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 altonhare » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:59 pm

I have complete understanding of what I mean by FIELD, You, in YOUR opinion don't.
-Kevin

If your understanding is complete, then you can define it, rigorously and unambiguously in terms of concrete objects. You can make a picture or a movie of it. You can hand me the concrete objects involved or models of them and show me what happens. This is what it means to understand. It is a bare minimum of science. If this were not the minimum then we could just say that God does it and be done with the whole mess. Technology does not equal science. Building a better computer is not equivalent to understanding the Universe. Thank you for watching the EI videos, the voice is annoying, but they are very edifying. I hope you learned as much as I did.

No I have no conception of the word "field". It is a horribly mangled and abused word in modern physics. It is utterly meaningless, much like "energy". I have seen it used and abused every which way and I have given up on finding a single definition among people who use this poor, misused word.

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

I am not the one who proposes theories based on the word "field". I only ask that we define the strategic words we use in our theories. I never use the word "field" in the context of my own theory. Notice that when I use the word "field" I put it in quotes to indicate that it is vague, ambiguous, and undefined. The onus is on anyone who wishes to use the word "field" in the context of a scientific theory to define it. I do not. It is not my responsibility. If I came to you and said that the universe was pervaded by a "giglipook" and you asked me to define it, and I said it is unimaginable and inconceivable, you would scoff at me. Would it make sense for me to become indignant and ask YOU to define "giglipook"? "Giglipook" is MY theory, not yours!

And could you define light for us too, please Alton?
-Grey Cloud

Light is the torsion of an entwined dual-strand rope. My typing fingers are tired. Watch the video and then ask me more questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

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.
-Solar

I'm not sure who "author" is. If you are referring to Bill Gaede you are misunderstanding HIS viewpoint. He says that MATHEMATICIANS attempt to define "field" as a set of numbers assigned to a "region" of space. This is incongruous and illogical in the extreme. A number is a concept, not a concrete. How can a concept have location in space? Can I pull love out from between my fiancee and I? Is it just sitting there? Can I assign love to the space between my crotch and hers? Perhaps in everyday speech I can say these things, but scientifically a concept absolutely has no physical presence. What you have said (assuming "author" is not BG) is all precisely correct. Neither Maxwell nor any other scientist to date has actually understood light, magnetism, or gravity. They have managed to quantify them and describe them mathematically. They have not been able to show us, physically, how a magnet works. They make up words and equations to refer to or quantify observations that they do not understand. Newton formulated the gravitational equation but confessed he had no idea how one body could influence another physically. Mathematical physics of today continues this trend of writing equations without ever tying them to a concrete. Quantitative descriptions are great but, in the end, there must be a PHYSICAL interpretation.

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.
-Solar

Knowledge and understanding render rigid definitions futile??? Are you sure you're saying what you think you are? An object cannot be two things at once. A concept cannot be two relationships among objects at once. Are you saying that we should let a ball be a block at the same time? Shall we build our theories from square circles and breakable fundamental constituents? Such a theory is no longer falsifiable. If I can assign as many definitions to an object or concept as I like I can explain anything and everything! Anything goes! If you cannot give each component of your theory a single identify how do you distinguish your theory from religion? Religion loves dualities and contradictions! Science is the opposite, it is rigorous and consistent. You may either choose to have faith in imagination and religion or use rationality and logic i.e. tie each component of your theory to one and only one concrete or relationship among concretes.

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.
-Solar

Precisely. If scientists had figured out what magnetism was they wouldn't have nebulous, ambiguous terms running around like "field". Because they have not understood it they have resorted to reification. Don't get me wrong. If you don't understand something it's okay to make up a word for it. However you must remain honest and confess that you have no idea what "giglipook" actually is, physically. You can proceed to write your equations and describe it, but you do not have a theory of physics. You have, at BEST, a mathematical description that may be technologically useful. Far more often you simply end up with nonsense. At worst your audience engages in reification of your made up words and runs around telling people about outrageous nonsense. If anyone here is a theoretician or knows theoreticians they are aware of the fact that there far, far, far and away more mathematical models that end up in the garbage bin than end up revolutionizing technology. This is because mathematical descriptions have nothing to do with physics.

