Relativity all the way

[bdw000]

If I might volunteer: clocks clock up motion, not time. Open up a clock, and look at those cogs whirring around. You don't see time "flowing", you see things moving. Hence I like to say time is cofounded with motion through space, not space.

Farsight, I am amazed at how close you are to the correct answer, but, you just don't quite seem to know how to say it (as is so often the case).

Thanks Anaconda. Note though that most of the stuff I've come up with isn't my original work. There's all kinds of guys out there who've haven't been getting a fair hearing for one reason or another.

Hey, if you ever want to spread around a list of "those guys out there," I'm sure I'd love to see it. Clear thinking about time is rare and valuable.

For anyone interested, one of the best critiques of relativity (in my opinion), focusing on "time," is the book CHALLENGING MODERN PHYSICS by Al Kelly (rip). He doesn't touch on the definition of time as this thread does, but the book was absolutely wonderful. The critique of the Hafele-Keating experiment (atomic clocks in planes) is priceless.

Also: if you are still reading Farsight, IF you feel inclined, please email me at bdw000@hotmail.com. This is just so I can contact you later at some point in the future (a few months probably) I think I would really like to talk to you some, if you have the time. It might very well be a waste of your time, but it won't be much.

[bdw000]

Hi bdv000,

instead he is placing this higher concept of time in all encompassing position as the very
factor behind for example our experience of motion,

I am very suspicious of the word "higher" used in this way. It usually seems to be an excuse for NOT providing actual EVIDENCE for one's ideas (or rational argument). The argument (made famous by religion and "spiritual" thinkers) usually goes something like "my idea is better than yours because MY ideas is a HIGHER idea." That is a bad sign. It is not a fatal flaw, but it tends to scare me away.

David Barclays unparalleled concept referres to a factor which is not in any way possible to observe by direct means.

Well, there's that old problem: if it is not possible to "observe by direct means," why are we calling it "science"? This is the HUGE problem with so much of standard modern physics, and why many people are here at thunderbolts.info for a breathe of fresh air. I am not saying the ideas can't be valid points of discussion. Gaede has the same problem with his (very interesting) ideas.

So the observation of motion, or as I misleadingly called it, the propagation of time, is just a secondary
response to the concept of time in this theory.

Why say that "motion" is secondary to "time"? Personally, I feel that I have a good understanding of (what we call) "time" being secondary to motion. Unless there is some sort of compelling reason for making "motion" secondary to "time," some reason beyond just making the assertion, I see no help in this. In other words, I want to know what Barclay's reason is for making this assertion.

due to the neccessity for this underlying energy field to vibrate the projection
of everything into existens in a universe such as ours

A sentence like that is no different, for me, than saying "god makes it all happen." Nothing is explained. No helpful information is being communicated. Finding other words to use for "the universe" just doesn't get me excited.

Anyone please point out any flaws in my opinions

[Gwandau]

bdw000,

Lets skip the word "time" in this concept, I was not referring to a concept of time you are familiar with, my fault using it.

I am possibly more clearly understood if referring to the underlying omni present Zero Point energy, which is just
another word for what I was trying to convey.

The today scientifically accepted existence of the so called Zero Point energy, observable in the Casimir effect and its detectable responses measured to high precision, indicates the presence of such an all encompassing underlying field.

And just recently physicists at Yale University have made the first definitive measurements of "persistent current," a small but perpetual electric current that flows naturally through tiny rings of metal wire even without an external power source, adding to the proof of a universal underlying energy field.

The American physicist Dr. Harold E. Puthoff derives gravity, inertia, heat, and also electricity directly from ZPE considerations

Another recent study showed that such a zero-point field based mass-generating approach would explain the origin of Einstein's principle of equivalence.

Also there is found to be a dynamic equilibrium in which the zero-point energy stabilises the electron in a set ground-state orbit. It seems that the very stability of matter itself appears to depend on an underlying sea of zero-point energy.

These concepts suggest that zero-point energy may be involved in some of the most fundamental properties of matter.

David Barclays theory just takes this one step further and proclaimes that this underlying energy, seemingly out of nowhere, permeates our universe as a core oriented Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration at every point of reference, making up our universe as a non linear relativity system, where every singel particle is a projected self sustained unified field system with a unique value of NTFFA, giving it a unique signature relative to every other field system.

According to this theory, if the Zero Point energy would cease to exist, the projection we call universe would cease to exist.

Our present concept of universe being here by its own means as physical matter in vacant emptiness may be a major misconception.

The life long efforts invested by our brightest physicists are all based on a few untouchable fundamental concepts, being the very base for their complex models.

But if the foundation of the base is at fault, the rest of the structure will falter.

It will do no harm to try looking at things from a totally different viewpoint sometimes.

Just concider the possibility that all observable events just are mere responses to one single underlying universal energy field.

This is fully possible, since it is very easy to misread an effect for a cause, if the cause is not directly observable.

You don´t have to call it God, we don´t.

[StevenO]

Dear Gwandau

I (and probably also others) have a little trouble with the language you are using. Please help me with:

bdw000,

Lets skip the word "time" in this concept, I was not referring to a concept of time you are familiar with, my fault using it.

Is'nt this just another referral to your "higher" concept of time? Would you suggest that time as experienced by everybody is not your time? Could'nt you better use another word then? You also do not give a description of what that concept is.

I am possibly more clearly understood if referring to the underlying omni present Zero Point energy, which is just another word for what I was trying to convey.

The today scientifically accepted existence of the so called Zero Point energy, observable in the Casimir effect and its detectable responses measured to high precision, indicates the presence of such an all encompassing underlying field.

For me the word/concept ZPE just means "something for nothing". Mostly it is either a flawed mathematical description or wishful thinking. We cannot assign properties to space other than the distance it covers, otherwise "space" becomes something material. It's a result of physicists confusing mathematics with the real world.

And just recently physicists at Yale University have made the first definitive measurements of "persistent current," a small but perpetual electric current that flows naturally through tiny rings of metal wire even without an external power source, adding to the proof of a universal underlying energy field.

That's an old trick. Claiming any new discovery as support for an unscientific theory. Theories need to be fasifiable. That's why I would be more interested to see if what these "cantilevers" measure is really "persistent current". The paper does not describe how this "current" enters or leave the "circuit" and how the current is measured by a mechanical force.

The American physicist Dr. Harold E. Puthoff derives gravity, inertia, heat, and also electricity directly from ZPE considerations

I know Puthoff's preferences. But he is also honest that he still has'nt found any experiment that proves that energy can be harvested from ZPE.

Another recent study showed that such a zero-point field based mass-generating approach would explain the origin of Einstein's principle of equivalence.

This eludes me. For me the Equivalence Principle says that without other references one cannot distinguish between gravity "down" or acceleration "up". What does that have to do with ZPE?

Also there is found to be a dynamic equilibrium in which the zero-point energy stabilises the electron in a set ground-state orbit. It seems that the very stability of matter itself appears to depend on an underlying sea of zero-point energy.

These concepts suggest that zero-point energy may be involved in some of the most fundamental properties of matter.

Mass==Energy so this seems just a tautology.

David Barclays theory just takes this one step further and proclaimes that this underlying energy, seemingly out of nowhere, permeates our universe as a core oriented Non Linear Time Field Frequency Accelleration at every point of reference, making up our universe as a non linear relativity system, where every singel particle is a projected self sustained unified field system with a unique value of NTFFA, giving it a unique signature relative to every other field system.

I'm completely lost here. Please help me understand:

- "core oriented": means "directed inward"?
- Non-Linear: non-linear in what reference? Time? Space?
- Time Field Frequency: this is gobbledygook. Time is the reciprocal of frequency and a field is location dependent. This cannot convey any scientific meaning.
- Acceleration: is that equal to the "Non-linear" statement? Acceleration of what? Space? Matter?

You have any formula or mechanical explanation coming with that?

According to this theory, if the Zero Point energy would cease to exist, the projection we call universe would cease to exist.

I'm getting really scared now.

Our present concept of universe being here by its own means as physical matter in vacant emptiness may be a major misconception.

The life long efforts invested by our brightest physicists are all based on a few untouchable fundamental concepts, being the very base for their complex models.

But if the foundation of the base is at fault, the rest of the structure will falter.

It will do no harm to try looking at things from a totally different viewpoint sometimes.

Just concider the possibility that all observable events just are mere responses to one single underlying universal energy field.

This is fully possible, since it is very easy to misread an effect for a cause, if the cause is not directly observable.

You don´t have to call it God, we don´t.

I fully agree with the observation that the foundations of physics and math are at fault and that it permeates the whole field, but that is no excuse to replace it with other nonsense. Sofar I would even prefer God over NTFFA, since I see no way to understand it except digesting watery word soup. I rather believe in the story that the Higgs particle is trying to prevent it's own discovery out of the future.

[junglelord]

Since all the crap they sell right now is due to GR, like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, its time they had another wake up call....and they have. Will they put it together properly with EU?

Not on your life.


Rethinking relativity: Is time out of joint?

EVER since Arthur Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe off Africa to measure starlight bending around the sun during a 1919 eclipse, evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity has only become stronger. Could it now be that starlight from distant galaxies is illuminating cracks in the theory's foundation?

Everything from the concept of the black hole to GPS timing owes a debt to the theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity arises from the geometry of space and time. The sun's gravitational field, for instance, bends starlight passing nearby because its mass is warping the surrounding space-time. This theory has held up to precision tests in the solar system and beyond, and has explained everything from the odd orbit of Mercury to the way pairs of neutron stars perform their pas de deux.

Yet it is still not clear how well general relativity holds up over cosmic scales, at distances much larger than the span of single galaxies. Now the first, tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity has been found. While the evidence is far from watertight, if confirmed by bigger surveys, it may indicate either that Einstein's theory is incomplete, or else that dark energy, the stuff thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, is much weirder than we thought (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").

The analysis of starlight data by cosmologist Rachel Bean of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has generated quite a stir. Shortly after the paper was published on the pre-print physics archive, prominent physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena praised Bean's research. "This is serious work by a respected cosmologist," he wrote on his blog Cosmic Variance. "Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a revolution."

If it is wrong, we should be working hard to find out why, but if it's right, we are on the cusp of a revolution
"It has caused quite a furore in astronomy circles," says Richard Massey of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh in the UK. "This paper has generated a lot of interest."

Bean found her evidence lurking in existing data collected by the Cosmic Evolution Survey, a multi-telescope imaging project that includes the longest survey yet by the Hubble Space Telescope. COSMOS, which detected more than 2 million galaxies over a small patch of sky, takes advantage of gravity's ability to bend light. Massive objects like galaxy clusters bend the light of more distant objects so that it is directed towards or away from Earth. This effect, called gravitational lensing, is at its most dramatic when it creates kaleidoscopic effects like luminous rings or the appearance of multiple copies of a galaxy.

To look for potential deviations from general relativity, Bean reanalysed the data and dropped the requirement that these two components of gravity had to be equal. Instead the ratio of the two was allowed to change in value. She found that between 8 and 11 billion years ago gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space. An observer around at the time wouldn't have noticed the effect because it only applies over large distances. Nonetheless, "there is a preference for a significant deviation from general relativity", says Bean (www.arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853).

Gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space
At this stage, it's hard to say what would happen if the deviation from general relativity was confirmed. Cosmologists have already considered some modifications to general relativity that could explain the universe's acceleration (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").

Yet finding a deviation when the universe was less than half its current age is odd - if general relativity had broken down at some level, the signs should be most dramatic more recently, long after the repulsive effect of dark energy overwhelmed the attractive powers of gravity some 6 billion years ago.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... joint.html

[Gwandau]

junglelord,

Read your post about the Casimir effect, and I realize you are definitely not open for the idea of energy coming out of "nothing". Well, the concept of "nothingness" is just as well a wild theory itself, and I can´t possibly
understand how to back up that one.

I am beginning to wonder what I am doing here, were the initial reaction to everything I say are met with the glee of conventional science and almost every word is turned against me.

And since the Unity theory is observing our universe from an angle totally opposing all known viewpoints and interpretations of any physical event, it seems inevitable that I am bound to fall into the traps of getting misunderstood when using conventional terms in a new context like the one of Unity.

So as I said earlier, I seem to be doing more harm to this theory than good here at Thunderbolt.

In any case I certainly seem to annoy you guys and since I won´t conform to your criterias for validity, I míght as well let you continue to have it your way on this forum and leave you in peace.

Good luck with the electrical universe, which in my opinion is a big step closer to the truth than the entanglement of contradictions and pararadoxes found in contemporary quantum physics.

[StevenO]

Dear Gwandau,

It is too bad that you are so easily discouraged by critical questions about David's theory. You will find that Thunderbolts is actually a place where alternative opinions are welcomed and encouraged. You'll find each of us holds or supports theories that are not supported by others, even theories that challenge the terminology used in scientific discussion like David's.

I had a long story typed, but the editor ate it, so I'll just let Karl Popper, my favorite science philosopher, speak for me:

"When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it."

I hope you can at least stay in the discussion intil we have reached such a level.

Steven

[redeye]

I had a long story typed, but the editor ate it,

Hey Steven, this happens to me a lot (assuming I'm talking about the same thing you referred to), when you create a post it seems you only have a finite time to complete it (not sure how long this is). What I always (try to remember to) do is copy the whole post I've created, before hitting submit. Sometimes, after hitting submit, you get sent to the login screen again, and from there you have no way of returning to the original post, which is extremely frustrating.

Cheers!