show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Peter,

You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to...

view entire post

Peter,

You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to continue in that familiar path even if it is an invalid path than to change to a new valid path. It often means giving up long held beliefs and admitting that many years of work were wasted. (Often much less is wasted than appears to be on the surface because the invalid path may have lead to technical advances that later show it to not be completely valid. Many invalid paths are based on approximate visualizations that stand until a more accurate visualization replaces it. In addition, the development of logical thought and other abilities that are acquired in the process of following in an invalid path can give one the ability to advance faster down a better replacement path if the change is made.) In addition to the waste of time fear, is the fear of being seen as a failure in the eyes of ones peers. The higher one is up in the social, political, and work structure of the predominate current belief system, the greater this fear tends to be because not only does one fear being rejected by his peers, but one could also lose highly prestigious positions and, or funding sources, so one’s livelihood can be greatly affected if the current belief system changes greatly. There are many things in the current structure of the scientific community that tend to generate these and other fears and cause loss or at least lack of gain to any that diverge from the present accepted path, so it is not hard to understand why you get a deaf ear when you present any new concept that does not fit exactly into the preferred path direction at that time. You will find only a few established scientists that have a strong enough desire to know the truth that they are willing to take on the analysis of new data that appears to be contradictory to present theory and are willing to give up current beliefs if the data presents a better new path to proceed down than the currently accepted one. It usually falls to the new scientists in the field to start out in bold new divergent paths. The structure of the current scientific community makes that much harder than it should be, however, so fewer new scientists are willing to buck the system than in some past times and hopefully for man’s sake in some future times.

Many of the things that you are talking about are more easily understood once basic sub-energy concepts are understood. Sub-energy particles do not possess a fifth vector velocity, so they do not have rest mass like that in matter particles and they do not have a fourth vector velocity, so they do not have the frequency, wavelength, and variable ninety degree angular dynamic mass effects of energy photons. Their only mass effect is a very small effect in line with their direction of travel due to their sub-light composite three-dimensional velocity in some direction. The angular motion of a matter particle in its enclosed three-dimensional path tends to channel sub-energy particles into paths around it. This channeling effect is important to a deeper understanding of charge transfer mechanisms and energy transfer mechanisms in general. As an example, under certain circumstances a matter particle can interact with a sub-energy particle in such a way that it transfers motion to it. This motion increases the sub-energy particle’s three-dimensional composite velocity to greater than the speed of light. The amount of motion that would be greater than the speed of light is induced into the fourth vector (dimension) changing the sub-energy particle into an energy photon. They can also take part in the generation of matter particles if the transferred motion is great enough and the proper angular motion components are present to generate fifth vector motion transfer. Sub-energy particles can interact directly with energy photons under certain circumstances with a net effect of slightly decreasing the photons fourth vector velocity. This results in a slight reduction in the photon’s frequency and peak dynamic mass effects and a slight increase in its wavelength. This red shift tends to vary directly with the distance that the photon has traveled because of the increased number of such interactions it will likely experience with travel through increased distance. Because of the small probability of interaction and the very small variation in fourth vector velocity due to an interaction, this effect is generally only observable in photons that have traveled great distances. This information can be of help to you in development of your ether theory if you can make the proper connections.

I wish you well in that endeavor.

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Peter,

Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself...

view entire post

Peter,

Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself and if so, to give basic beginning concepts that can be expounded upon to allow for the development of a new revelation of the way the world is constructed and works that over a period of a couple hundred years will lead to a great increase in man’s abilities to control the world around him. Of course, like all increases in power it can be used for either good or evil and it will undoubtedly be used to one degree or another for both, so the introduction of the knowledge is not necessarily a predictor of a better world or for that matter neither does it predestinate a worse one. It will be up to man to decide that. It will be a different one, however. We are not our only limiting factor. We can only work incrementally from what has been observed and learned before us. The trick is to learn to discern the true information from the false and to always keep one’s mind open to all the data and continually look in all directions for new understandings. One should not be satisfied with learning how something works, but must also work to understand why it works that way and be willing to completely give up previous beliefs and understandings if observations suggest that it is necessary. It is always best to periodically go back to the beginning and look at the world again from the basics on up in the light of the new observational discoveries (data) that have been made.

The sub-energy concept comes from one such trip back to basic concepts of the behavior of energy and matter that led to a deeper understanding of the structure of the world and how that structure works. It is just an inevitable part of the way things are made. I prefer to work with each person directly rather than through links to prewritten material. My concern is not to produce information clones, but to produce the ability to develop the concepts directly.

Good analogy.

Many wrong turns have been made over a long period of time. You have the right idea of retracing back on the paths, but I found that it was necessary to retrace all the way back to the beginning (climb all the way out of the rabbit hole) and start over using the updated observational data that was not available to those who previously took those paths at the time that they took them. To this I added something that most scientists tend to like to stay away from and some even think to be unscientific, which is the question (Why?) followed by the question (What?). Most scientists are content with trying to answer the question (How?) How does it work? They spend much time looking at the numbers and their relationships to each other, so that they can try to predict the next step in the chain of numbers. It is like a man desiring to get a better understanding of his car, so he checks and finds out that when driving on flat ground a certain amount of depression on the accelerator yields a certain acceleration which brings the car’s speed up to a certain level where it then stays as long as the peddle is kept in the same position. He notices that if he drives the car that way over a period of time the amount of gas in the gas tank decreases at a specific rate per unit of time and is happy that he has found this important relationship. He calls it his gallons per hour theory and quickly follows that up by observing that he travels a certain distance in that same period of time, so now he has his miles per hour theory. In a brilliant moment of insight he connects the two theories together to come up with the miles per gallon theory. By now he is extraordinarily happy with his achievements. Then someone asks him why do those things work that way and what is behind the scenes that generates those effects? His immediate answer is, that is not a scientific question. Science is only concerned with how it works. The why and what questions are for the philosophers to answer. This answer, of course, saves him much time and a lot of work trying to intelligently answer those questions. That would require some logical thought and might not be able to be arrived at by using only the numbers that he has available at the time. He might have to look deeper and actually do new observations to be sure he gets the best answer that he can to those questions. Even then he may only gain a visualization of how it could logically work and may not be able to prove that it actually works that way and he may even be completely wrong. Of course, if he had looked at science history, he would have seen that even those visualizations of things such as the structure of the atom that were lacking or even completely wrong led to tests of those visualizations that then led to better new more accurate visualizations and understandings of why the things that were observed were the way that they were observed and what behind the scenes mechanisms caused them to come out that way.