Another way to put this, for the mathematically oriented, is in terms of the "degrees of freedom" of a problem. If a problem has zero degrees of freedom it is solvable. If it has more than zero it either has an arbitrarily large number of solutions or no solution. When you fail to tie your theory to concretes your theory ends up with an arbitrarily large number or degrees of freedom. You have bypassed a critical step that separates nonsensical solutions from physical solutions. You would never take a second order differential equation with one boundary condition and just pluck a solution out at random. You would also not simply pick the other boundary condition at random. This is effectively what you are doing when you brainstorm a theory that is not tied to concrete objects. A "boundary condition" of physical theories is that they be tied to concretes. There are an arbitrarily large number of nonphysical theories that may APPEAR to explain the universe if you simply toss concrete objects out the window. When you make your theory physical, i.e. tie it to concretes, you eliminate the nonphysical (nonsensical) solutions.

That is actually very interesting.


Thank you very much! I have not seen this simple observation elsewhere, and I have read Einstein's Relativity and his papers. Obviously nothing is "dilating", it's a matter of which reference standard you use.
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 Solar » Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:16 pm

Plasmatic wrote: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.


Correct again, and well stated. This is precisely the point of YouSupidRelativist.com. Which also relates to the pointing out of Ric=0 by Stephen J.Crouthers. Zero is "undefined" i.e. no concrete causal primary entity ("matter" nor "charge") to the relationship of "curvature". Thus, the author's point; to define terms i.e establish concretes, as opposed to having a mathematical physics composed of derivative relationships; of 'moving concepts'. Which points directly to: "There is no relationship apart from entities in relationship."
"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: 1357
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 6:23 pm

Another way to put this, for the mathematically oriented, is in terms of the "degrees of freedom" of a problem. If a problem has zero degrees of freedom it is solvable. If it has more than zero it either has an arbitrarily large number of solutions or no solution. When you fail to tie your theory to concretes your theory ends up with an arbitrarily large number or degrees of freedom. You have bypassed a critical step that separates nonsensical solutions from physical solutions. You would never take a second order differential equation with one boundary condition and just pluck a solution out at random. You would also not simply pick the other boundary condition at random. This is effectively what you are doing when you brainstorm a theory that is not tied to concrete objects. A "boundary condition" of physical theories is that they be tied to concretes. There are an arbitrarily large number of nonphysical theories that may APPEAR to explain the universe if you simply toss concrete objects out the window. When you make your theory physical, i.e. tie it to concretes, you eliminate the nonphysical (nonsensical) solutions.



Say Alton this reminded me of a quote from Ayn Rand

Two links between the conceptual and the mathematical fields are worth noting at this point, apart from the obvious fact that the concept "unit" is the base and start of both.
1. A concept is not formed by observing every concrete subsumed under it, and does not specify the number of such concretes. A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of specifically defined units, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including all units of that particular kind. For instance, the concept "man" includes all men who live at <ioe2_17> present, who have ever lived or will ever live. An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept "man" does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed—it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as "men."
2. The basic principle of concept-formation (which states that the omitted measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity) is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra, which states that algebraic symbols must be given some numerical value, but may be given any value. In this sense and respect, perceptual awareness is the arithmetic, but conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition.
The relationship of concepts to their constituent particulars is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers. In the equation 2a = a + a, any number may be substituted for the symbol "a" without affecting the truth of the equation. For instance: 2 X 5 = 5 + 5, or: 2 X 5,000,000 = 5,000,000 + 5,000,000. In the same manner, by the same psycho-epistemological method, a concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumes.
Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find "a-ness" in 5 or in 5,000,000.
"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 Plasmatic » Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:30 pm

Correct again, and well stated.


We need to thank Aristotle because he was the first to point this out while repudiating Platos world of forms by identifying the world of particulars.
"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 substance » Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:15 pm

I don`t really grasp the "field" problem. Why do you think it`s only a concept, Alton? When you have say a negative point charge, it is REALLY and not conceptually affecting the area around it. How do you call that area? You cannot compare it to the "love field" between you and your wife, I mean it`s ridiculous! The electric and magnetic fields describe areas or regions where a body (or static charge) can be really affected.
If we describe the field with a picture of a color-highlighted area with a gradient fall-off toward the end, will you accept it, since it`s not described only by numbers?
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
User avatar
substance
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany

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

Unread postby hussainmehdi » Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:24 pm

what is distance?
and,
what is anti-distance?
can you travel among various platforms within distance and anti-distance???
can you create an state of anti-distance?

travelling this way is more faster than travelling with the speed of light.
speed of light is not ideal.
there are more ideal ways around.
hussainmehdi
Guest
 

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

Unread postby lizzie » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:33 am

Kevin said: 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.


