Greg A.

You don't know that the cat's fate comes down to atomic decay??? The Schrodinger's cat experiment not only highlights the apparent absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics it also attempts to merge an effect at the quantum level with that of the regular physical world resulting in a cat in an impossible superposition. And what in the world would temperature, or lack of, something very physical, have to do with an action in the quantum world??? So as it is, you still need to solve Schrodinger's Cat despite your denials. My solution, the obvious one by the way, is that the experiment is followed by the decay that is followed by the deceased cat, that is followed by the experiment, that is followed by non-decay, that is followed by a living cat, this satisfying the 50/50 requirement with out any superposition involved. In other words there are no experiments or results (ever) determinism decides everything (that's although events at the quantum level may not allow determinism to be the end all of things).

Less odd than you believing that you have won despite not one refutation of my understandings coming from your side. How can I be overlooking anything that says I'm wrong. Only if arrogance wins arguments are my adversaries way out in front. I'm prepared to accept I'm wrong despite that being a devastating outcome personally if it were to happen. It's still more important that the truth is presented though. And I sure would not like to mislead anyone anyhow. My point is that I'd never set out to debate how it is that gravity works, but as that was the direction this took, and I believe I'm being positive, then it's a 'God Effect' that has let me survive this attack. And one that's from those who know a lot more about these things than myself. That is if I'd lost this I'd be so demoralized that my mission would end. My 'faith' would have been devastated.

Okay. If that's your 'out'. I mean picking on my poor choice of words means a lot? I don't get beaten much but that's not because of any skill on my part but instead that I'm on what I believe is a positive (good) path and that does help (even if I'm set to lose in the end). Thanks for 'volunteering'.

I'm glad you understand these thing because I sure don't. And the point you've made some time back has a relevance to the experiment in that probabilities (that's despite things Bayesian going right over my head) if they are what are in place and there are no actual outcomes present in say one hundred years time then the scenario where we override the philosophical barrier, that there is no logical reason to change Venus's orbit, and then go ahead with a calculated physical approach of putting all of the world's nuclear weapons together in one missile to alter that orbit but then only to find the launch window has been missed due to the blowing of a 10 cent fuse. And, if so, do we put this down to probability or an inevitability factor. There is nothing positive or negative in changing Venus's orbit ( apart from getting rid of nuclear weapons) so it wouldn't matter either way succeed or fail. And there is a high probability of failure for whatever reason, just listen to the tension that builds up in the Apollo 11 launch commentator's voice. I can only precede with the experiment by leaving out the prediction I make that's when any other prediction will suffice anyhow, leaving experimentation for experimentation's sake while neglecting my obligation of playing a part in saving the world. Are there any suggestions how this thing could continue here at the forum?

I don't think I'm stuck at all and if anything it is you that has caught up. I mean in all fairness. Earth's 1.3M mph velocity decides its time frame and that of everything else in its near vicinity. I can only rely on intuition and don't see how anything you say here is different than what I believe is the situation. My understanding's have been forced as 'time' was not a topic I've chosen to take on consequently I've only had barely two weeks to come up with what I believe is how it is. I've not changed my position but have seen the position here change. But we are not in free fall and if we were our velocity is so similar to earth it would hardly make any difference that our geodesics did not align with all the others in their parallel converging courses. Even at the equator we would end up near the point of convergence that earth's 1.3M mph represents. We are not in freefall. Gravity is not a force. The apple in the tree is exerting a force of its own, it's not being pulled down, the tension it appears to have on its branch is transferred to the trunk of the tree as a downward (compressive) load as opposed to the apple and the tree both being subject to gravity as a force This isn't what I've been saying all along? I'm not all that interested in what is the correct discription only that the rubber sheet does not give us a distinction between gravity as some magical property and the curvature of spacetime brought about by the shared velocity of earth's matter as it groups around the common point that is its time factor. As I've pointed out previously I am not going to get away with making any clear mistakes here at this forum, the absence of many challenges seems to bear this out. And I don't see that what you are saying as being a any real substantial challenge? That is am I completely wrong? No I'm not aware of that but as my OP was posted in philosophy and (understandably) it has been moved to speculations no one's fault but it does kind of result is a stalemate from my perspective in that because of my limited understanding of physics I can, if I've added anything, add nothing more. The experiment can't continue due to the philosophic nature of the prediction being something I can not elaborate on, leading to a predicted catch22 in that what I'm about is fulfilling my duties as an adult to help defend society yet will get caught up in a loop it appears because of the speculative nature of the experiment. And if by getting to "Schwarzschild" I may have established a bit of credibility It's been for nothing. Evil overpowers good yet again?

It's the moon's velocity that prevents its 'geodesic' from converging with earth. So, if we were capable of running fast enough ourselves we would see own our geodesic slowly separate from the center of convergence of all other geodesics emanating from matter traveling at the same velocity here on earth converging at its center due to time being a dimension and consequently not being able to be represented by anything other than a point (in relation to the 3 other dimensions). What happens is something that can't be expected if gravity is anything other than a convention. Our velocity be it zero or one thousand mph, should not increase our weightlessness. But if increasing velocity shifts our time frame away from earth's velocity's distortion of space time, then it is our velocity, represented by a separating time frame (geodesic), that is responsible for our increase in weightlessness. Gravity survives as a convention. Newton never had a theory of gravity, believing it to be a force, for that reason he hasn't really made any mistakes. The rubber sheet model displays the effects of gravity accurately, but does not explain gravity itself. Schrodinger's cat (as you know) links decay to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and if I remember it was this as a previous issue relates to what you are claiming. So show to us your solution to the cat's situation first.

The convention is the moon is held in place by earth's gravity. The reality is that it's curved space time (as you know) that keeps it on what is in fact a straight course, and therefore needing no tethering action. And if that radius position is outside of the earth's matter including it's atmosphere, traveliing parallel but not converging (not slowing) it is an orbit. It will never merge with earth because its unchanging velocity gives it a separate time frame, pictured as a dot in the center of the moon projected onto the radiuses. The dot being the convergence point of a time dimension coinciding with the objects velocity.

As our velocity increases on earth we become lighter. The increase in velocity shifts our time frame, that's until it is no longer positioned below the earth's surface which at that point we become in an orbital time frame, our velocity + earth's. There is no gravity (as you know) but instead the curvature of space time. That is no invisible tether connecting us to earth. What ever velocity that positions the objects time frame outside of earth's cluster of matter. It is if it's my poor ability with words. But that said I've been to atheist's forums where I've noticed the only challenges come from those that either don't accept or don't understand what it is I'm saying, these mostly older Brits, some Canadians (displaced Brits & French). I don't see any evidence for Time. But am aware of the effects of time dilation and how these 'don't' allow for Time travel.

It's easy. Put an end to Schrodinger Cat's quandary. I mean let's face it nothing living should be left in a box.

If time is a dimension, and space is three dimensional, and our velocity gives us time, then there is no coincidence in the earth being spherical, as time would need to be represented by a point. It is this point that all the atoms of the earth, having shared velocity. gravitate toward.

I'm not capable of giving anyone here a lesson in physics. So if I'm right somehow then the lesson is in comprehension. And that said I believe it would be impossible for me to mislead the majority of those here. And I'll remind you that pretty much everyone of these posts have been off topic. That is the only relationship they have with the OP is that they form one of the barriers that must be present if the future is real and a particular predicted event does takes place and what I'm attempting here is at odds with that outcome. The situation where the grandson attempts to eliminate his evil grandfather before his own father is born, being frustrated in all his attempts. It would be impossible to prevent a future eventuation, but as we don't know the future and as it is that probability plays a part in future events, its worth trying. I'm not avoiding anything with this, and the following is an analogy with what is my explanation of the current (last one hundred twenty years) understandings. It's not necessary but suppose earth is represented by a bunch of marbles, and the moon by a single marble and the force of gravity is much greater than it is. The moon has a velocity relative to earth (the rest frame). The moon marble has velocity and is in orbit around the earths marbles. But if not subjected to gravity from the earth it would then leave its orbit and travel on in a tangent into space. Instead the moon travels in a straight, yet curved, parallel line around earth. Ignoring marbles crashing directly into earth, other marbles traveling at greater velocity than the moon marble may not enter into orbit around the earth marbles because the added velocity puts them on a non-parallel trajectory. Their greater velocity is too much for earth's gravity to brake. The relationship between velocity and gravity is clear. So if we were to put a retro rocket on the moon, which in its orbit is weightless, and started braking it would remain in a parallel but now converging path. Eventually stopping, at which point its weight is at the maximum force as applied by 1g. So, the moon marble is now sitting with the earth marbles and this then explains the increase in its weight, ok? No, not quite, because the moon marble is now sharing the same velocity as the earth marbles, and it is this that really explains gravity. You say, no! and that I am wrong, mass explains gravity. But the problem then is that the moon has gone from being weightless to having weight (while not increasing in mass), and from not being synchronized to earth's velocity to being in synchronous. That is, all of the other marbles are aligned with the point in time that their velocity represents, and that's because to have zero velocity is to have zero time which is to have no curvature of space time because without the time factor there is no gravity. Another way of looking at this is if you have two planets traveling in straight parallel well separated lines, and if one planets velocity is slower or faster than the other, the two will never come together. And there will be no net gain in gravity. Their velocities are not aligned, they don't share the same time factor and will never merge. And if somehow you can see there is validity in the above then really you have learned nothing new other than to comprehend something in a different way. A more layperson's view if anything. There is potential in a Time experiment for new things though.

After you! It was you that posted this: "Four pages of "Look what I made up!" That's when I've made nothing up that isn't consistent with what else I've said. . Some years back I'd come across a possible solution to Schrodinger's cat's predicament. Which was that the apparatus, the box and the cat are all products of our perception. That is the cat only reappears when the box is opened and was therefor never in a state of flux while the lid was closed. Just another attempt at solving the problem I suppose. But I hope you get the point being made.

It's obvious that any significant figure outside (either way) of this velocity creates a separate time frame. As obvious as the fact you have tried to build a stumbling block with this. It's an effect. Time is the force. I've made it clear and have not shifted (unlike yourself). Newtonian gravity is not relevant. It has been presented as a visualization. I accept I did not do a good job of it but is still there. It's only relevance to this present discussion is that as a catastrophic outcome it is being aided here by evil (negative action). I've done what I could to clarify what is a visualization of time and it's effect on our planet. I can't change this in any significant way. It is for you and the other 'evil-doers' to stop being repetitious. A little bit less arrogance and a bit more respect would had made you aware that I make a distinction (from the OP) between Time and time. One a chronological thing, apparent time, the other scientific, integral to space time. I believe it exist but in only the one form. Which is as a part of space time (not local time). I can and it looks like you are now resorting to cowardice by expecting me to do something I'm incapable of. The visualization was a forced thing that did not need to happen. It's what I've been saying all along with different words. And it's you that has 'now' came up with your version. It's an effect. It is not a force. The phenomenon is time, it is the common velocity of all things on earth that gives us the effect we call gravity. The model is a visualization. I can be wrong about how I imagine things to be, but as no one here has managed to refute anything I've said why should I think I'm getting anything wrong. It wasn't me that started this. And what has happened in that this is Time's way of preventing me changing something that is effectively inevitable. And, I'm arguing against Newton's understanding of gravity, not Einstein's. It would be illogical. That's why I'm not arguing against any thing other than Newton's belief that gravity is a force.

From the opening post I've had to fend off challenges. These relate to the two apparent aspects of time we become aware of. That's Time, the chronological concept where we mark off rhe hours & minutes so as to increment some imaginary clock in the sky. And time that relates to velocity, the time of science. These are the obligations I'm confronted with. I've stuck with my claims all through this, Too bad you can't visualize the effects of time. So, there is nothing made up you arrogant sack. My interpretation of this is that it what I've been saying all along. And fair enough I dont have the ability to put it so accurately, and sure that is my fault because it is what is expected at a science forum. But please accept that when I say the moon does not share our velocity and so has a different but still parallel 'point' in time resulting in an orbit above earth. These are parallel and converging. It can be done by simply using the parallel lines of longitude that give us the points of convergence in 3d space above each of the poles. Our common velocity shifting these still parallel lines to a different point so that they appear to be the center of the earth, a point all particles aim for in the confines of curved space while traveling at the same velocity, 13M mph in this instance. You can never refute what I'm saying while still asserting gravity as a force. What errors? Gravity is a convention that you have adopted as gospel. And I'm sure no intellectual, otherwise I would have done a better job of explaining something I'd never set out to explain in the first place.

It's earth's velocity that matters and that is in effect unchanging. 13M mph in relation to the CBR. Anyone who refers to gravity as a force is wrong. It is an effect. Then you have pretty much ignored most of what this experiment is about. Intellectual arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual cowardice are examples of the barriers to change. I've refused nothing. I try and meet my obligations, which do not include satisfying anybody's curiosity. I will make the prediction as originator of this thread at the appropriate time, that's if that opportunity somehow finds a way around the barriers in place already. I've stuck with what I've been saying all along, and if anybody is tap-dancing it is yourself. I will continue to answer posts (and expect replies) until the present issue is resolved. I have difficulty in interpreting what it is you say, but despite that can see that what you appear to be saying is not in any way what I'm suggesting. Mass would decide the geometry of spacetime, velocity decides the convergence point of all matter within the spherical mass we call earth. How else does it get it's shape if not by the fourth dimension we call time? Your geodesics are not my converging parallels? No doublespeak here? I'm visualizing time not gravity. The work has been done by lot's of smart people including Einstein. I'm not adding anything other than a simple way to visualize it (which admittedly has not worked all that well).

But I have learned from the non-math aspects of scientific research. I am a dummy and could never have come up with these things completely on my own. You have not attempted to visualize gravity and is why you have been mislead substantially by not doing that. These are not my ideas really. But if they are then they most certainly are wrong. My answer is that I put it down to a God thing. That is anyone trying to prevent the destruction of mankind is someone doing good. And if the outcome is positive it will be conducive of what I do. I get told quite often I am a good person. But I correct those saying this in that I'm only trying to meet my obligations (in relation to the circumstances that bring about the approvals). I see myself fighting in a war that can't be won. As an adult male my obligation to defend humankind, respectful of the millions before me that have gone into battle, win or lose. I believe I've got through this precious weeks lost but some credentials established. Everything you say above is correct if the product of misunderstanding.

I can understand why it is you misunderstand what it is I'm saying because even having slightly less than a seventh grade education I still have poor word skills regardless. So to summarize: I 'don't' believe in 'Time' but I do accept the argument for 'time'. For example think back to your last meal, calculate how many hours ago that was, then try and rationalize the meaning of Time. You will find you can't do it. I mean are you in the past then and now in the present, and if so what does that mean. Is there a version of you at that meal another now? So try again, this time eliminate Time, making the difference between your meal and now only a change in physical positions. The temporal aspect only ever a part of your mind. Time is an illusion. The dinosaurs are still here, surrounding us in the dust, and in actuality on (maybe) other planets younger than the earth. Motion, not time, has dispersed them on this planet. You want to go back in time to your meal, then go forward (let the earth rotate some), make your way back to where it was your meal took place. And chances are it will be the same people/person serving, same other diners taking part. The argument for time is on the other hand scientific, and is not something in anyway way temporal. For example you walk from one room to the another, your trip takes 10 seconds as read on the hands of a clock, analogous with the earth's rotation, the hands pointing to digits, an analogue to digital conversion in effect and nothing more, this is Time. Our acceleration, velocity and deceleration while on the trip 'subtracting infinitesimal fractions of a second from the rest frame the rooms represent, this is time. You will find I'm not arguing against those that do, as those that do choose to not argue against me. It is those that don't properly understand what time is that, logically, choose to argue against me. And this is said in no disrespect either because if you were not in effect blinkered by the maths and had to figure out of necessity a visual model you would have arrived at these conclusions in no doubt much less time than myself.

Sure, philosophy under the guise of a science experiment is what it is. And is the only way I'd figured I could get 'thinking' people to consider the prediction I make. But that said I've arrived here at this particular forum because of the realization that the difficulties involved in doing this might relate to the supposed event actually being a real outcome, and consequently being something impossible to stop. So, the experiment still has a basis in physics, I believe, and will continue: Suppose you were a time traveler that had come from the future and traveled back 100 years to now. You could be aware of a particular event calculated to happen in 95 years. If so you would realize nothing could possibly be done to prevent that thing from occurring. So, for example we can be reasonably certain the next Transit of Venus will take place. As something that is effectively set to happen in the future we can be sure we can't change it. And that's because even though it is a very physical event, philosophically there would be no logical reason to try and stop it anyhow. It's those two things that combine now to make it a certainty. And suppose we make a prediction of another event we believe is set to happen in 100 years time then we would also expect this outcome to be unpreventable now or in the preceding future. That's if the concept of a future is also valid in reality. This is logic. I submit as evidence to this outcome being inevitable, and of the future being real, and consequently Time itself being real, the fact that this prediction, a philosophical one, and as such requiring minimal physical energy to prevent, then needs to be protected in other ways. And that these need to be in the form of (non physical) barriers being set in place. An example: I've set about to conduct a time experiment using a relatively simple prediction, yet despite this that has so far proved impossible to make as I've been obliged to reply to all responses relating to a topic I know so little of (physics) and that it has taken time and thought to make, let's face it, not a lot of difference. Next example: I've calculated that as at the time of the opening post we had only around 9 months to the point of no return on this that's if anything can be done, 2 weeks of that time have since elapsed. Another example would be if you're successful in dismissing my thread as being only philosophical (when it is not). These things and the many more easily predicted present themselves as barriers, a chronological protection series. As such evidence of a future catastrophe in this instance, and if so of the evil (negative activity) that is needed to ensure it happening.

It would be with respect to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. A Google search gives the velocity of earth at 13M mph. The fastest we could naturally travel would be around 1000 mph at the equator. So, that added to earth's velocity would only shift our point of convergence to one still well under the horizon. My statements are imprecise because I never had a lot of formal education. I am arrogant, but it sure isn't due to intellectuality. My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. As pointed out in the opening post that if Time is real, the future exists, then any event occurring in the future will be impossible to stop. If that event is physical as in the Transit of Venus, then it would take physical measures to prevent it from happening. But if a particular event has its cause in society for example, prevention attempts doomed to fail regardless, will be at a social level. So, the reason why I have not been able to present my prediction is that out of principle I have been obliged to instead answer all of the challenges to my position one at a time. A situation that I submit as evidence of both the existence of time and the predicted outcome in that this inability is consistent with chronological barriers needed to applying the necessary social fixes. The second barrier now appearing is that you have decided it (the prediction) is now irrelevant to the discussion. Do you see what I'm saying, barriers won't be physical, but will present themselves as technicalities and catch 22 situations. And all the arrogance in the world should not allow you to dismiss what I say now as I've shown you have been (simply) mistaken with your views in relation to mine.

I'm sure you are not wrong about GR as it is as it as it reads. And If anything I say is at odds with GR, then most certainly I am wrong because I don't have any credentials whatsoever when it comes to physics. But what I don't think I'm wrong about and is something that you have clearly omitted in this reply and that is the effect of 'velocity'. It's earth's 13,000,000 mph velocity that decides a point in time that anything caught up in the curvature of spacetime earth's mass causes that decides the point of convergence that we all 'gravitate' to as a result of having that very same velocity. The converging parallels common point deciding all matter on earth heads to that point in its travel through time, the resultant 'effect', gravity.

You mean what Newtonians know about physics. That's right imperial is not part of any real system and that is why it's not used all that much anymore. Feet go into yards, but yards don't go with miles. Likewise temperature does not fit in either. And one cubic foot is not a gallon for example. Whereas one cubic decimeter is one liter and is one kg of water. Sure, earth's rotation decide 'a' velocity, but this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference. So, there's no need for me to stand on the north or south pole to argue this the point that I'm making. I've noticed that in the past (doing battle with atheists) that the only people that I got consistent replies from where those that had little understanding of what it is I'm saying. So, check the intellectual arrogance and consider properly what it is that's being said. And, when you see that you have been mistaken you will want to drop off with the replies. I hope in this instance that it does not happen this way and you will have the integrity to continue. That's because my 'prediction' is far more important than this argument we are having when it comes to outcomes. Sure, but I would have weighed slightly less when I moved. And I'd meant significantly slower or faster than earth itself (rather than its surface).

You mean what Newtonians know about physics. Imperial is not part of any real system and that is why it's not used all that much anymore. Feet go into yards, but yards don't go with miles. Likewise temperature does not fit in either? And one cubic foot is not a gallon for example. Whereas one cubic decimeter is one liter and is one kg of water. You know a lot more about physics than me but despite that I'm going to stick my neck out and say you are wrong. It's the moon's greater velocity that puts it on non-convergent parallel. Whereas ours is a convergent parallel because we are traveling at the same speed as earth.

I do, but what I believe goes wrong is that we use centrifugal force as the model when we visualize an orbit. We see an invisible tether when there isn't one. I'd had it pointed out to me when I was a boy that everything may weigh on 1/6th on the moon but a ball will still hit you as hard, as its mass is still the same. So yes I've understood that for over 50 years. The reality is that the moon orbits the earth in a parallel line that only appear curved due to earth's mass distorting spacetime. The moon's 'time' due to its greater velocity is above the earth's horizon. Our 'time' is with earth's consequently it aligns with earth's center. Unlike the moon's our velocity as we attempt to take what is a converging parallel is obstructed by the earth's surface creating the illusion of there being an attractive force. We share the same velocity as earth, so we share the same path in time. It is the velocity we travel through in a converging parallel that is being seen when something falls. No gravity needed just a common velocity and a mass sufficient to distort spacetime so as to have a common center we all head for. I accept those rules. But there is no speculation as these things are scientific facts. Einstein showed that gravity is not a force but is instead things with similar velocities sharing the same time frame and consequently needing to converge (time being a single dimension). You could and would have to. Good research, but a meter gives us a liter gives us a kilogram. We travel through space at the same rate as earth. If we were slower we would be left behind, if we were faster we would be in orbit. If we were really fast we would still travel in parallel but on regular non-converging non-curved (straight) lines as we eventually leave the earth's mass distortion of spacetime.

Wrong! The moon is weightless in its orbit, having velocity it would continue on in a tangent. Wrong! If the moon were subject to gravity (was not weightless) it would collide with earth. Wrong! The moon is not falling, because for it to fall would require a force this combined with its velocity would cause a massive impact. Gravity does not exist. It is only an effect we 'see' when we drop something for example. Sorry, but you have failed the test. Next!

Here's the test: 1. The moon does not fall down to earth because it is held in place by what? 2. It does not fly of on a tangent because it is held in place by what? 3. Both questions can not have the same answer obviously. 4. Centrifugal force is the answer if a great big mechanical tether can be pointed to. Then the answer is there is no rest frame. And I'm not to know this thing is as I'd pointed out. Hardly. You would be subject to a lot of inertia manifested as gravity/time.