My approach (path) was to start from the most basic structures that make up at least most of the world that we observe (energy photons and matter particles) and as I looked at the basic observed attributes of those structures I begin by asking why the observational data was as it was and what structure was behind the scenes that generated the observed results. One of the most basic things that needed to be explained was the observation that energy can change into matter and matter can change into energy. This meant that they were both just different manifestations of a more basic entity. One of the keys to the answer to what that more basic entity is, came from another observation about matter, which was that when two slow moving matter particles collide, they will just tend to bounce off of each other, but when their motion is increased to near the speed of light, the collision causes several new particles to be produced. It was obvious that the new particles were created from the added motion since that was all that was added. This along with other observations led to the visualization that motion itself is the basic entity from which all other entities are formed. It is the only thing that is truly conserved of itself. Of course, matter particles and energy photons do not behave the same in every way and the differences had to be explained, but this was not difficult if these entities have motions that exist in other places than the first three dimensions. It only takes possible motions in two more dimensions to explain those differences. The motion in one of those dimensions causes the frequency, wavelength, and variable dynamic mass effects of energy photons and also similar effects in matter particles, while the motion in the other dimension (only matter particles have this motion) causes the rest mass in matter particles due to the angular motion components that it generates as it causes an energy photon to take a curved path that causes its path to become and enclosed three dimensional closed path to generate the matter particle. This enclosed path particle can then stay in one place in three-dimensional space even though it is still traveling at great speed around that path. More details had to be added as to how these motions accomplish these things, but that is also not that difficult, especially in the case of the first one mentioned above. These details have to do mostly with the structure of the two new dimensions and how they interface with the first three dimensions. From this followed the concept that entities could exist that only have motions in the first three dimensions and thus the sub-energy concept was born. This new concept greatly aided in the explanation of energy transfer and charge mechanisms, etc. It also has much to do with the structure of the mechanism of gravity, but I will not go into that now as that is for a later time.

Ah yes, frequency modulation (FM). I listen to some FM stations from time to time. Your right its much more real than AM. I love how people so often use such mnemonics apparently thinking that it makes it easier to understand what they are talking about than if they just gave the complete name that usually actually at least partially explains the meaning that they are trying to get across. Of course, it may just be that it is easier to write the 2 letters than the whole name, but it adds to the confusion of those who have not yet come across the specific meaning that you are talking about for that mnemonic. If I get my head around it, wouldn’t the center of gravity be at the center of my head? Of course, then if my ego is also located at the center of my head (ego centric (EC)) one would have to consider whether it was due to the effects of gravity, thus generating the whole new field of GEC or is that ECG.

The alternative should be able to explain both SR and QM effects and it can because both are limited structures that do not utilize the whole structure of reality. My kingdom is not of this world, but I will work with you if you desire and try to help you if I can.

Peace.

Paul

view post as summary

Steve,

I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important...

view entire post

Steve,

I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important structures. They are a demonstration of entropy balance, as an example, but they are not the ultimate importance in the universe, as you seem to think. There are many shapes and forms in the universe and they all explain things to us about the structure and interactions of the world that we live in. I suggest that you widen your horizons. The earth is somewhat of a sphere, but if it was a perfect sphere and we were parts of it we would not be able to move or do anything other than to follow the motion of the sphere as a whole if there was such motion because any deviation from that motion would leave an imperfection in the sphere in the place that we were once in and we would also be another imperfection in it unless we left the sphere altogether. That is considering that it would even be possible for us to possess the energy to independently move at all from our initial position. Much of our ability to live and do things on the earth is due to the imperfections of our sphere. A perfect sphere where every particle in it possessed the exact amount of energy to allow it to continue in that position in the sphere to maintain the perfection of the sphere would be a place that would not support life. We live off of the flow of motion from a low state of entropy toward a higher state of entropy. We could not live in a perfect state of entropy or for that matter we also could not live in a perfect state of zero entropy because we could not extract the energy from such a system to power our life systems. We can only live where there is a flow from low to high entropy and we can tap into it and extract the energy (motion) that we need to allow us to live and move and interact with the world in the way that we desire. A perfect sphere is not such a place.

Lawrence,

OK. Why is that symmetry that way and what is the structure that generates it? Why does the symmetry generate or equal that particular velocity as opposed to some other velocity? What behind the scenes structure makes it to be such and not another? As an example, left/right or up/down symmetry results in part from the bi-directional nature of the lower three dimensions in this world that allows a motion or position in one direction of one of these dimensions to be complemented by an equal motion or position in the opposite direction of that dimension. It would not be possible to have motion symmetry of this type in unidirectional dimensions, so the type of structure of these dimensions allows the generation of this type of symmetry. This is not a complete description as one would also need to cover the structure of motion, etc. also, but it gives a beginning point.

Peter

I just saw your comment as I was about to send this one, but I do not have time to answer it at this time. I will get back to you as soon as I can.

view post as summary

Peter,

All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no...

view entire post

Peter,

All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no information at this time that would suggest that it is limited to C or any other maximum velocity.

