Feedback on Farsight's RELATIVITY+ "scientific paper"

[Farsight]

Here's the "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+ on a publicly-available website:

 

http://www.relativityplus.info/

 

Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", more commonly known as a "toy model". It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything".

 

Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. Please can I have your feedback to help spot anything that's incorrect, or any other feedback, including opinion.

 

I hope there's at least some good value in there that advances the cause we're all rooting for.

[Mr Skeptic]

Farsight, no one including yourself understands you theory because it is too vague. Case in point: your claim that charge is twist. Twist along which axis? How much twist? "Flowing" twist (spin) or static twist? Do you even know what twist is?

 

To your credit, you do seem a little less arrogant this time around.

[D H]

This is not a scientific paper. Except for the excessive length, it has the look and feel of a for-the-masses, non-scientific paper as published in Scientific American.

 

Farsight, you still rely too much on your pretty pictures. Its not as bad as in your previous writeups, but this is supposedly a "scientific paper". One big problem with those pictures: To use them in a paper, you need to get written approval from the owner of each and every one of these images.

 

The charge of vagueness still stands. A paper on physics without any substantial math does not qualify as a scientific paper. In the physics world, the math comes first. The for-the-masses, non-scientific physics articles are published only after the math has been fully hashed out. Learn the math.

 

Change the title. The use of relativity in all caps screams CRACKPOT. If you don't want to be viewed as a crackpot, take a few steps to lower your score on Baez' crackpot index.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd still say that precision is more important than math. Math is just the easiest way to make things precise. There are equivalent ways, such as geometry. Michael Faraday, though he knew little math, was one of the great scientists of the 1800's.

 

From Wikipedia:

Faraday's concept of lines of flux emanating from charged bodies and magnets provided a way to visualize electric and magnetic fields. That mental model was crucial to the successful development of electromechanical devices which dominated engineering and industry for the remainder of the 19th century.

 

The simple concept of magnetic fields was partially responsible for the huge discovery of electromagnetic waves which led to modern physics. Perhaps Farsight's concept of twist could have some similar use (if it works out) ... but I don't think he understands twist.

[D H]

Last time I looked, geometry was still considered math.

[Mr Skeptic]

Last time I looked, geometry was still considered math.

 

That's why I said equivalent. I'm pretty sure that if it is precise enough it would be equivalent to math. That said, draw any pretty equations lately?

[ajb]

Geometry is definitely part of mathematics.

 

I use modern geometry all the time, yet I have not drawn any "pictures" (apart from commuting diagrams and similar!). Geometry is not all about drawing figures!

[Edtharan]

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):

 

In my view

this tendency also applies to time, which we should consider in new terms commencing with the

definition of a second as given by the International Organization for Standardization under ISO 31-1:

 

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition

between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

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.

 

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ

 

Frequency is the reciprocal of the period T, and is also velocity v divided by wavelength λ. Combining

the two we say T = λ / v, which means a period T is a wavelength λ divided by a velocity v.

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 the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458

of a second...

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.

 

T = λ / ( λ / t)

Then we can cancel out the λs:

T = 1/(1/t)

Then we cancel the double reciprocal to leave:

T = t

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.

 

The answer to the question “What is a period?” is T = t, which only tells us that a period of time is a

period of time. This means the official definition of the second is circular, and yields nothing of the true

nature of time. In order to progress further, we must revisit frequency:

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.

 

Our unit of time is the second, and frequency is the number of events per second.

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?

[D H]

A second is actually 1/86400th of a day.

Farsight got this right. He is quoting the ISO directly. A second used to be defined as 1/86,400th of a day. Two problems existed with this definition. First, what exactly is a "day"? Once people came to grips with this, they found that a "day" is a lousy standard. It is not constant. So now we define a second based on the atomic clock, define a day to be exactly 86,400 seconds, and intermittently add leap seconds to Corrected Universal Time (UTC) to keep our everyday clocks in sync with solar time.

 

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.

Farsight once again has the definition correct. We switched from the Earth-based definition to the meter prototype because the Earth does not have a constant shape. We switched from the meter prototype to a light-second basis because the meter prototype has problems as well. The kilogram is the sole remaining standard based on a prototype. Interestingly, the standard kilogram appears to be losing mass.