“Spiral patterns” (“fields” or "flows") found in Nature and the Universe.

http://earthsoulscience.com/Sacred%20Geometry.htm

Each one of these curved lines is a spiral emerging from the central vortex, passing over the external rounded rim to enter the vortex at the southern pole, or vice verse. Where there is a spin in one direction, there is a natural spin within, operating in the opposite direction. This is understood as yin within yang, and yang within yin. You can see this concept of yin within yang represented in the Chinese yin yang symbol with the seed of one within the other. The funny shape is like looking at a cow horn type spiral side-on.


http://www.evolutionoftruth.com/div/fibomyst.htm

If you sum the squares of any series of Fibonacci numbers, they will equal the last Fibonacci number used in the series times the next Fibonacci number. This property results in the Fibonacci spiral seen in everything from sea shells to galaxies.


Bidirectional spirals change directions
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal ... nergy2.htm

The two spiraling vortices in the polarized CU (Consciousness Unit) will show counter-rotational movement, as this is a requirement for the outside to move in a uniform fashion. The exact center of the CU, therefore, is an area of “zero-spin energy transfer,” where there is no rotation as the clockwise spiral transforms into the counter-clockwise spiral. A diagram from Dr. Richard LeFors Clark shows us how this appears in a bar magnet, and the central area is called a “Bloch Wall.”


Time and its Physical Relationship
http://pacenet.homestead.com/files/time.pdf

Time does not exist by itself. The phenomenon of time emerges in relationships – as an expression of properties of physical bodies and changes that occur to them.

Time is a factor of energy. Time has to do with the increase and decrease of energy. For example, as energy is brought down to a “zero level”, time is “eliminated”, so in a sense, time cannot be “compressed” - only eliminated. In the zero-energy level, electrons occupying this level in unlimited numbers are available through state transitions for the building of matter and the vacuum. So it is the extent and the nature of energy flow that determines the characteristics of time.

We can also state, as a corollary, that the movement of light generates time. After all, the electrodynamics are associated with photons.

The Russian time researcher, Nikolay A. Kozyrev considered that living systems “consume” time for their life-energy.
lizzie
Guest
 

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

Unread postby altonhare » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:30 am

substance wrote:I don`t really grasp the "field" problem. Why do you think it`s only a concept, Alton? When you have say a negative point charge, it is REALLY and not conceptually affecting the area around it. How do you call that area? You cannot compare it to the "love field" between you and your wife, I mean it`s ridiculous! The electric and magnetic fields describe areas or regions where a body (or static charge) can be really affected.
If we describe the field with a picture of a color-highlighted area with a gradient fall-off toward the end, will you accept it, since it`s not described only by numbers?


Thank you for the question. I understand that you don't understand my problem yet. I will attempt to make it as clear as possible to you. In addition to what I say I highly recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

So, one reason I think it's a concept, is because you can't hand me a "field". At least not the way modern mathematical physicists use the term. You are free to find any concrete object, point to it, and say "field". Now, for the purposes of your theory or discussion, I will know the word "field" refers to what you pointed at.

A concept is "a relationship between two or more objects". Hence, the word "up" is a concept because something is "up" relative to something else. In a sentence, concepts cannot be followed by verbs. Love (concept) cannot pull (verb) two persons (concrete objects) together. Justice (concept) cannot arbitrate (verb). A HUMAN (concrete object) can WALK (verb) toward another HUMAN (concrete object). If you point to two humans walking toward each other and call it "love" then you are defining love as a concept, i.e. as two people approaching each other. A JUDGE (concrete noun) can ARBITRATE (verb). If you point at a judge in a courtroom banging his gavil and yelling at a criminal in black stripes and you say "justice" then, for the purposes of your discussion, "justice" is a concept referring to a judge banging his gavil and yelling at a man in black stripes. Notice that concepts do NOT DO ANYTHING. Concretes act, concrete objects are where all the action's at. The word "field" is a concept because "fields" don't PHYSICALLY do anything. "Field" is what something ELSE does. This is akin to the word "wave". A wave is not a concrete object anymore than a field is. A wave is a concept. You point at moving crests on the ocean and say "wave". A wave is not some THING, a wave is what something DOES. What is "wind"? Wind is not some THING, it is what something DOES. Similarly a "field" is what something DOES. When someone talks to me about fields I must ask, what some THING is there? If your concept can be illustrated with a movie involving concrete objects, or even better demonstrated using concrete objects, then you have a "concrete concept" i.e. a scientific concept.

