Mass is the pastA new look at an old direction in time.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
I see the past as smaller everywhere I look, why would I have to prove it, just look around. Mass is the past
Mass is the past
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
And the last one: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=2
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Watching the clock tower dilate as I move closer to its presence, the skydivers view of a dilating earth, the signs on the side of the road dilating as I drive by, my view of our co-moving frame that I do not see while standing still. This dilating motion is the dilating momentum of matter we only see relative with our own motion. Why do you think Einstein called the motion of time dilation?
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
He called it space-time he used a Lorentz contraction to explain how it was relative in a co-moving frame, he hence made a rotation around 90 degrees that would place time and space as the same thing in a mathematical co-ordinate system we all call space and time aka space-time.
Ptem1 I am still not sure what you are getting at..?
Einstein called the motion of time space-time, please explain what you are getting at here?
You wont watch the clock tower observe dilation, and you most certainly wont see a gravitational concern likewise; parachute not opening change time, except in your perception as you plummet to your doom, but what you would see if you could move fast enough, is that they do do that.
Ptem1 I am still not sure what you are getting at..?
Einstein called the motion of time space-time, please explain what you are getting at here?
You wont watch the clock tower observe dilation, and you most certainly wont see a gravitational concern likewise; parachute not opening change time, except in your perception as you plummet to your doom, but what you would see if you could move fast enough, is that they do do that.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
I see the past as the same size as the future, the distinction is arbitrary, the future is a light cone that has not happened and the past is a reflection therein.petm1 wrote:I see the past as smaller everywhere I look, why would I have to prove it, just look around.
Cerveny don't get me wrong I like people who think about physics but everything you said on that thread is wrong and in so many ways it's odd to say, and it would take me too long to explain why. So I would prefer if it's ok with you to stick with what ptem1 is doing atm? We can address your odd thread at some time in the future but I don't have time to dally in two odd ideas atm.
Incidentally Socratus is on every forum out there, he posts some weird nonsense, and never replies to anyone except with some odd word salad based on your repsonse that makes no sense either, so I think Socratus is little more than a bot. Just FYI. You might as well talk to the trees as you would get a reply that makes sense, from whatever that odd script is he's human I am sure, but he spams many forums and his replies are completely odd and devoid of argument, if I didn't know better I would say he was one of those AI things that research groups use to try and see if the Turing Test can be passed, you can tell though his ideas and responses are unsophisticated and make little if no sense, mind you if that is a definition of being human there's a lot of people who do the same which is kinda ironic.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
I do not like to repeat myself, so I pointed reference to the past thread. There is no doubt that the mainstream physics is in a “terminal” state. It is necessary to look for a new concept of physical space, time, matter and sense of the universe at all ... The last thing that can help, is keeping the theory of relativity "on the instruments". This theory is hopelessly quantizing eighty years and I can see only deep disrespect concerning reached results... For example, I personally hate spamming about futile time dilations and absurd metrics... Perhaps my ideas can support or open new view at the reality for one, two guys and it satisfies me :)Blaggard wrote:...petm1 wrote:I see the past as smaller everywhere I look, why would I have to prove it, just look around. :lol: Mass is the past
Cerveny don't get me wrong I like people who think about physics but everything you said on that thread is wrong and in so many ways it's odd to say, and it would take me too long to explain why. So I would prefer if it's ok with you to stick with what ptem1 is doing atm? We can address your odd thread at some time in the future but I don't have time to dally in two odd ideas atm.
...
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Mainstream physics has never been healthier, it's just some people don't like what the experimental results say so their reaction is to dispute reality with something fanciful. Special and general relativity both work to high degrees of precision. There is an issue between particle physics and general relativity but since the discovery of the Higg's this should hopefully soon be cleared up.
They work though, if it aint broke don't fix it. What's futile about the speed limit of the universe exactly, I don't think the laws of nature give a crap what you think about them.I personally hate spamming about futile time dilations and absurd metrics
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Blaggard, you must be lucky man, one might say blessed...Blaggard wrote:Mainstream physics has never been healthier, it's just some people don't like what the experimental results say so their reaction is to dispute reality with something fanciful. Special and general relativity both work to high degrees of precision ...
You do not mind that your high-precision theory is not able to describe 80% of the reality, that it works with singularities, that it set in advance every slight movement of your mind, that has forever prepared every neutron decay, that it does not know where the antimatter is, that it is sharply incompatible with quantum theory...? I personally have a problem with it. Maybe you could reproach Lee Smolin or Roger Penrose their skepticism related to mainstream…
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
It is able to explain almost all of reality though C?
If I am blessed it is perhaps because when I see a model that works, I don't cry foul and try to say it doesn't as if somehow I am being relevant to where science is.
You have an opportunity to prove any theory wrong from general relativity to special relativity to quantum mechanics, but you wont do so by such base means as diatribes that mislabel the theories and are just plain wrong.
They don't know where the antimatter is, please that's not even cogent dude. Most of the antimatter in the universe was destroyed by matter in a burst of energy, why there was a disparity and why matter dominated is a viable concern, but in no way precludes the fact that CPT violations are moving ever closer to showing why matter dominates in both matter and the force concerns in CPT violated areas. Just because we don't know something does not mean we are wrong, such a style of argument I expect from creationists, who fill the gaps with God.
Smolin attacks string theory because it is not even wrong. Penrose produces philosophical issues like they are science. I know who I would side with, the proof of the pudding is indeed in the eating, by which I mean experiment will always win over philosophical arm waving.
Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
If I am blessed it is perhaps because when I see a model that works, I don't cry foul and try to say it doesn't as if somehow I am being relevant to where science is.
You have an opportunity to prove any theory wrong from general relativity to special relativity to quantum mechanics, but you wont do so by such base means as diatribes that mislabel the theories and are just plain wrong.
They don't know where the antimatter is, please that's not even cogent dude. Most of the antimatter in the universe was destroyed by matter in a burst of energy, why there was a disparity and why matter dominated is a viable concern, but in no way precludes the fact that CPT violations are moving ever closer to showing why matter dominates in both matter and the force concerns in CPT violated areas. Just because we don't know something does not mean we are wrong, such a style of argument I expect from creationists, who fill the gaps with God.
Smolin attacks string theory because it is not even wrong. Penrose produces philosophical issues like they are science. I know who I would side with, the proof of the pudding is indeed in the eating, by which I mean experiment will always win over philosophical arm waving.
Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-take ... elativity/ -> http://cerveny.in/pic/cut.JPGCerveny wrote:viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=25
maybe they read it ;-)
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Space/time instead of Three space and one time think of it as three space over time. The largest and smallest common denominator or maybe the thought that there is only one dimension, time, with subsets within we see as space. If you put space and time on equal footings then a single part of three d space must be a single part of time. Duration is what a clock counts, the problem is, it can only count its own duration as a clock or a single part of time. Instead of tiny elementary cells of space they should be thinking single elementary cells of a dilating time the smallest part of an affine space.Blaggard wrote:He called it space-time he used a Lorentz contraction to explain how it was relative in a co-moving frame, he hence made a rotation around 90 degrees that would place time and space as the same thing in a mathematical co-ordinate system we all call space and time aka space-time.
Ptem1 I am still not sure what you are getting at..?
Einstein called the motion of time space-time, please explain what you are getting at here?
You wont watch the clock tower observe dilation, and you most certainly wont see a gravitational concern likewise; parachute not opening change time, except in your perception as you plummet to your doom, but what you would see if you could move fast enough, is that they do do that.
The center connection we call mass is temporal in nature, Think of atoms as wormholes in time having a common starting point, big bang, and with an outer shell, where emission occurs, we see as always in the present. My mind thinks I always see emission yet being the observer that I am I will always be a receiver. To view the present, I can put my eye as close to something as I can get, making it look very big, and as I move away it will appear smaller and smaller so I still think the past was smaller even if most people won't believe their own eyes.
Why is it so hard to understand an accelerated expanding space, looking back in time the way we do, while riding on an accelerated frame? Also is a single classic atom its own accelerated frame and/or is a classic atom its own clock?
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Time like the number one is dimensionless. Using the age, duration, of the photons we are receiving now to figure out a distance and then saying it is time that is not real is short sighted, imme. After all it takes days for one of us to travel to the moon but most will not do it in their lifetime. Maybe time is the aether and the reason we do not need an aether is because we already use it.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
petm1 wrote:Space/time instead of Three space and one time think of it as three space over time. The largest and smallest common denominator or maybe the thought that there is only one dimension, time, with subsets within we see as space. If you put space and time on equal footings then a single part of three d space must be a single part of time. Duration is what a clock counts, the problem is, it can only count its own duration as a clock or a single part of time. Instead of tiny elementary cells of space they should be thinking single elementary cells of a dilating time the smallest part of an affine space.Blaggard wrote:He called it space-time he used a Lorentz contraction to explain how it was relative in a co-moving frame, he hence made a rotation around 90 degrees that would place time and space as the same thing in a mathematical co-ordinate system we all call space and time aka space-time.
Ptem1 I am still not sure what you are getting at..?
Einstein called the motion of time space-time, please explain what you are getting at here?
You wont watch the clock tower observe dilation, and you most certainly wont see a gravitational concern likewise; parachute not opening change time, except in your perception as you plummet to your doom, but what you would see if you could move fast enough, is that they do do that.
The center connection we call mass is temporal in nature, Think of atoms as wormholes in time having a common starting point, big bang, and with an outer shell, where emission occurs, we see as always in the present. My mind thinks I always see emission yet being the observer that I am I will always be a receiver. To view the present, I can put my eye as close to something as I can get, making it look very big, and as I move away it will appear smaller and smaller so I still think the past was smaller even if most people won't believe their own eyes.
Why is it so hard to understand an accelerated expanding space, looking back in time the way we do, while riding on an accelerated frame? Also is a single classic atom its own accelerated frame and/or is a classic atom its own clock?
Ok that 's interesting usually people who claim the consensus is wrong say that there are more dimensions to explain space and time. That said I am still not sure what you mean. I may be being a little thick here?
Last edited by Blaggard on Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Einstein dismissed luminiferous aether, and experiment killed it stone dead, but as he later said he by no means contended with ether theories in general. That said though as of now, they are unnecessary.petm1 wrote:Time like the number one is dimensionless. Using the age, duration, of the photons we are receiving now to figure out a distance and then saying it is time that is not real is short sighted, imme. After all it takes days for one of us to travel to the moon but most will not do it in their lifetime. Maybe time is the aether and the reason we do not need an aether is because we already use it.
Re: A new look at an old direction in time.
Yup! Same as any other ontology, although the idea of spacetime has its uses.Blaggard wrote:Einstein dismissed luminiferous aether, and experiment killed it stone dead, but as he later said he by no means contended with ether theories in general. That said though as of now, they are unnecessary.