 

We use these constants for time and length because they are incredibly accurate, incredibly constant, and internally consistent. Farsight, do you really think you are seeing a circularity that has been missed by some of the best minds in the world? There is no circularity. This essential flaw in your paper starts on page one and propagates throughout.

 

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?

 

This is absolutely correct.

[Edtharan]

Farsight got this right. He is quoting the ISO directly. A second used to be defined as 1/86,400th of a day.

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").

 

Farsight once again has the definition correct. We switched from the Earth-based definition to the meter prototype because the Earth does not have a constant shape.

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.

 

We use these constants for time and length because they are incredibly accurate, incredibly constant, and internally consistent. Farsight, do you really think you are seeing a circularity that has been missed by some of the best minds in the world? There is no circularity. This essential flaw in your paper starts on page one and propagates throughout.

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".

[Farsight]

This is not a scientific paper. Except for the excessive length, it has the look and feel of a for-the-masses, non-scientific paper as published in Scientific American.

 

Noted. This is of course something of an issue. But there's not a lot I can do about it because it really is an analysis of basic concepts wherein I'm looking at mathematical terms, axioms, postulates. For example the initial section is examining t, and there's just no way I can tackle it mathematically.

 

Farsight, you still rely too much on your pretty pictures. Its not as bad as in your previous writeups, but this is supposedly a "scientific paper". One big problem with those pictures: To use them in a paper, you need to get written approval from the owner of each and every one of these images.

Again, noted. I've tried to cut it down to a minimum here. Thanks for the input.

 

The charge of vagueness still stands. A paper on physics without any substantial math does not qualify as a scientific paper. In the physics world, the math comes first. The for-the-masses, non-scientific physics articles are published only after the math has been fully hashed out. Learn the math.

Noted.

 

Change the title. The use of relativity in all caps screams CRACKPOT. If you don't want to be viewed as a crackpot, take a few steps to lower your score on Baez' crackpot index.

Noted. I've thought long and hard about this, and I am happy with my decision.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

I'd still say that precision is more important than math. Math is just the easiest way to make things precise. There are equivalent ways, such as geometry. Michael Faraday, though he knew little math, was one of the great scientists of the 1800's.

Ideally we'd see a mixture of mathematics and concept. IMHO I think there's a lot of the former and not enough of the latter. For example I've been struggling with geometry this morning, tying knots and moebius strips and performing various transformations. Whilst the mathematics of trigonometry and knot theory is essential, seeing it and grasping and really understanding it is essential to.

 

The simple concept of magnetic fields was partially responsible for the huge discovery of electromagnetic waves which led to modern physics. Perhaps Farsight's concept of twist could have some similar use (if it works out) ... but I don't think he understands twist.

 

I do. What's to say about twist?

[ydoaPs]

Noted. This is of course something of an issue. But there's not a lot I can do about it because it really is an analysis of basic concepts wherein I'm looking at mathematical terms' date=' axioms, postulates. For example the initial section is examining t, and there's just no way I can tackle it mathematically. [/quote']

I'm not sure why you can't tackle it mathematically. Is it because you don't yet have a strong enough maths background?

[Farsight]

Farsight got this right. He is quoting the ISO directly. A second used to be defined as 1/86,400th of a day...

 

Farsight once again has the definition correct. We switched from the Earth-based definition to the meter prototype...

 

Thanks.

 

Edtharan: I have to go now, so I'll get back your post later. Perhaps you might wish to rephrase some aspects of it once you've talked with others.

 

Farsight, do you really think you are seeing a circularity that has been missed by some of the best minds in the world?

Yes. But I am not unique. This idea goes back to Aristotle, was raised as Presentism in 1908, by Godel and Einstein in 1949, and by many others.

 

There is no circularity. This essential flaw in your paper starts on page one and propagates throughout.

Please can you elaborate. This is important.

 

yourdadonapogos: try tackling t mathematically. You just can't. It's axiomatic.

[ydoaPs]

yourdadonapogos: try tackling t mathematically. You just can't. It's axiomatic.

 

Sure you can.

 

For example: You describe charge as a "twist" in spacetime. There are several ways to describe twist mathematically that are quite distinct from the way we currently describe charge. You could even create your own set of Maxwell equations describing how twist and turn are related. Your speculations could use maths everywhere. If you did use maths, you might get more serious attention.

