The problem with mathematics and time

[The time Traveller]

 

The problem with mathematics is it's a man made concept and based on time

 

which is another man made concept time isn't a constant.

 

Edited December 6, 2011 by The time Traveller

[Mystery111]

can you cut this down a bit? I loose concentration before the wall of words has finished. Please?

[The time Traveller]

can you cut this down a bit? I loose concentration before the wall of words has finished. Please?

 

 

I do apologise but it’s the only way to explain the process that was undertaken my friend but point taken it dose look like one might need a cup of tea and biscuits to get through it all

 

 

[Schrödinger's hat]

can you cut this down a bit? I loose concentration before the wall of words has finished. Please?

 

One. Muahaha

Two. Muahaha

Three. Muahaha

 

Three!

 

There are three sentences in the wall of text.

 

Joking aside. We appreciate it if you break your thoughts down into readable chunks (lots of both sentences and paragraphs ). We also appreciate it if you would post non-mainstream ideas in the speculations forum (don't start a new thread, a mod will move it for you).

[The time Traveller]

We don’t get out much in my work and we do have a one track mind at times and tend to ramble on a bit a habit hard to break. But it’s a sad fact that classified will do that to you at times

 

 

[swansont]

The problem with mathematics is it's a man made concept and based on time

 

It's based on time?

[The time Traveller]

Man decided that night and day should be split up in to 24 hours.

 

12 hours each, and each hour to be split into 6o min 60 seconds.

 

All was invented by him .

 

his only reference to this decision was in fact night & day. light and dark

 

Man has always sort to put things into little boxes to try and make sense of things he invented counting 1234567 and so on this system was ok back in the day when it was I have 5 potatoes you give me 1 rabbit as you know this was the earliest form of maths and at that time man wasn’t even aware it was maths.

 

As the human race developed so did its ability to use the numeric system that all mathematics are based on to day? But if you look at the behaviour of particles and the spaces they occupy then you would realise that they don’t obey the numeric system at all and that is why physics has to invent new dimensions and even then there is a . something recurring number so in truth it still didn’t add up but this is all to often ignored.

 

 

[swansont]

That doesn't support the contention that math is based on time.

[JustinW]

I think he was using the time analogy as a refrence to mathematics being man made. Although mathematics aren't made up of physical elements does not mean that mathematics are not real or constant. Things in the universe change, changing the math that is applyed to them. But the math is still consistant and real without having to have physical properties to touch.

[The time Traveller]

This is a fundamental limitation of mathematics. It is quite possible to have a true mathematical relationship, that suggests a particular physical model, and yet the theory may be completely wrong. This makes mathematics very confusing and deceptive.

I mention this because it is very important in explaining why mathematical physics is now so absurd as many of its mathematical truths have been misunderstood, which has resulted in incorrect theoretical interpretations (which is why a correct knowledge of physical reality is so important to mathematicians / mathematical physics).

 

It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme - the quantum theory - which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies - the wave picture and the corpuscular picture." 'Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language.'

The mistake was to assume that this limitation was inherent in our language, thus we could never directly describe reality and must limit ourselves to describing the 'pattern of events in mathematical terms'. As it turns out the limitation came from having the wrong language - a language founded on discrete 'particles' in space-time (mathematical) rather than spherical standing waves in space (physical). And some maths physicists have come to this same conclusion as to the limitations of mathematical physics,

 

 

[JustinW]

I will have to think about this a little. I have heard mathematics referred to as language and being such should grow universally to explain things around us. For that reason it should grow with discovery. Once solution to discovery is established it remains a true statement and can only change or grow when the entity being evaluated changes in some manner. Then the language only changes to xplain that change. This is how I see it anyway. I'm not currently up to date on the limitations of mathematical physics, so I will have to take your word for it.

 

 

[The time Traveller]

It seem to me after looking over a number of the physics forums it becomes quit obvious that some of the clearer thinkers are amongst the public population.

 

I think that one of the biggest setbacks in the field to date is 92% of all physicists are all blinkers due to there education and refuse to think out of the box as this is no longer in there comfort zone.

 

It would do the industry well to take a long hard look at some of the topics being discussed with in some of the forums and to take on some of the ideas present there

 

It is some times amusing to see a none physicist make a perfectly valid comment only to be shot down by a clearly blinkered point of view from a phys who works in the industry .

 

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be in a position to be able to divulge some of the information that we here at the labs are privy too and wonder if we to would be verbal attack for stating actual facts that they have no knowledge off.

 

 

[Allan Zade]

I think that one of the biggest setbacks in the field to date is 92% of all physicists are all blinkers due to there education and refuse to think out of the box as this is no longer in there comfort zone.

 

 

I think you are right. They tell us a lot of explanations about nature of time. But nobodyis able to answer following question. How a clock does measurement of time?

Edited December 13, 2011 by Allan Zade

[The time Traveller]

As you know there are a number of different types of clocks from the atomic clock that use the decay method.

 

I see the problem with this is it is still a man made concept for counting the decay eg 1234567 and so on and 1 to 60 = 1 minuet x 12 = 12 hours and x by 2 = 24 = night and day.

 

it was mankind that decided this numerical system and I believe that its incorrect.

 

mathematics is also based on this system eg 12345678910 and so on as a new type of language it has still got a long way to go mankind developed verbal

 

language

 

over millions of years.

 

maths has only been around for a blink of an eye and is fare from developed if you look at some of the main mathematical problems in physics most do not add up so a new dimension is invented to try and make sense of the problem

 

as time with in space isn't a constant also

 

Greenwich Mean Time

 

is constantly having to change time to make up for gained time i believe this is due to the change in the earths resonance frequency at one time it was about 7 hertz now its up around 12.

 

we now have two north poles and one south.

 

most of the planets population are unaware that if you calculate the gain they are actually living a 17 too 18 hour day / night.

 

its no longer 24? also if you was actually to stop and think about it you can notice the change.

 

if you are in your 40 or 50 you defiantly can see it.

 

if you are in your 20 then not so much if you ask some one in there 60 they will say time seems to go so fast nowadays.

 

its not there age it's the fact that over the last 100 years the earths natural frequency has gone from 7 too 12 hertz its this frequency that determines time and this alone so no matter how well a synchronise machine works eg a clock it will never depict actual time if you also take into account that everything is made up of electrons right down to a grain of sand on the beach to the modern man walking down the high st then you also have to except that it is all interconnected and ultimately affected by frequency so it stands to reason that if the earths frequency has gone from 7 hertz to 12 hertz then this has a profound effect on everything else .

 

 

I would like to add that if you also look at the development of technologies over the last 100 years and you compare it to the change in the earths natural frequency you can see the advancement follows the same curve as the resonant change I believe this increase has given mankind the ability to understand more complex models of the universe and his environment and has given him new insights in understanding technologic growth

 

Modern day physics and astronomers have now also discovered that the expansion of the universe is speeding up and not slowing down this too makes sense if you compare it to mankind's place within this model

Edited December 13, 2011 by The time Traveller

[Dovada]

Time, is most of the time an assumed factor. When we make statements like the speed of light is 300,000,000 meters, the second is assumed as is with most other speed or velocity references.

 

as time with in space isn't a constant

What you are saying above, is also saying that because time is not a constant, everything is therefore wrong in our physics values. Is this true?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Dovada

[The time Traveller]

what iamSuggesting is like my earlier statement

 

This is a fundamental limitation of mathematics. It is quite possible to have a true mathematical relationship, that suggests a particular physical model, and yet the theory may be completely wrong. This makes mathematics very confusing and deceptive.

I mention this because it is very important in explaining why mathematical physics is now so absurd as many of its mathematical truths have been misunderstood, which has resulted in incorrect theoretical interpretations (which is why a correct knowledge of physical reality is so important to mathematicians / mathematical physics).

 

It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme - the quantum theory - which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies - the wave picture and the corpuscular picture." 'Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language.'

The mistake was to assume that this limitation was inherent in our language, thus we could never directly describe reality and must limit ourselves to describing the 'pattern of events in mathematical terms'. As it turns out the limitation came from having the wrong language - a language founded on discrete 'particles' in space-time (mathematical) rather than spherical standing waves in space (physical). And some maths physicists have come to this same conclusion as to the limitations of mathematical physics,I believe that mankind has a long ways to go before he develops this new concept of the

 

( mathematics language) in the scheme of things its still in its infancy

 

It also explains why 98% of all complex phys maths keeps hitting a brick wall one of the big questions in physics' over the years? is where did all the particles come from because the theory of the big bang couldn't have produced them all this is still a fundamental problem for the world phys community and CERN was built to try and solve this problem and as quoted by the phys at CERN

 

The Higgs boson is a famous subatomic particle first theorized to exist back in the mid-1960s. It's a key part of some beautiful mathematics that would explain a fundamental mystery: why things have mass. The adding of new dimensions is wrong to do in a mathematical eq they will not find this particle with CERN they will just add to there frustration when they find new elements that have always been there but in the past just eluded them and they to could not have come into existence from the big bang .

 

But if there is one comfort in all this mankind is relentless and a most resourceful species and will get there in the end the mathematical equations just need to factor in the constantly changing subatomic frequencies they will then find the maths will make a lot more sense and start to add up I am not saying this is easy to do as it means calculating within six dimensional space and having to apply frequencies algorithms that constantly change one moment to the next to the equations but during the course of the calculating one answer will keep popping out that is a constant that will be the right answer all the other numbers are just background noise and should be ignored

 

 

Edited December 14, 2011 by The time Traveller

[Klaynos]

If our maths and theories are so bad how do they so accurately predict reality?

[The time Traveller]

Reality is a fact you can visually observe. And it doesn’t take maths to explain whether the visual representation is correct is another matter all together

 

 

[Klaynos]

That didn't answer my question.

 

Science works, no matter if you like it or not, it works. Making stories up doesn't.

[The time Traveller]

I am not saying that its so bad I am saying its got a long way to go I think phys has done an outstanding job to date and I am proud to be part of some of the new cutting edge physics going on to day in the dark back rooms that will take mankind into the future and I have full respect to all those in the phys and sci community it takes a special type of person to do this some times god forsaken work but hay some one has to do it right

 

 

 

I believe its discussions like this that lead to new ideas and with in those new ideas just maybe we can take one more step closer to the answer

 

 

 

Science is one thing I would defiantly agree with you on.

 

but physics is a whole different ball game the bases of physics is subjective

 

if you just look at the last 10 years they are now excepting theories that was ridiculed 10 years ago

 

it is not for me ore any other person to say other wise all we can do is put forward our thoughts and hope we can meet some were in the middle

 

like I said on my profile page and I too see my self with in this statement and try to rise about it every day

 

When people do not realise their own intellectual limits, they do not enter into the struggle to understand that which they have failed to comprehend

 

. Learning is no substitute for understanding.

 

It is in admitting a lack of understanding and in wrestling with the problem that the mistakes of the past are rectified

 

 

 

I

 

That didn't answer my question.

 

Science works, no matter if you like it or not, it works. Making stories up doesn't.

 

I am sorry if I went on a bit and maybe broke one of the forums rules I respect your comments

 

but just between you and I

 

I was stating physics' facts in about 80% of my comments the rest was just a subjective and something we have to solve day in and day out here

 

but hey like you know its just on day at a time we can only endeavour to do our best

Edited December 14, 2011 by The time Traveller

[Klaynos]

Physics follows the scientific method, which is supposed to remove subjectivity. One of the main things you realise when studying physics to an undergraduate level and beyond is the limiting point of not just individual knowledge but also the limit to our as a species limit of knowledge.

[The time Traveller]

I agree with this I finished my PhD15 years ago along with several other letters after my name to my dismay feel are worthless now.

 

I have worked along side BAE DERA and NASA and a lot has changed since then new ideas come and go and come and go again.

 

I work in a class 7 security government labs I travel to several different countries collaborating our work if I was honest if I new then what I know now and have seen with my own eyes I some times wonder just how far I might have evolved in my field of physics if given this information back then I tell you it would blow your mind.

 

the one thing that I don't agree with is how the governments of this world can keep mankind from the truth about just how far physics has advanced even in the last 5 years my only hope is bright young physicists like your self and others keep questioning the system I was just trying to open a few bright minds to the fact its not always black and white.

 

I promises you that with in the comments I have made there is some real advancements to be made the answer is there its not all as it seems at first glance if you ask your university tutor about the comments I have made and take a good look at his expression when he tries to explain then ask him of the record if he really believes what he is telling you and then ask him for his own take on it all. if it isn't different form the curriculum then I will humbly back down yours respectfully the time traveller

Edited December 14, 2011 by The time Traveller

[swansont]

As you know there are a number of different types of clocks from the atomic clock that use the decay method.

 

Of the various types of atomic clocks/frequency standards to which I have access to or know others to use (which are the standard types in use today: cesium beam, hydrogen maser, atomic fountain, (mercury) ion trap, rubidium gas cell), none use radioactive decay. There are dating methods that use it, to measure time intervals.

 

Greenwich Mean Time

 

is constantly having to change time to make up for gained time i believe this is due to the change in the earths resonance frequency at one time it was about 7 hertz now its up around 12.

 

No, not really. Leap seconds are added because the rotation rate has slowed. The dominant trend is due to tidal coupling with the moon, but there are other influences that cause fluctuations. The rotational frequency is about 11.6 mHz. I don't know what this 7-12 Hz resonance is you mention. A reference would be useful.

[The time Traveller]

minutus-cantorum-minutus-balorum-minutus-carborata-descendum-pantorum-a-little-song-a-little-dance-a-little-seltzer-down-your-pants.

 

Ha-ha. Thanks for the chuckle.

I haven’t heard that saying in a LONG time.

Ha-ha

 

Early work in nuclear physics indicated that the nuclear decay parameter, l , was a constant. It was and still is generally believed that this decay rate is unaffected by changes in external parameters such as pressure, temperature, electromagnetic fields, and differing chemical environments. It is believed that radioactivity is a spontaneous, random event. The fundamental assumption made is that the decay of an atom is independent of the age of that atom.⁵

 

Schumann published his research results in the journal 'Technische Physik'

 

The Schumann Resonances are quasi-standing electromagnetic waves that exist in the Earth's 'electromagnetic' cavity (the space between the surface of the Earth and the Ionosphere).

 

Like waves on a string, they are not present all the time, but have to be "excited" to be observed. They are not caused by anything internal to the Earth, its crust or its core. They seem to be related to electrical activity in the atmosphere, particularly during times of intense lightning activity.

 

Schumann Resonances occur at several frequencies, specifically 7.83 (strongest), 14, 20, 26, 33, 39 and 45 (weakest) Hertz, with a daily variation of about ± 0.5 Hz.

 

So long as the properties of Earth's electromagnetic cavity remains about the same, these frequencies remain the same.

 

Presumably there is some change due to the solar sunspot cycle as the Earth's ionosphere changes in response to the 11-year cycle of solar activity.

 

 

Importance of Resonance for Life

Although the existence of the Schumann Resonance is an established scientific fact, there are very few scientists who are aware of the importance of this frequency as a tuning fork for Life. It's proposed that it is not merely a phenomenon caused by lightning in the atmosphere, but a very important electromagnetic standing wave, acting as background frequency and influencing biological oscillators within the mammalian brain.

 

 

[36grit]

Mathmaticle physics looks quite alien to me. I pound away at visualizing reality and how it works, far from everyday life though. Still, I can't imagine that the order of reality can't be explained in a mathmaticle model.

I do beleive that to figure particle fields one might have to add exponents to the pi involved. Maybe they do, like I said, It's all alien to me.

I think your wrong about the Higgs boson though. Their zeroing in on it as we type. It is my vision that four force pariticles emerge as sphereical thresholds reach near chaotic points in four D expansion and a structure of particle relativity and angular momentum evolve between the folding expansion forces. Or, that there is only one expansion force and the other forces are formed as it begins to fold upon itself.

I just heard you say something about spheres and forces. So I decided to chip in the above paragraph.

I don't think mankind invented math and/or time. Every grain of sand was counted and calculated long before their creation. Time is relative to ones position on a constatly moving object orbiting constantly moving objects that have statistically predictable positions within our little corner of the greater posotionisphere. Yeah, I made that last word up, I do that sometimes LOL.