimum) number of crossings using sensory (neurological) requirements in the range 103 – 106 per perceived second.

A special relativity estimation of the boundary size b:


b2 = constant ÷ (number of boundries experienced in one perceived second)


b2 = (small constant) x 10-30 x 10-9 (again using the constant h from wave maechanics)

b ~ 10-19 – 10-20 meters

Boundary Energy:

Estimating in Fibonacci space without wave mechanics:

Energy per unit mass can be equated to (109)2 Joules for each perceived second. One perceived second corresponds to 109 physical events (boundaries) so there are an implied 1 Joule (appx.) per kilogram per average one-dimensional spatial boundary event.

In that case, one kilogram (103 gram) requires 1 Joule and one microgram (10-6 gram) requires 10-9 Joules as an energy associacted with a single boundary.

For example, a “force” required to propel one gram in one-dimensional space for a perceived 10-9 sec would be calculated from the following:



10-3 Joules = Force(F) x b

Then b = 10-3 ÷ F (meters)

Assuming our perceived force of gravity at Earth’s surface (our experience) and following the general theory of relativity, then:

b ~ 10-3 ÷ (10 meters sec-2 x 10-3 kg) = 10-1 x (10-9)2


And b ~ 10-19 meters.


Review:


The Fibonacci boundary size in one dimension is estimated as:

b ≤ 10-16 – 10-18 meters using wave mechanics and neurological time requirements

b ~ 10-19 – 10-20 meters using special relativity and wave mechanics

b ~ 10-19 meters using only relativity and no wave mechanics


Indications:

Boundaries have Barrier Energies

Some Specific Energies do not move Entropically Forward

There are no Real Functions of Time (t)

There is only Energy lost (left Backward) in the Entropical Transition of Space

The Energies left Entropically behind should have Ramifications for other Energies moving Forward without them

First we understand the Barriers, then we can begin to understand Negative Entropy

Once we understand Negative Entropy, perhaps we could begin to understand Dimensional Forward Entropy

We Probably did not Achieve Three Dimensions without First Achieving One and Two


The Force Fb Relating to Boundary Size:

The force F we used to calculate boundary size applies to the force of gravity between a mass on the Earth’s surface and the Earth itself. That is our experience and corresponds to boundary size b for us here.

The gravity-space force itself is a function of the square of space (r2) and the sum of two masses m1 and m2 in a one dimensional sense.

A lower force of space-gravity, for example on our moon, implies a larger boundary dimension and a larger energy “barrier” than we experience here.

For example, in a different gravitational environment:

1. Since we apparently lose certain internal energies (“age”) at each boundary, those energies could be altered (could become larger) through larger boundaries (barriers) than we experience here.

2. In locations with small Fb and a corresponding large boundary, larger energies should be able to experience spatial intersections that only small energies experience here.

A weightless environment, for example an “orbit around” a large mass should only affect the boundary (barrier) size by the effective radius change regarding the real force Fb.


The Square Law in Higher Dimensions:

For us here, there are fundamental square law forces like sound and gravity.

In 5 dimensions, we should experience “cubed” law forces, and so on.


Indications:

The Nearest Large Boundaries (Biggest Holes) in Space:

The nearest large boundaries to us are at the nearest regions of lowest Fb.

That should be exactly in between the moon and Earth centers of gravity on a Euclidean straight line. Unfortunatley, the line moves continually and “quickly” in 3 dimensions.

The location along the line(s) is easy to calculate and is the simple cancellation points of the two opposing gravitational square law forces. The region is relatively small and traverses in space quickly as we see it, i.e. it “orbits around” the planet.


More Distant Boundaries:

And so the Earth-surface boundary size is 10-19 meters and the boundary b would need to increase in width by the factor 1010 as an order of magnitude approximation to pass a single atom, one-dimensionally speaking.

Since gravity is a square law here, that would imply 105 x this planet’s radius, or 50,000 Earth-diameters.

That is a long way for our technology. It is better to use canceling forces from nearby mass to achieve low Fb.



Conclusions:

Fibonacci space is real. The concept of time is not physically real.