 

Out of curiosity, what is your level of maths?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, Farsight, now you claim to understand twist ... but have yet to say anything about the twist. Once again, I ask: Twist along which axis? How much twist? "Flowing" twist (spin) or static twist? Since you claim you know what twist is, why don't you define it?

 

And further, let me add, what makes your idea different than that of W. K. Clifford? He too attempted to explain charge as twist. Some quotes from here:

The fundamental element of space curvature in Clifford's mathematical model was the twist, which he hoped to use to describe electromagnetic and atomic phenomena. Karl Pearson continued Clifford's development of the twist without reference to its relation to space curvature in his own development of the "ether-twist."

 

Clifford's purely mathematical studies were not immune from involvement in this aspect of the non-Euclidean debate, but the complexity of the mathematics involved allowed only the best and brightest mathematicians to draw conclusions regarding the physics of space and time directly from Clifford's mathematics. On the other hand, the philosophical contributions allowed anyone who could read and use their imagination to draw conclusions from Clifford's more general concepts.

 

These folks were no clowns...

[Farsight]

Sure you can. For example: You describe charge as a "twist" in spacetime. There are several ways to describe twist mathematically that are quite distinct from the way we currently describe charge. You could even create your own set of Maxwell equations describing how twist and turn are related. Your speculations could use maths everywhere. If you did use maths, you might get more serious attention. Out of curiosity, what is your level of maths?

 

I don't disagree with that. Yes, there are places in this paper where I could use mathematics more. OK point noted. My level of maths is A level, though I do a little more mathematics than that. I was rather hoping that others would pick up on this, leaving me free to cover the concepts, the insight, the grasp, the things I enjoy. The recurring theme of what I've been doing is that there are thousands of very capable mathematicians out there who've been searching for answers for perhaps a hundred years. For some reason mathematics has been unable to deliver, hence my "back to first principles" approach.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Well, Farsight, now you claim to understand twist ... but have yet to say anything about the twist. Once again, I ask: Twist along which axis? How much twist? "Flowing" twist (spin) or static twist? Since you claim you know what twist is, why don't you define it?

 

It's twist in all three axes, which is why I showed a picture of a twisted cube on page 15. How much twist is indicated by my explanation of Planck's constant and the fine structure constant on page 26. The photon amplitude is 3.86 x 10¯¹³ metres, the fine structure constant α = e²/2ε0hc has a value of circa 1/137, and is the ratio of the energy required to push two electrons together from infinity to some given distance, as compared to the energy of a photon with a wavelength 2π times that distance. As a simple geometrical illustration, if we cut the moebius doughnut and uncurl it to form a cylinder, it would exhibit a 180º barberpole twist. If we then imagine the cylinder to be thin-walled, such that we could slice it down its length and unroll it to spread it flat, this twist is transformed into a diagonal line across a rectangle of width π and length 2π. Sine 0.5 is 30º, which is one twelfth of 360º. A twelfth of the 511KeV electron mass/energy is reaching out as an electromagnetic field. When we push two electrons together, each is coupling with a twelfth of its mass, so we have to multiply a twelfth by a twelfth to get a combined value of 1/144. This is of course not accurate, but we only need to make the twist angle 30.75687º to arrive at 1/11.7047th of 360º, and squaring this gives us the familiar 1/137. Sure I could say more, or rephrase things, but I thought I'd given enough with all this, and didn't think of giving a "definition".

 

And further, let me add, what makes your idea different than that of W. K. Clifford? He too attempted to explain charge as twist. Some quotes from here..

These folks were no clowns.

 

I don't know. I've never heard of W. K. Clifford. Note though that in the popular-science-book version I have a whole chapter on acknowledgements, and the title is "The Same Elephant". A significant percentage of what I say has been said before in some form or other, and once you know what you're looking for, you know what to look for and uncover more examples.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

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.

Please do take the time to sit down and read it all, Edtharan. Some of the points you raise will be dealt with by later sections. Excuse me if I cut things down a little, since your long posts remain something of a problem.

 

A second is actually 1/86400th of a day. That is the definition 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.

