Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 28 Feb 2007 10:06 In article <es3ujm$8qk_002(a)s823.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <es1hop$89d$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <es15jr$8qk_003(a)s924.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <eruv57$vf3$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: ><snip> > >>>And my mother just bought an ink pen that is supposed to prevent >>>lifting their signatures. I don't understand this one but her >>>area's latest alert is to use a special pen to sign checks. >> >>This can be the rumor mill running away. Use a blue pen to sign. > >It's not likely a rumor. Their local radio station designs >their programming to provide services to their listeners. It's >probably one of the few remaining who do so; the guy who is >behind this kind of programming has retired and does this >stuff for a hobby. The shows are regular and have experts >provide the latest information and take calls to answer questions. > >If it's a rumor, then the experts believe it, too. That happens all the time. Lots of people get fooled by good sounding stuff that they have never really experimented on. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 28 Feb 2007 10:25 In article <es3v6k$8qk_001(a)s823.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <es1ive$89d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>>I know what I'm talking about. >> >>You don't seem to me making clear points on the subject. > >I can't help that. When you read my stuff with the initial >assumption that it is going to be wrong, the onus of clarity >is not on my shoulders. When I saw that first post I read from you, I had no opinion on the subject before I started reading it. It quickly became obvious that you don't do a good job of explaining things. When I did figure out what you were meaning, I discovered that much of it was simply wrong. You may not consider that you have an "onus of clarity" but you need to be clear if you want to make a case. If your goal isn't to change a mind by making a clear argument then I have to ask why you are posting at all. It doesn't make sense for you to post messages that you know others will not understand. >>> In the case of sources, if your >>>procedures don't make you use them once in a while, they can >>>disappear and be gone for years before anybody discovers that they're >>>missing. >> >>Does "sources" in this case mean source code? > >Yes. > >> Assuming yes, this >>statement is not actually true. > >You are wrong. No, I am right. See how when I do understand what you mean I discover that it is fact wrong. >> You only need to have an effective check >>that the files are still the same as before. You don't have to attempt to >>compile. > >A compilation guarantees that every thing that is needed to build >the product is present. No this is simply wrong. Mere compilation only proves that something that didn't generate error messages is there. You need to then compare the results with what you got last time from the compile. Even this is not 100%. You have to make sure there weren't any object files on there. > When a system has run without any problems >for years, there is ususally nobody around who can build it nor >maintain it; the first person to find a job is the one who babysits >sources. When they're not actively changing, it doesn't make any >sense to a manager to pay somebody to watch paint, that was designed >never to dry, dry. For important software, the code is often treated as an important drawing or religious text is. If well designed systems are in place, the documents will be maintained. >>The issue is to make sure the files never disappear or get damaged. > >The only way to do this is to make the usage of them a part of >daily computing life. No, you can do it once a year once the software has stopped changing. >> This >>can be done with a procedure that doesn't require the very old media. >>Checks like the CRC are quite effective. > >Nope. It is not effective over the long term. You are wrong again. >>>The access date-time, last-written date-time, and last-read date-time >>>should be three separate date-time fields. There is a fourth >>>that is moderately useful, but I can't recall what that one is. >> >>Linux stores creation and modification dates. That is enough. > >No, it's not. Access dates are also important in backup procedures. Nope wrong again. If a file hasn't been accessed or if it has doesn't matter at all. At the end of the year, the new copies are made. [.....] >>It does take a lot of time. The "care" is having well written software. >>If the system is damaged, you have to repair it. This is just life. You >>can do things to prevent the damage in the first place but this is not the >>issue we are talking about. We got here by talking about backups. > >And what if the breaking was done by something that is on those tapes? >Whenever you restore the tapes, the system proceed to break again. You are constantly confusing restoring with repairing. They are two very different things. As long as you keep confusing the two you will not be able to see your errors on this subject. >>>Another problem that needs to be solved is off-site storage that >>>doesn't degrade and still be able to read after a decade of >>>hard/software evolution. I don't think anybody has produced >>>a method yet. There is one going on but the only way to verify >>>that it works is to wait a decade ;-). >> >>You can transcribe the data every so often. > >You can never verify that bits were dropped over the long term. Yes, you can. You need to read up about redundant information. >Copying is not a good method of keeping a snapshot of something >in the past. The copy is a new file. It is not the old file >and there is no guarantee that something hasn't changed. You can only lower the odds of having it be wrong. One chance in one googleplex is low enough odds to be considered safe. >There exists a Murphy's Law corrollary that guarantees each time >a file is opened an error will be introduced. This is simply bogus BS. >> Since the media has gotten >>denser with time, this make sense from a cost point of view. That big >>hole in the mountain in Utah is only a limited size. > >YOu still have a lot to learn about bit management. No, you appear to. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Tony Lance on 28 Feb 2007 12:30 Big Bertha Thing gyro Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/gyro.html Access page JPG 12K Image Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including alt.war.nuclear Drawing of an ordinary gyroscope. Caption:- Fig. XVI Extract from the Introductory Chapter:- But the most interesting top of all is undoubtedly the ordinary gyroscope. That depicted in Fig. XVI........ although merely sold as a toy, is nevertheless capable of illustrating the gyroscopic phenomena which have been so much made use of in modern mechanical invention. From the book An Elementary Treatment of the Theory of Spinning Tops and Gyroscopic Motion. By Harold Crabtree M.A. Formerly Scholar of Pembroke College, Cambridge Assistant Master at Charterhouse Longmans, Green and Co. 1923 First Edition 1909 Second Edition 1914 New Impression 1923 (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1998 Distribute complete and free of charge to comply. Big Bertha Thing rita Educating Rita This film portrays a dominant spouse and a long-suffering student, to the extent upto and including divorce, book-burning and forced pregnancy. There was zero privacy. Any attempt to re-register or change the password would not work, because the secret could not be kept. Every posting by the spouse is a violation of OU rules and the students education, causing real pain. Vetting by one moderator or by several using a non-public Rita conf. would not work, because the spouse would use the students name, with all the further alienation that would cause. A new policy needs to be adopted. The last resort punishment measure, needs to be the first resort measure on compassionate grounds; that of making the student read-only on FC. The student would thank you for it, but not publically. It would need to be agreed between ACS and OUSA, which is what they are there for. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk From: Tony Lance <judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk> Newsgroups: swnet.sci.astro,sci.chem Subject: Big Bertha Thing unified Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:00:24 +0000 INTRODUCTORY LETTER One of the first things I did was invent a new kind of clock, a so called perfect clock. One whose period does not vary with motion. Actually I did not invent it. Its construction has been known for years but I am the first one to actually use it as a clock, to obtain scientific results using such a clock. As you know many advancements in science have accompanied advancements in time keeping. Using such a clock it is possible to obtain varying velocities for the speed of light. Therefore using such a clock it is possible to invalidate Einsteins 2nd postulate, that the speed of light is constant. By doing this it is possible to develop a alternative physics. Unfortunately this physics is almost identical to Newtonian physics so there are no new developments from this analysis. But it is a valid Physics not just a approximation. There are two valid physics now Newtonian and Einsteinian. The weakest part of my theory is the first theorem. That time equals motion. This is because it is a assumed premise. I tried to give it as much justification for it as I could but I could not prove it. All great theories have to start with a assumed premise. As far as I know there is no proof for such theorems as "A body in motion remains in motion..." or for the notion that all motion is relative. You just have to start off with a assumed premise, that's just the way it is. I feel mine is not too egregious. Therefore stay with me though this weak part of my work, please do not dismiss it to quickly or out of hand. It is the results of this premise that give credence to it. By beginning with this premise I was able to determine what time is, what motion is, what space is, how gravity works including how all the forces work, that space and time are both forms of energy and subject to the laws of particle physics , determine the arrow of time, determine why the speed of light always appears to us to be constant, unify not only Newtonian and Einsteinian physics but also relativity and quantum physics and stumble apon a new law for physics. yours truly Sidereus Nuncius RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS The unification of Quantum and relativity theory by Sidereus Nuncius From: nhol310053(a)aol.com (NHol310053) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics Subject: What Time Is (I to IV) Date: 18 Sep 1999 Contents List:- 1.Devotion 2.Dedication 3.Abstract 4.Introduction 5.Theory of Time 6.Theory of Space 7.Theory of Motion 8.Relativistic Quantum Physics 1. DEVOTION In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Then God said "Let there be light." And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. -Holy Christian Bible Lion of Judah, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Brilliant Morning Star, Lamb of God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Word of God, the All Sovereign, God Almighty, the Great I AM! The God of Heaven and Earth. Blessed be the name of the Lord who was, who is, and who is to come. Worthy are You O' Lord to receive honor, glory and blessing because You and You alone have created all things. By Your will they were created, and have been created and without You nothing that was created would exist. Before time You laid the foundations of the Earth. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His Handiwork. The Earth is the Lord's ,and all its fullness. Day until day utters speech and night until night reveals knowledge. The word of the Lord is right, and all His work is done in truth. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. The voice of the Lord is powerful, the voice of the Lord is full of wisdom, Teach me Your ways O'Lord, do not be silent to me, to the end that my glory may sing praise to you. 2. DEDICATION This book must be dedicated to the two blessed patron saints of science Whose generosity has enabled this endeavor: To my mother and maternal grandmother. Science owes them a great debt. And so do I. 3. ABSTRACT THE RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM HYPOTHESES: That A L L the phenomena of nature as we know it, i.e., mass, energy, space, time, motion, etc... are the effects of subatomic particle exchanges. That for each and every physical manifestation there is a associated particle and for every particle there is a physical manifestation. All causes are particle causes and without a particle there is neither cause nor sensation. We only experience what we come directly in contact with. (Action by contact) Reality, the physical universe, is the sum total of our experience of the particles we receive. No particle - no experience. We experience particles and that is all. Subatomic particles are the cause of all are physical experiences and without them we have no physical experiences. That all experience of phenomenon is quantified the experience is discrete because the cause is discrete. No particle no experience no experience no particle. The universe stimulates our senses one particle at a time. 4. INTRODUCTION To be able to advance the relativistic quantum hypophysis one thing must be done - associate with every phenomenon a particle or series of particles. There are several immediate difficulties here. One, there are as many phenomenons are there are experiences, millions of them. Which experiences go with which particles or series of particles? Also all particles are probably not known so any analysis will be incomplete at this time. The most logical course of action is to create a category of fundamental phenomenon, associate particles to these and then derive complex phenomenon from a fundamental analysis. The most basic fundamental units of physics seem to me to be: (I) mass (II) energy (III) space (IV) time At any rate if the relativistic quantum hypophysis can be demonstrate for these it is a sufficient start. Quantification type theories already exist for matter and energy are well established and accepted by all. For matter the theory is called Atomic theory or Atomism and was discovered by Leucippus and Democritus. The theory basically attests to the fact that matter is little particles. For energy the theory is called Quantification Theory and was discovered by Max Planks. Energy has the same characteristic as mass of being quantized or existing as separate particles. Therefore we can pass over both mass and energy in considering the relativistic quantum hypophysis by granting that the hypophysis has already been demonstrate for these two quantities. Further I feel it is only required that equivalence to either mass or energy be demonstrate to assume a quantity must exist quantified. By equivalence I mean transformation either in theory or in practice. By the first law of thermodynamics there can be no fractions left over for this would mean loss. This only leaves space and time to be demonstrated. Not only is there no quantum theory of space and time there is no theory whatsoever as to the cause of their generation. From whence comes space? From whence comes time? There has never been a adequate theory as to the nature of space and time. As to the properties of space and time some were discovered and only recently by Einstein. But wherever a property arises we know some relation, some connection, must exist, IE, physical connection, so that one quantity, like time, can be depended on another quantity, in this case motion. Otherwise how is it dependent? Every property must have a cause. (Principle of Cause and Effect) It should be obvious that these connections require some particle, (action by contact) or some force (action at a distance) to operate. We presently have no other option unless it waits to be discovered. From such considerations it is possible to develop both a theory of time and a theory of space. Theories that are homogeneous to quantum physics and a quantum universe. A space and time that are materials, physical quantities, quantum, quantified, just like mass and energy. With materialization of space and time it is easy to demonstrate quantum properties for these materials exactly has been done for the other constituents of the universe. Time and space become material and quantified. Space particles, time particles! Then time and space can come under the province of quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics and obey quantum mechanical laws and the laws of elementary physics like any other particles. Space or its particles becomes a subject of elementary particle physics! Time becomes a subject of elementary particle physics! This is a extraordinary implication in physical science. Once these facts are uncovered a new science unfolds, almost trivially. The science that I call Relativistic Quantum Physics. 