Many measurements innately use time and so do all of our perceptions and especially our language(s).

Energy and space are real. They both grow directionally.

Sometimes, we represent our three-dimensional world with our derived three-dimensional mathematics and we become confused (overwhelmed) and cannot soundly (physically) enter into the sequence of natural growth.

Reconciling the natural sequence should lead to an understanding that cannot be achieved in three dimensions alone.

Reverse and dimensional forward entropy are likely waiting for our own enlightenment.

Technology exists to achieve the nearest broad interesctions.



References:
Top
Bryslon
Posted: Jan 8 2012, 01:36 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 323
Joined: 28-November 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Hi,

This is most ridiculous of all, reducing time.
And how to you want to unify Einstein with Newton with time reduced?
Have you got a basic glimpse of what time is?
Top
Ameriwannica
Posted: Jan 8 2012, 01:55 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 54
Joined: 10-December 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I agree with most of this...i think i found only one thing out of all this id question


--------------------
1010 bianary = 10 if i can just remember where i found this....

Its time to question all authority and when nothing is left to question....question the question

idle hands maybe be the devils work, but idle minds are so much worse

(Heres you: *Wearing pants in the winter time*
Heres me: *Wearing shorts in the winter time*
And do you know why? ....its because you're all taught to think alike...and I reteach myself not to think what a pathetic society teaches but what I CHOOSE TO THINK AND DO....its time to get a life because you're not living your own life right now, society is living it for you and until you understand this, the human race is DEAD)
Top
albert2
Posted: Jan 8 2012, 02:02 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 14-December 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


universe is "eternally here and now" that is in a continuous change
time is just numerical order of change
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html
Top
photo_guy
Posted: Jan 10 2012, 06:39 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 267
Joined: 2-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


While not a physicist I've been delving for 50 years. So here's my contribution to the theory of everything. smile.gif

I agree that we should stop considering 'time' as a force in and of itself. We need to drop it from calculations regarding the cosmos.

That idea goes against the grain I know, but that's what this 'new theorys' section is for, eh? And I'm happy to find others who think similarly... Unfortunately I'm not up on conversational lingo so to be clear I've gone more verbose, in plain english, with a little setup preamble and some 'reiteration' too.

Humans 'imagine' so they've come up with a way to know when to set down for dinner when the food is ready. It's been very helpful for humans to be able to sync in our society. But it's a convenience thing. An illusion built around physical structures. Not really a force in itself that can be measured or managed.

So used to using time in society, it's a difficult concept to accept that everything in the cosmos is just 'happening', at any instant you measure it. That there is no real 'past' or 'future', time dilation, or anything that can be folded or traveled in, connected with those happenings. That there is simply a natural and physical progression of changes going on. Whether it be towards growing, decaying, moving from point A to point B, or what have you. Things just 'happen' caused by forces that 'can' be measured.

Everything in the cosmos 'happens' on it's own. Nothing in the cosmos needs 'time' to do what it has to do. It just does it, using other means.

Everything is constantly at a *point* of change, where every object will be found to be changing at its own particular rate. Everything changes in various degrees relative to everything else. Similar to cutting the side off an apple and the outside face being smaller than the inner face. That is simply the physical 'point' where the change happened. The rate of change (in face sizes) being dependent only on how far out from the core the measurement is done. Which of course has nothing to do with 'time'. Or other slices done at different locations.

Likewise the observed relative age of an object compared to another is not a 'time' difference but a physical difference. The slowing of the mechanics of the basic elements of one object more than another. Similar to putting a steak in the freezer. Life goes on outside the freezer.., and time does not change in the freezer either. But the steak has slowed down. It may think it has traveled through time when it's warmed back up, but in reality it was merely being kept younger physically. The cosmos does something similar., using other means.

The speed of light is thee maximum speed. The speed of the galaxy. Nothing can surpass it. It is a standard we can all rely on. That speed may be 'approached' by electrons and other bits and particles but never exceeded. They being the same bits and particles that make up everything in the cosmos. So we know the faster moving of them will be changing slower, or less, over any given distance travelled. And every physical trait of what they're a part of will then have the same lower rate of change. So it will be less 'used up'. Kept physically younger than what did not move as far or as fast.