I'm sorry Edtharan, you're wrong here. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts. Also note that if you were right, and the second was defined as 1/86400th of a day, it would still be defined using motion.

 

Frequency=1/T and Frequency=v/λ. Wouldn't combining them give 1/T=v/λ not T = λ / v

The two are equivalent. Just take a reciprocal.

 

The metre is defined as a fraction of the distance around the equator of the Earth..

Again, I'm sorry but you're wrong here too. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts.

 

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.

Both are dependent upon the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. The second is associated with the hyperfine transition, and I later explain the electron as a 511KeV photon configuration. That means the second is intimately associated with the motion of light, which is also used to define the metre.

 

This is just a bit of mathematical sleight of hand. You might think this is true, but you have then fooled yourself.

I'm going to pass over this for the time being. Please speak with other posters about whether this trivial expression is mathematically correct.

 

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".

IMHO you're building your argument on very shaky ground Edtharan. Please backtrack and get this right.

 

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.

I know I can't extract any useful information from it. The official definition of a second yields no useful information about what a second really is. That's why I then look again at frequency.

 

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 ).

Please confer with other posters about whether this very simple aritmentic is mathematical sleight of hand.

 

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.

No, you've made the mistakes, not me. Sorry.

 

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.

I must beg to differ as to who is offering the strawman argument here.

 

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.

Oh come on. A metre is a 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.

Wrong.

 

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.

No, we use time to measure change and motion. You've got it back to front. Change happens. Motion is what we see. Things move through space. We use time to measure it, and it is based upon the motion of light. There is simply no way that we can move through our measure of motion through space.

 

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?

You are measuring motion. Change. Not time. A pocketwatch doesn't measure time. It measures the motion of the springs and gears within the watch. Your original definition of a second measured the motion of the earth. The atomic clock measures the motion of the hyperfine transition. I do understand. Your concept of time relies upon your concept of time. But you cannot touch time, you can't see it, smell it, touch it, you can't move through it, can't see it flowing, and can't see its length. All these are abstractions that you take for granted. So much so that you are quite unable to examine the concept you hold dear. For the record, my concept of time is summarised thus:

 

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.

[ydoaPs]

I don't disagree with that. Yes, there are places in this paper where I could use mathematics more. OK point noted.

It's not places that "could" use it more, they are places the MUST use it more. Your "'back to first principles' approach" necessitates DIFFERENT math than the current theories use. In order to evaluate your speculations, we need these maths from your model. Since they are different, they could be more accurate(good for you), less accurate(not so good for you), or have the same accuracy(which means the only way of evaluating your model is through the predictions). As I said in your Charge Explained thread, your vagueness is hindering your maths and your predictions, assuming, of course, that you are attempting to extrapolate maths and predictions. For example, take a look at my requests for clarification on your Charge Explained thread. Some predictions easily fall out from them.

 

For some reason mathematics has been unable to deliver, hence my "back to first principles" approach.

And for this reason, you must provide a "new mathematics" from your "'back to first principles' approach."

 

My level of maths is A level, though I do a little more mathematics than that.

As I am from the USA, I'm not quite sure what that means. Is that like Algebra 2, Multivariable Calculus, Set Theory, etc?

 

 

I was rather hoping that others would pick up on this, leaving me free to cover the concepts, the insight, the grasp, the things I enjoy.

They are your speculations, so, if you want them to be taken seriously as a theory, YOU must produce the maths.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's twist in all three axes, which is why I showed a picture of a twisted cube on page 15.

 

But that's not what I asked. I was asking about the twist that you say the electric field is made of, not of the electron. I asked along which axis is the twist? Are you twisting along the x axis? The t axis? I think what you are saying is that the axis of rotation is perpendicular to all space axis but not the t axis? Then it would be twist along the t axis?