5. THEORY OF TIME "Because mathematicians frequently make use of time they ought to have a distinct idea of what time is, otherwise they are quacks..." Issac Barrow PREFACE What is time? What physical influence generates the phenomena of time? Where does time come from and where is time going? Is it everywhere? Or only in spots? Is it a physical quantity or merely a psychological manifestation? If it is physical can it be defined? Or is it too fundamental a notion? At first impression time appears to be a simple, reasonable, self explanatory, uncomplicated and unbelieving notion. But try to analyze time, define it, explain it, and the simple, reasonable, self explanatory, uncomplicated and unbelieving notion of time vanishes. To quote St. Augustine (354 AD-430 AD) , "What is time? If someone asks me, I know; But ask me to explain, I know not." Time is such a hard concept to appreciate because time is a completely abstract quantity, it does not have weight, it can not be felt, it has no heft, you cannot hold it in your hand, you cannot examine it, there is nothing to experiment on, nothing to analyze. In short time has no corporal body, it is a wholly intangible, impalpable medium. Neither does it have a place of existence, it is not up, it is not down, it is not over, it is not under, it is not here, it is not there, time does not seem to be anywhere. Time is not in a place, we seem to be in time. Time envelopes us. Time just seems to be. Mass and distance are much more concrete subjects. Mass has weight, it can be felt, it has heft, you can hold it in your hand, you can examine it, there is something to experiment on, something to analyze. It has a corporal body, it is a wholly tangible, palpable medium. It does have a place of existence, it is either here or it is there. Mass can be directly appreciated. While space cannot be directly experienced as mass can distance can be seen, we see space, it is all around us, we see the distances between things, every distance has a place, distances can be marked off, they can be walked; if necessary space itself can be enclosed in a box and taken from place to place as it were. Yet it is neither space nor mass that stimulates our imaginations the most as does time. Time is the great healer, time marches on, time and tide wait for no man, time is money, you cannot beat time, time is fleeting, time slips away, time is catching up with you...For such a ubiquitous concept you would think it would be well defined and the underlying physical stimulus well comprehended. Time is and always has been a critical concept in every branch of learning and in all human affairs. Time crops up in ventrally every aspect of human thought. There have been two great schools of thought who have debated the genesis of time, philosophy and science. Because of the ethereal nature of time time has for along time been the province of philosophy more than science. Time is incorporeal, immaterial and intangible. Time is a quite abstract concept. And abstract concepts lend themselves to philosophical debate. Philosophy has speculated about time from everything that it does not exist, (ignore the problem and it will go away) to it being a disturbance of the middle ear! Science has done no better. Indeed time was supposed to be only a abstract concept, but the chief reason is that science has long been almost completely ignorant of time and its genesis Scientist are split as to what time really is, some of the better speculations being: Time is a primitive undefined notion and as such can never be defined. Anymore than mass or space can be defined, it simply is. Time is the result of the peculiar initial conditions from which the universe started. It started with high entropy and is transforming to a condition of low entropy. Time becomes the subjective experience of this shift from order to randomness. Time (its sensation) is not actually a physical quantity but a psychological aberration brought on by macroscopic properties of matter. Science has decided that although not understanding how time operated that it is a dimension and that it is interlaced with the spacial dimensions. This combination is called space-time. But space-time is not so much a theory of time as it is a theory of gravitation. Gravity effects (warps or bends) space and time in equal proportions. It is simpler to handle these calculations together as one quantity, the space-time manifold. There is no adequate theory of time in science. This is the great enigma of time. Everyone is aware of it, everyone has a deep personal experience of it, yet no one can define it! What would appear to be essential to physics would seem to be a theory of time, a explanation of what time is. It is mandatory that science be able to specify what entities the universe does contain and what it does not. What the universe is composed of or what it is not composed of. From ancient times time and space to have existed in a kind of knowledgeable limbo, neither existing or not existing, intermediate between real and imaginary. TIME MECHANICS THE DYNAMICS OF TIME A MOTION THEORY OF TIME To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. Ecc. 3.1 OUTLINE Thesis: Time is equivalent to motion, motion is a form of energy therefore time is a form of energy. It directly follows from relativity that of some of the fundamental units that describe the universe, three are all alternate equivalent manifestations. According to empiricism all true knowledge stems from sense perception. Since we have knowledge of time we must have some real sense perception of time, according to the rationalist. Every natural effect has a natural cause. If the experience of time is a natural effect then it should have a natural cause. Thus time should have a natural cause. MOTION THEORY OF TIME What is