We are now in a position to distinguish "scientific", "supernatural", and "irrational" explanations. A supernatural explanation is one in which the proponent can present the concrete objects to the audience, or at least a model of them. However in his explanation the proponent cannot demonstrate the theory or explanation physically. For instance, I can bring in a statue of a human and name it "God". For the purposes of my talk the audience will picture a human when I say "God". Then I say that "God created everything". When I go to demonstrate this I am completely unable to show how God creates something from nothing. In the first frame of my movie there is a human-looking object, in the next there is the planet earth. How do we get from one frame to the next? I cannot make a movie of my theory. When we can't demonstrate physically how our theory works, i.e. make a movie (or a puppet show or whatever), our theory is supernatural. Such a theory can only be accepted on faith, i.e. one must consciously decide that the universe has no rhyme or reason. Such a person gives up entirely on understanding the universe because they have decided the universe cannot be understood. They are copping out, saying everything is just too difficult. They fall back in desperation on the magic wand.

An irrational explanation, on the other hand, cannot even be visualized. The proponent of such a theory cannot even show you a model of the objects involved, much less demonstrate anything physically. Often the word "field" simply refers to a mysterious aura around an object that magically produces all kinds of effects. We may as well draw a halo and some angels and faeries while we're at it! If I draw two objects on the board with nothing else surrounding them, you would not expect them to do anything. If I then go and shade in a pretty yellow color around the objects, will they suddenly fly apart or crash into each other? Does me putting color around an object suddenly change the object itself? Do mysterious yellow auras have anything to do with physics? So no, I would not accept your color-highlighted area. At best your areas of bright and dim color indicate the presence of some THING in greater or smaller quantities. What is the some THING? The color gives me an idea of quantities, abstractions, but nothing concrete. Color is a concept and cannot DO anything (color cannot be followed by a verb). Red doesn't heat and blue doesn't freeze! Can you hand me a wave-packet? Is a wave-packet just a concept? If so, what concrete objects is it tied to? If the physicist cannot demonstrate a wave-packet with concrete objects then any explanation based on the wave-packet is irrational, i.e. entirely divorced from reason i.e. "insane". They do not even fall back on a magic wand. When you press them to put something on the screen they can put nothing. Many people believe lunatics because the lunatics use lots of complicated words and wave around credentials. They are still lunatics. They are still pointing at absolutely NOTHING and telling you it is SOMETHING. If there is a definition of "lunacy" surely this is it.

A scientific explanation is one that can be visualized and physically demonstrated. Because this crucial distinction from "supernatural" and "irrational" has been neglected for so long, science is losing ground to preposterous theories like Creationism and the Big Bang. It's very evident in America, where Creationism is actually being taught in PUBLIC schools! Obviously something is very wrong with the way we are doing science. The problem is that the scientists have forgotten what distinguishes them from the priest (supernatural explanations) and the lunatic (irrational explanations).

You say fields describe areas or regions where an object (or charge, whatever that is) can be affected. Okay. What is the object affected BY? The field? Or the portion of space surrounding the object? Is space pushing the object around? Is the field pushing the object? If the field is pushing the object can you show me this field actually pushing the object? If space is pushing the object you will need to tell me what YOU mean by "space" since it is impossible for me to conceive of space doing anything, since it is nothing. It is the ABSENCE of concrete objects. Space cannot do anything by definition. I have no problem with you using the word "field" or "charge", I do not own these words, but I demand you use them correctly in a sentence in a consistent manner, i.e. scientifically. Then, if your theory is not irrational, I demand you tie them (field and charge) to concrete objects. Finally, if your theory is is not supernatural, you can make a movie of it.

