Farsight

...What if, as knowledge progresses, animism will finally be justified and the erroneous ideology of materialism...

 

Even until recently Zero Point technologies had opened up for US patents when previously such 'free energy' technologies had been supressed and its inventors humiliated, poisoned, or their laboratories ransacked...

 

Such implications had resulted to controlled mechanism of unequal wealth distribution, medical approaches that deviates from natural metabolism but instead...

 

profit oriented huge pharmaceutical corporations...

 

pollution emitting technologies and other things that merely mirror the arrogance and folly of a few entrenched people that threaten the rest of Humanity...

 

Jesus H Christ. Do you believe all the nonsense some workshy anarchist big brother shoves down your throat? Grow up.

Hi Albers.

I don't complain about people's critiques of my posts. Not that bah, there's no maths so it's not worth reading is a critique. And I certainly don't demand to be revered. All I want is to do is gain and offer understanding without being dismissed by somebody who doesn't.

I sigh when I see my stuff lumped into the same bucket as this.

No, what I meant was at the start of the thought experiment there is no movement in the centre of this region of space. So according to your claims, this means that there is no Time there. However, once we shine the light into that region (also at the start of the experiment), this would introduce movement, but as the region is 30 light seconds in radius, then means that any movement from the outside can only reach the centre in a minimum of 30 seconds...

You've perhaps corrupted the experiment already by introducing yourself, an event-driven observer measuring intervals between events - you bring your concept of time into the experiment. But I applaud your effort to devise an experiment.

 

This means that even If I was travelling at twice the speed in the Time dimension as you are...

You earlier said no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension, please review.

 

This means that as you accelerate, your dimensions will "rotate". So time will appear to become space and space will appear to become time, this would be seen as a contraction of space and a dilation of time. It is therefore interesting that this is what matches what is observed.

I don't dispute the observation, merely the interpretation. Yes, we can treat space and time similarly mathematically, but a mathematical dimension is just that. It isn't necessarily a real dimension the way you consider it to be. Mathematics is a vital tool in the box, but it shouldn't take precedence over what's actually observable and testable.

 

If a dimension is not shown to be different, then under what justification can we call it different?

But it is different, the t is a negative term.

 

One has to be careful when simplifying. If an observed phenomena depends on the more complex explanation and the simplified explanation can not account for it, then the more complex explanation has to be used. Einstein made this mistake with the "Cosmological Constant"....

 

I agree.

 

Now back to your simplification. What you have to do is to demonstrate that there is no phenomena that is reliant on Time being an actual dimension and that all observed phenomena can be explained by your proposal. Also, does your proposal to eliminate the Time dimension as a physical dimension actually simplify the equations? Time is still a factor of these equations, so are eliminating this from the equations and simplifying them?

 

I'm writing a series of essays such as MASS EXPLAINED etc. A different concept of time does seem to open some doors of understanding for these phenomena. I'm wouldn't say I'm eliminating time from the equations, but am perhaps looking at them in "time derivative" terms. For example this means gravity is no longer a curvature of spacetime, but is instead a local gradient in space, a tangent to the curve. I think there are simplifications available, but in grasp and concept rather than mathematics.

 

Future, Past, Present requires a "grid". Something absolute that you can measure against. By "Your Future", I mean, the point in space time where our "lines" of motion intersect (or at least at a point where we could easily interact) at a point further along the Time dimension as you would measure it. The amount of time you or I experience is not important. What is important is that it is further along your T dimension as you measure it. Not me, not an outside observer, you (as it is your future). This means that relative motion in Time is possible. What is my future could in fact be your past, and your past could be my future. It doesn't need an absolute "Now" or any other absolutes at all.

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. Your justification of motion through time is built on your axiom that it is a dimension with some kind of length that we move through. Yes, we can measure time, just as we can measure temperature, and we can plot a grid. But it's a mathematical grid, we don't in truth move along this grid.

 

This explanation (the one I have been supporting) covers all observed phenomena, so it is an acceptable explanation. Now, is it simpler than yours?

I think not. I'm reducing the dimensions and finding that things become more understandable. Try reading the other essays and see if you agree.

 

Thus, if you propose to add in any form of Absolute (as in "Absolute Now"), then you have to explain why it can not be also determined by a relative value. This is not covered by your essay at all.

This is something that came up in conversation, I think you introduced it, not me.

 

So, this means that there could be objects travelling backwards through time and there might be freedom of movement in time. Your essay just assumes that it can't without giving any reason for that claim.