You a very close here. The sub-energy is (as described in my previous post to you) an entity that only has some sub-light three-dimensional composite motion. The energy photon also has a fourth vector velocity because at some point its three dimensional composite motion was increased to a point where it would exceed the speed of light, which is the induction point of motion into the fourth dimension. This induction works in both directions, so if the photon were to interact in such a way that its three dimensional composite velocity were to be decreased below the C velocity there would be an induced transfer of motion from the fourth vector back into its three-dimensional composite motion to restore it to C. This creates an effective velocity servomechanism to maintain the C velocity. Such a transfer would reduce its fourth vector velocity thus lowering its frequency and dynamic mass effect and would increase its wavelength. The matter particle also has a fifth vector velocity because at some point an energy photon that possessed a high enough fourth vector velocity to exceed the fifth vector motion transfer threshold had an interaction that generated the angular motion component necessary for fifth vector motion transfer allowing transfer of some of its fourth vector velocity into the fifth vector. This fifth vector velocity causes the curvature of the photon’s path in the first three dimensions so that it closes back upon itself to create a three-dimensional enclosed path. The matter particle is this enclosed path. The photon is still traveling at a high velocity around the path, but the path can stand still (have zero kinetic energy) allowing it to have a zero three-dimensional composite velocity. An interaction can cause a disturbance in the path structure that effectively causes the path to gain a composite three-dimensional motion (gain kinetic energy). As this motion is increased toward the speed of light a portion of this extra motion is transferred to the particle’s fifth vector velocity, which increases its curvature, which decreases its volume. The extra angular motion component generated also increases its mass effect. The closer the particle’s velocity gets to the speed C, the greater percentage of any new added velocity is transferred to the fifth vector, so that at the speed C all new added velocity is transferred to the fifth vector. There is more to it than that, but I am not giving detailed fifth vector concepts at this time and what has been given is adequate to pass on the basic concepts. Just keep in mind that it is an approximation and reality is more complex than that. Altogether there could be said to be three basic motions. First, there is the three-dimensional composite motion that is less than C in sub-energy particles, equal to C in energy photons generally less than C in matter particles. Second, there is the fourth vector motion that can very from 0 in sub-energy particles to at least some very high velocity in energy photons and can vary some in matter particles, but must maintain specific relationships to the particle’s curvature structure for the particle to be stable. Then there is the fifth vector velocity of matter particles, which again must maintain specific relationships to the particle’s fourth vector velocity to maintain particle stability.

Very good start. Replace gyroscopic with fifth vector curvature (main difference is that gyroscopes usually rotate in (curve into) a two-dimensional plain while the fifth vector velocity creates a three-dimensional curvature component). What is seen as the quantum aspects are due to a photon’s fourth vector motion and a matter particle’s fifth vector motion transfer threshold and the multiple fourth-vector wavelength/variable dynamic mass effect relationship with the fifth vector curved path size to allow particle path stability.

Not too far off. Each wave is the result of the particle’s fourth vector motion traveling from one end of the fourth dimension into and through our three-dimensional continuum and to the other end of the fourth dimension and then traveling back through our three-dimensional continuum in the opposite direction and back to the other end of the fourth dimension. This creates both the positive and negative wave halves. The amount of energy (mass effect) contained in each wave is dependant on the fourth vector velocity. The greater the velocity, the greater the amount of energy (motion) and the greater the frequency because it can travel from one end of the fourth dimension to the other in less time and can thus complete more full waves in a given time. The wave length becomes shorter because it travels a shorter distance in its three dimensional composite motion during the completion of a full wave.

Better answer than most that I have seen. Remember that a matter particle is not an infinitely small point entity, but a combination of motions. Its fourth vector motion causes its mass to vary from a small straight line mass component due to its instantaneous three-dimensional composite motion as it travels around its enclosed path to a maximum dynamic mass with a ninety degree angular component to its three dimensional direction of travel then back to the straight line level and then back to the maximum ninety degree component, but this time in the opposite direction. At the same time it has its three-dimensional angular mass effect due to its fifth vector motion, but it is continually traveling around its enclosed path. All of this internal motion structure and variable mass can allow for many interaction results when you consider that the particle that it interacts with has a similar structure.

Here I was talking about a single matter particle. I should have made that clearer. This is sort of explained above. It is mainly because the energy photon does not have a fifth vector velocity, so it has no rest mass, while the matter particle does and as its velocity increases its fifth vector velocity also increases, which increases its mass effect and causes greater curvature in its path so its volume is decreased.

The stability of a particle is primarily determined by the relationship of its fourth vector velocity to its fifth vector velocity. Stable particles have three dimensional internal standing wave structures.

Remember that variations in volume mean variations in ones measuring devices/distances, etc. I’ll let you figure out the rest. Neither SR nor QFT takes into consideration the motion structure of entities or the full structure of the dimensional system in which they exist.

Space is not timeless, but its structure is on the contrary greatly responsible for the need for the concept of time. On the other hand, time is not some extra physical dimension with the past in one direction and the future in the other direction. Time is the result of motion through space. The dimensions are constructed such that they each contain more than one position that can contain a motion entity. When two or more motion entities exist in different positions in space they generate the concept of distance as the space of positions between them. One of the basic structural traits of motion entities is the ability to change or move from one position in space to another. As a motion entity continually changes its position to travel through a distance from one point to some other distant point in space it generates a period of motion from the point that the motion leaves the beginning point until it reaches its end point as it travels through its distance between the two points. We call this period time and have included it in the definition of the concept of time. If all motions were at the same amplitude, a period of time would be determined solely by the distance traveled, so T=D, where T is the time period size and D is the distance traveled. This is somewhat the case with light photons, but matter particles can have motion amplitudes from zero all the way up to about C. This requires a consideration of the motions amplitude to be added to the above expression, so that T=D/M, where T is the time period size, D is the distance traveled, and M is the motion amplitude because the time period increases in size with an increase in distance traveled and decreases in size with an increase in motion amplitude. Man has unnecessarily complicated the formula by using other time periods to define the motion amplitude into a rate rather than just picking a specific motion amplitude level as a unit of motion amplitude and comparing all motions in terms of that unit. This adds to the confusion about what time is. The main other part of the definition of time that is often misunderstood is the concept of past, present, and future. We live in a continuum of motions that has existed since motions were introduced into the dimensional system. Since total motion quantity is conserved, this continuum will exist until all motion is extracted out of the dimensional system or the dimensional system itself becomes unable to support such motion. These motions travel in their predetermined directions until they interact with other motions. An interaction can cause a change in a motion’s amplitude in that it can either gain an increase or decrease in amplitude. If its amplitude is decreased to zero a motion entity ceases to exist, but its previous amount of motion is transferred to some other motion entity thus conserving the total quantity of motion. For the motion entity to cease to exist its motion must be reduced to zero not only in the first three dimensions, but its fourth and fifth vector motions must also be reduced to zero. An interaction can cause a change in the state or type of motion entity by causing a transfer into its fourth vector motion to change a sub-energy entity into an energy photon or into its fifth vector motion to change an energy photon into a matter particle. Of course, the reverse can also occur by removing motion from an entity’s fourth or fifth vector motions. A motions entity’s direction of travel can also be changed by an interaction by increases or decreases in its motion amplitudes in the lower three dimensions. In this continuum of motions and all of its changes due to interactions, previous conditions of all these motions have been changed by the changes in position of the motions as they proceed through their distances and also as they have been changed by interactions that they have experienced in their travel, so that the previous conditions no longer exist. These previous motion conditions are what we call the past and we know of them because we have stored records of them in our minds when we observed them when they did exist as the present. The present is the current motion conditions that now exist. We know of them because we can observe them (although one could say that the delay time for light to reach our eyes, etc. means that they are actually in the past by the time we perceive them, but this time lag is so short that it does not appreciably affect our ability to interact with the world in most cases). The future is the motion conditions that do not yet exist, but will exist at some point due to the playing out of the current motion conditions through their paths as modified by any interactions up to that point in the motion continuum. We can to some degree extrapolate what these future motion conditions will be, at least on a very local limited scale, by comparing present motion conditions with the stored records that we have of past conditions, but they do not really exist until they become the present. There is therefore no existent past or future to go to for time travel and no need for some special time dimension for time to flow through. The past, present, and future motion conditions and the periods of time produced by motions are generated dynamically as the motion entities travel through distances at their individual motion amplitudes to create the overall motion continuum through those motions and their interactions. I hope that this will be of some help.