time? That we have not known. Einstein came closest when he said, "Time is what clocks measure." Unfortunately the notion of clocks incorporate the fundamental notion of time so that time really wasnt defined. Such a definition does not state what components of a clock define time or inform us as to any properties of time. It is too vague. I agree with Einstein, time is what clocks measure. So what do clocks measure? Mechanical time, physical time or clocktime is the time measured by mechanical instruments. All measuring of time requires comparison to regular occurring phenomena. Time requires some change to be perceived. Change is motion, therefore time requires some motion to be perceived. There is no independent time. It is all dependent and all comparison. This makes time a relation. What's the relation then? What is it relative to and what's the connection? Time is a phenomena, it has corporal extension, in the things to which it relates or within things themselves. One the other or both. Physical relations are necessarily between things. State the thing and the rule that governs them and you state the relation. Therefore we know that time is some thing and some process between those things. If time is a thing or a relation between things we should be able to catagorize exactly what that thing or relation of things is. We should be able to point to it, we should be able to say, "That is time!" Therefore a theory of time is possible! If a phenomena requires a concomitant process always to be perceived and no other associated process it is only reasonable to assume that the concomitant process is the primary process and not just a associated process. If time requires motion then motion defines time and motion is time. If time is relative to motion then it must be connected to motion in some way. A time that is relative to motion is inseparable from motion. Clocks are motion machines. They move. There entire operation consists of there movement. We translate this movement into a concept of time. A clock is mass in motion. If time is what clocks measure and clocks are devices that measure motion then time is motion. Since we measure time by motion a quantity of time becomes a quantity of motion. Clocks are not measuring some external dimension they simply move. If we accept that time is relative to motion then we are obliged to accept that the concept of time is inseparable from motion. Then time is not a independent dimension that exists somehow apart from everything. Time is motion because it is observed to be such. A quantity can be conceived only from some relation it bears to sensible objects. Things don't exist in time, time exists in the motion of things. Since at least the time of Newton time has been considered some ethereal unworldly, immaterial quantity that can be neither isolated nor contained. Since time can be neither isolated, contained or obtained in practice time has only been a relation to time keeping devices. The entire modern concept of time is based on the measurement of time. Generally in measurements a quantity to be measured is the measure of the same. A quantity of mass is the measure of the same, a quantity of length is the measure of the same, a quantity of energy is the measure of the same...All clocks keep time by measuring some motion. If motion is the measure of time then perhaps a quantity of motion (time) is a measure of the same (time). This implies that time is motion. The analysis can also be reached by this reasoning, there is a inexplicable connection between change and time. Without change it is impossible to apprehend time. It is even conceivable that without change time does not exist. So time=change. All change can be reduced to some kind of motion. Therefore time as change is also reduced to time as motion. In mechanics one concludes that all the processes of nature can be reduced to motions. Why not time? The time taken for any motion is the period of that motion. Because clocks are moving devises clocktime is just the comparison of one movement to another. Because of the motion theory of time time really does not exist. It is just our relation of one motion to another. We apprehend time only when we have marked motion. But not only do we measure time by motion but we measure motion by time, they define each other. This seems to imply a equivalence. A clock measures time and it is assumed that time exists without clocks. Everything that experiences time is a kind of clock and nothing that is not a clock does not experience time. So every thing is a clock. When we say we measure motion by time what we really mean is that we are comparing one motion to another. So we do not measure motion by time but motion by motion. A quantity of motion is the measure of the same. There is no way to measure motion except by motion. This is actually true for all quantities. A quantity of matter is the measure of the same. A quantity of energy is the measure of the same. A quantity of space is the measure of the same. When something stimulates a balance we call it mass, when we can extend a ruler thru a space we call it distance, when something heats a thermometer we call it energy...That is we usually measure a thing by a quantity of the same. We measure mass by mass, we measure distance by distance, we measure heat by heat... Now the subject of time measurement is motion. If we measure time by motion it must be motion. If the quantities we measure with our instruments is to be the subject of our measurements. Until we can find some other quantity to measure we will have to take time as motion, defacto. If as Einstein said "Time is what clocks measure." What do clocks measure? A clock is a machine, a device, a instrument, a construction of parts to a