I can't see it, so I don't assume it's there. Why do you assume it's there? You have no evidence whatsover for freedom of movement through time. And yet you ask me to prove a negative instead of shouldering the responsibility to prove the positive.

 

Your reasons that you give are not supported, that is why I don't accept them as good reasons. All your essay amounts to is a statement that, that is what you think time is. That is no explanation.

The reasons you give to support your concept of time just don't stand up. Your justifications are built on your axioms not on observables and experiment. Try to set aside all assumptions and look at it from scratch.

 

Challenging assumptions in a proposal is good science. I have done this. Requiring claims to be backed up by evidence is good science. I have also asked this of you...

Whoa, wait a minute. I'm challenging your assumptions, for which you have no evidence. To deflect the pain you kid yourself that I'm the one making assumptions. It isn't me. It's you.

 

Please can you try to write shorter posts? For example you might break up a large post into several smaller posts, and pause between them to promote better dialogue.

I'm very cynical about the idea that we're all some figment of somebody's virtual reality. It's a cop-out that we could never prove. Interestingly, this was given prominence in the BBC Horizon "Time Trip" documentary, which I think is what got me thinking seriously about time. See transcript below.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/timetriptrans.shtml

jck: I think we both agree that you need space and energy to make mass. Perhaps we can agree to differ for now on whether space or energy is the prime ingredient.

Imagine the electron and all other things which display the characteristic of mass temporally flowing at C and a photon that, except for oscillations which we observe as frequency, has dropped out of the generalized temporal flow, and the electron which remains embedded in the temporal flow runs into the photon.

 

I really don't think there is any temporal flow, aguy. See the Time Explained essay for details:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050

 

Other than that, I don't think your electron/photon scattering is supported by observation. I think the general consensus is that the original photon will be absorbed and another photon of different frequency/oscillation will be 'emitted' in the majority view, and 'left behind' in my speculative scenerio.

 

Thanks, I'll check that out.

If they had magic instant subspace radios like in Star Trek, they would each hear the other talking slow.

jck: it's a tricky one. Things have properties, but some things are maybe nothing but properties. It all gets kinda fuzzy.

 

Thanks alan.

So even though the decay would occur in 30 seconds and it would take 30 seconds for the emitted photon to reach you, because time in that space does not exist for the 30 seconds it takes for your observation (no infomation or influence can travel faster than the speed of light) then I should see the photon emitted 1 minute and 30 seconds rather than at 1 minute. If time cannot exist in an area where there is no movement (and light would be enough to consider movement), then until I shine my torch (or some other light enters) then that atom that is emitting the light experiences no time, and therfore can not emit that light, until there is movement (the light from my torch) to give it time. Is this what you mean?

 

I think so. If there is no movement there is no movement. You can't say there is no movement and then allow movement which then lets you say "aha but there is some time there after all."

 

A space ship traveling in a straight line and it can only thrust perpendicular to its direction of travel, can not change the velocity at which it is traveling in that initial direction. No matter how much fuel it uses, it just can not influence the speed in the initial direction. So thrusting perpendicular to the direction of travel can not influence the velocity in the direction of travel. If Time is considered a dimension perpendicular to space, no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension.

 

If you take this approach, it means all clocks "travel" through this time dimension at the same rate, independent of their velocity through the space dimensions.

 

But, what will change is your vector (this is what I was talking about earlier with all that vector and perpendicularity stuff). You will cover more length in the Space-Time scheme and so will disagree about certain distances if you only consider the 3 dimensions of space, but these distances will cancel out under 4 dimensions and the correct results can be reached. Thus unless you have the ability to apply thrust (acceleration) in the time dimension, you can not have freedom of movement, but it still can be a dimension none the less... It doesn't mean that that dimension has to exist (but I am not trying to prove that, just disprove your claim as per the scientific method), but it does mean that despite the lack of freedom of movement it can exist.

 

But you're just using the mathematical treatment to justify a real dimension that's not there. Yes, it could be there, but the disagreement about distance and time is explained more simply in terms of what we actually see, which is light and motion, and the light triangles and Pythagoras' Theorem in the original Special Relativity before Minkowski came along.

 

I have never claimed that reverse time travel is possible. I have never argued in this thread that it is. It might be or it might not be, I don't know. But what I am saying is that you can move through time forwards. You can visit the future, but this same method can't be used to go back. As I have said, you don't have freedom of movement, but that does not negate that movement is possible...