I like to use electrons in this posit. Maybe they'll turn out to be something else, even more basic perhaps..? But the idea is here.

I understand most electrons are already traveling as fast as they can, at some speed near c. And usually they will be orbiting a nucleus while helping to make up a particular atom.

When that atom moves from point A to point B, an electron in orbit around it has a longer path to travel than if the atom had stayed at rest. Since electrons can't speed up to make up for that extra distance, they will take longer to orbit the moving atom. Orbits in line with the direction of travel will do moving elliptical orbits.., and those perpendicular will follow along in a spiral. Both will simply be keeping up with the nucleus which is traveling in a straight line. But the orbits in both cases will show the same extra distance traveled to complete each orbit.

So if the electron's orbit takes longer it will naturally and physically slow down that atom's 'operating cycle'. All that it's supposed to be doing as its normal function. Being part of molecules, etc. That slowness would then be in those molecules and on up to whatever structures they were a part of.., such as humans and spaceships.

Therefore, seen from a rest state.., such a traveling ship would take longer to rust.., the clock would take longer to move to the next second marker, as the GPS satellite clocks do. And of course for the passengers to grow older.

So.., with everything being equal, the speed of light is like the finish line on a race track. But during the race that finish line is constantly moving further and further away from the horses running towards it. And with their various speeds, each horse will be dropping back from the finish line by different amounts. All the horses will be spaced out on the track and their distances from each other will become longer and longer. That lengthening being their relative 'physical ages'.

It follows that if an atom were travelling at the speed of light, its electrons would be racing in a straight line alongside or behind, trying to get around the nucleus. But they wouldn't be able to. Some say this is stopping 'time'. But for those particular atoms it would only be the equivalent of having their individual functions stopped... Like being cryogenically frozen solid. Except for some freezer burn, nothing changes.

But that's not time dilation nor time travel. Because there is no time to dilate. Just an illusion caused by the various rates or speeds that an object's basic elements work at. Each variation brought on by it's particular velocity, and gravity.

Calculations need to be done on what is real. Distance is real. It can replace all calculations that use time.

The distance a bit or object travels in a particular measurement can be compared to the distance light traveles in that same interval. The measured objects would then have a speed of perhaps .9999999 c to 0 c. Units of distance can be substituted for units of time. Parsecs instead of light years.., etc.

'Velocity' needs no distance vs time definition at all. Light speed is the maximum speed. The speed of the universe. It is 100% velocity. It goes *fast* and it *can't* be slowed. No matter how fast you're travelling.

So doesn't that *prove* it..? It does to me.

Velocity brings on inertia which is gravity by another name. Gravity therefore seems to be thee cause of the various rates of physical 'slowerness' in everything that moves in the cosmos.

For one to say that gravity does NOT affect electrons, they must argue that velocity over distance (inertia) is not gravity. And also explain how an electron's orbit would NOT be made longer by the distance the atom travels. Or how the electron would be able to make up for it otherwise. Not to mention what keeps the electrons circling their nucleus in the first place. Gravity..! Or not...??

We also consider gravity of nearby large objects. Such as the moon causing the tides. What basic part of water is being pulled on.? If not thee most elemental parts of both hydrogen and oxygen, would it not pull one more than the other? And perhaps turn the water into it's constituent gases..? But not. So it seems the moon's gravity is pulling on both kinds of atoms equally.

It may be pulling only the nuclei, only the electrons, or both. Any of which will add distance to an electron's path around its nucleus. But I tend to go with just the electrons being affected.

Accelleration is inertia, and is the gravity that counters the gravity of the nucleus. It follows that the electron's path would be further distended by the gravity of the earth in one direction as well as the moon in the other. An electrons orbit could be made to look quite wobbly in fact.

Going beyond slowing down atomic functions and differences in the rates of physical change.