view post as summary

Steve,

I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are...

view entire post

Steve,

I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are made, they break down over time into useless piles of junk. Even when living creatures die and leave large piles of DNA and the molecular machinery needed to make living creatures on the ground, instead of coming together and forming new living creatures they just turn back into dust in a short time. The natural world does not create higher level structures, but works actively to break them down to be equal to the state of surrounding structures and since the base structure is mostly at a very low energy level and simple, high energy or highly organized or complex structures are naturally brought down to lower energy, disorganized, simple structures by nature. This means that the first living creatures could not have been produced by the natural world. They had to have been created by a highly intelligent being (one much more intelligent than man because man can not create even a simple living creature from base substances). The only real question is whether all creatures were made by this being or whether only some simple living creature was made by him and all the other creatures came about through evolution of that simple creature over time. It would be most logical that such a being would just create all creatures that he desired rather than just make one and then wait millions or even billions of years for the others to evolve from it. If he could make the one it would not likely take nearly that long for him to just make the rest also. Although living creatures do make complex, organized, high potential energy structures, they are made in such a way that they can only copy their own structure, so they could not deliberately make new different living creatures, but only others like themselves. The living creatures (man included) do not understand the copying process. It is accomplished either completely automatically or as a result of simple actions by the living creature to initiate the process. Once initiated the process proceeds automatically. This leaves the living creatures intellect out as a source of new different creatures. That only leaves chance errors and natural selection as the only possible natural method of their production. There is a twofold problem with this concept. The first is that if a major evolutionary change occurred lets say every 10,000 years, it would allow for only 400,000 major changes in a 4,000,000,000 year period, which would be the most time one could expect could be allowed based on the predicted age of the earth of about 4,500,000,000 years (it has to cool, etc.). This would not be nearly enough to produce all of the living creatures that have ever lived on this planet. As the population grew the probability of errors that could cause major evolutionary changes would increase, but this leads to the other problem, which is that with the present population of man at about 6,000,000,000 if half were female (3,000,000,000) and if 40 percent of them were at child bearing age (1,200,000,000) and each had an average of 2 children in their about 30 year child bearing period or 1 child per fifteen years (80,000,000) the one in 10,000 probability of a major evolutionary change would mean there would be about 8000 major evolutionary changes expected per year in man alone and many more in faster multiplying creatures like bacteria that also have much greater populations. We don’t see these changes, so it doesn’t work. If you make the probability of a major evolutionary change too long you don’t get nearly enough total changes to produce all of the living creatures that have ever lived on earth, but if you make it shorter the exponential increase in the population makes for a very high rate of evolutionary change at present, but such changes are not occurring. Evolution just doesn’t work as a producer of all living creatures from the first one.

Your analogy about spheres starts out pretty good, but we are not composed of spheres, at least at most levels. The molecules that we are made of are generally not spheres. If we look at a smaller scale the atoms are not spheres either. The nucleus of the atoms that we are made of is not a sphere, but a continuously moving mass of particles that do not form a nice neat sphere as is often visualized in drawings. There are continual exchanges of motion between protons and neutrons, etc. within the nucleus to maintain stability, etc. If you look at a still smaller scale the particles of matter that make up the atoms are not spheres either, but are composed of a structural point that is moving in a three dimensional enclosed path that is not a solid sphere as some might suppose. When you get to the structural point level you might have a point, but that is beyond the level that I will go at this time. Again above the structural point level, light does not appear as a sphere, but as a wave with a specific length and its height is not generally the same as its length. In the galaxy we don’t live on a sphere, but on a disk that rotates around the center. A sphere is a three dimensional structure. The universe is an eight dimensional structure and we take part in the lower five of them in our lives here.

I know that you think you are right in all this and you do have some insights that others here do not recognize, but I do. The problem is that you have tried too hard to fit them into man’s current beliefs and understandings when they don’t fit, so you come up just being another brick in the wall of man when you could be much more. You have the ability to discern patterns more than many, but you need to let go of man’s current fads of evolution and quantum mechanics, etc. and look deeper. You don’t need to recognize this to me or in public, just do it privately for yourself honestly with the intent to really understand the truth even if you end up with results that don’t agree with man. Start from the beginning and you will come to understand much more. There is so much more that you have not yet begun to consider to it all. It would have been much better to have caught you much earlier in your development. Now it all depends on you. You have to make the decision yourself now or just waste it all. Don’t get discouraged it will take you years, so if you accept to do it be prepared for that. Look at all observed data that you can (not just man’s interpretations of the data) and see how the patterns fit together. Then look for the world that would generate all that data and those patterns. The first step is to be willing to give up all that you think you know now and start over from the beginning. If you choose to make the commitment, I wish you well in that endeavor and I am willing to help you in any way that I can. If you choose not to do so, there is nothing more that I can provide for you, as you will not accept anything that I say anyway and I am not into wasting my time for no purpose.

view post as summary

Amrit,

Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that...

