What is time?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:49 am

Time is properly understood when viewed as frequency.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:34 am

junglelord wrote:Time is properly understood when viewed as frequency.

Time is even more properly understood as the duration of a frequency. ;)
Sostenuto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sostenuto
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:18 am

The statement that time is properly understood as frequency is incomplete. Did nobody read my post?

Quantification of the concept time demands reference to a standard. If your standard is light, and you assume light behaves in an on/off fashion (discrete in some way), and additionally assume that light's speed is an absolute constant of the universe, THEN time is quantified using the DIFFERENCE in frequency of light between two moving bodies with the SPEED of light as a reference standard. Frequency of light varies with an object's speed! Objects that move away from us appear red-shifted and those that approach us appear blue shifted. If the object is stationary then frequency does not vary and neither does velocity, nothing changes, there is no such thing as time. An object must move for there to be any such thing as time, which means there will be an observed doppler shift in the frequency. This frequency difference is a way to quantify time, again, using the speed of light as the reference standard. If the speed of light is not universally constant then frequency DIFFERENCE is a completely invalid way to measure time.

The importance of this distinction is that everything else we encounter behaves oppositely. If a gun at rest at A spits out bullets to the right uniformly with some velocity v then moves to the left to point B some distance D away the frequency will remain constant but the velocity of the bullets will be shifted by (A-B)/(# of bullets emitted between A and B). D is some distance standard and we count the emitted bullets, lets say 450. Time is measured in units of D/450, maybe call it "hour". When you say 5 hours after that what you really mean is that the bullets emitted from the gun were velocity shifted by (5/450)*D. You are measuring the velocity shift of a frequency standard. Light is the opposite, we measure a frequency shift using a velocity standard. This is why the responses to my original post are incompletely. Time is best understood in terms of the change in one thing and the inviolate, immutable constancy of another. When talking about time you must name what you are using for each. As far as I know using the speed of light as the constant and measuring the frequency shift of differently moving bodies has been the most successful way to quantify time.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby kevin » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:20 am

What if the so called speed of light, is not a speed of light?
If I was to speculate that the light we call sunlight does not travel from the sun in a linear fashion at all, would that be OK?
I consider that the light occurs local to the surface of the spheres, and that the light relative to each sphere will be determined by the field frequency of the nearest other sphere , with some additional field interactions of all other spheres in the alignment field relative to an observers position on the surface of each sphere.
That the light is a consequence of the two fields interferance , and that the so called speed of light is at ninty degrees to these field patterns, which are best shown by rainbows.
That the utilised so call speed of light has fooled everyone, and that almost no time exists in the field travel, which will be next to instantaneous, and thats where time hides?
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:35 am

kevin wrote:What if the so called speed of light, is not a speed of light?
If I was to speculate that the light we call sunlight does not travel from the sun in a linear fashion at all, would that be OK?
I consider that the light occurs local to the surface of the spheres, and that the light relative to each sphere will be determined by the field frequency of the nearest other sphere , with some additional field interactions of all other spheres in the alignment field relative to an observers position on the surface of each sphere.
That the light is a consequence of the two fields interferance , and that the so called speed of light is at ninty degrees to these field patterns, which are best shown by rainbows.
That the utilised so call speed of light has fooled everyone, and that almost no time exists in the field travel, which will be next to instantaneous, and thats where time hides?
Kevin


Define field. Otherwise your theory is meaningless.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby kevin » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:54 pm

altonhare, Hello,
"Define field", tres difficile effectivement mon ami.
But in for a penny, in for a pound,
FIELD, is something I can detect, I can detect it about whatever I think of, for an example, a tree.
I can think of a tree as I approach it, and detect a field circulating it, and in spiral fashion going into it's centre, if I think of the tree underground, I detect the field circulating in the opposite direction, and can best describe what I follow as a torrous form, we humans display almost an exact copy of this, but we are above surface and match the field of the planet, which again I can detect by thinking of it, the tree actually fills it's field, we do not, we are far smaller than our fields, and those fields vary enormously.
So by comparing all I detect, I think of this planet, this galaxy, this universe, and think of their fields.
Everything is to scale, a consequence and mirror of the larger, as above, so below.

These fields display duality, and are a mixture of duality in balance.
the field permeates all things, it knows nothing of boundaries.

If you therefore can imagine the field of the sun been huge, in comparison to that of the earth, and that it permeates through the earth, with the field of the earth travelling in the opposite direction, as these opposing fields meet and cross each other, they create light, which occurs to the main circulation zone around the earth, after which it deminishes to such a low flow that light is no longer created, except if any7 part of earth is sent out above that region, where as it is still part of the earth, it radiates it's own field, thus creating light local to itself.
This constantly appears as though a linear line of light is travelling from the sun.

This field is a circulating flow of stuff that is most evident in life, as life appears to require this duality to exist, as i can think of the planets field, I must percieve the planet as living, same with galaxy and universe.