I'd like to reiterate that the only moving going on is the movement through the three dimensions of space. The future is not a place you can visit.

 

In a black hole, you don't have freedom of movement towards the singularity, but that does not mean that you are not moving towards the singularity. Just because we don't have freedom of movment in time, does not mean that we are not moving through time.

You're using a misunderstood interpretation of an unproven and unknowable object to justify a misunderstanding about time. Time stops at the event horizon, so no collapsing star has as yet become a singularity.

 

Relativity states that Time is relative, so this means that I can be moving through time at a different rate than you are. But it doesn't mean that you will see me disappear and then reappear in your future.

Now take a look at this and compare it with no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension.

 

What you will see is that I am moving slower or faster, that light emitted by a torch that I hold will have a different frequency than if we were moving at the same rate through time. And guess what, these have all been observed repeatedly and frequently.

Huh? I've never claimed special relativity is bunk, or that time dilation doesn't happen.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that Time travel would be like it is in the movies (like Back to the Future). Time travel would not be like that at all. An object that is travelling backwards through time would appear to you as identical to an object that is travelling forwards through time, except that it would appear to be made up of antimatter...

 

And of course, it could have been antimatter to begin with so an object "travelling backwards in time" can be indistinguishable. How convenient.

 

If I seem to be clinging to my position, it is because you have not answered the challenges I have put to you. You have never answered why you think that lack of freedom of movement means that no movment is occuring (or can occur). As I have shown several time now...

 

Edtharan, you kid yourself about moving through time. You kid yourself that I haven't answered your questions, and you kid yourself that you're engaging in debate. You write huge essays trying to knock what I say and you're so keen to do it you start engaging in fiction like I have not been given much in the way of good answers... I've had enough of your kind of "debate". Try some science for a change.

Sometimes I get irritated when a carefully constructed piece of reasoning like TIME EXPLAINED gets brushed off into Speculations, and other things don't.

Thanks Janus.

Ok let us assume that ther is no motion in a region of space 1 light minute in radius. So, according to your reasoning, does time occur within this region of space? If it does, then Time is independant of Motion. If it doesn't then what occurs if someone ouside that region enters it? What if there was an atom of radioactive matter that would emit a particle every 30 seconds? Since there is no movement in that region for 1 minute then how would that atom "know" to emit that partical after 30 seconds (as 30 seconds can't occur in a region of no time)?

 

I would say there is no time in this region of space. But it doesn't have a wall around it, and if you sit there watching it with your stopwatch in one hand and a torch in the other, there would be photons moving to your eyes, and your atoms and clocks would be moving. Your presence introduces motion along with your concept of time. If there really was no motion, there would be no atomic decay.

 

But you can move through time. You just can only thrust perpendicular to that movement. This is an assumption, I know, but you have to disprove this assumption as it is a competing "theory" and explains the observed reality and is simpler than yours. You have to show how your essay is more correct than this one (and this is the currently accepted theory). Current theory says that you are moving through time, it's just that you can only thrust in the 3 spatial dimensions, not the 4th (Time) dimension. Why can't this be the way it really is and your theory wrong?

 

I'm not sure about the "thrust" you introduce here, and can't much see why it's relevant. But look at your first sentence above. You say you can move through time when you can't. You say you can, but you're kidding yourself, because you just can't. You can't rerun Boxing Day. You can't go back to Christmas Eve to swap a present for something your wife will like better. Yet you cling to this you can move through time assumption like some article of faith. You rebuff any attempt to question it as some "competing theory" to be rejected until proven true, you use your assumption to "prove" that the competing theory cannot be true, and then declare lack of negative proof as proof positive. There's a whole pile of psychology going on here in your defence of your axiomatic position. Do look into it. And please read the essay again carefully.

Happy Christmas everybody. (Thank Christ it's over!)

 

For the record, I don't think gravity is curved spacetime. IMHO we see a lightbeam curve because there's a tension gradient in space. I'll try to explain my thoughts here in my next essay.

Jerk. One's a later version which a mod moved.

OK guys, what do you think? If anybody could point out why this layman's explanation falls flat on its face I'll be sad, but grateful.

You know that energy is an intangible thing. You can’t hold energy in the palm of your hand. Because energy is to do with stress, which is the same as pressure, which is the same as negative tension, and you need a volume of stress to get the units right. Because stress is force per unit area and energy is force times distance.