Atoms have a positive charge when they're short of electrons. Negative when they have too many. What then if the atom is in balance with the correct number of electrons but because of velocity they're more 'distant' from the nuclei than they 'should' be. Electrons with distended orbits are more distant so one should expect to see a slight positive charge on ALL atoms. That all atoms would have an 'offset' in the positive direction. Negative atoms as well. They being less negative than they would be otherwise.

To go further, do we have a cosmos full of slightly more positive than negative atoms trying to repel from each other..? Except for those who have lumped up by coincidental collisions, etc., which slows down their velocity and so reduces their positive offset. Being 'captured' they become part of a larger mass gravity object which overpowers their their individual, weakened, repulsion tendancy.

There's more on how atoms may be both dark energy in a free near c state, and dark matter in the captured state.

That where they were wisping closer in the cosmos there were more collisions for them to be 'captured'. That being the 'web' or structure that galaxies seem to have formed on.

All this is over my head as far as the exact properties of an atom, etc... I understand that electrons are now considered to be some kind of blur but they apparently 'work' the same. In any case, I'll leave the details to anyone who cares.

My contention is that time should be replaced in calculations of the cosmos. Can someone say why it cannot.? Disregarding of course that it's needed to support all the current speculations I've been hearing in the last couple of years. That's putting the cart before the horse.


Btw.., can someone tell me why I cannot PM or email others here..? Is it because I am a newbie? I've asked the site support but no response. Thanks.


--------------------
Everything I say is my own opinion... Unless I say otherwise.



Vagueness abounds... With me there is no gray.

Remembering my mother... Margaret McGough. Died 1948
Send PM ·
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Jan 10 2012, 06:43 PM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


QUOTE (photo_guy @ Jan 10 2012, 12:39 PM)
I agree that we should stop considering 'time' as a force in and of itself.  We need to drop it from calculations regarding the cosmos.

Since when is time a "force"?! blink.gif

F = ma
a = dv/dt
F = m(dv/dt)

This post has been edited by synthsin75 on Jan 10 2012, 06:45 PM


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
Bryslon
Posted: Jan 10 2012, 08:58 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 323
Joined: 28-November 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Hi,

I can say that ideas of reducing / replacing fundamentals like time, doesn't make sense, because whatever you gonna name it, it will be always there.
Have a look on standard model and see how much complexility its there.
It's no less and no more, and time is just right, there is one photon there and what do you think Photon will look like with time stripped? Will it be jumping?
Top
niels
Posted: Jan 10 2012, 10:41 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 28-May 10

Positive Feedback: 25%
Feedback Score: -4


QUOTE (Bryslon @ Jan 10 2012, 08:58 PM)
Hi,

I can say that ideas of reducing / replacing fundamentals like time, doesn't make sense, because whatever you gonna name it, it will be always there.
Have a look on standard model and see how much complexility its there.
It's no less and no more, and time is just right, there is one photon there and what do you think Photon will look like with time stripped? Will it be jumping?

IMO time cannot be reduced like a force, because time is belomging to a measuring system, which means that time is being involved when an observation is being made.

An observation involve human mind, and perhaps it is useful to see human mind as a kind of analog system, something that translate Universe (noumenal world) into what we humans refer to as our real physical world, the world that is perceived by our physical senses and presented to the human mind as this vivid and strong impression of a dynamically changing 3D reality with noises / smells / gravitational feel / trembling / light vision etc etc. Mathematics and physics can be seen as a digital system, where our mind switches into a caculating measuring mode / trying to get best fit between analog and digital mode, respectively.

I am a bit confused about Synthsin / in this thread questioning that time is a force and in another thread fighting for the view that time is necessary for change to happen. It would seem that this inconsistency is because of mixing noumenal and phenomenal world uncritically.
Top
photo_guy
Posted: Jan 10 2012, 11:27 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 267
Joined: 2-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


synthsin75

I agree is isn't a force... I called it force for lack of a better word. I could have said entity, concept, confusion factor, etc. Since I don't believe it belongs in any category.

Bryslon

If time wasn't included in calculations by the person doing the calculating, it wouldn't be a factor in any of them.

