Edtharan

That is Zeno's Paradox and it has been around for over 2,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox

I would say that this is not the biggest reason. Lighting can change for many reasons (sun coming out from behind clouds, etc), so this by its self is not a good reason. However, the fact that if you watch the "drips" as he is pouring out the water and that they actually move from the table back into the jug (a clear violation of gravity), then that is the biggest reason that the video is a fake. Also, looking at the energy involved. Water contains a lot of energy (specific heat capacity). When you freeze something, you have to remove that energy. To release that much energy in such a short space of time would most likely have melted the glass, burned a hole in the table and other things.

But you claim these twists are also the source of Charge and that if there are these twists then it will generate a Mass, which also generates a Charge. You also go on to say that the Neutron must have charges inside it but they balance out because you can't have these twists without generating a charge. But You claim the Neutrino is a Twist without Charge. This does not fit in with the rest of your theory. Either you have a particle that is an exception, a special case where you have had to make a new consideration that in general violates the rest of your theory which leads us to wonder about the predictive (and therefore usefulness and completeness) of the entire theory. So, either the Neutrino is a special case in your theory that hints that it is incomplete or just plain wrong, or the Neutrino can not exist within your theories frame work. If this was the case then either Light would bend less or gravity would be stronger. You can not get the correct behaviour of objects within a gravitational field without using a 4th dimension. The maths just don't work out. It is the reason that Newtonian gravity does not correctly predict the path of an object within a gravitational filed. It is a space only description of gravity. Einstein use 4 dimensions with gravity and it can now accurately predict the behaviours. Therefore Gravity must be a 4 dimensional curvature as that is the only construct that accurately predicts the path of objects in it. This is a fact and just saying it isn't so does not make it wrong. You have to prove it. Nope, it doesn't. You are saying that because you have a coherent model that it must therefore be correct. Sorry, for your model to be correct it must correctly predict the outcome of experiments. You model does not make any predictions . Also, just because it is coherent, does not mean that it is correct. If you are right about the circular argument in the definition of Time, then that is a coherent model, so it must, by the same argument that coherency make something correct, be correct, if it is correct, then your theory is wrong. So, coherency does not make something correct. To think this is to make a circular argument, which was you problem with the current definition anyway. I have read the essay, and as you wanted me to stick to single points, I left the rest for later. Did you want me to post a 40 page response?

Life most likely didn't just form as cells ready to reproduce. It was through complex chemical reactions. Firstly, in today's environment, most of the chemicals that go to form living organisms are actually locked up in living organisms. Imagine that all life on Earth was killed, what kind of slurry of all the chemicals that exist in organisms break down into. Now no new atoms have been created about of nothing, the atoms that exist today (save for a few from impacting asteroids, and certain rocks brought up through volcanism) on Earth existed 4.5 (roughly) billions of years ago as well. Our bodies are made up of the atoms from millions upon millions of generations of dead organisms. So, what life has done is to "gobble" up most of the chemicals that would have gone into creating an environment in which the first life forms appeared. Next, living organisms have made vast changes as to the environment of Earth. Back when life first appeared, Oxygen (and therefore Ozone in the atmosphere) was only a trace element in the atmosphere. Without Ozone blocking UV radiation from the Sun, there was a lot more UV reaching the ground. UV is interesting in that it has enough energy to aid in several chemical reactions that are precursors to living organisms. They can break certain chemical bonds (bad for us, but good at the time) and can give enough energy to allow others to form. Also, the gasses that were in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean have likewise been changed by living organisms. Some have been removed and others added due to the chemistry of life. Because of these kinds of changes the environment is not the same as when life first appeared. I don't think it is impossible for a new type of organism to spontaneously be produced (as simple as it would be it would likely be an self reproducing amino acid complex - no fully formed and operating cells), but it is extremely unlikely due to the factors mentioned above. But it could happen. Cell like structures can spontaneously form from lipids. Have you ever blown bubbles? This is a membrane that self assembles from basic chemicals, much like how lipids can from cell like structures. Lipids, like detergent, have an oily end that repels water and a hydrophilic end that likes water. The oily ends are attracted to each other and the water liking ends are repelled. They line up in a double layer with the oily ends attached to each other and the water liking ends point outwards (and inwards). If it curves around on it's self then it joins up into a little bag, we call it a cell like structure. It is not a cell as it has none of the other processes that are necessary for life (it is just a lipid bag that contains some water). If the lipid bag just happened to from around some chemicals that produced lipids, then more lipids would be produced and eventually the lipid bag would be too big to hold it's self together and break. It would then split into two or more bags (I have actually done this with soap bubbles - it takes the right kind of soap bubbles and a bit of practice and luck, but you can sort of karate chop them in half - it is an impressive trick if you can pull it off ). Lipid bags that are better at this than others will produce more Lipid bags. Eventually there will be competition for the raw chemicals to make lipid bags and the bags that produce more slowly will be out produced. Now, there are other chemicals in the water around these lipid bags, and if they are near by when one of these lipid bags reproduces, then they might be included into the new bag. These inclusions might be harmful (destroying the chemical reactions needed to produce lipids), neutral (has no effect) or benificial (act as catalysts for the reactions, allow new chemicals to enter or waste products to leave the lipid bag, etc). A lot of these kinds of chemical reactions are linked in some process, or the waste products of one can influence the processes of another. If there was a chemical that got included that could regulate several of these other reactions, then it would end up controlling the reactions within a bag. Now it is looking more like a cell. There seems like a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in that argument, however, we know that the basics chemical reactions that I have described do occur and can occur spontaneously in the right environments. The Urey/Miller experiment showed that although life didn't spring into being in their test- tube, a lot of these kinds of precursor reactions did occur. So it is not all that surprising that in the midst of a vast ocean, bathed in UV light that encourages these reactions and full of the elements needed to produce these reactions, that cell like structures (the lipid bags) actually formed and then as they reproduced, so be game evolution through survival of the fittest (the fastest reproducer or the most efficient reproducer). Please note that this is only one of many possible ways that life could get started on Earth. So now that we know how life might have got started (and that we know it did ), we can leave off any discussion about how life got started and foccus instead on what came after: That is evolution.

Yes: The Neutrino. It can change from one type to another. No motion, just change. This has been measured. Do not use your own conclusions to prove your initial assumptions. It is a Logical Fallacy and does not support your argument. No. If you apply all the reasoning and Maths that you have presented for Time to Space, then space disappears. Do you deny that Space exists? You have used the "perception" argument against TIme. I apply the same argument to Space and you dismiss my arguments. Space could be an illusion, but because you are so caught up in the illusion, you think that space exists. This is the exact same argument you presented for Time, that it is an illusion created from our perceptions. Well I perceive that Space exists, can you prove to me that it does exist independent of my perceptions? Just "showing" me a metre does not prove that Space exists as you are using my perceptions, which might be an illusion. So, can you prove that Space exists independent of perception without being able to use that same argument to prove that Time exists? Prove it. You have made an assumption that Time does not exist. Then you use that assumption to prove that assumption. Give up the Logical Fallacies please.

I'll keep this quite short: If there exist a single object in space and no other, then according to your opinion we can't have motion. Without the ability to have motion, then we can't have Time. Ok, how about change? If we have a single particle in the universe, and it undergoes an internal state change (no motion at all), we can still determine Time . So, does this mean that Time is more fundamental than space and that we then derive space from Time? (please note I have don't know if Time is more fundamental than space, but using your thought experiment it seems to indicate that it is, rather that Time being dependant on motion through space). It is your claim that Time doesn't "exist" between events. The current definition of Time is that it does. You have to disprove that before you can make that claim. It is your claim that Time doesn't exist between events and then using that as disproof against the current theories, is a logical fallacy. To show you why, I'll do exactly the same to your theory: Space doesn't exist, therefore you can not have any gap between object, if there is no gap between objects then you can not have movement and so that disproves your theory. I wouldn't accept that argument I posted above against space existing, but that is the exact same argument that you are using against Time existing. If you can't accept that augment against space, then you can't accept your arguments against Time existing.

Charles Darwin, the guy that thought up evolution was a Christian. When he was younger (before his voyage on the Beagle) he wanted to become a minister in the church. Does this sound like someone who didn't believe in God? But, if that wavy edge gave them better flight characteristics (used less energy, or was more manoeuvrable to dodge predators), then that fly would likely produce more offspring than others. Lets have a look again at the maths. You only presented one side of the maths there. Ok. If a Pair of flies can produce 10 offspring, and then those 10 offspring produce 10 offspring each, and then follow this for 10 generations, how many flies are we talking about? 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10=10,000,000,000,000. (if each fly were to take up 1/4 cubic centimetres, how much of the Earth would be populated by flies then?) That is only 10 generations. Flies can breed in as little as 14 days (about that for the house fly). So after 140 days (not even a year), there could be that many flies. With a 1 in 1014 chance of related mutations, how many modifications like that could occur? 9,765,625,000 or so. How many base pairs on the house fly genome? Less than that I am sure. The entire genome could be rewritten in that time (140 days). Now, think about the time life has been here on Earth (according to geology and fossils), which is about 4 billion years (1460 billion days) and you can begin to see just how possible that these mutations can have occurred is. This has been presented to you without showing you the other side of the "equation". Lets look at Humans here: Let's assume the average generation time is 25 years (it was shorter in the past, but I am being conservative here). In the past many families usually consisted of many children (around 4 to 5 and more). But again, lets be conservative and only assume that 3 children make it to breeding age and produce their own offspring. So 1 couple becomes 3 couples, becomes 9 couples, becomes 27 couples, becomes 81, becomes 243 couples, becomes 729 couples, becomes 2,187 couples, becomes 6,561 couples, becomes 19,683 couples. This in 10 generations, most people can trace their family tree back this far. This would be about 250 years if we consider a generation time of a conservative 25 years. It becomes 1,162,261,467 couples after 20 generations (or 500 years) and 4,052,555,153,018,976,267 couples after 40 generations (or 1,000) years. This is more people than exist on Earth today. And this is using conservative estimates. Of course there are some complications that reduce this number (the fact that somewhere down the track people that are distantly related will becomes couples), so I wouldn't expect that many people to have lived in the last 1,000 years. Now, extend this back 4 billion years (or even just 6,000 years). We know that animals have had far shorter generation times than the Human 25 years, but even with a generation time of 25 years, there is plenty of "wiggle room" in the numbers to have rewritten a genome many many times over, even if the chances of getting related mutations is very small. The fact is, life is reproductive, exponentially so. Also, evolution is selective and does not rely solely on randomness. This selectiveness (survival of the fittest) coupled with the exponential reproductive nature of living organisms can easily account for any organism. As for the size of the Earth, we are talking about generations here. An organism can be stable over several (thousand) generations, and in that time accumulating mutations in a way that doesn't hinder reproduction. The number of mutations that can accumulate in 1,000 generations is enormous. Even with a 1 in a million mutation, in 10,000,000,000,000 organisms (the house fly example), that brings the odds to 10,000,000 in 1 that it will occur.

Simply put, Displacement is a change in Position. Motion is a change in Position over a period of Time. Ahh, ok thanks.

How does this explain Neutrinos, a neutrally charged, non compound (unlike the Neutron) particle and it has mass?

Does T/1=1/T? As someone who is not familiar with the maths could you help me out here. Thanks. What we are discussing here is the nature of Time. What is it? I am attempting to show that your proof against the current concept of Time is incorrect. You are thinking that our concept of Time is based on our concept of a Second. Because you see it this way you end up with a circular loop. A Second is a measure of Time -> A second is defined by a period of Time -> A Second measures that period of Time. That is the circular argument you have put forward. However if you see a Second as only a measure of Time and not in any way a definition of Time (the current concepts), then this circular argument does not exist. Time is what exists between two events -> A second is a measure of that period. No circular argument. If there exists any non spatial "gap" between two events (or you also take into account spatial distances), then what is left between two events is Time. If there is not gap between two events, then they occur simultaneously. It is this Non-Spatial gap that is the important thing. Do you agree: that there can be two events (things that happen) that are not separated by distance (or distance is factored out of it), and that these two events are not simultaneous? If they are not Simultaneous, then there exists some form of separation that is not spatial. But, what is this separation? It is not Movement. What then is it? It is Time. Length/Period can be used interchangeably. What you are doing here is assuming your theory is correct and then applying it as Proof that your theory is correct. This is another Logical Fallacy. Simply put, if you theory is wrong, then my statement is correct. But if your theory is right, then I am incorrect. So presenting this as evidence does not resolve the problem. You must show that a Second has no length, not just claim that it has no length. This question is very easy to answer: A Second is a unit of Measurement. Oh, and next time you at the post office, mail me a Metre. You can't can you. You might be able to mail me a length of wood that is 1 Metre long, but that is a ruler, not a metre. One of my continuing points is that whatever you have tried to do to Time, it can equally be applied to distance. So if Time is a product of Motion, then so to is Distance. But: Without distance, you can not have Displacement, let alone Movement. So, if You can get rid of Time like this then so to you get rid if Distance and there fore Motion. To make an arbitrary decision, based on human perceptions does not prove your claims. As you even pointed out, human perceptions could be an illusion. So any decision to separate Time and Space based solely on the fact that we can't "see" Time is therefore a Logical Fallacy, one that you claimed that we were falling into. By this argument: If we Measure Temperature, then it is atomic motion that is the derived effect. But hang on, didn't you say that Temperature was a derived effect of the atomic motions? So if we are measuring Motion, might not then might not Motion therefore be the derived effect of Time as that is the sequence with Temperature that you were using to explain what you meant by "derived from"? I have never claimed that Time is a dimension that offers Freedom of Movement. I have claimed that it is a dimension. I have even explained why we can't have freedom of movement in Time. It is You that is making the claim that the current definition of Time is supposed to allow us freedom of Movement like space does. I have shown how you can have a 4th spatial dimension, that under situations where freedom of movement is restricted, it would act like Time. I'll reiterate this here: Imagine a Space Ship travelling through Space. However, this ship is damaged. It's main engines are out so are it's forward and reverse thrusters. However, the Up/Down and Left/Right thrusters are working perfectly. No this ship can't change it's forward speed at all. It has no freedom of movement within that "Dimension". This shows that not having Freedom of Movement, is not dependent on the non-existence of a dimension. A Dimension can exist and you can have no freedom of movement. Now, imagine a sheet of very thin paper (in fact 1 Planck distance thick). Because there is nothing smaller than a Planck Distance, then there is no way for that sheet of paper to apply a forwards or backwards force and therefore change it's velocity. Think of us as living on a 3D membrane that is moving through a 4th dimension, then you will understand how you can have no freedom of movement in the 4th dimension, and still have motion through it. We can't change our motion through Time because we have no extent in it (that also explains the sense of now - but that is human perception and not part of my argument). But, as I have pointed out, just because we don't have freedom of movement in a dimension, doesn't mean that dimension doesn't exist. Therefore using the fact that we don't (seem) to have freedom of movement in Time, does not prove that it doesn't exist, or that we aren't moving through it. You have made an arbitrary separation between Space and Time, based on the human perception of Space and Not Time. As this is based on perception, and you have argued against using perception as evidence, we can not accept this evidence that you are presenting for this line of argument. But how do we know that it is motion as compared to displacement? Easy, there exists a non spatial separation of the events (start and end spatial points). If the two events have no extra, non spatial, separation, then it is displacement, if there is an extra, non spatial separation, then what is it? Time. Yes you do or it is called Displacement. Motion and Displacement are different. Motion requires Time to exist, Displacement can exist even if there is no Time. Motion occurs within Time, therefore Motion must be dependant on Time, not the other way around. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. However, there is scientific proof that Motion is dependant on Time. There is also evidence that there exists an unperceived 4th dimension that has all the properties that is necessary for it to be Time. The curvature that light shows as it passes a gravitating object can only exist if light doesn't move in straight lines, or that there is a 4th dimension. When object enter into this "Gravity Well" they show a distortion in Time. We know that there is a 4th dimension form the way things (mainly Light) move within that gravity well. The distortions in Time match the distortions that Light would have if Time was that 4th Dimension. So there is actual scientific proof that there is a 4th dimension and that it is Time. Wrong again. Distance is the convention of Measuring Motion through space. If something move through Space, then it has moved a Distance, not a Time. This is a better definition of the unit of Measurement call a Second. This is not a definition of Time. Just as a Metre is a unit of Measurement for Distance. It was one Topic. That you were misrepresenting what the current concept of Time is. I was jut pointing out where you have done this and how it impacts your later conclusions. It was one topic.

Sorry , long post again I know, but there were a few things closely related that needed to be covered. I'll admit I am not very good at maths (borderline disnumeric). This is why I asked for you to show your working. I did say that I could be wrong on whether or not you had made the calculations correctly. I'll assume that the formula is correct and I have made a mistake. It would be much appreciated if you can show your working on it. Thanks. Ok, I could be wrong, but what would the results of the equation (from your essay): T = λ / ( λ / t) if the two different lambdas had different values, that is you were comparing two different wavelengths of light (λ being the wavelength). The result would be that "T" is not equal to "t" which invalidates your conclusion that T=t. Or we could check if this is used correctly by asking what if "T" didn't equal "t". Can this give a description of reality? Can such a situation exist? and the answer to both is that they can which disproves that "T" must equal "t" and therefore your argument that our current definition of Time is circular. Maybe I should be just more explicit in my statements here: The "Day" was defined by the period of Time between two events. (1) Midday and (2) Midday the next day. That is the Measurement called "Day" is the Time between two events separated by Time. A "Day" is a measurement of Time, not a period of Time in and of its self. A Second is a fraction of the Measurement call a Day, therefore a Second is a Measurement too. A Second, regardless of how we choose to make the measurement or what apparatus we choose to use to mark out the two events that mark the start or finish of the period of Time, is still just a fraction of this initial definition. Please note the events are not part of the measurement, but just define the start and end of the measurement. And yes, I know that we use atomic clocks to mark out the current definition of the length of a Second. And we call that a "Definition of a Second", but this is a linguistic short hand for: A Definition of the Length of a Second. Not, I repeat, the definition of what a Second actually is (which is a measurement of Time, not Time its self). What I am getting at here is about the concept of Measurement. You seem to think that because the "ruler" that we use to measure a Second uses EM or Motion as part of the mechanics of it, that the thing we are measuring is dependant on the mechanics that we use for the "Ruler". All these arguments you are bringing against my point: that I might have the definition of a Second incorrect, my numbers are out or whatever, is just missing my point altogether. Again here in black and white, the mistake at the core of your argument against the current definition of Time (also not that this is not an argument against your essay, just your approach to the argument against the current definition). What you use to measure something is not the thing that you are measuring. If you understand this you will see why your argument that our current definition of Time is not circular because A Second is a definition of a unit of measurement and not the thing we are measuring (Time). Your argument is that our Definition of a Second is dependent on our definition of Time, then you then (incorrectly) go on to say that our definition of Time is reliant on our definition of a Second. Our definition of Time is not dependent on our definition of a Second. A Second is a definition of a unit of measurement of Time. Because it is a measurement of something it can not be the thing itself. Therefore our definition of a second is not the definition of Time. Remember this is not an argument against your essay at the moment, but it is an argument against your argument that the current definition of Time is wrong. I am not making an argument against your use of motion to define Time. You have got hold of the complete wrong end of the bat on that. No, it only means that the mechanisms that we use to define our "Ruler" (the Second) are intimately associated with the motion of light. It is a big jump to go form "We have this mechanism to measure define the length of a Second, to Time is dependant on the workings of the mechanism. I am still arguing Measurement here and not arguing against the aim of your essay. Only the methods you are using to make you points. No it is a Measurement of a Distance, not Distance itself. Distance is what we are measuring. The Metre is just the unit we are using to measure it with. What you use to measure something is not the thing you are measuring. . We are using the motions of the pocketwatch to measure Time. (I wonder how many time I will have to repeat this until you understand it an it's implications) And this is where I have a problem with the aim of your essay. How can you have motion if there is no time for it to occur in? If it is Motion that causes time (like the motion of atoms cases heat), then Motion must be able to occur without reference to Time. If Motion can't occur, without reference to Time, then this is a circular argument: Movement causes Time, but how do we know it is Movement rather than Displacement? Because it occurs over a period of Time. That is: Movement causes Time because Movement is change in position (displacement) over a period of Time. That is a circular argument. If you are going to use Movement to Define what Time is (rather than the measurements of it), then you can not use Time to define Movement at all (other wise movement is dependent on the existence of Time being already there). Nothing in any of your essays address this dilemma. Whenever you have referenced Motion you have had to invoke it occuring in Time as well. Time had to have existed, therefore, for you to have your motion (as you defined it in your essays).

Yes. TV transmission is carried out in the Radio wave part of the spectrum. In the Very High Frequency and ultra High Frequency bands. The higher the frequency of EM wave, the more energy it takes to transmit it. As IR is a higher frequency than RF (radio frequency), it take more power to transmit over the same distances. Even so, the power requirements of transmitting RF over a significant difference is quite high. Broadcasting a signal also drastically increases the the power requirement. As the signal has to cover a much greater volume than a narrow beam would. It is a matter of the amount of data. If you are just transmitting a file, then a 100mb AVI movie file has the same requirements as 100mb of text files. Streaming video on the other hand requires that the link be stable (as interruption of the signal will cause missed data). The other problem is interference. With IR there are many IR sources (people, sunlight, etc) and these can cause interference. With RF, there are not all that many strong RF sources (except human made ones and that is why RF transmission is regulated) on Earth (there is some and they too can cause interference).

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not saying that the current "Length" of a second is still determined by the rotation of the Earth, but that a Second (as a concept) is rooted in the concept of a fraction of a period of Time. Farsight is using incorrectly interchanging these two definitions of a second. He is arguing that our definition of the Second as a unit of Measure (the atomic clock) is the same as the definition of a Second as a definition of Time. These are not the same (they are very similar). Yes, it is a semantic difference, but it is also a very important conceptual difference. If the Concept of a Second as a definition of Time is the Same as the Second as a Measure, then what we are using to measure (the second) is the same as what we are measuring. But you can't use a ruler to measure it's self (the you always get the measure equals the measuring device or as Farsight put it T=t). My point stands. Yes, Farsight had the definition of the Measurement correct, but he didn't have the definition of the concept correct. In linguistic terms what he did is similar to interchanging the meanings of Live (as in "I live in that house") and Live (as in "a live wire"). Again, this was exactly the same as what I just pointed out above. There are two definitions: The Metre as a Measurement and the Metre as a definition of Distance. Also, I did point out that the circumference does change over time and so this as a definition of a measurement is not all that accurate. Yes as constants for measurements they are very accurate. But as these definitions don't take into account the historical fact that they were originally a definition of them selves (distance and Time) as a "fraction of a measurement".

We know that Space is expanding, What if the Flow of Time is due to the fact that Space/Time is expanding.

I have been critiquing Farsight's essays since "Time Explained 1.0" (along with a lot of other people here). The advice we have been giving him has not had much of an impact. many of the errors that we pointed out in 1.0 have been repeated throughout the essays and have made it into this essay too. I really thought he wanted our feedback so as to improve and correct his essays, but it seems (from what is written) that he is not interested at all in what we have to say as he has not corrected those mistakes that were found. Farsight, when (and if) you read this, please take note that my following critique (not criticism) of your essay is intended for you to be able to correct mistakes and to attempt to create a better and more correct essay. I would not have taken the trouble to read and analyse this essay if I was not interested in it and what you have to say in it. Also, so far I have only skimmed a few pages of it, so this is not a complete analysis, but it is highlighting what immediately jumps out as being incorrect or showing logical and reasoning errors. Because there are so many errors that I have found, I will take it page by page. Page 2 (page 1 is just in introduction): A second is actually 1/86400th of a day. That is the definition of a second. The definition of a second you propose is just an accurate measure of it. You got it back to front. We already had a definition of a second: as a fractional part of another period of time. Using accurate physics and measurement techniques we determined that 9,192,631,770 detected photons from caesium-133 is the same as 1/86400th of a day. Through accurate measurement we have reached the modern definition of the period of a Second. The term "Second" is therefore in no way dependant on the motions of the Caesium atoms. That is just a system that gives us an accurate yardstick. If we had to wait a day, then divide that up every time we wanted to work o0ut how long a second is, it would get rather tedious. So we looked for repeatable and regular events that we could determine was equivalent to 1/86400th of a day. You start with Frequency=1/T and Frequency=v/λ. Wouldn't combining them give 1/T=v/λ not T = λ / v,? Could you show your working on how you reached T = λ / v. The metre is defined as a fraction of the distance around the equator of the Earth (1/4,000,000th of the circumference - when it was defined it was assumed that the circumference of the Earth was 40,000km and the Metre was 1/4,000,000th of the circumference). We now know better and the circumference is actually 4,007,516 metres. Also, due to tidal stresses and shifts in the Earth's crust, this is not the most accurate definition of a Metre. Because of this we looked for a more accurate definition of the Yardstick (or should that be the metre ruler) we call 1 metre. Because Light moves at a constant velocity (we could have used anything that moved at a constant velocity) we decided to use that. As we have an accurate measure of Time (note: this is not a definition of time, just a way to accurately measure a period of time) - The Atomic Clock - we can therefore use the object travelling with a constant velocity (Light) to mark out a period of distance. You have tried to prove that the current definition of Time is circular, but you have ignored the historical aspect of Measurement. The definitions of Metre, or Second are not dependant on each other, however, the tools that we use to measure them today do use the fact that we can convert between them using motion. Neither is dependant on Motion, but conversion between them is. This is what I have been repeatedly trying to get through to you with my repeated statement: What you use to Measure something is NOT the thing you are Measuring. This is just a bit of mathematical sleight of hand. You might think this is true, but you have then fooled yourself. Firstly this is dependant on the second error in your essay. You had Frequency=1/T and Frequency= v / λ and combined them to T = λ / v. But, I though combining them should be 1/T=v/λ as the common term is "Frequency". Also, even if you are correct when you combined the two formulae, this doesn't show anything. All it says is that Time=Time. Distance=Distance too you know. This result does not mean anything. You can't extract any useful information from it. What if "T" and "t" were different values or λ had different values in each case (λ1 and λ2)? Then this would produce a nonsense result where you could have 3=6. I have seen similar mathematical sleight of had to show that 1=0 (have a look at some of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%3D0 ). Therefore this equation is only true if and only if T=t and λ1=λ2. For all other combinations of T and t, this equation is false. Since the equation is wrong, the conclusions are also wrong. The definition of a Second is not circular, it is only because you have made mistakes that you have ended up with that conclusion. Since the rest of this section (at least - if not the whole essay) is dependant on the "fact" that our definition of Time is circular and therefore needs fixing, you need to reassess this entire premise of your essay. You can not use this as an argument against the current definition and as support for your own. To do so is to argue against your own construction (which is not even mathematically correct). It is in fact a Strawman Argument. Another nail in this paragraph's coffin is that "A Second" is a scale, not the definition of Time. Just as "A Metre" is not distance, but a scale with which we can compare two different distances. If a Metre was actually a definition of distance, then it would be dependant on the direction and position it was defined in. We could not use it in another place at all. However, being a scale, we can use it in multiple places as it allows us to compare the scale differences between two regions. Such as it is with a "Second". this too is a scale as we can use it to compare two different periods of Time. Not only that, we can use Movement to covert between Time and Distance. Movement is a conversion factor between Time and Distance. However, Frequency is dependant on the scale that we call 1 Second. Remember a Second is not defined as a certain number of periods of radiation, but a fraction of the time it takes the Earth to revolve 360 degrees. We just use those periods of radiation as an accurate measure of that fraction of rotation. And in both cases we are just using change and motion to Measure Time. Remember earlier I established that what you use to measure something it not the thing you are measuring. So, even if you are 100% correct and our definition of a Second is circular, that does not mean that our definition of Time is circular. A Second is what we use to measure Time. What you use to measure something is not the thing that you are measuring. Understand now?

But what is the OS? Windows, Linux or Mac?

But what then is a Neutrino. Neutrinos have mass, there fore must be a "Twist" too (from Mass Explained this kind of Twist is also used to explain Mass), but it has no charge (that is why it is a Neutrino). It has antimatter counter parts (therefore a reverse twist) that is also neutral in charge. When they collide, they too annihilate and release energy. They seem to perform all the tricks that all your other twists do, but do not display any "charge" as is predicted by your theory.

It's not exactly because they are close. Planets are close enough that they are actually a visible "Disc". When atmospheric disturbances distort this, instead of being completely refracted away form our eyes, because it is a disc, only some of the light gets refracted away, and another part of the disc gets refracted to our eyes. This is why they don't winkle. Stars, although much, much bigger than a planet are far enough away that they appear as a point of light with no discernible disc. When the atmosphere diffracts the light, all the light from that star is diffracted away from our eyes and it is no longer visible for a fraction of a second (and then it is refracted back as the disturbance moves on).

No. When I ask for explanations you just point to something that has had doubt expressed as to whether it is true or not and claim that is proof. But when the claim you pointed to is examined, it points to your initial claim (the one we want an explanation for) as proof of its validity. This is circular reasoning. You do know that "Moot" means not (or no longer) relevant? So you are accusing me of smothering something that does not apply to the discussion at hand. And, as I have explained many, many times: It is hard to answer your questions and respond to your posts in a few short words. If all I werre to do is post: "I disagree" then you would not have a chance to understand what my reasons against your claims are. You should be flattered that I take time to answer fully your posts, and not be put off by the fact that they are long. It means that I am taking an interest in what you are doing and what you are proposing. Not just accusations I'm afraid but I have provided evidence to that end as well. You have used strawman arguments right from the beginning and even though we have repeatedly pointed out the same Strawman again and again, you repeatedly use it. This can only be construed as either that you are ignoring what we are saying, or are deliberately using this strawman argument. You keep making the claim that because we are using an EM effect to mark out a period of Time that our definition of Time is inherently based on Electromagnetics. Ever since Time Explained 1.0 this has been pointed out that this is an incorrect view of the current definition of Time and yet you still use it and claim that it is the current definition of Time. When it is published in a peer review journal, let me know. I am willing to engage in dialogue, but in a logical manner (no logical fallacies please). Once you stop misrepresenting what is currently understood and accepted, then we can engage in a discussion. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt once again. I will assume that what you think the current theory and definition of Time was taught to you incorrectly. The fact is right from the beginning this concept that you have presented as the current concept of Time has been absolute wrong. Since it is wrong, don't use it or base any conclusions off of it. I have tried (on many occasions) to correct this error, but may be it was that I was not clear enough: The concept of Time that you that you thought was the current concept of Time is completely wrong. What you have been arguing you theory against is not the current concept of Time, but one that either you made up or was taught to you wrongly. Do I need to clear that up at all? Sorry if I was blunt in my last post, but I have been trying to correct this basic mistake that you are making (that is the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the current concept of Time) and I was a little frustrated (I am about as frustrated as you seem to be with me).

The simpler the question the harder it usually is to explain it. Take a complex question: What is the shape of the left handed isomer of the Sucrose molecule? That is fairly easy to answer. A single picture will answer that one. Now take this: Why is it that shape? That is a simple question, but it is harder to answer. So the question is "What is Time?" This means that it is likely to be very hard to answer. Also, because I am using thought experiments to highlight situations where your claims produce strange results, then those thought experiments take up a lot of room. (oh and I don't use l337 sp33k) . Sorry, the Internet is not a peer review journal. Since "Mass Explained" has not been submitted for peer review, it is not really a good source for reference. If you theory of Time relies on that, then go get that one peer reviewed first before you use it as proof of your Time theory being correct. Remember, if your initial premises are incorrect, the any conclusions you draw from them will also be incorrect. You have not proved your "Mass Explained" yet, so as far as I know it is wrong. As you seem to imply that your Time theory relies on that Mass Explained being correct, then you are building a castle in the clouds with no support (or at best a very unstable and shaky support). Get your foundations right, then "Move on a bit". You don't build a house form the roof down, you build it form the foundations up. You also don't start erecting the walls until your foundations are secure. That is only a claim. You must first prove it. I have been following your essays, and they are a circular argument. It has been going sort of like this: Mass Explained proves what is in Time Explained. Time explained proves what is in Mass Explained. One of the problems you seem to have with the current theories of time is that you think it is involved with circular arguments. But you have done the exact same thing. Also, the fact is that the circular arguments you claim are in the current theory of time are due to a misrepresentation of those theories in what amounts to a Strawman argument. But according to Einstein the faster something moves the slower it will age. You even agree on this fact, although you claim it is only an illusionary effect of motion, it still giving the effect that a clock will appear to run slower if it is moving. So, if the Hot atoms in a clock are causing more movement, then according to you a Hot clock will run slower. If you heat up a clock, it does not run slower. The current theories of Time do allow time travel, but only in very specific circumstances (it's not an everyday occurrence). In fact the situations are so specific, that they might even be physically impossible in this Universe. No wonder we haven't observed them yet. Your theory requires the speed of light to vary. But there are other processes that use the speed of light and aren't related to speed. IF the speed of light varied, then we should see it influence these processes. One of which is the conversion of Matter to energy during Nuclear Fusion in Stars. If the speed of light varied (with motion or gravity), then the spectra given off by these start would be different to what is predicted by a Universe that uses a constant velocity of light. So here we have a testable prediction that differs between your theory and the current theory. However, the current theory perfectly matches with observations, which means that since your theory give a different result in this circumstance, you theory must not be able to predict what is actually observed and therefore your theory must be incorrect. E=MC^2. If M is the same (that is we are using the two different theories to make a prediction about the exact same situation) and we let C vary, then we will get a different value for E than if C was supposed to be a constant. This is the strawman you keep presenting. The current definition of Distance and Time is not defined by light. We use Light to define the scale of measurement. It is like the fact that the "Foot" as a unit of measurement was defined by the length of some King's foot. Does this mean that the distance from London to Glasgow has lots of Kings standing along it? No. Just because we use Light as a scale (just as the King's foot is a scale), the Distance or Time we measure eith that scale does not mean that what we are using that scale to measure is made up of what the scale is. If you keep using this "proof": That Light some how defines distance and Time, then you are not only just repeating a Strawman, but are doing so knowingly (and therefore are deliberately lying). You have been told that this is an incorrect representation of what really is the actual definition of Distance and Time. No not keep using it. You keep making unsupported claims. Until you provide support for your claims, we can not just accept them. And yet you ask me to explain why you are wrong in less words. That's unfair.

Not Older. You would age slower than someone who didn't move. Each particle of your body has it's own "timeline". If you were to move your hand really fast then it would age slower than the rest of your body (actually any movement would do, it's just that moving it really fast would allow such a thing to be more detectable). Your body is not 1 object, but trillion upon trillions of particles (electrons, quarks, etc) and each of those is "independent" from the others. It is just that they are bound together by forces. This would depend on your method that you used to time travel. AFAIK there are 3 main ways to achieve backwards Time travel: 1) Faster Than Light: This method seems to only work by numbers. It is probably physically impossible to to. IF you plug in a speed value greater than the speed of light into some of the relativity equations, then you end up with a value of T that is negative -that is travelling backwards in Time. 2) Relativistic Wormholes: With this method, you need to set up a wormhole (which are only theoretically possible) and then move one end very fast (the closer to C the better) away form the first end, then bring them back together at the high speed. According to relativity one end will be "younger" than the other. If you enter the younger end of the Wormhole, then you will emerge from the other end at an earlier time (that is you will have travelled backwards in time). The problems with this are that wormholes are only theoretical (but as far as science knows there is no reason that they can't exist) and that you can't travel back to a point before you created the wormhole. 3) Really distort space: If you distort space/time enough with a mass (it also needs to be moving in the right way too), then you can create a loop where the future of a particle will intersect with the past of its self. Designs I have heard of for this is if you took an infinitely long cylinder and then spun it along the long axis at close to the speed of light, then it would distort space time in the correct way and orbiting around the spinning cylinder would take you forwards or backwards in time (depending on the direction you travelled). Needless to say an infinitely long cylinder is a little hard to come by, plus, and material we currently have (or is considered feasible) would break apart long before the cylinder reached anywhere near fast enough. However, none of these would result in an infinite amount of force applied in a collision. Actually there is maybe one more method, but there is no real agreement on whether it is physically correct. Under some interpretations of QM, antimatter could be considered to be ordinary matter travelling backwards in time. If you were to record the movements of an electron, and then played them in reverse, this would give them the exact same movements as a particle of Antimatter would in that same situation. So if the electron was repelled by a Negative charged plate, when you press the rewind button on the remote, it would look like the particle was attracted to the Negative plate, just as a Positron (and antimatter Electron) would. They would effectively be indistinguishable from each other. So, if this is true, then you could achieve reverse time travel by converting all you matter into antimatter, travelling back wards as far as you need to, then reconverting your self back into normal matter. To do this would take as much energy as you would get from slamming your self against an equal mass of antimatter. This would be a lot of energy. E=MC^2: E= (Your mass in grams + The mass of your backwards in time counterpart in grams) * 300,000 * 300,000. Or for a 70kg person: 12,600,000,000,000,000 Joules (not infinite, but a very large amount! ). Well the way I see it, except using the wormhole method, you never actually leave this space/time. So you should be able to interact with other matter and energy that exists within that space time. You are just moving relative to it in a way that you are moving backwards though Time. So you could grab someone, and they could touch you (except with the antimatter method there would be an almighty bang ).

Infinity and Zero are my two favourite numbers . You can do some amazing things with them and without them number theory would not be possible as we know it. In fact a lot of today's technology (computers included) could not be created (or work) without the concept of Zero.

Sometimes it is easier to use a linguistic short cut when talking about a subject. I am sure that you will use a comment like "Typing into a browser" when talking about how you post stuff on the Internet. This is a linguistic short cut for the whole complex set of processes that go on from when you press a button on your keyboard to when it is displayed on the screen and then having your computer send that information across the net to the server, then when other people download that data and have it translated onto their screens (even just describing what is supposed to happen is complex, let along the processes that go on to make it happen). So when someone says that something "happened long time ago" they are not referring directly to distance by the word "long". Indirectly they are, as Time is a Dimension (see other posts) and any gap between two points along any dimension can be considered a "Distance" (but the speaker probably isn't aware of that). Here is a question: How much Width does Length have? The answer is none. So does Time have a Width?. Well it has exactly the same amount of Width as Length does. Each Dimension is perpendicular to all others, regardless if it is the 2nd dimension, the 4rd dimension or the 1,000,000th dimension. Being perpendicular mean that it has none of the "directions" that all other dimensions have. So Time of course can not have any "Width" or Height, or Length". It has Time. So Time is not "Dimensionless" if it has no Width. Length has no Width either and it is a dimension. Well what we do is compare one measurement to an other. We have set a standard definition of what a Metre is. So when we measure something as 3.7 metres, we are really saying that something is equivalent to 3 and 7 tenths of the standard. Or to put it another way as a ratio 3.7:1. To "measure" something in the most basic form is simply to put two arbitrary points along it. That is all it is. We can then put it to a scale (the standard two points) and give us a ratio between the standard two points and the two points we just marked. This is why: The thing we are using to measure is not the thing we are measuring. IF it was, then we could not get a meaningful ratio, it would always be 1:1. Now we can use the concept of "dimension" (that is lines of measurement perpendicular to all other lines of measurement) to set up a system by which we can get a unique value for each point we can possibly mark out. If the directions of measurement were not perpendicular to all other directions, then it would be possible to either describe a point with more than one set of values, or one set of values could describe more than one point. The values we use to describe a point would no longer be unique for each point.

A theory that can not be disproved that unifies all the forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces) would be a major discovery. I have heard of many attempts, but I have yet to hear of one that actually does it. If you have discovered this theory, then present it to a reputable scientific journal and then stand ready for the Nobel Prize. To my knowledge, what you are claiming does not exist (yet). I think that there might be a Grand Unified Theory, but so far you have not presented any evidence of it and so you can not use this in argument. Please stick to "Evidence" rather than "Claims". I'm sorry, but this is really stretching it. Using this same line of reasoning, I could claim that it is because of the Weak Nuclear Force and not Electromagnetics (neutrons and protons are held together by it) and thus disprove that it is electromagnetic in origin. Yes, the Pendulum is made up of Electrons, Protons and Neutrons, but this is not the cause of the event. The event is not even a gravitational event (although it is gravity that causes the event - cause is not effect). The event is an arbitrary, where the pendulum reaches a point high enough in it's swing to flip a gear mechanism, which turn cogs and gears, which turns the hand of the clock. Yes, movement is involved, but that is not important. The fact is that we have used a regular, but arbitrary, event to mark out a point in time. Just as the spin flip involved in an atomic clock is a regular, arbitrary event, or the rotation of the Earth aligning the Sun so that it appears over head is an arbitrary and regular event used to mark out a period of Time (the rotation of the Earth is not EM in origin - it's not even gravitational - it is inertial). All these do involve movement. But we are only using movement as changes, as events. But just as the ink you use to make out points on a ruler do not determine what that ruler is made of, these events and the fact that we used motion as the marker, has nothing to say about what the underlying structure (or origin, or composition) of Time is. The events that we use are just the marks on the ruler. What we use to measure something is not the thing which we are measuring. Events are used to measure Time, they are not what make up time. Well. All movement stops at absolute 0. So does this mean that the hotter something is the faster it is moving through Time? IF motion causes Time, then the amount of Motion must have some influence on Time. Hot objects have more motion in their atoms than cold object, therefore if Motion does determine Time, then hotter objects are experiencing faster Time. But, we know that the faster something moves the slower it appears in Time, this is the opposite of what you are saying. IF we extrapolate from observation and follow your theory, then at 0 movement an object should experience infinite time. Not: No Time. SO your theory when applied to actual observations produces results that do not match with further observations. In other words you theory has no predictive value. And your statement shows that you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, the Ruler is Made of light and we use the ruler to measure distance. BUT What we use to measure is not the thing we are measuring. You keep making this same mistake again and again. Just because a ruler is made of light does not mean that distance is light. Just because we use an event that includes motion or Electromagnetics to measure Time does not mean that Time is Motion or that it is Electromagnetics.

Yes, metres arn't seconds, but we do have a conversion factor. What is being discussed is "What is dimension?". At it's most basic a Dimension is "A direction of Measurement perpendicular to all other directions of measurement". So, if we pick a "direction" and any line drawn in that direction is called the X Dimension. Now draw a line that is perpendicular to that (that is at right angles) and call that Y. Now draw a third line at right angles at both the X and Y lines and you call that Z. But, what would a line drawn at right angles to the X, Y and Z lines look like? Well to answer this we need to look more at what me mean by a real dimension. Imagine that we have drawn these on a block of clear rubber. We can take a portion of that rubber and give it a twist. This causes a rotation of the dimensions, but, any object embedded within that rubber gets rotated too so as far as it's point of view is concerned it is the rest of the rubber that has been distorted. It would think that its Z dimension is the same as before the distortion of the rubber started. So, if we assume that dimensions can be distorted, then we can look for them. What we need is something we know that always travels in a straight line. Well, according to Newton any object that is travelling and is not acted upon by an outside force travels in a straight line. We know that light travels in a straight line, so we can use this as our line. So if light travels in a straight line, then two parallel beams of light (or even slightly diverging beams) will never cross each other. Two distant stars can serve as the sources of these beams. When observing two such stars in open space (no intervening objects) we can see that they are parallel and that the never diverge. However, if a large mass passes between us and the stars, then we can see a distortion and then the two light beams do cross. We call this gravitational lenseing and it is a result of the fact that space is being bent and twisted by the gravity of the object. So, by this we can be sure that gravity can rotate one dimension into another. But, when we examine the path of the light rays closer, we find that not only is there a distortion in space, but also of time. Einstein worked out the mathematics of how to account for the distortion of space and it works out that if you rotate a bit of the 3 spatial dimensions into 4th dimension and a bit of that 4th dimension into the spatial dimensions the sums work out. It accounts for the missing values and predict what it should look like. This 4th dimension, because it is a dimension, must be perpendicular to all the other dimensions. That is it is at right angles to the X,Y and Z dimensions. Further examination of such phenomena showed that according to different observers, as a light beam passed through into gravitational field, those where the field is strongest (nearer the gravitating object) would see the light speed up (a higher frequency) where as compared to the observer near the object, someone further away would see it slowed down (lower frequency). Since light can not be slowed down or sped up (it has a constant speed - doe to other reasons) the only conclusion (along with other evidence too) is that it is Time that is speeding up and slowing down. Time is being distorted by the gravity of the object. Now when you do the sums and look for the distortion for the 4th dimension it exactly matches the distortions predicted for Time. So, this means that Time must be the dimension that the spatial dimensions are being distorted into. Time, must therefore be a Dimension perpendicular to Space. When you use any coordinate system, you are actually representing points along dimension. So if we have a point in space, we can represent it by using just 3 dimensional points (X,Y,Z). But since Time is a dimension perpendicular to space we can also give it a co-ordinate system (T), and put together we have (X,Y,Z,T). Using this 4 dimensional coordinate system, we can precisely map the distortions that a gravitational object has on the surrounding objects. We can then check the results of those calculations and compare them to actual observations. What we find is that if we only used 3 dimension we get an incorrect mapping, but if we use 4 dimension then we get the correct mapping. This confirms that Time must be the 4th dimension (otherwise the mappings or predicted behaviours of the objects would be different from what is observed).