 

You know that mass is a tangible thing. You can hold a thing in your hand and feel the mass of it. You even know that E=mc2, and that the intangible thing called energy can be used to make the tangible thing called mass. But you don’t know how. I’ll explain how.

 

 

The answer is all down to motion. Or the lack of it. You have to think in terms of momentum and inertia. You have to stop thinking that momentum is something that a mass has, because a thing can have momentum without having the thing you think is mass. Like a photon. You know this because you’ve read the physics. You also know this because you’ve felt it yourself, down on the beach, playing in the surf. Along comes a massive wave. You know it’s a travelling stress and you think it has no mass because it’s the water that has the mass. But the wave does have momentum, enough to knock you and your girlfriend flat on your back, laughing and screaming with salt water up your nose. You can’t grab hold of it, but it can grab hold of you. And realising this is the first step in grasping how intangible energy can become tangible mass.

 

 

You can get a better feel for this with a gyroscope. Waggle it back and forth. See how light it feels. Now wind the string round the spindle, grasp it tight, and pull. You pulled tension out, so you put energy in. Your gyroscope is now humming, maybe precessing a little. When you try to waggle it you can feel the angular momentum working against you. And you’re beginning to get a feel for mass.

 

 

Something that has a lot of mass is harder to move. Or harder to stop. Because it’s got a lot of inertia. Or a lot of momentum. And a lot of energy. And these things aren’t quite as different as you might think.

 

energy E=mc2

kinetic energy KE=½mv2

momentum p=mv

inertial mass=m

 

Consider a 10 kilogram cannonball travelling at 1 metre per second in space relative to you. Brace yourself, then apply some constant braking force by catching it in the midriff. Ooof, and you feel the energy. Kinetic energy is looking at this in terms of stopping distance, whilst momentum is looking at it in terms of stopping time. The momentum is conserved in the collision because the two objects shared a mutual force for the same period of time. The kinetic energy isn’t conserved, because some of the mass-in-motion was redirected into deformation and heat and probably bruises, all of which involve mass-in-motion, but scattered motion instead of tidy vector quantities of masses moving relative to you. Or you moving relative to them, because all the while you were never too sure whether it was you moving or the cannonball.

 

 

When we turn our attention from a cannonball to a photon, we have to express the energy and the momentum in a different way. There is no “mass”, so the energy is hf, and the momentum is hf/c. The h here is Planck’s constant of 6.63 x 10-34 Joule-seconds, and is an “action” which is a momentum multiplied by a distance. The f is the frequency per second, and our old friend c is distance over time, which converts a stopping-distance measure into a stopping-time measure. It’s just λ/c or wavelength over frequency, so you can also express the momentum as h/λ. And you can see how that momentum affects a mass via Compton scattering:

 

 

When a photon collides with a free electron the electron gets a bump and goes flying off at an angle, while the photon is similarly deflected and its wavelength is increased. The electron has gained some kinetic energy and the photon has lost some momentum. Or vice versa. Their velocity vectors have changed, as have their relative velocities. You can play “photons” at home with a strip of carpet or better still a rubber mat. Lift one end, grip it tight, and give it a big shake. You can see a wave travelling down the length of the rubber. It’s a travelling stress that rides on the tension it creates, and you can toss “electrons” with it, be they dollies or eggs. Hours of endless fun. Better than an egg in the microwave for four minutes.

 

Now imagine you’re the electron, only it’s you moving instead of the photon. Bump, and you’re sent flying off at an angle. It feels like you hit something solid instead of a volume of stressed space. Like a bad flight with so much turbulence it’s like riding over rocks. It would feel like the photon had inertia instead of momentum.

 

But the photon isn’t sitting in one place, and you can’t nail it down like you can nail down your rubber mat. So how do you keep that bump of momentum in the same place? There’s only one tool in the box. More of the same. Imagine you’ve got a couple of table tennis bats and you’re good at topspin. If you bat that photon just right you can change its direction and give it some energy. It’s called an Inverse Compton, like the picture above but with the arrows going the other way. Then you can hit it with the other bat to change its direction again. Repeat in rapid succession until you’ve got a kind of hexagon going, a miniature electromagnetic vortex.