view entire post

Amrit,

Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that extends from the point that it leaves the beginning point of that distance until it arrives at the point at the end of that distance. If the distance is made larger the period becomes longer and if the motion amplitude is increased the period becomes smaller. Thus there is the relationship T= D/M where T is the time period, D is the distance, and M is the motion amplitude. If there was no motion in the universe there would be no such periods generated and your concept of space being timeless would be true, but once you introduce motion into the universe, the motion(s) generate periods as they travel through their distances (space) and man has included these periods as a part of his definition of time. The main reason that man needs to consider these periods is to be able to compare one motion through a distance to another one. This would not be as necessary if motion was a single amplitude function because then the period generated would be determined just by the distance traveled or T=D and every one would get to know about what size period would be generated if you traveled one mile, for example. In that case, if someone asked you how long your trip was you could just say, it was 15 miles and he would not only know the distance that you traveled, but would also have a good idea of the size of the period of your trip because all 15 mile trips would generate the same period. Because motion is a multi-amplitude function, however, the period that is generated on your trip not only depends on the distance that you traveled, but also on the amplitude of your motion during your trip. Whether anyone measured the period of your trip or not, it would still be generated by your motion at its specific amplitude as it traveled through the distance of your trip. Periods are resultant outputs of relationships (interactions) between space (distance) and motion and since man has included such periods as a part of time in its definition, space that contains motion is not timeless, but contains time periods. Motions generate specific periods of time whether they are measured by man or not. As an example, when an electron in an atom goes from a higher orbit to a lower one in the atom, it emits a photon. This photon’s existence begins when it leaves the electron and it travels away from that point with a motion amplitude of C. After traveling some distance through space it may hit another atom and be absorbed by an electron in it, so that the electron can move to a higher orbit in that atom thus ending its existence. Its lifetime period is naturally generated by its travel through the distance from the point of its emission to the point of its absorption at its motion amplitude of C whether anyone actually measures it or not. Its existence in the motion continuum is its own record of its lifetime period recorded in that continuum. Man’s use of clocks is just a way for man to compare any given period with a standard period, so periods can be compared in the same way that a meter stick is used to measure and compare distances. Does the distance not exist if a man does not measure it using a meter stick? The distance exists as a part of the structure of space whether it is measured or not and a period of time exists as an output of the interaction between a motion and space whether measured or not.

view post as summary

Amrit,

I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the...

view entire post

Amrit,

I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the subscript p). It should be t (sub) p=l (sub) p/c. You might want to correct it if you want to give this paper as a demonstration of your concept.

You can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Planck distance (l (sub) p) is considered to be the minimum distance that can be traveled and C is considered the maximum velocity that can be achieved. The Planck time (t (sub) p) is the time that it takes to travel the Planck distance at a velocity of C and is therefore considered the minimum time period. In your paper you mentioned that (t (sub) p) = 539,124*10>-44s. This would seem to be saying that time still exists even at the Planck size level.

We both agree that there is no time dimension. I see no need for a fourth dimension of space to replace time either. We both agree that time is not a fundamental entity. Time is a relationship between two fundamental entities, which are space (distance) and motion. This is easy to see if you remove the R (rate) from the formula D=RT or the V (velocity) from the formula D=VT and replace them with M (motion amplitude) resulting in the formula D=MT. We know that the R or the V is actually expressing the amount of motion. As an example 100miles/hour = 2 times as much motion as 50miles/hour. There is no reason that you could not pick the 50miles/hour amount of motion as your unit of motion amplitude. If you did, the 100miles/hour amount of motion would then be expressed as 2 units of motion amplitude (you would probably give the unit some name like the Amrit, etc.). This gets rid of the confusing extra time function in the formula while keeping the main relationship intact. From D=MT it can be seen that T=D/M. This is the true meaning of time in terms of the production of time periods. It can be easily seen that as a motion travels through a distance, it generates a time period that is dependant on two variables, which are the distance traveled and the amount or amplitude of the motion that is traveling through that distance. If the distance is increased the time period becomes larger and if the motion amplitude or amount of motion is increased the time period generated by the motion traveling through the distance becomes smaller. When a motion travels or changes position from one point in space to another, there are only two ways that a time period would not be generated. The first would be if the distance traveled were zero. In this case there would be no actual change in position, so there would be no actual motion, so it would not come under the requirements that time periods are produced by a motion traveling through a distance. The second case would be if the motion amplitude were infinite. In this case the time period produced would be infinitely small and could be considered to not exist. This second case seems to be what you are proposing in your hypothesis because you talk about immediate transfer at the quantum scale. The information that you gave in your paper, however, says that even at the Planck scale the Planck time period of 539,124*10>-44 exists for the minimum transfer distance of 1 Planck distance. If the Planck distance is the minimum distance that can be traveled Quantum motion would have to occur at this scale or larger, so it would seem that time in terms of the Planck time or multiples thereof would still apply to quantum motion transfers.

Moreover, if there were some form of immediate (infinite velocity) transfer at the quantum scale, you would have to explain how it is that larger scale motions travel at a lesser velocity if you want your hypothesis to be internally complete. What would introduce the slow down and why would the maximum velocity of larger scale motions be C and not some other velocity?

view post as summary

PS

Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and...

view entire post

PS

Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and “after” exist only as a numeric order of a physical event: tn-1 is “before” tn equivalently to natural number n-1 is “before” natural number n. Numeric order of material change we measure with “ticking” of a clock where to represents beginning of the measurement, tn end of the measurement. Velocity v of a material change is derived from its numeric order tn : v = d/tf. Frequency of material change is derived from its numeric order tn: frequency = 1/tn.

According to the formalism d = v x t fourth dimension of space-time X4 = I x c x t is spatial too. Time is not a fourth dimension of space-time. Material change i.e. motion run in a timeless space. Fundamental unit of numeric order t0,t1,t1…tn of material change is a Planck time tp.

It is more correct to imagine cosmic space as a four-dimensional 4D space than 3D + 1 where fourth dimension is time. There is no time in the universe. Universal space is timeless.

Material change and a clock they both run in a timeless 4D space and have no duration. Universe is a timeless phenomenon.

Fundamental unit of numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of material change that run in space is Planck time tp = 5,39124 x 10 -44 s and is derived from the light speed: tp = c/lp where lp is a Planck distance. Planck time tp exists in the universe as a fundamental physical unit that governs numeric order of material change.