certain end. Is time inherent somehow in the construction? Configuration? That I do not believe because there's so many variations on clock design. There is nothing within a clock that generates time and this is consistent with are experience of time as a external quantity. A clock however as it is configured is nothing, does nothing, measures nothing until it is set in motion, until a external force is added that sets it into operation. So what clocks measure is not time but forces and if time is what clocks measure then time is a force or forces! Time is a force! The Time-Motion Equivalence Principle: TIME = MOTION. Motion theory of time hypophysis; Time is motion. FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS What is important from this analysis or any analysis of the operation of any clock is that time (the measurement) depends on motion. Matter in motion determines both space and time! Or at least the geometry of space and the chronomitry of time. Motion is the link that connects space and time. Motion requires both space and time. Unless we could find some way to define physical space and/or physical time without recourse to motion the two will be inexplicably connected. This also indicates that motion is not really a derived term since it is used to set the parameters of fundamental notions. When you start defining time by motion you make time motion or a kind of motion weather it is truly a motion or not. But it is no coincidence that time is motion. Motion is the concept that connects space and time. It is impossible to conceive of motion without both space and time. Is space-time a motion? They cannot be separated when considering motion. If they cannot be separated they must be interrelated. If they are interconnected there must be a physical interconnection. Since Einstein it has been known that space and time very with motion. Space and time therefore cannot be independent of matter in motion. Motion as a physical process must somehow be in physical contact with space and time. Physical things only make contact with physical things. Therefore space and time must be physical entities. If a physical connection exists one must wonder what is the nature of this physical connection? The only (known) common connection between motion, space and time is gravitation. Gravitation is a field in space, it drives the motion of bodies and it has been shown to effect time dilation. Gravitation is the common connection. If we measure time by motion by the use of clocks how do we measure motion because we certainly aren't using time. This means that what we are really doing is making comparisons of one motion to another. And the concept of time really becomes unnecessary. In effect we are only comparing one motion to another where the concept of time acts as a intermediary, essentially a mathematical concept. Time cannot at the same time be measured by motion and the measure of motion. We cannot take time as a fundamental notion even if we wanted to because it is impossible to measure time without motion. Motion is the fundamental notion. Under the motion theory of time motion must be taken as a primitive undefined term replacing time. The expression v=d/t must be taken as a expression of two motions one compared to the other. Where the motion in the t variable is a standard unit of motion/time. What you actually have is motion defining itself by the use of clock motion which is the standard. Therefore it must be admitted that motion is a fundamental quantity. Really what we call time is really motions and comparisons of motions. When I see the expression T=D/V I see time being expressed as a mass moving with a velocity thru a distance. And that is a motion. Given a motion such as a vibration in a string, the string will be marked in segments, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...so that when the vibration reaches a particular segment, segment 1 equals time one, segment 2 equals time two etc. We see that motions can serve as there own chronometers. This is our clock. The shape of the string can be described by some equation say y=f(x) at t=ta. But the reverse is also true that motions define time. Really only the motion exists. We see that the time variable can be omitted. It is not required. This is strong evidence that time = motion. Time is the number of motion. Time has a number because velocity is a quantity and quantities have numbers. Every motions numbers can be compared, this is time a comparison of motions. Time is a motion but it is a rate of motion. Time is a rate. It becomes a rate when one is compared to another. TIME IS A FORM OF ENERGY. Because time is motion and motion is a form of energy time is a form of energy. T = E So we no longer just have E=MC2, not just one relation of one fundamental parameter to another but we have added another. Now we also know that time is energy. Perhaps this energy can be harnessed. MOTION PROPERTIES OF TIME A mechanistic explanation of the properties of time. Many of the properties of time can be explained in terms of motion. Time becomes a physics of motion which is well understood. It can be explained wholly in terms of motion, there is no need to recourse to a hypothetical dimension of time, or the transformation of such a dimension to effect local time. We do not need any meaning for time apart from motion. If time is motion then all the properties of motion are properties of time and vis versa. If motion could be stopped then time could be stopped. And I do not mean relative motion. With the proper technology objects can be frozen in time. Of course such objects disappear from or plane of view I believe. Time is relative because motions are relative. The relativity of time is just the relativity of