On the other hand, if you take the mathematical approach and say that a field is "an assignment of a quantity to every point in space" you run into even greater difficulties than getting space to move things around. Such a field is comprised of abstract quantities. In a strict objective sense, the foregoing definition says that a field is an act: the act of assigning numbers and magnitudes (i.e. counting). In any event, a number is an abstract entity, a symbol used to describe a quantity. The mathematical definition of field alludes to an abstraction. Numbers cannot move concrete objects around. It is divorced from physics by definition because, by its very nature, it lacks the ability to simulate or explain any physical phenomenon. Physics is first and foremost the study of objects (where object is simply defined as that which is physical, i.e. has shape, a contour, can be distinguished from that which it is not).
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 Solar » Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:32 am

altonhare wrote:9) Solar has difficulty understanding why I have a problem with the word "field". I explain it. This is where I am now.

That is inaccurate:

altonhare wrote:
Solar wrote: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.
-Solar

I'm not sure who "author" is. If you are referring to Bill Gaede you are misunderstanding HIS viewpoint. He says that MATHEMATICIANS attempt to define "field" as a set of numbers assigned to a "region" of space. This is incongruous and illogical in the extreme. A number is a concept, not a concrete. How can a concept have location in space? Can I pull love out from between my fiancee and I? Is it just sitting there? Can I assign love to the space between my crotch and hers? Perhaps in everyday speech I can say these things, but scientifically a concept absolutely has no physical presence. What you have said (assuming "author" is not BG) is all precisely correct. Neither Maxwell nor any other scientist to date has actually understood light, magnetism, or gravity. They have managed to quantify them and describe them mathematically. They have not been able to show us, physically, how a magnet works. They make up words and equations to refer to or quantify observations that they do not understand. Newton formulated the gravitational equation but confessed he had no idea how one body could influence another physically. Mathematical physics of today continues this trend of writing equations without ever tying them to a concrete. Quantitative descriptions are great but, in the end, there must be a PHYSICAL interpretation.


Is there a problem with the word "represent" as opposed to "assigned"? - because other than that I'm not seeing a significant difference between my recall of BG's definition of "field" and your restating it.
"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: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

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

Unread postby altonhare » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:12 pm

Say Alton this reminded me of a quote from Ayn Rand
-Plasmatic

Thanks for that Plasm. I think it was a bit lengthy tangent to paste directly into the forum rather than link to, but I appreciate it. I got the most out of the last part, describing by analogy the constituents of concepts as the constituents of algebraic relations. In algebra the equation 2*A=A+A is axiomatic, it follows logically from the definitions of the symbols involved. Similarly the definition of concepts in terms of constituent concrete objects is axiomatic, it follows naturally from the definition of object and concept.

what is distance?
and,
what is anti-distance?
-hussainmehdi

Distance: The space separating two surfaces.
Length: The continuous matter between two surfaces.

"Distance lies between lengths" -Bill Gaede

I concede the ability to define such an incongruous term as "anti distance" it is beyond me.

travelling this way is more faster than travelling with the speed of light.
speed of light is not ideal.
there are more ideal ways around.
-hussainmehdi

If one is going to "travel with anti distance" one will first have to define the monstrous term "anti distance".

9) Solar has difficulty understanding why I have a problem with the word "field". I explain it. This is where I am now.


That is inaccurate:
-Solar

I'm sorry, I switched your name with the poster Substance:

I don`t really grasp the "field" problem. Why do you think it`s only a concept, Alton?
- Substance

I apologize, I wish I could edit the post to correct the mistake. Thank you for correcting it.

Is there a problem with the word "represent" as opposed to "assigned"? - because other than that I'm not seeing a significant difference between my recall of BG's definition of "field" and your restating it.
- Solar

The problem is not with the words "represent" or "assign" per se. The problem is what you are assigning or what you are using to represent. When mathematicians "assign a quantity" they are building a field out of abstractions. If you ask them to point at their field they will have to point at nothing. On the other hand, when Bill Gaede says that a thread sweeping around an atom or series of atoms is a field he is building his feel out of three dimensional elongated objects that are connected to three dimensional balls. If you ask him to point to his field he will point to a movie of the thread moving around the atom or atoms. This is the difference.