Here concept of time is definitely abandoned and replaced with the numeric order of material change which is measured with a clock. Material change runs in 4D space. In equations of physics meaning of symbol t is numeric order tn of material change obtained with a clock. In Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity it is not that is relative, relative is velocity vof material change. Twin in a fast spaceship is getting older slower than his twin brother remaining on the earth. Both twins are getting older in the space only and not in time. One can travel in space only and not in time. Time travel is not possible.

Material changes are running slower in space where gravity is stronger and faster where gravity is weaker. They always run in a timeless space.

Recent neurological research shows by measuring a physical event with a clock we experience numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of event through psychological time “past-present-future”. However numeric order of physical event runs in timeless space and has no duration.

“Traditionally, the way in which time is perceived, represented and estimated has been explained using a pacemaker–accumulator model that is not only straightforward, but also surprisingly powerful in explaining behavioural and biological data. However, recent advances have challenged this traditional view. It is now proposed that the brain represents time in a distributed manner and tells the time by detecting the coincidental activation of different neural populations:

-Catalin V. Buhusi, Warren H. Meck, What makes us thick?, Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing, Nature reviews, Volume 6, October 2005

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n10/abs/nrn1764.htm
l

yours amrit

view post as summary

Steve,

I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this...

view entire post

Steve,

I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this ability cannot discern. I have decided to respond to you when I see that you have picked up a pattern and expressed it to me in a way that indicates that you have an understanding of it, so you can see what I am saying about your ability to see these patterns. I will ignore statements like your wrong with no valid explanation as to how or why. Your statements will have to be coherent with logical reasons preferably based on observations that are expressed in an orderly manner that backs up your premise, for me to respond to you.

You are right that I didn’t cover linearity problems or solutions and I also did not cover anything about gravity. First I am not covering gravity at this time because in order to do so would require me to cover other things first (fifth vector structuring concepts) that it is not yet time for man to know. If these things are transferred too soon, man will use them in the wrong way and destroy himself and this planet. That would be contrary to my purpose here. You are free to believe me or not, but I will not go into these things at this time for that reason. All I will say is that most mass is generated by angular motion and the mass in matter particles is mainly caused by the particle’s fifth vector (dimensional) velocity. As a matter particle’s three-dimensional velocity increases toward the speed of light a part of that increased velocity is transferred to its fifth vector velocity. This increases the particle’s mass. Because the fifth vector velocity causes the particle’s curved path, this curvature is increased with an increase in fifth vector velocity thus decreasing the particle’s volume. The variation in volume causes distance in terms of the particle’s perspective to become a multi-amplitude function based on velocity requiring the distance amplitude to be considered in measurements and interactions, etc. Gravity is directly connected to mass. That is all I will say about that. The C limit is due to the velocity induction transfer threshold from the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension. The Planck limits do not really exist. They could be looked at as the rough equivalents to the fifth vector structural level disconnect point, but a whole new structural level exists below. It just cannot be accessed from here except at the structural crossover velocity, which allows access to that level to take advantage of the structural pull up effect. I know that you do not understand much of what I am saying at this point, but if you use your pattern recognition abilities and do not try to fit it into the filter of your past knowledge and experience you may be able to figure out some of it.

You are right that the time periods generated by an entity’s motion through distances only apply to that local entity. Great insight. There is no overall universal time. The closest thing to a universal clock that exists would be to consider that each change of position that occurs in any entity in the universe could be considered as a tick of the universal clock. There are several problems with this concept, however. The main one being that only someone who had a truly global perspective, so that he had the ability to observe all motions in the universe simultaneously and continuously could actually read such a clock because it would require the ability to observe when the next motion to complete a transfer from one point in space to the next point actually completed its transfer to that next point.

The interpretation of the minimal distance given is not mine. The Planck distance is not really the minimal distance, but just man’s current belief. It is just about the limit on the small side of this structural level. I often frame my responses within the acceptance range of those that I communicate with by keeping within the knowledge and technology level of the receiver of my communication. It is often best to limit the amount of new material given that is beyond the current knowledge and ability level of the receiver. If I can make the desired transfer of the principle or concept involved and at the same time stay within the receiver’s acceptable knowledge base, many problems of disbelief can often be avoided. The principles that are transferred in this way can then open up the receiver’s mind to receive more new information and can also correct previous wrong beliefs in such a way that the receiver believes that he came up with the corrections himself. Neither motion amplitude, nor distance is truly linear throughout the total range of their interactive scales.

Straight-line (linear) motion can primarily be looked at as a one-dimensional structure (can take place within one dimension). Rotation can be looked at as a two-dimensional structure (requires two dimensions for it to take place). There is also a three-dimensional motion structure that takes place inside of matter particles that requires three dimensions to take place.

view post as summary

Amrit,

The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is...

view entire post

Amrit,

The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is the beginning point of a natural time period and the end of its motion is the end point of the time period. The continuation of the time period’s existence runs from its beginning point to its end point. If a photon moves in space its motion by definition generates a time period. If the photon travels at a velocity of C for about 186,000 miles, the time period that it generates is about 1 second. The only way that a motion could occur without generating a time period would be if it had an infinitely high velocity. All light photons travel at a finite velocity called C and, therefore, they create time periods as they travel. The photon is not moving in time. Its motion creates time (a time period). Order of occurrence is another part of the definition of time. At any point (except the first and last points) while a motion is creating a time period by traveling through a distance, three basic order of occurrence divisions exist. They are: the past (all numeric order points that the motion has traveled through (t1… tx-1) where x = the present existing order of occurrence point (tx): the present (the present existing order of occurrence point (tx)): and the future (all order of occurrence points that will exist, but, have not yet existed (tx+1…tn) as the motion travels through its distance). Within each of these divisions there may be many order of appearance points. It only takes two order of appearance points (one in the past and one in the present) to create time by this part of the definition of time. Anytime a motion exists, it creates order of appearance points as it travels from one point to the next in its travel through its distance. Order of appearance is another part of the definition of time, so anytime an entity changes position from one point in space to another point in space both a time period and an order of position time change is generated by the motion of the entity as it travels through its distance from one point to another point in space. It should be noted that even a change of position in space that occurs at an infinite velocity (immediate transfer) would create an order of appearance time change because it would have existed in its first position before it transferred to its second position. These created time effects are basically local in effect and only directly apply to the specific motion that generates them. It is possible to combine and/or compare the time effects from more than one motion to get a larger effective time structure. The ultimate combination (not possible for us) would be to combine the time effects of all motions to get the true global time perspective. Note that this would just give one a global view of all of the time effects that are generated by all of the motions in existence including the results of their interactions. There is no overall time dimension or effect that causes the individual time effects. It is the combination of all of the individual time effects that gives the appearance of an overall time dimension or effect. As John Merryman might say, time is a bottom up process not a top down process.