motion. PHILOSOPHY AND TIME Many notions of physics are not physics. Many of our most basic and core ideas are notoriously difficult to define. How do things exist? Where did they come from? How do things change? If things are constantly changing how are they the same things? The same and yet different? Are things one or are they many? What is substance? What is space? What is time? What is energy? Many a physicist will tell you that he doesn't have to understand such concepts he only has to be able to define them. Unfortunate for many physical concepts they cannot be defined exactly or even roughly. It is not good enough to say "I cant define them but I know them when I see them." Not if what you are practicing is exact science. How can you have exact science built on such weak foundations? Consider time and space, traditionally two of the most important of concepts of physics. There has been no true theory of time and/or space. No physical explanations of them. Having no explanations both have had to reside as metaphysical theories. Really as nothing more then metaphysical phantoms, primarily apprehension of the mind alone. Not truly physical and therefore incapable of physical analysis. To me it is intolerable that such important physical notions should have been disposed of. Of course the reason why time and space have remained metaphysical notions is obvious. Both have the same surreal properties. Both appear to be immaterial. They cannot be handled, weighed, felt or observed. They appear to be nothings, fictions unreal and immaterial. As nothings both are uncreatable and indestructible. Both are invisible and incorporeal. Except to reason to are hardly real, beholding them as if in a dream. One inalienable property of any thing is that it be, that it occupy space, that it be felt, be observable. But that which has no mass, no weight, no feeling, no taste, no sound, can it exist? Can it be? It is impossible to prove time is motion because it is like saying time is time. Some physical notions are so basic that they can only be accepted by there shrewdness. GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION THE THERMODYNAMICS OF MOTION AND TIME In this section I intend to demonstrate that what we call time is simply a manifestation of the force of gravity. That is, I will give a definition of time by what causes it and how it operates. This new explanation of time will itself suggest a alternate theory of motion. Thus this section is both a treatise on time and a alternate theoretical development of motion. TIME AND THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT NEWTONIAN TIME VS. EINSTEINIAN TIME ABSOLUTE TIME VS. RELATIVE TIME Does the notion of absolute time still exist? Is it still viable? Having completely yoked time to clocks I find somewhat of a paradox. If you define time by clocks your definition acquires all the failings of any earthly container, all the weakness of the flesh, all the foibles of mortality. The flesh is weak. To have a good definition of time you need a good clock. But what is a good clock? If you have a bad clock a bad definition will almost certainly result. The idea of good and bad clocks of course is a hold over from Newtons concept of absolute time. Where every event had a absolutely correct time. A good clock was a clock that corresponded to that time. While we have abandoned the idea of absolute time we have remained saddled with the concept of good time. Of course good-time is nonsense or at least I don't know how to define it. Good and bad time is only consistent with Newtonian physics not Einsteinian physics. It has been difficult to divorce our selves from many of these old conceptions. Because we don't even notice that they cling to us. Human beings are still plagued by the superstitions of the past how much more of antiquated concepts. There is no good time or bad time or right time or wrong time. Of course you will never know the good from the bad, what definition will you use to choose? Time becomes a contradiction when you base it on judgement. The best we can have is a agreed upon time. We set our clocks so the velocity of light is c, if we set our clocks so the velocity of light is c it is inevitable that the velocity of light will always be c. Is the velocity of light c or do we make it c by the chronomitry of our clocks? All clocks have to be set, they have to be calibrated, they have to be coordinated. What if we could create a clock that was not effected by motion. So called a perfect clock. For such a clock one must ask, what are the laws of physics then? What is the velocity of light? This kind of clock can be constructed. Its period is not relative to motion. It is simple a mathematical fiction using the Lorenz contraction . Its time will be different but in sync with a clock in a higher gravitational field. The thing is the clock in the higher gravitational field will be calibrated so that it reads c for the velocity of light. The lower clock will read a increased velocity for light. Which is right? So the velocity of light is not truly constant but variable. Physics depends upon the clock you choose. Thus Newtonian physics is correct if you use a relativistic clock and Einsteinian physics is correct if you use a Newtonian clock. It is odd that each would require the others kind of clock. They complement each other. Newtonian time is defined such that it was supposed the speed of light varied, Einsteinian time has time where the speed of light does not vary. The former problem was that Newtonians were trying to use a Newtonian clock. Good science, bad clock. Of the two kinds of clocks which is right? Which is the correct time? Both and neither of course. You might as well ask, "Which path does the electron take?" With