 

 

Now keep batting away, but close your eyes, like you might close your eyes when you’re playing repulsion with a couple of magnets. You can feel something there between your bats. What you can feel is basically mass. You’ve made a mass. It isn’t a proper mass because if you stop batting your photon will be off like a shot. You need to bat faster and harder to get it down smaller and smaller. You’re packing more and more stress into a smaller and smaller volume. Then at 511keV, or 8.18 x 10-14 Joules, a funny thing happens. The volume will fit only a single wavelength, and the stress in your photon kind of tangles round itself like a moebius-strip bagel, spinning and rolling around itself like a smoke ring, and suddenly you’ve got yourself a self-sustaining vortex that you don’t have to bat any more. You’ve got yourself something that goes round twice to get back where it started, so it’s got spin ½. All the negative charge variation is on the outside, so it’s got negative charge. And most importantly, because it isn’t going anywhere, when you hit it, it’s you hitting the photon instead of the photon hitting you. It had momentum, and now its got inertia. It’s got mass. And you’ve got yourself an electron.

 

 

It’s wrapped into tight little loop, and you can’t undo it. When you give it a little tap with a bat you can still think in terms of the Compton picture. But now the whole thing is tied into a single wavelength and since it isn’t kept in place by some atomic nucleus acting like a tetherpole, you can’t stretch it with a little tap. All you get is the deflection. That deflection is a change in the photon velocity vector, it adds to all the velocity vectors in the moebius loop. It translates into motion, so the electron as a whole moves with respect to you.

 

 

You can do the same sort of thing to make a positron. It’s got the twist wrapped the other way, with the positive charge variation on the outside. But there’s no table tennis bats in particle physics. In practice you fire a mega-electron-volt photon at an atomic nucleus, whereupon it splits into two to create an electron and a positron at the same time for conservation of charge. The positron won’t last long because it will meet an electron, and the two will annihilate to create a pair of 511keV gamma-wave photons flying off in opposite directions. It’s like the electron is a twist in your fishing line and the positron is the mirror image twist. Slide them together, and voila, twang, gone.

 

 

Now when we go back to your cannonball we can see how it’s a whole heap of whirling stress, a trundling bundle of energy. But is the cannonball moving or is it you moving, and what’s its mass? Is the rest mass calculated from the transverse velocity vector of those racing photons, or is it the relativistic mass of whatever path they trace through space? Take your pick, but I pick the latter. Which means in my eyes photons have momentum, and energy, and mass too. It’s all relative really, because we’re made out of these things, they’re like our light clocks. If you’re racing past me, yours look like this /\/\/\ to me and mine look the same to you. But our own look like this | to each of us. Our length contraction of 1/√(1-v2/c2) is relative, like our time dilation, and our momentum and energy, so I think our mass might as well be relative too.

 

Anyhow. That’s why a moving mass is rather like a spring. It looks like a spring stretched out rather than a spring compressed. That’s why a moving mass has something that looks like tension, sorry negative tension volume, that thing called energy. I will talk some more about these things. I will talk about electromagnetism and space, and whether energy is a property of space or makes it the thing that it is. And I will talk about particle physics and string theory, and matter.

 

 

But first, I need to try to explain a matter of some gravity...

 

 

 

Acknowledgements: thanks to J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark for Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? see http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf to Peter M Brown for his many mass papers on his excellent website http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/ , to Robert A Close for The Other Meaning of Special Relativity A New Interpretation of Special Relativity, to R F Norgan likewise see http://www.aethertheory.co.uk/pdfRFN/Aether_Why.pdf, to all the forum guys with their relevant posts and links, Wikipedia contributors, and to anybody who I’ve forgotten or whose pictures I’ve used. And Paul Dirac. Thanks guys.

Edtharan: I'm sorry I was rude.

 

Why can't time exist independent of motion?

Because nothing happens. Nothing changes, and there are no events. It's like heat. You can't have any heat at absolute zero because there is no motion.

 

All your arguments for the non existence of time can be applied to that of space, but you accept space as being existent, despite this. Why?

 

Because I can move through space. I can't move through time.

Hmmn, maybe you're going too far there jck. I think colour is something that is totally in in your imagination. Time is something you experience rather than imagine. It's a derived effect of motion like heat is a derived effect of motion. And heat burns.

Fitzgerald proposed length contraction as an explanation for the null result.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzgerald

 

I don't know if you'd class that as independent, but eiapeteides was asking for experimental evidence and that's the best I could come up with.

I think that's about the size of it carol. Though it's the other way round about the moving fast and the ageing.

How about the Michelson Morley Experiment?

Huh? I don't challenge Special Relativity, nor do I dispute experimental confirmation of time dilation. I hold the same view as Einstein.

eiapeteides, here's how it makes sense:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050