 

How much twist is indicated by my explanation of Planck's constant and the fine structure constant on page 26. The photon amplitude is 3.86 x 10¯¹³ metres, the fine structure constant α = e²/2ε0hc has a value of circa 1/137, and is the ratio of the energy required to push two electrons together from infinity to some given distance, as compared to the energy of a photon with a wavelength 2π times that distance. As a simple geometrical illustration, if we cut the moebius doughnut and uncurl it to form a cylinder, it would exhibit a 180º barberpole twist. If we then imagine the cylinder to be thin-walled, such that we could slice it down its length and unroll it to spread it flat, this twist is transformed into a diagonal line across a rectangle of width π and length 2π. Sine 0.5 is 30º, which is one twelfth of 360º. A twelfth of the 511KeV electron mass/energy is reaching out as an electromagnetic field. When we push two electrons together, each is coupling with a twelfth of its mass, so we have to multiply a twelfth by a twelfth to get a combined value of 1/144. This is of course not accurate, but we only need to make the twist angle 30.75687º to arrive at 1/11.7047th of 360º, and squaring this gives us the familiar 1/137. Sure I could say more, or rephrase things, but I thought I'd given enough with all this, and didn't think of giving a "definition".

 

Kudos on having a very specific description of the electron though. I will analyze this shortly, to see if any predictions can be pulled out. BTW you have a typo, the sine of 30 degrees is .5 not the other way around.

 

 

I don't know. I've never heard of W. K. Clifford. Note though that in the popular-science-book version I have a whole chapter on acknowledgements, and the title is "The Same Elephant". A significant percentage of what I say has been said before in some form or other, and once you know what you're looking for, you know what to look for and uncover more examples.

 

W. K. Clifford is just someone I found out about while trying to look up twist. My googling skills have failed me, though. No one seems to want to explain what twist is in mathematical terms, they just talk about knots. Anyhow, I was just pointing out that others have been researching twisting as electromagnetism and have included maths.

[Farsight]

It's not places that "could" use it more, they are places the MUST use it more. Your "'back to first principles' approach" necessitates DIFFERENT math than the current theories use. In order to evaluate your speculations, we need these maths from your model. Since they are different, they could be more accurate(good for you), less accurate(not so good for you), or have the same accuracy(which means the only way of evaluating your model is through the predictions). As I said in your Charge Explained thread, your vagueness is hindering your maths and your predictions, assuming, of course, that you are attempting to extrapolate maths and predictions. For example, take a look at my requests for clarification on your Charge Explained thread. Some predictions easily fall out from them. And for this reason, you must provide a "new mathematics" from your "'back to first principles' approach."

 

As I am from the USA, I'm not quite sure what that means. Is that like Algebra 2, Multivariable Calculus, Set Theory, etc?

 

They are your speculations, so, if you want them to be taken seriously as a theory, YOU must produce the maths.

 

You point noted. I am aware that the paucity of mathematical rigor and resultant prediction is an issue. My maths is what you might expect from an undergraduate. I can't readily acquire the experience I'd need here, so I'll look at some form of collaboration.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But that's not what I asked. I was asking about the twist that you say the electric field is made of, not of the electron. I asked along which axis is the twist? Are you twisting along the x axis? The t axis? I think what you are saying is that the axis of rotation is perpendicular to all space axis but not the t axis? Then it would be twist along the t axis?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. The electric field is a twist in space in the x y and z axes. It isn't "made" of anything other than the geometrical disposition of space. I don't think there's any axis of rotation that I can describe. The electric field of an electron resembles a three dimensional spiral focussed on the electron, which is a point of rotation. There is no rotation around the t axis if by this you mean the time axis.

 

Kudos on having a very specific description of the electron though. I will analyze this shortly, to see if any predictions can be pulled out. BTW you have a typo, the sine of 30 degrees is .5 not the other way around.

Thanks. Do note reference 9.

 

W. K. Clifford is just someone I found out about while trying to look up twist. My googling skills have failed me, though. No one seems to want to explain what twist is in mathematical terms, they just talk about knots. Anyhow, I was just pointing out that others have been researching twisting as electromagnetism and have included maths.

I'll look him up. I have to say I don't know a great deal about knot theory or any mathematics associated with twist. However there seems to be a lot of material out there that I ought to read up on:

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwistKnot.html

[Edtharan]

Sorry , long post again I know, but there were a few things closely related that needed to be covered.

 

The two are equivalent. Just take a reciprocal.

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.

 

Please confer with other posters about whether this very simple aritmentic is mathematical sleight of hand.

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.

 

I'm sorry Edtharan, you're wrong here. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts. Also note that if you were right, and the second was defined as 1/86400th of a day, it would still be defined using motion.