It especially couldn't lead to ideas of folding the 'space/time' continuum, 'time dilation', etc. One cannot dilate something that does not exist. I know those ideas are fun to think about but it seems to me they're really leading everyone astray. What's the problem with NOT using time in the calculations....? People should try it. They might like it. smile.gif

Use real measurements such as speed relative to c... Where c is NOT 300,000,000 meters/sec. but simply the Max..! 100% Velocity... Everything else being something slower. Everything becomes much clearer when time is left out of the thinking and, as I have done, come to see everything as operating at different rates of physical speed only. The speed of their constituent atoms... It all makes sense. At least in my humble opinion... smile.gif

And yes, if you look at the photon without time, it would still be doing its thing. It doesn't need time to do what it has to do at any instant... Humans are the only ones seeing it as 'time' when it moves in their models, so they feel they need to attach a time frame to it. In fact the models were surely designed with the concept of time in mind in the first place. But the photon is only doing at any instant what is to be done. It's not planning or remembering or understanding at all what it is doing. Much less needing 'time' to help it along.

It seems human's have introduced the element of time to make the cosmos compatible with their own brains. But the cosmos has no brain. It works with gravity in it's various forms and a few other 'results', etc... Pressure, Action/Reaction, etc. And it is for all intents and purposes eternity. To introduce time when calculating the cosmos brings on visions of divide by zero. lol


And can someone let me in on what it takes to PM another member..? When I try to PM or email I'm told that I don't have permission. Thanks



--------------------
Everything I say is my own opinion... Unless I say otherwise.



Vagueness abounds... With me there is no gray.

Remembering my mother... Margaret McGough. Died 1948
Send PM ·
Top
synthsin75
Posted: Jan 11 2012, 12:36 AM


Ex Nihilo
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2253
Joined: 19-December 10

Positive Feedback: 93.75%
Feedback Score: 22


Without a physical sequence and timing of events there would be no causation.


--------------------
Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,
and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation. -P.A.M.Dirac
Send PM ·
Top
norgeboy
Posted: Jan 11 2012, 12:53 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 8-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Our experience with "free thought" and "new thought" is that forums and journals are pre-disposed to "ban" it. Especially in the US.

In that event, we would prefer to continue discussion through mevking1@gmail.com instead of losing communication through the thread.

Thank you.

Top
photo_guy
Posted: Jan 11 2012, 12:58 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 267
Joined: 2-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (niels @ Jan 10 2012, 10:41 PM)
IMO time cannot be reduced like a force, because time is belonging to a measuring system, which means that time is being involved when an observation is being made.

An observation involve human mind, and perhaps it is useful to see human mind as a kind of analog system, something that translate Universe (noumenal world) into what we humans refer to as our real physical world, the world that is perceived by our physical senses and presented to the human mind as this vivid and strong impression of a dynamically changing 3D reality with noises / smells / gravitational feel / trembling / light vision etc etc. Mathematics and physics can be seen as a digital system, where our mind switches into a calculating measuring mode / trying to get best fit between analog and digital mode, respectively.

I am a bit confused about Synthsin / in this thread questioning that time is a force and in another thread fighting for the view that time is necessary for change to happen. It would seem that this inconsistency is because of mixing noumenal and phenomenal world uncritically.



I understand time is a measurement system... And I did mention time being used to assist with the human mind's ability to perceive things, as you've suggested... In fact I'm probably able to understand any of the arguments made as to why it's being used... But the real problem is that we've let it get out of hand. We've turned a convenient way of measuring into a monster... We have transformed our measurement system into part of the cosmos itself. We call it space/time...

I have a human mind too.., and can see how things simply work at various 'speeds' without an idea of 'time'.., dilation or otherwise. IOW.., that a snapshot of the universe will record everything at that particular instant., even though some 'processes' are going on at a slower physical rate. A GPS clock among others. They all see the flashbulb at the same instant... Even though some 'relativistic' clock may show that less time has elapsed before and then after that snapshot than observations made from a slower rate of change pov would record. That's a pretty good indication that time really isn't a factor, is it not..?