In response to Junglelord:

I just want to click on a thread saying "special relativity and time travel" and read bout special relativity, time, and light. I want on-topic. This is a matter of organization on this board and a respect a person pays to the thread-maker. For instance, analyze my behavior in a thread that is not my own:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1077

I stick entirely to the topic, the paper presented by the thread-starter. Every comment I make directly references the paper. Your comments may be related in some distant way, but you are not tying them directly to the thread topic. You don't see me going into a thread named "Theory of Gravity by Cotterell" and regurgitating Thread Theory. That would be counterproductive and disrespectful. That is what you would do. The occasional tangent can happen, but generally such posts should be kept to a few lines and the discussion should not continue as people will want to get on with the main discussion. I do not mind people disagreeing, in fact I welcome it. Scientific skepticism is the only way to progress. You don't disagree productively, you just keep regurgitating APM everywhere you can, spamming it on whatever board you feel like, especially those with active discussions (thread-hijacking). Is it technically your right to post whatever you want anywhere? Yes. It's simply counterproductive. And I don't put people on my ignore list. When I see a problem I do not stick my head in the sand.
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 Solar » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:18 pm

No worries there Alton.

Concerning "Time Travel" I consider this to be a concept. One not based in reality whatsoever. There is an older thread called "What is Time" that you might find interesting. Relativity's fetish for clocks and the rates thereof is something I find irritating. The rate of clocks simply quantify the concept of "Time" but "Time" is not a tangible "fabric" imho. Nor can one "travel" to a "Time" which has already past or has yet to come. It, to me, is simply the quantification of the duration of events.

I have to confess that I've been really enjoying these videos. I must be getting some macabre fascination out of listening to someone simply slap relativist conceptualizations around with such fury. I'm looking at them seriously, but I can't remember laughing so hard. They actually impress me as being 'practical' without the miasma of cantilevered counterintuitive concepts. With physics, just as with mathematics, there is an "applied" version and a "theoretical" version. I think Bill's work is pointing out the difference, something that's not been done for far too long. This looks like a very good find.

And the "threads" are electromagnetic filaments!!
"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: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

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

Unread postby altonhare » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:51 pm

Concerning "Time Travel" I consider this to be a concept.


Time travel is not even a concept, it is a logical absurdity. Uttering the phrase "time travel" is similar to uttering the phrase "Peace run" or "God create". Peace is an abstract noun (concept) and run is a verb. We learn around 3rd grade that verbs can only modify concrete nouns. Doing otherwise leaves us with no consistent logic system, no consistent way to communicate, and completely nonsense. One who utters such phrases in earnest outside everyday chatter is what we call "a raving lunatic".

Thanks for the reference to the old thread, I will have to add it to my to-read list.

I agree more or less with what you said regarding time, the relativists have horribly mangled their own theory. I would like to distinguish between the physical definition of time and the mathematical (quantitative) definition of time.

In physics, time is simply defined in terms of causality. Cause/effect, before/after. The ball hit the cube, THEN the cube hit the wall.

Quantifying time involves measuring the change in one object compared to the change in another object using a reference that is assumed immutable, irrefutable. As I said with light and frequency, we either measure the doppler shift of the light emanating from two objects and take c as our immutable standard (SR theory) or we measure the velocity shift in the light emitted by two objects assuming their frequency is an immutable standard. No matter how you slice it, when you measure time there will be at least two things you measure that change and one thing you measure that is assumed absolute.

I'm so glad you have enjoyed the videos! They are a brilliant combination of ironic humor and deep insight.
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 altonhare » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:00 pm

For anyone who didn't quite follow the opening post I have tried to reword and reformulate the scenario to make it even more clear. Hope people get something out of it:
You are in a universe where NOBODY knows ANYTHING about time. Nothing. Nobody knows what a second is. Nobody knows what a day is. There is no sunup/sundown. Nothing. All you can do is measure distances (and lengths) and count things. That's all. You're a caveman or an alien, but you want to understand the universe better. You can measure distance and count, so what do you do? Let's see if this helps:

There is nothing in the universe except you. You are motionless. There is no such thing as time. You are a motionless observer. Then something appears and dissapears, then again. You decide to count blips from this "X". This doesn't get you much. Then another blipper shows up, "A". Then another that appears "B". You notice that A, B, and X are blipping in perfect harmony, when one is on the others are on and when one is off the other is off. Then you notice that they aren't anymore. You think this is significant so you start counting blips. Then A is blipping with X again you counted 5 blips for A. Then B is blipping with A and X also, and you counted 10 blips for it. Eureeka! You find a "Z" next to you and plant it where you are standing. Now able to move you hover over to the X and look at it, A, and B. You look back at "Z". You conclude that they both went from Z to X. But one only emitted 5 blips and the other emitted 10 blips. The only logical conclusion is that A got to the X before B. This conceptually is time, cause/effect, before/after i.e. causality. The actual number of blips is a quantification of time, 5 vs. 10. What did we do here? We assumed an immutable standard, the distance ZX. Then we counted something. Drop the word "blip" and just use "signal". The observer calls the signals/distance "wavelength". Fundamentally he measures time as a shift in signals/distance, a change in the distance between two signals (shift in wavelength). This is often illustrated as the distance between wave-crests on a graph. If we only had a single unaccelerating body we could measure wavelength and take its inverse to get frequency, but this would just be distance/signal. With two differently moving bodies (or with a single accelerating body in your planetary scenario) we can measure a change, a delta signal/distance. This is the only way to have time. A quantity by itself is not time, only a difference.

The above scenario is similar to what I said in the opening post, but hopefully even clearer. I don't see how you can measure time any other way than this. You must assume something is constant (like distance ZX) and measure a change (like quantity of signals), though it doesn't have to be light. In the case of light we assume the distance-traveled by the two objects is constant and measure a shift in "wavelength" (distance/signal). If there is only a single object in the universe moving uniformly there is simply no such thing as time. Nothing in the universe is changing. Nothing is different, ever. Time as a concept demands change. What meaning can time have in a perfectly uniform universe?

Imagine a planet rotating around the earth. A body traversing a curvilinear path necessarily accelerates relative to a stationary observer. When the planet is at a position perfectly in front the sun (position A) and is traveling to the left from the observer's perspective the planet's light will be shifted to higher wavelength (higher distance/signal) as it moves away from the observer to a point directly behind the star (B) . As it moves back toward the observer the light will be shifted to higher frequency. In fact, if the observer counts the number of waves emitted as the planet traverses AB (N) and compares this to the number of waves emitted as the planet traverses BA (M) they will be different. The planet traversed an identical distance (assuming a perfectly regular path AB=BA) but emitted different numbers of waves/photons/rocks/dung/strippers. The planet's velocity relative to the observer changed. In traversing AB the velocioty was +v and in traversing BA the velocity was -v. The velocity is given in terms of the number of waves: 2v= (AB/(N-M)) which comes from distance/(delta counts). How long did it take the planet to traverse AB? N photons/signals! How about BA? M photons/signals! So the observer is using a clock that is just fine because it uses a reference standard (perfectly uniform frequency in an inertial frame of reference) and measures a change (signals/distance i.e. wavelength). Just like in the original photon clock scenario in the opening post.

These means of telling time are perfectly appropriate and accurate. A mis-ticking clock has nothing to do with these scenarios. A mis-ticking clock is a person who can't count right.

My point is not that the photon is THE absolute fundamental unit of time. My point is that, for the purposes of special relativity, it is. SR places an observer who receives photons at the center of inquiry. If there is nothing in the universe for me except photons, how can I see anything happen between one photon absorption and another? I absorb a photon emitted from a ball when it was at position X then I absorb the very next photon emitted from the ball and I will see it at position X+d, some finite distance away. If photons are my only way of being aware of the ball's existence I simply cannot see the ball at a location between X and X+d. This is what I mean by a photon being the fundamental unit of time. If there is something out there that lets us see in a perfectly continuous fashion that would certainly be fantastic. If there's something that lets us see between photons that would be great too.

With regards to the doppler shift. It does not matter if you choose the photon model or the wave model. All that matters is that one counts fewer signals as an object moves away and counts more as it moves toward them. Whether wave or particle, in either scenario we are just counting. The nature of light (particle or wave) is unimportant to the question of time under SR. All that matters is if light can be counted.