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.

 

The second is associated with the hyperfine transition, and I later explain the electron as a 511KeV photon configuration. That means the second is intimately associated with the motion of light, which is also used to define the metre.

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.

 

Oh come on. A metre is a distance.

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.

 

You are measuring motion. Change. Not time. A pocketwatch doesn't measure time. It measures the motion of the springs and gears within the watch.

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)

 

No, we use time to measure change and motion. You've got it back to front. Change happens. Motion is what we see. Things move through space. We use time to measure it, and it is based upon the motion of light. There is simply no way that we can move through our measure of motion through space.

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).

[Farsight]

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.

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ therefore

1 / T = v / λ, flipping both sides over

T / 1 = λ / v, now lose the division by 1

T = λ / v

 

Ok, I could be wrong, but what would the results of the equation T = λ / ( λ / t) if the two different lambdas had different values.

They can't have. We are talking about one particular frequency, one particular wavelength, and one particular period. The T = t is only intended to demonstrate that the official definition of a second doesn't tell you what time actually is, and palms you off with what is in essence "time is time".

 

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.

Hold it right there. This "separated by time" is your problem. You are building in a presumption that you later use as evidence in support of your argument. Yes, we will agree that the events are somehow separated. But the only measure of this separation that we actually have is in terms of the motion of light. We call this separation time, and I say "time exists like heat exists". But you don't actually move through it. The notion of moving through time is an artifice, and a figure of speech.

 

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...

Hold it again. A second has no "length". The only real length associated with a second is how far light would travel during this unit of measurement. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same.

 

...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).

And the 64,000$ dollar question is: what is a second? What actually is it? You can't show me one. All you can do is not move for a second whilst light everywhere zips about its business, then declare that a second has "passed". It hasn't. All that happened, is nothing. You sat there doing nothing while the ever-whizzing light in our atoms clocks and brains did its moving.

 

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".

The thing we are actually measuring is motion. Not time. That's why I say time is a derived effect of motion.

 

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).

It doesn't matter whether you've made some small error. What matters is your conviction that time is some kind of dimension that offers freedom of movement. You're not alone in thinking this. Most people do. But it isn't. It's space up there, and down here too. And light and other things move through it. We infer a time dimension from this, but we cant move through it. The moving is only through space.

 

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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying what we're actually measuring is how much motion light would do. That's why I said time is cofounded with motion. No motion, no 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.

Noted.

 

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).

What dilemma? Motion happens. We see it. Things move through space. We have evidence of this every day of our lives. What I said is you don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. The motion is through space. It isn't through time. You can't move through time. There is no evidence, it isn't scientific. Time is just our convention for measuring this motion through space, comparing it against the motion of light, and counting up the total motion of light since the beginning of the universe or some other marker point.

 

I think we're going round in circles again with this. Why don't we park it for a while? Thereafter please do try to be succinct and raise one topic at once.

[Mr Skeptic]

You point noted. I am aware that the paucity of mathematical rigor and resultant prediction is an issue. My maths is what you might expect from an undergraduate. I can't readily acquire the experience I'd need here, so I'll look at some form of collaboration.

 

Does that mean we can assume that you only know basic algebra and trigonometry, along with the basics of physics? That's about the limit for most undergrads. Or do you understand the curl operator that describes the induction portion of Maxwell's Equations and the vorticity in fluid dynamics.

 

Sorry if that wasn't clear. The electric field is a twist in space in the x y and z axes. It isn't "made" of anything other than the geometrical disposition of space. I don't think there's any axis of rotation that I can describe. The electric field of an electron resembles a three dimensional spiral focussed on the electron, which is a point of rotation. There is no rotation around the t axis if by this you mean the time axis.

 

OK, we're getting somewhere. Would the spiral look like a hyperbolic spiral or some other kind?

 

Also, I have had some trouble with the 3D spiral. Many of the descriptions of 3D spirals are like helixes, which is probably not what you want. I tried twisting a wire into a 3D spiral but I either got a helix or something a bit too chaotic to tell whether it was a spiral or not. Can you describe how to make a 3D spiral (or include a picture) for me?

 

I'll look him up. I have to say I don't know a great deal about knot theory or any mathematics associated with twist. However there seems to be a lot of material out there that I ought to read up on:

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwistKnot.html

 

Yeah, I tended to run into knots all the time looking for twist too.

 

 

Farsight, Edtharan:What do you folks think of Planck Units? Maybe you might want to consider Planck Time instead of seconds.

[ydoaPs]

You point noted. I am aware that the paucity of mathematical rigor and resultant prediction is an issue. My maths is what you might expect from an undergraduate. I can't readily acquire the experience I'd need here, so I'll look at some form of collaboration.

If your are thinking of the twist field how I think you are, you should be able to describe the magnitude via the curl of the field and the polarity via the divergence of the field(assuming the vector field here is spacetime itself). If you would, I have posted some requests for clarification in the Charge Explained thread that I would like for you to look at.

[Farsight]

Edtharan: maybe this will help: Imagine we’re at a cricket match, on a sunny day enjoying a beer. The bowler is just running up to the crease when I snap my fingers and call out Freeframe! Then I lead you out to the wicket and you peer at the batsman, and the drop of sweat poised on his brow. The bowler is spreadeagled in mid air, and the ball has just left his hand. We are privileged observers, invisible, not really there. You say to me “Farsight, you stopped time”. I reply “No, Edtharan, I stopped motion”.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Does that mean we can assume that you only know basic algebra and trigonometry, along with the basics of physics? That's about the limit for most undergrads. Or do you understand the curl operator that describes the induction portion of Maxwell's Equations and the vorticity in fluid dynamics.

My knowledge level is rather mixed. Yes I know basic algebra and trigonometry and the basics of physics, but in some areas I know more. Do I understand the curl operator in Maxwell's Equations? Well, I've heard of it and its association with magnetism, and "rot". But do I understand it? I'd say no. This is in part because I'm not at home with the fluid analogies of vector fields, eg Gauss's theorem, or the separation between electic and magnetic fields. You know, I'm not even at home with fields these days.

 

OK, we're getting somewhere. Would the spiral look like a hyperbolic spiral or some other kind?

A little like that. But it's gentler, and the central winding angle is thirty degrees.

 

Also, I have had some trouble with the 3D spiral. Many of the descriptions of 3D spirals are like helixes, which is probably not what you want. I tried twisting a wire into a 3D spiral but I either got a helix or something a bit too chaotic to tell whether it was a spiral or not. Can you describe how to make a 3D spiral (or include a picture) for me?

 

Start with this shape.

 

 

Now imagine you can move around it, and regardless of your vantage point you see the same sort of spiral. It's hard to visualize, but it's something like this:

 

 

Farsight, Edtharan:What do you folks think of Planck Units? Maybe you might want to consider Planck Time instead of seconds.

 

Not a lot. Sorry, I don't think they get to the bottom of it.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If your are thinking of the twist field how I think you are, you should be able to describe the magnitude via the curl of the field and the polarity via the divergence of the field (assuming the vector field here is spacetime itself). If you would, I have posted some requests for clarification in the Charge Explained thread that I would like for you to look at.

See my comment above. I have some problems with things like "vector fields" these days. If I look at wiki for example:

 

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

 

Vector fields are often used in physics to model' date=' for example, the speed and direction of a moving fluid throughout space, or the strength and direction of some force, such as the magnetic or gravitational force, as it changes from point to point...

 

[img']http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/43/333px-Vectorfield_jaredwf.png[/img]

 

The vector field is the effect, not the cause. Ditto for the force. There's no fluid flow. It's just geometry. I have the same issue with "curved spacetime". Gravity is a radial gradient, not curved spacetime. Yes, one could perhaps employ curl and divergence, but when I look things up, the concepts just don't fit with those I've developed here. And with my weak maths, it causes me difficulties.

[Mr Skeptic]

A little like that. But it's gentler, and the central winding angle is thirty degrees.

Start with this shape.

 

 

So the twist looks like a logarithmic spiral? That keeps twisting almost as much no matter how far or close you are?

 

Now imagine you can move around it, and regardless of your vantage point you see the same sort of spiral. It's hard to visualize, but it's something like this:

 

 

Imagine? Not much room for taking things on faith in mathematics. Do you mean just adding many spirals in all directions?That the hairball is almost straight, not very twisted.