Everything in the cosmos is under a relativistic slowness to some degree or another. Distances, speed (inertia) and the strength of mass gravity affecting us at any particular time are the only things that determine our position in the never ending horse race. So we really don't need to inject time into calculations too. At any measuring point you will see something different, that's all. We're watching a movie where each frame gives a measurement, but the film knows nothing of time.

??





--------------------
Everything I say is my own opinion... Unless I say otherwise.



Vagueness abounds... With me there is no gray.

Remembering my mother... Margaret McGough. Died 1948
Send PM ·
Top
photo_guy
Posted: Jan 11 2012, 01:05 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 267
Joined: 2-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


norgeboy...

Unfortunately I've seen it elsewhere... Hopefully not here...

In any case, thanks for the add..., and mine is febaker@olm1.com..
For anyone who might care to continue this off-line if necessary.







--------------------
Everything I say is my own opinion... Unless I say otherwise.



Vagueness abounds... With me there is no gray.

Remembering my mother... Margaret McGough. Died 1948
Send PM ·
Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Jan 11 2012, 02:09 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (photo_guy @ Jan 11 2012, 01:05 AM)
norgeboy...

Unfortunately I've seen it elsewhere... Hopefully not here...

In any case, thanks for the add..., and mine is febaker@olm1.com..
For anyone who might care to continue this off-line if necessary.

You'll be right as rain on here for there are no mods at the moment.
Top
photo_guy
Posted: Jan 11 2012, 04:23 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 267
Joined: 2-January 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Causation would not be eliminated by not using the concept of time.

For instance, velocity = distance/time can be replaced with Velocity = % c... Whether it's a particle or a planet.

With c being the speed of light, the maximum speed of the universe.

And % c determined by comparing an object's distance covered to light's distance covered in the same interval.

Without using time... Roughly, if light covers 300,000,000 meters in the same interval that an object covers 3 meters.., we know the object's velocity is .00000001 c. Just stop thinking relative time differences and switch to gravity induced 'physical aging' differences. That being the relative speed at which an object 'functions'. Which is inversely proportional to it's physical speed (inertia) and other gravitational influences. Use parsecs and other distance measurements instead of meters/sec, light-years, etc.

It might not be as convienient as using time, but instead of all its inherent confusion, folding of the space time continuum and so on.., one should come to see how everything is relative in their individual constantly changing 'physical' age differences, not time differences. Time does not change even though physical manifestations make it appear so. Not to mention that it doesn't exist in the first place. So the biggest benefit will be that there won't be any folding going on.

It then stands to reason that in it's stead will be other, significantly more correct, outlooks on the operation of the cosmos. Relativity relates to the rate of physical growth and degredation. Not man's imagined 'time'.

It's hard to express my thoughts in writing and I know my examples are super simplistic. While the speeds, distances, and other aspects of the cosmos are staggering to say the least. But it's all the same math.

And since I'm not so up on calc., it would be nice if someone could show some current relativity calculation using its 'time' based formula.., compared to the same using a velocity (inertia) = 'slowness' based counter part. See where it takes you.

There's a lot more to it of course. I can't even imagine how difficult some of the rethinking would be about, much less done. Just considering that all the electrons that make up a GPS satellite have their orbits lengthened, and functioning slowed, by gravitational pulls from several directions. Inertia, centrifugal force, the moon, earth, and more. All at once.

But I'm sure these various pulls can eventually be separately measured and quantified. I envision an atom's cloud of electrons simulated on a monitor showing gravity induced bulges all over it's surface. And they named for their source. With each bulge's extra length measured against had it not been there.., to indicate how much 'slowness' each pull imparts to the atoms they make up. Where it would take us is anyone's guess. smile.gif

But whatever and however.., it will certainly be better to use only what's absolutely known and physically measurable to arrive at a truer understanding of the cosmos.

IMHO...

This post has been edited by photo_guy on Jan 11 2012, 04:26 PM


--------------------
Everything I say is my own opinion... Unless I say otherwise.



Vagueness abounds... With me there is no gray.

Remembering my mother... Margaret McGough. Died 1948
Send PM ·
Top

Topic Options Pages: (35) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use