There is no need for a fourth dimension to explain time. We agree on that. I don’t see any need for a fourth dimension to explain motion or change of position in space either. Motion is the fundamental entity that operates in space. All other entities such as energy photons and matter particles are composed of various motions that give them their specific properties. It is not possible for motion to run in timeless space because motion through distance (space) generates time periods and order of appearance time effects.

I do see the need for a fourth dimension and also a fifth dimension, but they are needed to explain the structure of energy photons and matter particles among other things not for the generation of time. Time periods and order of appearance time effects are results of motions or spatial position changes, so the only way that universal space could be timeless would be if it contained no motion (was empty).

Time is a relationship between space (distance) and motion (change of position). It shows the combined effect of a specific amount of distance with a specific amount (amplitude, rate, or velocity) of motion. Because motion is a multi-amplitude structure, you cannot get the full equivalent result by looking only at space. You must also take into consideration the amount of motion that a given motion possesses (its motion amplitude). This relationship T=D/M (where T=time period or duration, D=distance traveled, and M=motion amplitude) is called a time period and exists anytime a motion travels through (changes position in) space. Because all that is needed to create time periods and order of appearance time effects is motion or change of position in space, they can occur in one-dimensional space as a motion travels along its dimensional line.

The Planck time (5,39124 x 10 –44s) shows that time periods and numeric order of appearance time effects work all the way down to the quantum level.

Remember that numeric order of material change is a part of the definition of time. There are those who say that the physical order of appearance can be different for observers in different frames of reference (different local perspectives). We agree that one cannot travel backward in time or forward either except through the normal progression of motions. The current position of all motions in space, their current directions, and their current motion amplitudes is all that actually exists. When a motion changes its position in space, it no longer exists in its previous position, but now exists in its current new position. Its previous position is now only a part of its past. This past does not really exist except possibly in the form of stored records of its previous existence. You cannot go back to something that doesn’t exist. The future also does not exist because it is just the conditions of motions in the motion continuum at some point after they have continued in their paths and interactions from their current present conditions until they finally generate the projected future motion conditions. They have not yet played out in that way to reach those future conditions, so there is nothing there to go to either. A good way to look at it is that the past is composed of all of the motion conditions in the motion continuum that have existed from the beginning of motion to the present existing motion conditions, but no longer exist because they have been replaced by later conditions. The present is the current existing motion conditions. The future is all of the motion conditions that will exist in the motion continuum after present motions continue on their paths and through their interactions to generate them, but do not yet exist because the motions in the continuum have not yet arrived to those conditions.

I am not currently covering gravity effects.

Any motion (change of position) has a duration unless it is traveling at infinite velocity.

It seems that you are ignoring the time periods (durations) that are produced by motions traveling through distances (changes in spatial position). You are not considering order of appearance to be a time effect when it is. You hold onto the fourth time dimension by just trying to convert it to a spatial dimension without giving a good reason why it is needed at all if a time dimension is not needed. Except for these things we are in pretty close agreement on the things that I will cover at this time. Of course, you may or may not agree with the basic dimensional, entity structuring and other concepts that I have presented so far on FQXI. As you have generally not commented on them, I do not know of your positions on them.

view post as summary

------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

GRAVITY AND SPACE

...

view entire post

------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

GRAVITY AND SPACE

When a body accelerates in space, creates the effect of inertia in the direction opposite where you accelerate, call center of gravity.

If space that is accelerated, it creates the same effect.

Example, in the first second of the universe, the universal sphere would measure 300,000 kilometers of radio, in the 2nd second 600,000 in the 3rd second 900 000 km radius, with the mass the same, in an area that increases in volume to the cube in negative density . It is therefore an acceleration into space. vacuum is not constant, and is accelerated by the universal sphere radius at any time. The vacuum is accelerated outward, and the effect goes in from each club.

Principle of cause, effect.

Do not want to elaborate more. If you're interested I can explain much more Thanks for your attention Julián Luque c / escuelas 24 Montilla (Córdoba) Spain

movile 638017324 phone 957 651734 ------------- EL ESPACIO Y LA GRAVEDAD

Cuando un cuerpo acelera en el espacio, crea el efecto de inercia en sentido opuesto en la dirección donde se acelera, le llamo punto de gravedad.

Si es el espacio el que se acelera, creará el mismo efecto.

Ejemplo, en el primer segundo del universo, la esfera universal mediría 300.000 kilómetros de radio,en el 2º segundo 600.000 en el 3º segundo 900.000 kilómetros de radio, siendo la masa la misma, en una esfera que aumenta su volumen al cubo en densidad negativa. Por lo tanto es una aceleración hacia el vacío. el vacío no es constante, y es acelerado por el radio de la esfera universal en cada momento. EL vacío acelerado va hacia fuera, y el efecto va hacia dentro de cada maza.

Principio de causa, efecto.