We do not really need equations to resolve this matter and we absolutely must refrain from using a unit of time or velocity. The distance between signals is the "wavelength". If one object emits 5 signals in a meter and the other emits 10 in a meter ("wavelength" of 1/5 and 1/10 respectively) then we must conclude that the signal frequency (signal/distance) has shifted since the wavelength has shifted as these are fundamentally inversely related. This is the first step towards conceptualizing and quantifying time. But at this point frequency is meter/signal. In an alternate universe where "wavelength" does not undergo doppler shift two spheres A and B emit signals with a uniform frequency regardless of the reference frame (non relativistic universe). This means if A or B moves some distance D they always emit 1 photon. Notice I am not invoking time or velocity at this particular point. We are in a scenario to DEFINE time, we cannot talk about time (or by extension velocity) in a DEFINITION of time, that would be circular! So, as A traverses 5*D it emits 5 photons and as B traverses 5*D it emits 5 photons. This happens whether A gets there before B or vice versa. In such a universe there is no quantitative measure of time. The velocity of the signals change in order to maintain constant frequency, but we cannot measure this change in velocity because we have yet to define time! We would need to observe the photons themselves instead of the objects emitting photons. By this I mean we would need to measure a wavelength shift between two photons emitting some other signal whose velocity did not change. In real observation when we count photons we find that one object does sometimes emit fewer photons than another object even though they have both traversed the same distance D. We conclude that this shift is fundamentally related to a concept time, which we define in terms of causality. A got there before B if A emitted 7 photons and B emitted 10. A and B got there simultaneously if they both emitted 10 photons. Modern measures of time are all either related to photon counts or the counting of some corpuscular radioactive emission.

Some will claim that Global Positioning Satellites have to include "time dilation" effects. This just means they calculate the Newtonian answer and add in the correction factor that accounts for the constant speed of light, everyone in the universe is using Newton's equations from the outset, though! If these aren't accurate enough then they add in the relativistic correction. If we could simply count photons from every object we would always get the correct answer. This is also the reason for the muon observation. The time calculated by Newtonian mechanics for ANY object will be longer than the actual time because Newton's equations are based on faulty assumptions! A relativistic airplane gets to the finish line faster than a newtonian airplane (6.66 photons/meter faster for 500 nm light). There is actually no such thing as a "newtonian airplane", it is entirely fictitious. It is calculated based on faulty assumptions, which we correct with a nonlinear term. Like I said, does time (fundamentally causality) do some funky thing because we make different and/or incorrect assumptions?

Any experimental evidence brought to bear does not change the discussion. There are a million reasons an experiment can be misinterpreted or outright wrong. What I have set up here is an argument based on logic. A clock is not identical to time. A clock is fallacious. People are fallacious. The scenarios I have described remove people as much as possible, treating the observer as a simple photon counter. This is objective. An experiment is subjective. I will accept logic and objectivity over an experiment any day, how about you?

I understand if some have not quite understood, especially with the bird/plane scenario. At the heart of it is that, when deriving a definition of time, you absolutely cannot invoke time itself or velocity. This results in circularity. The fundamental unit of time is (counts/distance). (Na-Nb)/D Where Na may be the number of photons emitted by A over the distance D and analogous for Nb.

All time dilation is, is the difference between Newtonian assumptions and Einsteinian assumptions. If you wanna call that time dilation, that's fine. Nothing physically changes when we make different assumptions.
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 substance » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:36 am

Wow, that was a pretty long piece to read.. Finally finished and I still don`t get people`s problem with time.
It`s not an object, it`s not a concept, things just happen one after another or sometimes simultaneously. You observe these things, but can`t observe a past event and if there`s no one to observe, things still happen and exist, but the word TIME has no meaning to anybody, because there is nobody there. I don`t think that time is anything at all and it certainly is not a dimension!
I think that this word should be prohibited from usage, because it only seems to confuse people!
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
User avatar
substance
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany

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

Unread postby Birkeland » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:28 am

substance wrote:I don`t think that time is anything at all and it certainly is not a dimension!

As I see it: time is a law of nature (that just is) - not a dimensional phenomenon.
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see" - Ayn Rand
User avatar
Birkeland
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests