It's about time.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:40 am I still want to know what you would say to the person you met in the bar. In less than 500 words, none of which should be paradox, cognitive or dissonance, what in your view is the universe made of? Where did it come from? And how does it work?
:oops:

For my view on what is the universe made of, I could only speculate with its metaphysical abstracts based on the UVS model.

Nonetheless, I could tell you my view on what is the cosmos made of, where did it come from, and how does it work:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the UVS worldview, the cosmos is intrinsically manifested in a paradigm of an aetheric hyperspherical vortex of 137 nested 3-spheres. As thus, all celestial objects in the observable universe are vortically formed in the vortically arranged aetheric clusters of its nested hyperspherical vortices.

In a nutshell, the hyperspherical vortex cosmos has an aetheric structure formed in a paradigm of the nested vortical hypersphere, and it intrinsically resonates to form its nested hyperspherical vortex clusters of the vortically transformed torus.

The hyperspherical vortex cosmos can be visualized as a precessing nested torus structure with an intrinsic two-axis spin.

The empirically observed CMB dipole is a piece of compelling evidence for the UVS postulation of this metaphysical abstract.

And also evidently, various types of nested vortical structures are ubiquitously demonstrated in the entire observable universe.

Heuristically, with the precession effect of the two-axis spin intrinsically resonated in the nested cosmic hypersphere, it harmonically weaves its nested hyperspherical vortices from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

With the induced aether vortical motions of the cosmos, all matters are vortically formed, scattered, and then coalesced with the vortical spin fusion in the nested manner of the cosmic hypersphere.

This vortical process in the material phase of the hyperspherical vortex cosmos, vortically forms the elementary particles in an inside-out nested manner, which then cyclically and periodically coalesced as the various types of atoms in their outside-in manners, and thus formed the various types of molecules and compounds. These material structures in the microcosms are inversely formed in their nested aetheric hyperspherical vortices, and they are formed with the extrinsic vortical motions of their torque-induced precession that have resonated intrinsically.

In a nutshell, matters emerge vortically in an inside-out nested manner from their resonated hyperspheres, and are then vortically coalesced in the outside-in nested manner of the cosmic hypersphere.

In the outside-in manner that vortically coalesces the scattered matters in the macrocosms, the nested hyperspherical vortices of the cosmos thus undulate to orderly form the nested structures of superclusters, galaxy clusters, galaxy groups, galaxies, satellite galaxies, star systems, and planetary systems.

The vortical process with the transferred vortical motion of their non-material nested hyperspherical vortices, thus inversely forms the vortically transformed physical structures in a topsy-turvy manner throughout the cosmos. As thus, it subliminally rendered the paradoxical effect of the cosmos that naturally negates to obfuscate with all sorts of its paradoxically demonstrated natural phenomena.

The image at below illustrates the hypothesized structure of a nested galactic hypersphere, it is a metaphor that could be helpful for comprehending the UVS cosmological model:

Image
An artist's impression of a UVS hypothesized nested hyperspherical vortex shown with the vortically formed spiral arms manifested on its accretion disc.

At a vantage point looking closed-up at a galactical system, it depicts the galactic hypersphere structure of a galaxy with the hyperspheres of its planetary systems nested within. And indicatively, it shows this galactic hypersphere is among numerous similar scale distant galactic hyperspheres dotted in the background among some other star clusters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word count: 500 :wink:
Note: This number does not include the words involved in the links provided.

As for my view on what is the universe made of, here are the links that elaborate on my speculations with the following metaphysical abstracts:

The genesis

The UVS inductive resolution on unisonal evolution mechanism

The conceptualized structure of nature
uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer; not many people have the patience for this sort of thing. If you want people to read your stuff, you have to introduce it in a way which will persuade them that a bit of effort will be rewarded. This:
Paradigmer wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:03 amIn the UVS worldview, the cosmos is intrinsically manifested in a paradigm of an aetheric hyperspherical vortex of 137 nested 3-spheres. As thus, all celestial objects in the observable universe are vortically formed in the vortically arranged aetheric clusters of its nested hyperspherical vortices.
Should read more like this:

In the UVS worldview, the cosmos is an aetheric hyperspherical vortex of 137 nested 3-spheres (3D?), and all celestial objects are clusters of vortices within that system.

People want to know roughly what you are talking about and you simply have to accept that once you make it clear, you will lose at least 90% the people who started reading. But if you can't make it to the end of the first sentence without a link, you will lose almost everyone. In one short paragraph, what is "an aetheric hyperspherical vortex"?
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:36 am Paradigmer; not many people have the patience for this sort of thing. If you want people to read your stuff, you have to introduce it in a way which will persuade them that a bit of effort will be rewarded. This:
Paradigmer wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:03 amIn the UVS worldview, the cosmos is intrinsically manifested in a paradigm of an aetheric hyperspherical vortex of 137 nested 3-spheres. As thus, all celestial objects in the observable universe are vortically formed in the vortically arranged aetheric clusters of its nested hyperspherical vortices.
Should read more like this:

In the UVS worldview, the cosmos is an aetheric hyperspherical vortex of 137 nested 3-spheres (3D?), and all celestial objects are clusters of vortices within that system.

People want to know roughly what you are talking about and you simply have to accept that once you make it clear, you will lose at least 90% the people who started reading. But if you can't make it to the end of the first sentence without a link, you will lose almost everyone. In one short paragraph, what is "an aetheric hyperspherical vortex"?
Your Occam's razor skill is very sharp.

I was hindered by some very nit-picking readers in the past and thus had to define as many aspects of the writeup to eliminate as many ambiguities as possible. I shouldn't have worried about those odd trees and risk losing the forest.

Retaining 10% of the people who started reading to go further would already be a huge accomplishment.

As for what is "an aetheric hyperspherical vortex", I have no easy explanation. My definition for this description of the cosmos in the UVS worldview is, it is an aetheric vortical structure formed in the paradigm of a nested vortical hypersphere of 137 nested 3-spheres. In its simplest form conceived, it is such a mind-bending abstract. :oops:

3-sphere is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere in its mathematical treatment. It may be embedded in 4-dimensional Euclidean space, but it nonetheless is a 3D structure in the three-spatial-space of the objective reality. A torus is fundamentally a 3-sphere, which could undergo vortical transformation to change form to become a structure of ring torus, a horn torus, a spindle torus, or a sphere.

Image

I had since rephrased the first half of the presentation as follow: :D
In the UVS worldview, the cosmos is an aetheric nested hyperspherical vortex, and all celestial objects are intrinsically formed within that system.

In a nutshell, the hyperspherical vortex cosmos has an aetheric structure formed in a paradigm of nested vortical hypersphere of 137 nested 3-spheres, and it resonates to intrinsically form its clusters of nested vortical hyperspheres with their structurally transformed tori.

The hyperspherical vortex cosmos can be visualized as a precessing nested torus structure with an intrinsic two-axis spin.

The empirically observed CMB dipole is a piece of compelling evidence for the UVS postulation of this metaphysical abstract.

And evidently, its hyperspherical variants of torus transformed structures are ubiquitously demonstrated in the entire observable universe.

Heuristically, with the precession effect of the two-axis spin intrinsically resonated in the nested cosmic hypersphere, it harmonically weaves its nested hyperspherical vortices from the macrocosms to the microcosms.

With the induced aether vortical motions of the cosmos, all matters are vortically formed, scattered, and then coalesced with the vortical spin fusion resonated in the nested manner of the cosmic hypersphere.

This vortical process in the material phase of the hyperspherical vortex cosmos, vortically forms the elementary particles in an inside-out nested manner, which then cyclically and periodically coalesced as the various types of atoms in their outside-in manners to form the various types of molecules and compounds. These material structures in the microcosms are inversely formed in their nested aetheric hyperspherical vortices, and they are formed with the extrinsic vortical motions of their torque-induced precession that have resonated intrinsically.
Despite this is still far from being suitable for the twelve-year-old as you would suggest, I already find it much clearer and less condensed to read without impacting much on the essence of its context

Appreciate your kind advise. Thank you very much.
Last edited by Paradigmer on Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:06 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Age
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:17 am
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amThe colossal power of atomic bombs is well explained with Einstein e=mc^2. This explained the enormous energy stored in matter at twice the speed of light, which is the mass-energy equivalence effect of nuclear fusion. However, this does entails the Big Bang theory construed with the adulterated Einsteinian TOR.
Well, the first two papers Einstein published in 1905 were on the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. The first demonstrated that light is quantised, basically showing that photons exist, and the second showed that the apparently random movement of gas molecules could be explained by collisions with objects too small for contemporary microscopes to see; basically atoms exist. The third paper is the subject of this thread, and the fourth was on mass energy equivalence which, as you say is nicely explained mathematically by e=mc^2. Physically Einstein points out that since atoms exist and they can shed or gain mass according to whether they emit or absorb photons, as per papers 1 and 2, then theoretically they could shed all their mass the same, or equivalent way - hit an atom hard enough and it will break into photons. Reverse the process, i.e. fire a bunch of photons into the same point and abracadabra, you make matter.
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amThe Big Bang theory is a paradoxical construct reified with the Einsteinian TOR.
I don't think paradoxical means what you think it means.
What does 'paradoxical' mean, to you?

Words do NOT mean things, in nor of themselves.

People give words meanings, and the meaning you have provided for the word 'paradoxical' does NOT necessarily mean that that this IS what that word solely means.

Part of the reason WHY you are so CLOSED OFF to what thee actual Truth IS, is because of this BELIEF of yours that you KNOW what words mean.

See, you BELIEVE that some of what you read is TRUE and so you are NOT able to LOOK AT NOR SEE what is beyond that, and ACTUALLY True. Until you STOP BELIEVING, then you will NOT be able to SEE that the Universe did NOT begin with a "big bang", is NOT expanding. Nor will you be able to recognize and SEE just how time, itself, does NOT slow down.
uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:17 am
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amCheck this out:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in Big Bang model on the metric expansion of space

I hate to post this, but you are so close to the original Einstein TOR. Applied the understanding of your knowledge with time, and you will see it.
Thanks for the link, I'll have to look at that later. I'm in deepest, darkest Somerset where the internet connection is by carrier pigeon.
Age
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:40 am
Paradigmer wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:37 amThis paper despite invoked the paradigm shift to a barycentric Solar System model...
Well look, we're flying off in several different directions at once. I still want to know what you would say to the person you met in the bar. In less than 500 words, none of which should be paradox, cognitive or dissonance, what in your view is the universe made of? Where did it come from? And how does it work?
The Universe is made up of matter, and, space. But before ANY one can understand FULLY this VERY SIMPLE FACT they will first have to understand what 'matter' and 'space, actually IS.

Where the Universe came from is NOT a sensible NOR logical question. This is because the Universe is ALWAYS HERE, NOW.

The Universe works through evolution, which is just change.

This happens because of what the Universe is made of.

The Universe could NOT be in ANY other way than this way that It IS, and the way that I just described.

SEE, what thee Universe is actually made up of, and how It works, is just SO SIMPLE and BASIC most human beings, in the days and ages of when this was being written, did NOT even recognize IT, let alone understand It and comprehend It FULLY.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 am What does 'paradoxical' mean, to you?
I used this dictionary definition for the word "paradox":
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.

My much-elaborated descriptions on the paradoxical effect of the cosmos is published on this web page.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 am Words do NOT mean things, in nor of themselves.

People give words meanings, and the meaning you have provided for the word 'paradoxical' does NOT necessarily mean that that this IS what that word solely means.

Part of the reason WHY you are so CLOSED OFF to what thee actual Truth IS, is because of this BELIEF of yours that you KNOW what words mean.
Agreed with words "do NOT mean things, in nor of themselves". And any of our BELIEFs must be carefully scrutinized.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 amSee, you BELIEVE that some of what you read is TRUE and so you are NOT able to LOOK AT NOR SEE what is beyond that, and ACTUALLY True. Until you STOP BELIEVING, then you will NOT be able to SEE that the Universe did NOT begin with a "big bang", is NOT expanding. Nor will you be able to recognize and SEE just how time, itself, does NOT slow down.
It's funny why you said the above; I totally agreed with "the Universe did NOT begin with a "big bang", is NOT expanding. Nor will you be able to recognize and SEE just how time, itself, does NOT slow down."

Or was I not reading your text correctly?
Last edited by Paradigmer on Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:58 am
uwot wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:40 am
Paradigmer wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:37 amThis paper despite invoked the paradigm shift to a barycentric Solar System model...
Well look, we're flying off in several different directions at once. I still want to know what you would say to the person you met in the bar. In less than 500 words, none of which should be paradox, cognitive or dissonance, what in your view is the universe made of? Where did it come from? And how does it work?
The Universe is made up of matter, and, space. But before ANY one can understand FULLY this VERY SIMPLE FACT they will first have to understand what 'matter' and 'space, actually IS.

Where the Universe came from is NOT a sensible NOR logical question. This is because the Universe is ALWAYS HERE, NOW.

The Universe works through evolution, which is just change.

This happens because of what the Universe is made of.

The Universe could NOT be in ANY other way than this way that It IS, and the way that I just described.

SEE, what thee Universe is actually made up of, and how It works, is just SO SIMPLE and BASIC most human beings, in the days and ages of when this was being written, did NOT even recognize IT, let alone understand It and comprehend It FULLY.
My speculation on 'space' is it could be a conceptualized structure of nature, and 'matter' could be the consequences of the vortically emerged cosmos by its makes with light in the wake of the Universe.

I agreed with "The Universe works through evolution, which is just change.", and I did tried to understand its evolution mechanism, which my article on this is published in this web page.

My works are more on the cosmos; have you read my UVS treatise at all?

You are deep. Would like to hear your comments for my UVS worldview.

However, this thread of Will is on the essence of time; have you got a thread where your ideas were explicated?
Age
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by Age »

Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:09 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 am What does 'paradoxical' mean, to you?
I used this dictionary definition for the word "paradox":
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification but that question was actually directed to the one who claimed what that word means, (as though there was only ONE accurate and correct meaning.

See, the beauty of that word is it is, literally, a 'paradox' upon itself.

For what can be clearly seen in conjunction with the definition that you appreciatively provided, is the word 'paradox' can equally also mean;
a statement or proposition which, seems self-contradictory or absurd, at first, but really expresses a possible truth.

So, besides the other definitions people have and use for the word 'paradox', a 'paradox' can either mean;
A statement or proposition which appears to express a truth but actually is self-contradictory or absurd. Or,
A statement or proposition which appears to be self-contradictory or absurd but actually expresses a truth.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:09 am My much elaborated descriptions on the paradoxical effect of the cosmos is published on this web page.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 am Words do NOT mean things, in nor of themselves.

People give words meanings, and the meaning you have provided for the word 'paradoxical' does NOT necessarily mean that that this IS what that word solely means.

Part of the reason WHY you are so CLOSED OFF to what thee actual Truth IS, is because of this BELIEF of yours that you KNOW what words mean.
Agreed with words "do NOT mean things, in nor of themselves". And any of our BELIEF must be carefully scrutinized.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:49 amSee, you BELIEVE that some of what you read is TRUE and so you are NOT able to LOOK AT NOR SEE what is beyond that, and ACTUALLY True. Until you STOP BELIEVING, then you will NOT be able to SEE that the Universe did NOT begin with a "big bang", is NOT expanding. Nor will you be able to recognize and SEE just how time, itself, does NOT slow down.
It's funny why you said the aboves; I totally agreed with "the Universe did NOT begin with a "big bang", is NOT expanding. Nor will you be able to recognize and SEE just how time, itself, does NOT slow down."

Or was I not reading your text correctly?
My 'text' was actually written in reply, and in response, to what the one known as "uwot" wrote. So, you can be the judge if you read my 'text' correctly or not.

But through YOU clarifying a question I posed, which by the way rarely happens, I thank you very much for this, as I was then able to SHOW and REVEAL some thing.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:42 am My 'text' was actually written in reply, and in response, to what the one known as "uwot" wrote. So, you can be the judge if you read my 'text' correctly or not.
OIC! :shock:

Then on the essence of what space, matter, and time are, we are actually more or less on the same side! :)
Last edited by Paradigmer on Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by Age »

Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:27 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:58 am
uwot wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:40 am Well look, we're flying off in several different directions at once. I still want to know what you would say to the person you met in the bar. In less than 500 words, none of which should be paradox, cognitive or dissonance, what in your view is the universe made of? Where did it come from? And how does it work?
The Universe is made up of matter, and, space. But before ANY one can understand FULLY this VERY SIMPLE FACT they will first have to understand what 'matter' and 'space, actually IS.

Where the Universe came from is NOT a sensible NOR logical question. This is because the Universe is ALWAYS HERE, NOW.

The Universe works through evolution, which is just change.

This happens because of what the Universe is made of.

The Universe could NOT be in ANY other way than this way that It IS, and the way that I just described.

SEE, what thee Universe is actually made up of, and how It works, is just SO SIMPLE and BASIC most human beings, in the days and ages of when this was being written, did NOT even recognize IT, let alone understand It and comprehend It FULLY.
My speculation on 'space' is it could be a conceptualized structure of nature, and 'matter' could be the consequences of the vortically emerged cosmos by its makes with light in the wake of the Universe.
Okay. But when you find out and learn, thus understand FULLY, what 'matter' and 'space' ACTUALLY IS, then you will NOT have to 'speculate' any more on what 'space' and 'matter' COULD BE.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:27 am I agreed with "The Universe works through evolution, which is just change.", and I did tried to understand its evolution mechanism, which my article on this is published in this web page.
Understanding FULLY the 'evolution mechanism' is PURELY SIMPLE and EASY once you FULLY understand what 'matter' and 'space' ACTUALLY IS.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:27 am My works are more on the cosmos; have you read my UVS treatise at all?
No.

But I will now.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:27 am You are deep.
Relative to 'what', exactly?
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:27 am Would like to hear your comments for my UVS worldview.
You have complicated and made hard what is essentially and really just absolutely purely SIMPLE and EASY.

For example your views on 'space' were summed up nicely, and perfectly, when you just wrote:
'Space is a nothingness.

Nothing else needed to be added.

Now, if 'matter' is some thing, and, 'space' is no thing (nothing or a nothingness), then what the Universe is fundamentally made up of is just 'space', and, 'matter'.

To me, 'matter' is just EVERY physical thing, and, 'space' is just the distance between said matter, particles of matter, things, or labels and names.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:27 am However, this thread of Will is on the essence of time; have you got a thread where your ideas were explicated?
No.
Age
Posts: 5141
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by Age »

Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:54 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:42 am My 'text' was actually written in reply, and in response, to what the one known as "uwot" wrote. So, you can be the judge if you read my 'text' correctly or not.
OIC! :shock:
I did not realize it earlier because your post was addressing my online name of this forum. Thanks for clarifying.

Then on the essence of what space, matter, and time are, we are actually more or less on the same side! :)
To me, there are NO "sides". There are, however, views. Of which some are in line with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, and others are not.

And, within EVERY human body there are views, or thoughts, which are closer to thee Truth while others are NOT.

Learning and understanding HOW to differentiate between them is just one more thing to learn, in Life.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:36 am In one short paragraph, what is "an aetheric hyperspherical vortex"?
I might be able to conceptually show you how this aetheric hyperspherical vortex could be formed as an aetheric vortical structure in the paradigm of a nested vortical hypersphere of 137 nested 3-spheres.

Image

The above image illustrates the quantized vortices manifested in spheroidal confinement.

It could be thought of as these lines are the aertheric vortices of electromotive forces acting on the vortical central source (singularity) with intrinsic spin. Like an energetic point source, it is a singularity of a monopole system.

With its intrinsic oscillation howsoever, the monopole becomes diffused to split into two distinct vortical point sources. This is now a dual-core hyperspherical vortex structure.

In the magnetic reconnections of their phase shifted spoke lines of aertheric vortices in their superposition, the entire dual-core spherically confined 3D structure (in the 2D diagram) is naturally transformed as a nested vortical hypersphere, and it resembles a nested torus structure with the overlapped spoke lines that extend isotropically from the two point sources.

Image

Their periodically manifested electromagnetic Lagrangian points in a nested manner, are intrinsically resonated at the vertexes of the crisscrossed spoke lines to spawn as the first generation of say 136 harmonics of singularities, which all are extending with their point sources of aertheric vortices outwardly in replicas of the principle vortical hypersphere.

You can download this 2D Moiré pattern applet (Need Java-enabled browser) to visualize in a simple manner with the 2D image to see how two point sources with spoke lines could optically form as a perceivable 3D nested toroidal structure of 3-sphere with its intrinsically formed toroidal vortex cluster of nested 3-spheres.

This aetheric hyperspherical vortex, in its entirety is the hypothesized nested vortical hypersphere of 137 nested 3-spheres.

This dual-core vortical monopole model could explain how the replusion force of the hypersphere is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism, which is the strong force that thus renders the inverse 137 fine structure constant in all the particulated elementary particles that were formed in the microcosms of this nested aetheric hyperspherical vortex of the cosmos.

My thought is the illustration for this could be best done with a graphic animation to simulate the process.

Please feel free to suggest how this postulation of the underlying structure of the cosmos could be simplified.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:17 am
Paradigmer wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:10 amThe Big Bang theory is a paradoxical construct reified with the Einsteinian TOR.
I don't think paradoxical means what you think it means.
Oops! :shock:

I previously had read your first post in this thread and some of your exchanges with AlexW, and thought you were professing time is invariant in the way I thought you were conversing it.

I just read much of your other posts in this thread, and now realized that you merely was trying to make the Einstenian TOR easy to understand in the way you were presenting.

My apology I had misunderstood your position. :oops:
uwot
Posts: 5040
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: It's about time.

Post by uwot »

Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:16 pmOops! :shock:

I previously had read your first post in this thread and some of your exchanges with AlexW, and thought you were professing time is invariant in the way I thought you were conversing it.
Well, as I point out several times in the article, Einstein's example of the light clock demonstrates that all physical processes occur at different rates depending on the speed of the inertial frame in question. Because those physical processes include any which result in consciousness, the perception and measurement of time is invariant within an inertial frame.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:16 pmI just read much of your other posts in this thread, and now realized that you merely was trying to make the Einstenian TOR easy to understand in the way you were presenting.
You've been disparaging of "Einsteinians' who I gather you think have adulterated Einstein's original concept, so perhaps I should be offended. But then even Einstein said “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” You can read all sorts of nonsensical attempts to explain 'the twins paradox'. The trouble people have is that Special Relativity describes what would be seen by two observers for the fleeting moment that they flashed past each other, in a straight line, at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Since for that instant both observers would see the others' clocks ticking slower than their own, many people wrongly assume that observers in different inertial frames only ever see clocks in other inertial frames tick more slowly, and never faster. This isn't so, and Einstein knew it. As he said: “If we placed a living organism in a box […] one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations.  For the moving organism, the lengthy time of the journey was a mere instant, provided the motion took place with approximately the speed of light.” That is effectively what the Hafele-Keating exercise demonstrated. If observers in the different inertial frames had been able to see the different atomic clocks 'ticking', they would have seen them ticking as many times as they in fact ticked, which can be more or fewer compared to a clock in their own inertial frame.
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:16 pmMy apology I had misunderstood your position. :oops:
Watch out for that. If it becomes a habit, it's confirmation bias.
User avatar
Paradigmer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Re: It's about time.

Post by Paradigmer »

uwot wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:46 am
Paradigmer wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:16 pmMy apology I had misunderstood your position. :oops:
Watch out for that. If it becomes a habit, it's confirmation bias.
It indeed was a confirmation bias at my end; I should have been more careful.

Apparently you were debating against a member who insisted on physical transformation of time with his special relativity examples. And I also read you invoke the idea of aether to explain GR, which is denounced by the mainstream modern physics.

The consequences of aether based explanation for TOR, inevitably would suggest time and space have to be invariants. And thus time and space have to be universally invariable regardless of different inertial frames. This is the very reason aether is casted out in the mainstream TOR because of its foundational conflict.

TBH, this is the first time I came across someone who is for the mainstream TOR, is explaining relativistic effects with the aether based principle.

My apology again for the confusion caused.

Will try not to make that a habit. :wink:
Post Reply