No quiero extenderme mas. Si es de su interés puedo explicarle mucho mas Gracias por su atención Julián Luque c/ escuelas 24 montilla (Córdoba) España

teléfono 957 651734 móvil 638017324

-------------------------------------

view post as summary

Einsteiniana: Reviving the Old Money-Spinner

Celebrating Einstein Through 100 Years Of General Relativity: "Albert Einstein is probably the most well-known scientific genius. His creative ability allowed him to dream of new physics and create scientific revolutions, including his masterpiece, the theory of general relativity. (...) Today, a window of opportunity is beginning to open for...

view entire post

Einsteiniana: Reviving the Old Money-Spinner

Celebrating Einstein Through 100 Years Of General Relativity: "Albert Einstein is probably the most well-known scientific genius. His creative ability allowed him to dream of new physics and create scientific revolutions, including his masterpiece, the theory of general relativity. (...) Today, a window of opportunity is beginning to open for those of us in the physics community who wish to communicate Einstein's vision to the public. Two years from now, in 2015, we will mark the 100th anniversary of the year Einstein discovered general relativity. The Celebrating Einstein event, launched in anticipation of the centennial, tells the story of Einstein to the world and shares the excitement of Einstein's theory. To organize the project, we're working with artists, musicians, composers, scientists, dancers, filmmakers, historians, architects and educators on a series of interconnected events designed to engage the general public. Celebrating Einstein begins in 2013 with a series of free public events in Bozeman, Mont., but everyone in the world - including you - can join the celebration. (...) Einstein devise­­­­d a completely new description of gravity. First, he realized that objects in the universe exist in three dimensions of space and one of time. He then combined these into a four-dimensional spacetime."

Spacetime was just an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Nowadays most Einsteinians know that and, unlike Einsteinians involved in the "Celebrating Einstein" project, extract career and money from debunking spacetime (the NEW money-spinner):

"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage."

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

"Now Horava, at the University of California, Berkeley, claims to have found a solution that is both simple and - in physics terms, at least - sacrilegious. To make the two theories gel, he argues, you need to throw out Einstein's tenet that time is always relative, never absolute. Horava's controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. Quantum theory harks back to the Newtonian concept that time is absolute - an impassive backdrop against which events take place. In contrast, general relativity tells us that space and time are fundamentally intertwined; two events can only be marked relative to one another, and not relative to an absolute background clock. Einstein's subjective notion of time is well accepted and is the hallmark of Lorentz invariance, the property that lies at the heart of general relativity. "Lorentz invariance is not actually fundamental to a theory of quantum gravity," says Horava. "But the problem so far has been that many cosmologists are wedded to the concept."

"What is time? Is our perception of time passing an illusion which hides a deeper, timeless reality? Or is it real, indeed, the most real aspect of our experience of the world? Einstein said that, "the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion," and many contemporary theorists agree that time emerges from a more fundamental timeless quantum universe. But in recent cosmological speculation, this timeless picture of nature seems to have reached a dead end, populated by infinite numbers of imagined unobservable universes. In this talk, Lee Smolin explains why he changed his mind about the nature of time. Like many fellow theorists, he used to believe time is an illusion, but he now embraces the view that time is real..."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

After All, Where Are the Einsteinians ?

Lee Smolin 2005: "Where are the Einsteinians?"

The answer is clear now:

Einsteiniana's high priests have all left the sinking ship:

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity,...

view entire post

After All, Where Are the Einsteinians ?

Lee Smolin 2005: "Where are the Einsteinians?"

The answer is clear now:

Einsteiniana's high priests have all left the sinking ship:

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

"It is still not clear who is right, SAYS JOHN NORTON, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, SAYS SMOLIN."

Einsteiniana's zombies get no support from their superiors and are gradually disintegrating.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Special Relativity and Sane Science II

"Physics is at a crossroads," said cosmologist Neil Turok, speaking to a class of young scientists in September at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs. "In a sense we've entered a very deep crisis." (...) Some physicists are starting to question whether or not our universe is natural. This cuts to the heart of why our reality has the features...

view entire post

Special Relativity and Sane Science II

"Physics is at a crossroads," said cosmologist Neil Turok, speaking to a class of young scientists in September at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs. "In a sense we've entered a very deep crisis." (...) Some physicists are starting to question whether or not our universe is natural. This cuts to the heart of why our reality has the features that it does: that is, full of quarks and electricity AND A PARTICULAR SPEED OF LIGHT. This problem, the naturalness or unnaturalness of our universe, can be likened to a weird thought experiment. Suppose you walk into a room and find a pencil balanced perfectly vertical on its sharp tip. That would be a fairly unnatural state for the pencil to be in because any small deviation would have caused it to fall down. This is how physicists have found the universe: a bunch of rather well-tuned fundamental constants have been discovered that produce the reality that we see."

The "bunch of rather well-tuned fundamental constants" produce a "reality" that only Bingo the Einsteiniano sees:

Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!!

In the following video Bingo the Einsteiniano demonstrates how both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer but teaches other Bingos that they should only see the frequency vary while the speed of light gloriously remains constant, independent of the speed of the observer, absolutely independent, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Now Bingo the Einsteiniano teaches other Bingos that, not only for light waves but also for sound waves, the wavelength varies with the speed of the observer so that the speed of the waves relative to the observer gloriously remains constant, independent of the speed of the observer, absolutely independent, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

In Divine Albert's world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is valid and Bingo the Einsteiniano obeys it:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (90 not shown)

hide replies

Special Relativity and Sane Science V

All clever Einsteinians know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativistic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation...

view entire post

Special Relativity and Sane Science V

All clever Einsteinians know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativistic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..." ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein." "C'est pas la vôtre?" ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."

That is, all clever Einsteinians know that the problem has a simple solution - just getting rid of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences. Yet of all clever Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why the falsehood should be abandoned. 40 years of unsuccessful attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics means 40 years of regular salaries for everybody. Solving the problem, that is, abandoning special relativity's insanity, would cause big trouble, as Peter Hayes explains:

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

And there is more than just "the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER". Even if clever Einsteinians wished to abandon Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences, they would be unable to do so. Buried under Einsteiniana's dung accumulated for more than a century, clever Einsteinians can only make slow movements in search for food. Any excessive activity would look like, and would have the effect of, a terrorist attack against the values of our civilization (antirelativists are sometimes explicitly compared with terrorists):

Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

show all replies (38 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

Einsteinians and the Red Queen

Philip Ball and Lee Smolin are doing all the running they can do to get rid of the idiotic special relativistic time - a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - and keep close to the postulate itself, to be able to worship it as ecstatically as possible:

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only...

view entire post

Einsteinians and the Red Queen

Philip Ball and Lee Smolin are doing all the running they can do to get rid of the idiotic special relativistic time - a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - and keep close to the postulate itself, to be able to worship it as ecstatically as possible:

Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."

QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

'Well, in OUR country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else - if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.' 'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. 'Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (33 not shown)

hide replies