I doubt I can better describe this, as it is an unknown, hence I think of it as STUFF.
This stuff flows, and upon flowing into a geometric point of torroidal fashion, it turns itself about and becomes super attractive to its former selfs spin direction, the coupling or pinch occuring releases energy and light.
So as I theorised light occurs locally upon this pinch, the consequence is attraction and coalescing into matter and mass, if that compression and attraction is reversed, as per nuclear, then light again will be created, but in the opposite direction.
The nuclear explosion is the opposite to implosion of attraction, and there may be more to those explosions tham meets the eyes.
kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:17 pm

It sounds to me like you have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say the word "field". It sounds, to me, like you are using a "catch all" word like "magic" or "God" or "Energy". I have often encountered this, when a difficult question is asked amongst scientists and engineers, eventually someone just says that it is "energetically favorable". This is saying nothing. It is a PTOLEMAIC explanation. It does not tell us what is actually happening, it explains nothing, teaches us nothing, and is an effort to shut inquisitive minds up.

You say that field is something you can detect. You say it can be detected around "anything you can think of". You are saying that all objects have a field around them. The field is something physical then, it has three dimensions and location. So far so good.

You go on to describe various shapes these fields can have and give examples of common objects that possess a field surrounding them. While appreciated this was unnecessary.

Now you say the field has "duality". That it is a mixture of "duality and balance" What does this mean?

You say it "permeates all things". Does this field go right through matter or is it simply very plentiful and thus seems to permeate everything?

Finally, you get to the meat of your theory. You say the fields meet and cross, creating light. What does the field look like? What does crossing have to do with light? Physically how does this crossing produce the effect we perceive as light?

Finally, although you claimed the field was physical, you confess you have no idea what it is. You say that it is "unknown", you think of it as "stuff". Yet you claim to know what it does, how it produces light, that it attracts itself, releases "energy", and condenses into "matter and mass" by which you intend to just say "matter". How do you know this field does all these things if you confess to not know what it IS? Certainly, I can make up a word "shiplistick" and tell you about how it made my parents have sex and give birth to me. So? Who cares about shiplistick? My parents moved toward each other and did it, where's the "shiplistick"? Then I tell you that "shiplistick" is what I think of when two people want to be around each other all the time and make a family. And you say "Oh, you're talking about Love." I nod. You chuckle and tell me that love is simply a concept, concepts cannot bring two objects (humans) together. Physically, the two humans just moved toward each other in specific arrangements. Objectively, that's all there is. Humans decide to call it "love" but you cannot draw a picture of love nor can you grab love and put it in your pocket. It is entirely a figment of your imagination. Similarly, this "field" you describe is a figment of your imagination unless you can define it in terms of concrete objects. I highly recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby kevin » Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:15 pm

altonhare,
I have watched the Einstiens idiots videos, annoying that they cannot get their mouths to work with the pictures?
I have complete understanding of what I mean by FIELD, You, in YOUR opinion don't.
Do not presume to declare you can read my mind.
This is the new insights and mad ideas section sir, do not impose the rigid constraints of above down here, we are all mad down here, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
I feel it is teatime.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:05 pm

Why don't you define field for all of us Alton?
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:14 pm

junglelord wrote:Why don't you define field for all of us Alton?

And could you define light for us too, please Alton?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Plasmatic » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:29 pm

Time is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe, when you define a standard—such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: “This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old.” But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time.


Leonard Peikoff


The assertion that time = frequency begs the question frequency of what. The answer to this can only be concretes.
Last edited by Plasmatic on Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Solar » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:31 pm

If I remember correctly, according to the author "field" was simply a mathematical set of numbers (measurements) representative of a "region" of space. It's no different that when Maxwell used "lines of force" to represent a magnetic field and cautioned that the tendency would be to consider the "lines" as real. Though an 'area' or 'region' of space may be affected so as to present the existence of such an entity, the nomenclature doesn't define what that 'region' actually is. It's a relational 'tool' that's put forth instead when knowledge fails at adequately define a thing or condition or is trying to understand.

Now, it is obvious to me that there some who have an understanding of certain conditions without the necessity and/or skills to define that knowledge because the knowledge or understanding may well have such a capacity to render rigid definitions futile.

I get the impression with the theory that a certain (necessary) rigor is being put forth with regard to "science" simply defining it's terms. If "scientist" knew what, for example, magnetism was I think they would've long ago better defined it. It's obvious to me that this quality is not understood despite the fact that it can be worked with.

"Time dilation" is just the difference in the number of frames the observer calculates if he assumes frequency is constant and the number of frames the observer calculates if he assumes the speed of light is a constant."

That is actually very interesting.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Plasmatic » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:38 pm

.
Though an 'area' or 'region' of space may be affected so as to present the existence of such an entity, the nomenclature doesn't define what that 'region' actually is. It's a relational 'tool' that's put forth instead when knowledge fails at adequately define a thing or condition or is trying to understand


I dont think this is what Bill said at all. All one would do in this situation is describe what he actually was looking at.When he does he is describing the relationship of concretes to one another as a reference.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Solar » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:01 pm

Plasmatic wrote:.
I dont think this is what Bill said at all. All one would do in this situation is describe what he actually was looking at.When he does he is describing the relationship of concretes to one another as a reference.


That's exactly right. It would be a representative description; which is not the same as a definition.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Plasmatic » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:22 pm

All definitions describe the essential charachtersitics of the referents they subsume. The key here is to recognize what is an concrete and what is a relationship among concretes. Entities are causal primaries and relationships are derivative thereof. There is no relationship apart from entities in relationship.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests