Edtharan

It comes close. However, in the last part, you state that a nice new statue is there for you to pick up, but you don't give a reason for that statue to be erected. In the initial example the statue is erected because you brought it back. You broke the loop with the statue eroding away so that eventually there was no statue to bring back to be erected. Once a new statue is created at some point in the timeline, an entirely new timeline is entered into. One where you didn't bring a statue back from the future, but one that was carved in the intervening period of time. This new proposed time line can lead into the paradoxical time line and can therefore be the source of the statue (that is the solution to the paradox is that the statue was constructed in a different time line altogether). The main problem with this solution is it side steps the entire loop situation. It states the "loop" starts with a statue being carved after a time traveller returns from the future, the cycle then continues with time traveller finding the statue in the future and returning with it. It eventually weathers away and the loop is exited. It is more like the loop on a roller-coaster than a true closed loop. It is an open loop rather than a closed loop. Nice try though

no net work, but you can look at it as work opposing other work. The force of gravity would accelerate the piano towards the ground. However, you must expend an equal amount of work directly in the opposite direction to keep the piano stationary. So, yes you are doing work, it is just that there is an equal and opposite amount of work being done too.

Think of the time line like a Laser beam. You fire the beam towards a beam splitter (this is the event that would create two separate time lines). After the beam hits the splitter, two separate beams are created. One beam travels towards a light meter that detect the arrival of the laser beam (to represent a time line where no time travel occurs) - Path 1. The other is shone towards a mirror that bounces the light beam directly back towards the beam splitter (this is is to represent a time traveller travelling back through time towards the critical event) - Path 2. We adjust the position of the mirror so that the reflected light does not deconstructively interfere with the light coming from the splitter on the second path. If we turn down the laser so that only 1 photon is emitted at a time, then we should get half the photons reaching the detector (taking path 1) and that means that the other half of the photons are travelling along path 2. In terms of time travel, this second path is a time traveller travelling back in time and not interfering with events to the point that they could not go back in time and change events. Now we adjust the mirror so that it's reflected light would exactly cancel out the incoming light (deconstructive interference). This makes any light travelling along path 2 impossible. What we will find is that the photon detector in path 1 will detect 100% of the photons. This is what the situation would be like if a time traveller changed the past to the extent that they could not have been able to travel back in time (like killing their grandfather, father, mother, or any other ancestor). This negative interference essentially acts as protection against drastic changes to the past. Remember, if you don't exist to go back into the past, you can't go back into the past. Therefore, if you are back in the past, you must be able to go back into the past, and a scenario where you can't go back into the past can not exist. So it doesn't. Or try this one: You travel into the future and find a statue of you as the first time traveller. As proof of this you take the statue and return to the past. As the reward, the people erect the statue that you brought from the future as proof of your accomplishments (however at some time in the future it mysteriously vanishes, assumed to be stolen by some vandal). Question: Who carved the statue? (and extra points if you can say why the statue doesn't weather away?).

As far as I know, your hands can get warmer or cooler because the blood flow can be altered. If this was not the case, your hands would not be able to keep a constant temperature and would fluctuate depending on the temperature outside (it does a bit, bit not to the extent that it would if we did not have the ability to heat and cool our own hands). Humans are mammals and mammals are endothermic (commonly called warm blooded). It means that we have the ability to control our body temperature. So I would not be surprised that we can't change the temperature of our hands.

Surfboard (yes I am an Australian ). Once I am surfing it it is no longer coming at me. If you are in deep enough water, you could even just ride it out (if it is not breaking). How much ginger ale would you need to stave off a 10m high wave of nausea?

I got Satirical. Sarcasm might be the lowest form of wit, but sometimes it's the highest that some people understand... Talk about sarcasm. Oh wait, I'm supposed to satirical

At the rate we could realistically expand through the galaxy, it is quite possible that a supernova might go off near enough to us (and the few colonised systems). Such an event would emit lots of harmful radiation and could quite possibly wipe us out. IIRC if such an event occurred within a few hundred light years of us it would be enough (can any one confirm this? - How close would a supernova have to be to actually wipe us out and are there any stars that could do this in a few million years?).

I would be doing pretty much what I am doing now. Due to an injury I am unable to work and am on disability support. So I sort of am in this situation now (only with less money). A lot of the replies have been along the lines of spending sprees and such, but the income is not that much (remember it is just an average, middle income). I would try to keep my spendings at the same level that I do now. I have a satisfactory level of luxury (computer, books, social life, etc) and I don't see a need to have to spend more money on luxuries. considering that it would actually be a big income increase for me, this would mean that my savings would be significant if I could keep my spending around what it currently is, but I don't really know what I would spend it on.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. But cigarettes are legal. Like alcohol. And it is legal. You make certain activities illegal to undertake while under the influence, and set a limit of acceptable intake (essentially the law about being drunk in public). For every argument on keeping certain drug illegal, it also applies to the current drugs that we do consider legal. This either means that these arguments are not good arguments, or that the reason that certain drugs are legal and others aren't is due to emotional knee-jerk responses.

I would have even just settled for a thought experiment that highlighted the differences between his theory and currently accepted theories. In another thread he said he was leaving, so it might be that he has left.

And taken out of context too. That was (if you had read the post that it was a response to) was a discussion about the relevance of the analogies that Farsight had used in his essays. I was endeavouring to explain that the over use analogies will be seen as an unscientific attempt at a theory. Even if the theory as correct, just using analogies will not allow the reader to make any meaningful conclusions with the theory, which, in a scientific work makes them next to useless. If disbelief is paying lip service to the Scientific principle, then every scientist in the world is only paying lip service to the Scientific principle. The whole point about the scientific principle and the reason it works as well as it does is because of disbelief. That doesn't mean he was right. Einstein made one of the biggest contributions to Quantum Mechanics with his photoelectric effect. Yet even to his deathbed he refused to accept QM. So because he didn't accept QM as being correct, after he discovered the Photoelectric effect, does that make QM wrong? No, just because he made various statements later in life does not make his earlier work obsolete. It is a false argument to use this. Sure, you might use it to initiate investigations, conduct experiments, but unless those experiments disprove his earlier work the comments made do not mean that we have to change current theories. That is an axiomatic argument right there. Please prove this claim (or disprove the counter claim that we are moving through time). You accuse us of making axiomatic claims, well you are just as guilty it seems. Ok. Jump 1 meter out of a spaceship orbiting the moon. Now jump back 1 meter. You can't can you. So this would be exactly the same as us trying to jump back 1 second in time (actually to jump back 1 second would really be like us having to jump 300,000,000 metres). Or cross over the event horizon of a black hole. Now cross back out. Again. You can't can you. So, by these arguments (not being able to freely move in space) we can conclude that space is just an illusion and does not exist. Wow, what a relief, now I don't have to get up to get my dinner from the kitchen. Yet another axiomatic argument. One day I might just keep a running total. you know. If that is how you have been reading our posts. No wonder you don't think we have actually been posting science. We have been wasting out time taking the time to explain our reasoning behind those claims, we have wasted time by referring to experiments that have been carried out. Who is being dishonest here. You deliberately did not acknowledge all the explanations, the maths, the references, etc that we have put in. What if we just summed up you essays as "Time doesn't exist" (or better yet: "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so" - and if you can get the reference 10 points). You have discarded much more in the way of content to arrive at that post about us. I have never just stopped at saying "Time is a dimension, there fore you are wrong: QED". The fact that you have posted this about us is a gross misrepresentation of our arguments. and We are damned if we do and Damned if we don't. So our problem is that we believe and disbelieve. No wonder I am suffering from a migraine at the moment (and I really am so apologies for any incoherence ). Actullay your attitudes through all thses discussions is much more like religious dogma. We have been interested in questions and learning. We have requested that evidence be presented (and if it ever is we will acknowledge it and if it is reliable then we will change our accepted theories. However, your responses were positive to anyone who agreed with you, but to people that disagree with you (either out of a lack of understanding or actual understanding) you have met with hostility and insults. You have refused the presentation of evidence and dismissed logical counter arguments. Well, who is the more dogmatic of us then?

Yes, I brought up Work (job) in an effort to provide a better background to what money is. I did not attempt to associate it with Work (physics) at all. Yes, doing Work (job) usually entails some form of physics (even if it is just the neurons in your head that is being effected). But using that same line of reasoning, then Then breathing is the same as energy because it too entails a physics change, an amount of work if you will. You can push almost any analogy, but that does not mean that they are equivalent. This is why analogies are a bad tool to use as a basis of an explanation. They create too many discrepancies. I'm sorry, I though we were talking about what money is as this essay we are discussing is called "Money Explained". What you seem to be attempting to do here is create an elaborate analogy and then use that as a further analogy in another essay. An analogy of an analogy is pretty thin for an argument. The fact that you have misunderstood what money really is? From the responses to other feedback that you have done, it seems that you are only interested in feedback that agrees with you. You dismiss any feedback that disagrees with you. It is the feedback that disagrees with you that should be the most important. It shows where people are having trouble understanding you, or where you have made mistakes. I used to have to train people to accept feedback. The hardest attitude to overcome was precisely this one. I tend to ignore feedback that agrees with me and instead focus on feedback that disagrees with me. Only through that kind of feedback can we learn. Ego tripping or what!? You know what? You are already convinced that you are right and we are wrong, so nothing we can ever say will be of use to you as already in your mind we are an insignificant little blip. With that attitude of yours, of what use is this discussion at all?

Excuse me You have repeatedly told me to stop making lengthy detailed posts and then here state that I am no going into enough detail. I have presented lengthy and detailed and logical arguments where you just keep saying: "C is variable" or "Read my other essays". Actually it is a science debate forum. But you refuse to consider the results of the other knock on effects. For example what will occur in your theory in this situation (do the maths with a variable C): A scientists on Earth slams together 1/2 a gram of Matter with 1.2 a gram of Anti matter. This is observed by a scientist near by (Scientist A), and a scientist on a large tower above the experiment site (Scientist B). According to what you have said, the two scientists will each have a different value for C. Using just E=MC^2 what is the energy that both scientists will observe being emitted by this detonation. If this was used to propel a rocket, how far would Scientist A see the rocket travel and how far will Scientist B see it travel? Please read my responses to your posts on this again. You "magically" transport an object to a higher point in the gravity well and then wonder where the energy came from to move that object up there. I did explain where the energy comes from by saying you would have needed energy to lift the object up to that point and that is where the energy comes from. I was not using "magic" to explain anything. You required "magic" as part of the scenario (as you needed it to put the object in place where as I had to use energy to do so). If you have to go outside of science to place an object in position, then why should anyone rely of science to explain the results of what happens (or why should you). I used science to explain how the object got up in the first place and the energy needed to put the object in place is the answer to your challenge. The energy came from the energy you had to use to put the object in place. you know what? The other day I lifted my nephew up and I certainly felt the energy needed to lift him. So I know that it does take energy to life an object. Which doesn't need a variable C to explain it. Why do you consider this as "proof" of your essay? It can be equally explained by the photon being emitted by an object that is travelling slower through time than I am. You have the burden of proof. I do not need to prove that the current theories produce prediction that agree with reality. You as proposing a (radical) change to science's understanding have that burden. You have to show that current theory is inadequate and that your theory fills in these gaps. Also, I am not the one that is saying that we need to break off the debate. I have plenty more arguments left. By backing out it give the impression that you have no more arguments left (you might, but by backing out it give that impression). All I have to do is show that there already exist an adequate explanation for the scenarios you describe. Repeating axioms is good enough if in their testing (experiments) has shown that they match with reality. That is how the scientific method works. It is science to do it that way. If you wish to do it another way, do not call it science, because it is most definitely not science if you do. Observation is part of science. How is looking to observation not science? You refuse to consider that current observations contradict your essay. Doing that is not science. I would considerer that consolidation is the most important. Make sure that the axioms that you are basing your theories off match up with reality. That would be, in my mind and the way that rationality and logic, the highest of priorities. I would not even see this as a question. So you have just admitted that you are just building a castle in the clouds. Some of the comments you have made indicate that you think otherwise. This indicates that you have closed you mind to the possibility that your entire premise might be wrong. If that is the case, then you are not really doing science. Actually, I see no problem with this. You can't instantaneously communicate with the other space ship, so each ship will always see the other's clock agree with their observations. If however, you both begin to move towards each other (and to do this you will need to slow down and then start moving towards the other - thus acceleration comes into play). Once you start moving towards each other, you will see the other's clock speed up, so that when you finally manage to meet up your clocks will agree. If only one ship turns around and comes back, they will have experienced a distinctly different frame of reference than the non accelerating ship and so the clocks will not have to agree. There is no problem here. This scenario does not highlight a problem with relativity. So, how does this support your arguments? If you take that attitude, no wonder we can not have a proper discussion. You have already decided the actions of another person and so no matter what they do you will find some way to twist what they do say to reinforce your preconceived notions of them. What if we had done the same to you? What if we had, right from the first essay, though: "This guy just a troll and therefore we should just ban him from these forums? You are being quite unreasonable here. You have repeatedly said that you will explain things in future essays, but as we don't have them, we have to just use the information you have given us. Because it is incomplete (by your own admission of needing further explanation in future essays), we have to ask questions. We see holes (that you say will be filled in future essays), and ask for them to be filled. We question your essays in a scientific manner, and just be cause we disagree with you, you insult us and then have the audacity to get insulted at us. You prejudge us, so no wonder we seem like ogres to you, before we even put hand to keyboard you have already concluded that we know nothing and don't understand relativity, and are just posting because we wish to be trolls. Come on, you are sounding quite irrational, and I thought better of you. All we have done is ask questions when you asked us to. Why is that a reason to leave? Science is about questioning everything. So why is being a Doubting Thomas a bad thing? When has it been bad science? When has it been a reason to be offended?

How about looking at Alcohol the same way. People can be violent under the influence of Alcohol, they can loose judgement, etc but we allow it. We have rules that govern how it can be used, and we accept it's use (but not abuse). This is a completely different argument. If you are using this to argue about making drugs illegal for our own protection, then cigarettes must be made illegal for our own protection, fatty foods must be made illegal for our own protection. The argument "For our own protection" is not a consistent argument. There are too many exceptions that can be brought up where we haven't applied it. Besides, wrapping people up in cotton wool and denying them the right to choose does not lead to those people developing the ability to make other decisions about what is "safe" or not. If they haven't experimented with danger, when they are faced with it they will not know how to react properly. So on these grounds "For your own protection" fails as an argument. Same with alcohol. So lets ban that. Driving a car can be bad for others, why not ban that too? The reason is that we don't ban these things because of the emotional response that has been socially programmed into us. Because they are regulated. We have rules and social stigmas in place that act as a control mechanism. When a drug is made illegal, the user needs to keep it secret so they loose any of these controls. This opens the door to abuse. Think about alcohol. When people are first allowed to legally drink, they tend to go out of control. They haven't developed that social stigmas against it. But as time goes on, they learn that they way they act under the influence of alcohol gives others a negative impression of themselves. This then makes then think twice before they drink to excess. Other rules and regulations reinforce these. Bars can't (usually) sell to persons who are intoxicated, you can't be drunk in public, it is illegal to be drunk in certain situations (firearms, driving, operating heavy machinery, etc). It is set up so that we can freely use, but not abuse it. At various times different countries have experimented with banning alcohol, and in each case organised crime prospered off the illegal use of it (think the prohibition era in American history and the Mafia and other organised crime syndicates that flourished). The crime syndicates that existed in the prohibition era that relied on alcohol greatly went into decline when that period ended (or just moved over to another of the illegal substances). The legality of alcohol has allowed a culture to flourish that presents it in a novel form (cocktails, and all the other forms we can get alcohol in). In the prohibition era, the types of alcohol was restricted and people sought out the stronger stuff. This increased the bad effects of alcohol, and as there was then no safety regulations for the contents of the alcohol served, many dangerous substances and additions were added (in terms of modern drugs, they would "cut" the alcohol with other substances to increase the volume they had available as it was expensive, difficult and risky to ship in large amounts). This has so many parallels with the modern (ab)use of drugs and they way they are available that it draws question to the effectiveness of current attitudes. The: "This is how it was, so, this is how it will be" argument. Not really a logical or rational argument. You know what, it used to be that people kept slaves, so lets not question that. It used to be that Women were considered inferior to Men, so why not just keep it that way (hey we never use to use fire, so why should we use it. It is dangerous to your self and others, it is harmful to the environment. So for your own protection and because we never used to use it before, we will not use it now... /jk ) No, just because it used to a certain way is no reason to keep it that way. ps: By the way. I have never taken any illegal drug and never wanted to (even though I have been offered and had the opportunity), I don't drink (and I am Australian ) and I am Male.

Yes, in the essay this might have been your goal. However, in your posts defending your essay, you have absolutely no need to do this (that is unless you don't think we are as intelligent as you are and feel the need to talk down to us?). So this defence is either an insult to our intelligence, or that you really don't have any rational arguments for your position. Which one is it? Please read this very carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization The fact that an optical illusion like that exists has no direct bearing on whether or not Time is real or that your essay has even a grain of truth. What if we flip it around? How do you know that what is in your essay is not an "illusion", that your essay is not what you thought it was? No, those analogies are not actually a good reason to even consider your essay as being true. They are not proof, they are not even really relevant to your essay being true. They are not evidence, and as people that understand the scientific principle, we know that what we think is true might not be. That is the central underpinning of the scientific method: The willingness to abandon preconceived notions in favour of evidence to the contrary. You have not offered any evidence to the contrary. So for what reason should we accept your essays. You are obviously so confident in them that you proclaim that we will all one day be learning them and that we will fell silly that we even argued against them. To me, this sounds like you have conclusive proof (and if you are even claiming to be doing anything like science you would have to have this proof before posting statements like those), but you seem to be refusing to share this proof. We don't have to believe you just because you claim that the humans can be fooled (as an amateur magician I know and use that fact), and that you claim that you are right. If you have enough evidence to convince your self (and you have claimed that you are using science to reach your conclusions), then all we ask is that you let us know too. Otherwise, you will just sound like a "Carney Barker". You promise the world but offer nothing.

Does this mean that you have no counter arguments to mine? Remember this is a debate forum, so the purpose is to debate ideas . Agreeing to disagree is not in the spirit of debate. Swansont, I have asked this same question and got no sensible answer. If C is variable, then it will have knock on effects with other physics. E=MC^2 is one in point. This does not say "Observed value of C" but uses the actual value of C. In Farsight's explanations, he has explained that because your local value of C is variable, this effects your "perception" of the speed of C. So if C is reduced, you perceive everything travelling faster and so observe C as the same (even though it has supposed to have been reduced). This is only because of the speed of light is dictating the "Speed of time". However, as E=MC^2 does not work off the "Observed" value of C. So if C really is changing then we should get a different result for the equation as C is changing. This effect has never been observed. Not once, but it has been observed that the results of experiments agree with a constant value of C for this equation. This case alone invalidates the proposition that C is variable as your frame of reference does not change the results of this equation.

I meant work as in a Job. This has a completely different meaning to the scientific term Work. They are in some ways similar, but not significantly. Just because they are spelt and pronounced the same does not mean that they mean the same thing. To suggest other wise is the Equivocation logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).

You know what. I am totally sick of your insults. I have asked repeatedly for you to not make these kinds of statements. This is not only and Ad hominin, it is also a strawman at the same time. 1) I am not stooping to dishonesty" if this is what I really do understand the world to be like. Dishonesty is lying. If I say this is my understanding, and it wasn't how I understood things, THEN I would be lying. THEN I would be dishonest. 2) I am not "Rejecting it all, like some religious acolyte". I am rejecting it because I see flaws in your understanding of the principals that you are using as a basis of your essay. You have not even shown a proper understanding of the theories that you are rejecting. You just keep repeating again and again "Your understating is wrong because I am right" (Talk about you axiomatic repetitions). You offer no examples where your essay would produce the correct results and current theories would produce incorrect ones. The ones you have used, when we have corrected your conclusions of current theories you reject those corrections (and thus you have really constructed strawman arguments against current theories as you are not really arguing against current theories, but only your flawed understanding of them). Your repeated misunderstanding and incorrect conclusions based on current theories. That is the error you keep making and when we attempt to correct you, you have the nerve to tell us that we are deliberately lying to you (or what else do you mean by "Dishonesty"). That would be true, if your essay is correct. But as our augments are that you have based your arguments against current theories on an erroneous understanding and flawed conclusions from them, it means that your arguments that you have put forward are not usable. Time travel might be "Bunk", but it would be for other reasons than what you have argued (because they are based on an incorrect understanding of current theories). I have. The arguments you have been using against current theories are flawed. They are based on an incorrect understanding and incorrect conclusions using current theories. These misunderstandings are the initial premises that you have used to base your essay on. No matter how flawless you logic is, if you start from a flawed premise, you will reach incorrect results. But may be it will make you listen (but from your history, here, not likely). And your problem being? Experiments and observations have shown that both time and space can be stretched and distorted (or at least act like they do). Is it too far a jump that space and time have been observed to distort and "rotate" between each other to that time and space can be distorted (as that is what has been observed)? We have never seen any observation that could indicate that the speed of light is variable (and your essay's state that we can never observe it). So, your essays state that C is variable but is never measured to be variable. Occam's razor then states that we can eliminate there being a variable value of C. So unless your new theories can produce results that will differ from what current theories do, it make no sense to include a term in the equations that has no effect on the outcomes of experiments. If you do know of any situation that would produce differing results, then post up your conclusions about your own theories. As you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of current theory, you can forgo attempting to reach conclusions from them. Just stick to your own theories. No, we have explained a lot. You just haven't listened. Nope. You are wrong here. We have used experiments (both thought experiments and real experiments) to support our positions. We have shown where you have misunderstood current theories and so reached incorrect results form them. These are our justifications. Where are yours? Oh yes right: "you reject it all, like some religious acolyte, stooping to dishonesty", and "You have no understanding of time, or gravity, and when I offer you a total understanding of these things". I forgot. Science is not about total understanding. Science knows that we can never have a total understanding. It is the religious types that tend to offer "Total Understanding". And yet, you claim that it is us that are the religious types. And just what is that preferred frame of reference. In all our explanations of this scenario we have always looked at the situation from both your position and Swansont's. You keep insisting we can only use Swansont's position. Who then is using a preferred frame: The ones who consider all relevant frames or the person who insist on only using one? Based on that scenario you presented? No, that is not the only conclusion you can draw. If you used current theories of a distortable Time and Space, then your Time has been slowed down (as we know that we haven't undergone acceleration). So this entirely fails as an argument against current understanding and theories. It does not point to a situation where current theory fails. But as experiments have actually been done that actually produce a result that matches this, it puts this as an argument for current theories and is really a counter argument for your essay. In these experiments, because they were using an atomic clock, a variable C should have shown up in the frequency of the emitted photons, or as a change in the timing of the "ticks" of the clock (as measured locally for both of these). But, as neither of these were observed, C could not have changed. The only other explanation is that Time was really running slower on the accelerating clock. However, if you keep insisting that a variable C can never be detected in a situation that rules out a variable Time/Space, then this is not really admissible as a counter augment against established theory and the justification of yours (and if that is the case, then why are you insisting on defending this as an argument). WTF You have misrepresented me on many occasions b y using Ad Hominin arguments. You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of current theories and when corrected, you reject those corrections and keep using your misunderstandings (the fact that you keep reusing these misunderstandings is then your misrepresentations). Yes you do: Light does not define time. Period. We use light to measure time, but it definitely does not define it. A meter ruler does not define a meter. A meter is a portion of space. The ruler just allows us to measure that portion of space. I have said this many, many times: The thing you use to measure something is not the thing you are measuring. We measure time using pulses of light. Those pulses of light Are not Time. Plain and simple. I have said this before and you should be able to understand that simple concept. The fact that you keep using it as an argument against current theories, when it is nothing to do with what current theories understand time as makes any argument of yours that uses that a Strawman. You also have your own definitions of various scientific and mathematical concepts like Dimensions, Time, Motion and such, that is not the same as currently accepted scientific and mathematical definitions of them. If you are using your own definitions as targets for argument, then they are Strawmen. I know what a Strawman is. I have linked to websites with definitions of it. I have read about it and have a good understanding of logic (I used to be a computer programmer - so formal logic is easy for me to understand as are logic errors). The fact is. You are suing a definition as a basis of your arguments against current theories, however, that definition is not accepted by what you are arguing against. That by definition is a Strawman. Do you understand now why I keep repeating that your arguments are based on a Strawman? Well, if current observations are to be believed, then yes, Time is a length. Think of it like this: Light travels at a finite speed (whether it is a variable speed or not is irrelevant) and nothing can travel faster than light. So, it must take a finite and non zero amount of Time for light to get to point B from point A. So, you can use the distance that light has travelled to mark out a period of time (and remember, what we use to measure is not the thing we are measuring). You could also say that Time is a measure of Periods. But you can also say that distance is a measure of Periods. I am not going to argue the semantics of what the word "Length" means. What I will argue is that Time is as physically real as Space.

A lot of the old money was based on what is called precious metals. But really, why are those metals precious? It's because people valued them as precious, not for any "intrinsic" value. So, even the old economies that were based on "money" that was metals of a certain value (gold, silver and the like) were not really based on an actual value, but on an agreed value, just like the "promissory notes" that we use as money today. But lets actually look at what that money is really representing. Whatever form "money" has, whether is it gold, seashells, pigs, etc, it doesn't matter. All these things are are a physical representation of an abstraction. This abstraction is of "Work". You get paid to work. Whether this work was going out and hunting dear and antelope in stone age times, or for writing up the company's budget in a spreadsheet, you have to have some medium for exchange. IT is not easy to equate something like dear meat and spreadsheets. Also, since the exchange rate of Antelope to Spreadsheets might mean that you need a herd of Antelope to pay the IT worker, this kind of direct barter is not very practical. Humans have a fairly unique talent (there are a few other animals that do share this talent, but not to the extent that we humans have it). This talent is "Abstraction". A long time ago humans hit upon the idea of abstracting the effort that they put into work. They came to an agreement that for a certain amount of work in a particular "job" would be worth a relative amount of effort in another type of "job". They also knew that if they broke this relative "worth" in very small pieces, they could easily exchange their "work" for small items. Eventually we needed some kind of physical "token" to represent this abstraction. This way we could save up these tokens and exchange them for something that was worth more than a person could do in 1 day. And thus was "money" born. Now. lets re-examine the Promissory Notes that we call money today. We are given these notes when we do work. These notes are a physical token of the abstraction of the concept of work. We get them for working and we exchange them for the work of others (or produce of the work of others). However, we have found it advantageous to re-abstract the token into Bits in a computer. In our information driven society, we can pass around these abstracted "monies" much easier than we can pass around actual tokens. Really, those original tokens were abstracted so that people could more easily exchange "Work". We have continued this process by abstracting the tokens so that we may more easily exchange them. Salt use to be worth a lot. It used to be a "currency" (yes that is right Salt use to be money). That is in fact where we get the term Salary from. Salary actually means Salt in Latin. The title of this essay is "Money Explained", but it really doesn't explain what money is. It does not even look at what money originally was. It only looks at the tokens and ignores the abstraction that they represent. It doesn't "Explain" money at all. Not really. You say that "money" doesn't really exist and that is why it can't be created or destroyed. But, if energy doesn't really exist, just like you have claimed about money, then no "work" (in the scientific meaning) can be done. There would be no movement, no explosion, no sunlight, etc, etc. So, looking at it this way, energy is nothing at all like what you represent money as.

Besides what has already been said (ie that the atmosphere can't "Rupture"): CO2 can be reabsorbed out of the atmosphere. Trees do this (they absorb CO2 then through photosynthesis convert it into hydro carbons and release the oxygen). Also, there are some chemical reactions that occur in rocks that can also absorb the CO2. CO2 does not have any major effect on the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface. The Ozone layer is what mainly protects us from UV. Ozone is actually a molecule with 3 Oxygen atoms, where as CO2 is a molecule of 1 Carbon atom and 2 Oxygen atoms. Take a look at the planet Venus. It has a runaway greenhouse effect (with a vengeance). The amount of Greenhouse gasses in the Venusian atmosphere is huge. They trap so much heat that the metal Lead would melt on the surface. Also, even though Venus does not have the mass of the Earth, it's atmosphere is much, much thicker than Earth's. Venus' Atmosphere is about 97% CO2 and is also around 90 atmospheres of pressure (that is the pressure at the surface is around 90 time that of Earth's atmosphere, yet Venus is around 81% of the mass of Earth. So CO2 won't cause a "Rupture" of our atmosphere as Venus has far more CO2 than Earth has (which is around 0.03%) and hasn't gone through any "rupture".

Without actually doing the calculations (I don't really know enough of the math to do it), the out bound acceleration, both travellers will see the other's clock slowed down. However, on the inbound acceleration they would see the other traveller's clock sped up. This increase in speed will negate the dilation of the out going motion. This will mean that at the end of the journeys, both travellers clocks will agree because they have both been slowed down and sped up by the same amounts.

Not really. I am asking if you have actually sat down and worked out how a theory like this would actually effect other theories? Do you know how a changing value of C will effect things like E=MC^2 and other tested scientific theories? Well, there is not really much in that essay. You present no processes, no experiments, no conclusions. You could have at least given us something where your theory would produce a result that is different to what current theories predict. That at least would have given us something to get a hold of and actually attempt to construct a counter argument around. From what I can work out from what you have presented your theory reads like: "everything is different but exactly the same". You say that C is variable, but no one, nowhere no matter how they are moving or what gravitational field they are in can ever do an experiment that would reveal that C has changed. If this is the case, then of what use is the essay? IF we can just continue on exactly the same whether C is variable or not and it makes no difference to the out come of any experiment, how can we ever tell if your essay is correct or not? However if there is some difference that would show up in an experiment, then that should have been included in the essay. If I was to say that my hair was blue, but everyone will always see it as pink, then how can you tell if I was correct in my statement that my hair is blue? This essay's purpose is to convince it's readers of your propositions. However, if you do not include any evidence for your position and no evidence against other positions, then the essay does not succeed at it's purpose. Yes, this is a speculations forum. But, it is a speculations forum in a web site dedicated to the debate of science and scientific theories. Also the way you presented your essays (and the subsequent claims that we will all be learning these in a few years) indicate that this was (to you at least) not mere speculation, and your presentation of this here was for an informal peer review. However, when we do analyse it for it's scientific content, you make comments like: and Your responses indicate that all you wanted to do was to preach your pet theories here. If you are really interested in presenting a scientific theory, then you need to follow the scientific method.

We are all quite bright here, so there is no need for you to simplify. In fact, you seem to have oversimplified and that is the source of your error (or at least the error in your explanation of what is happening). A few years ago, I used to have a job where I had to explain science concepts (some quite difficult) to ordinary people (those without scientific backgrounds). Over simplification (and the use of too many analogies) would only serve to create more misunderstandings. What I had to do was build a frame work on which we could communicate on. We needed a common ground. IF you can develop this framework then you can explain almost anything (even an understanding of music to the deaf - which I have done ). With the music thing, if I had just used the simplification of music being like waves at a beach, that does not really help with an understanding of music. This would be a case of over simplification (I used vibrations of string to explain different frequencies, then use coloured lights to explain how we can perceive different frequencies and then use a painting to explain how the different frequencies of sound combine together to produce an aesthetic composition). No. Under relativity there is no preferred frame. Why are you claiming that we have included one when we haven't? You see in your frame of reference you would see our time accelerated and we would see your time slowed. Two frames of reference. If we leave out one (the fact that you accelerated) then we are only left with a single frame of reference. So in effect, by this thought experiment, you have in fact demonstrated that without accounting for all the frames of reference, you end up with strange results. Congratulations: That is what we have been trying to explain for quite some time to you. By forcing us to leave out a frame of reference (your accelerating frame) you have actually forced a preferred frame of reference onto us. No wonder our results are all strange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Really. Read it. You have misrepresented current theories by forcing a situation that does not give it enough data. That my friend is a strawman. You have a "picture" in your mind about what occurs under currently accepted theories. But when we have told you (repeatedly) that your understanding of those same theories is flawed, you dismiss us. Your arguments that you have built up against current theories are based on a false understanding of those theories. I am assuming that you have had access to information about the current theories of Time and Gravity and Space, that you have had some tutelage (even if just from a popular science book) about this subject. However, you have come to an understanding that is different to what these actually are. If these sources didn't give you this incorrect understanding, then it must have come from you. Therefore: You made them up (even if it was through ignorance).

Actually what you have done is deliberately hid information. By not providing all the relevant information we can not come to the correct result. It is a bit like having the equation: A+B=C Where A=5 And then giving us a value for A (without giving us the value for B) and telling us to calculate C. By deliberately hiding the fact that you accelerated (that is even though we know that you did, even though all we can use for this thought experiment is what is on the tape), we can not complete the equations. If you give us that piece of information, then there is no problem and there is then no need for a variable value of C. The changing of a reference frame is very important to relativity. Most of GR deals with changing reference frames. IF you wish to just too out this vitally relevant information (that is violate the laws of physics) then of course you will not get the correct results. But all you end up really doing is constructing a strawman argument as you are not arguing against what really is occuring, but you own made up version of it. But then what you have done is deliberately removed an important piece of information. What you do is very important as it is precisely that which is what is under question. It is a bit like saying: "You can ask me anything about carrots, as long as you don't ask a question that has anything to do with vegetables". You are saying: "You can ask me anything about what my clock did, as long as you don't ask me what that clock was doing." We do not deny that locally you see time running the same. But it is not you local frame of reference we are interested in. It is the differences between your frame of reference and ours. But let us assume that we also have a camera looking at you (with a really good telescope). Both cameras are left running the whole time. But you would see you clock running slow on our camera, but you would see your clock running normally on your camera. You can even check them. They would have been running at the exact same frame rate, so you can even just count the frames. But yet there is still a difference in them. Time has run slower for you. Also lets have you have a camera pointing back at us (lets have the two cameras pointing at each other so we can see if anybody tampers with them). You can see our time running faster than yours. You can see it happening. But that situation would not occur if all you did was go out the door and wait for seven years. Of course, if you accelerated away and then came back that is a completely different scenario. If you did exactly what you describe you did, then your time would be exactly the same as mine. You would measure 7 years to my 7 years.

So you are saying that this is fact. But you are saying that this is not fact. So you have worked out conclusions that will result from your "theories" and they have differences from what the current "theories". You have then also performed experiments and found that they agree with your theories and they disagree with currently accepted theories. Well, you'd have to to be that sure of your essay. Many times throughout history (in fact more times than otherwise) people have proposed "theories" that sound good, are elegant and make sense, only, when it came time to actually check if they conclusions drawn from their theories, reality was found to be different. But this didn't mean that their theories were no less elegant or made sense. It just meant that what they were describing was not reality. How does light going around in circles effect the permittivity of space? And how does this lead to mass? So a photon is a distortion in space. But that is what "Gravity Waves" are supposed to be. Are gravity waves and Photons the same thing? Actually this is a good example, but not of your theory. If the ruler is held in the same direction as you (that is vertically), then it can be used to measure your shadow, just by using the shadow of the ruler. However, if we rotate it out of our direction (make it slightly more aligned with the ground), then we can't use the shadow of the ruler as a direct measure. However, if we know the angle of rotation of that ruler, we can convert between the ruler's shadow's length and what it would be if it were aligned with us. The shadows can't perceive the 3rd dimension, so what a shadow sees is a ruler that changes length. However, if our shadow could do geometry, then it could conclude the appearance of the Shadow ruler would be consistent with a fixed length ruler being rotated in 3 dimensions. Now, when we have a fast moving object, we see it's length contract. Using the same maths that our shadow used to work out that what it saw was an object being rotated in 3D, we can use to calculate that the length contraction we see in fast moving object is rotation in 4D. Now, using the maths from earlier in which we could, knowing the rotation of the ruler, work out how long it really was, we can apply to working out the length of something despite it's rotation in 4 dimension. So we can use the shadow of a ruler to measure the length of a shadow, as long as we know how it is rotated (which we can work out from other measurement - like experimenting with rotating the measuring objects deliberately and measuring the changes).