such a clock I was able to obtain varying velocities for the speed of light. The speed of light is not constant. This discovery negated Einsteins second postulate. From the negation it is possible to construct a anti physics. A contradictory physics. Just as it was possible to develop contradictory geometies by negating the fifth postulate so too can we negate Einstiens second postulate, the constancy of velocity of light. You can either derive relative time, relative mass, relative distance from the absolute motion of light or you can derive absolute time, absolute mass, and absolute distance from the relative motion of light with neither being right or wrong so it is possible to construct various scientific paradigms with neither being right or wrong! If you find such things interesting. Given two clocks in a gravitational field at rest of identical construction if you drop one it will remain synchronized with the stationary clock for as long as it falls. That is, They will remain in phase (simultaneity-clocks are simultaneous or in phase if they appear to pulse at the same rate from boths frame of reference) and at the same frequency (time dilation). There are no relativistic transformations from the motion. This shows that time dilation is not relative to motion but too energy. The energy does not change because it is only being converted from potential to kinetic energy. The two clocks remain in sync because they remain at the same energy level. Frequency=time Dilation, wavelength=space dilation, amplitude=energy dilation. Relative transformations require absolute changes in energy. And while a clock falls from a height the energy is not changed it is only transformed form potential to kinetic energy. This shows that potential energy also causes time dilation not just kinetic energy. The overall energy does not change. This is why clocks vary in a gravitational field. Time like motion is a vector quantity it not only depends on the quantity but also the direction. All that matters is absolute changes in energy and the direction they move. Falling clocks, measuring rods, weights, remain Galilean reference bodies because for them no gravitational field exists, they are not effected by gravitational time dilation under the same conditions. This also shows that it is not motion that is the dominant source of time dilation but gravitation. VELOCITY OF LIGHT You may wonder does the velocity of light equal c for the falling clock as it does for the stationary clock since they run at the same time but are in different motions? Because they keep the same time but one is moving and the other is not they cannot possible record the same velocity from a source of light. This means that the velocity of light is not constant!! Let us analyze what is happening. We know while the two clocks are in sync they are not truly in sync because one is experiencing greater gravitational force since it has fallen to a lower gravitational position. The lower the position the greater the gravitational force and the greater the gravitational effects. The stationary clock records the velocity of light as C with a frequency n because let us say we have calibrated that clock to be set at a rate just so that result is experienced. Say we have another clock right next to it set in the exact precise way. The clocks are in sync. They are also at a high altitude so that one clock can be released and various experiments can be preformed. Now the one clock falls the other remains stationary. By sending pulses of light between the two we determine that they appear to remain in sync relative to each others frame of reference. Now we take a beam of light and point it downward so that it passes both the falling clock and the stationary clock. Both measure its velocity. Both come up with identical readings. How can this be. We know they are not truly running at the same rate because of varying gravitational forces. The only explanation is that the velocity of light increases as it falls. The falling clock rate also increases as it falls. The greater the gravitational force the faster a clock runs, its periods are shorter. So the result is that in direct proportion light and clocks fall at the same rate equalizing each other so that the velocity of light appears to be constant. This could not happen if the velocity of light did not actually vary! Light falls at the same rate as everything else in a gravitational field! Only the frequency will be changed. So light is accelerated and decelerated and such as that. Light is accelerated thru a gravitational field just like any other particle! The velocity of light is not constant! If energy is equivalent to mass then it must be subject to gravitation just like mass. Light must not only bend in a gravitational field it must fall in a gravitational field like every thing else. There cannot be two kinds of motion one for energy and one for mass, one relative and one absolute? This brings to completion Galileo's thesis of the uniformity of falling bodies. All bodies fall at the same rate including light. Of course the velocity of light can only be expressed in reference to time and clocks and using a Einsteinian clock (relative one) the velocity of light will always appear constant. But we do not always have to use a Einsteinian clock. We could use a Newtonian (absolute clock) and then will wind up with many varying velocities for light. The velocity of light is purely arbitrary. It depends purely on the clock chosen to measure its velocity. EINSTEIN AXIOMS ARE A DEFACTO DEFINITION OF TIME Einstein two postulates, the principle of relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light, actually serve as a definition of time, that is as a calibration for setting clocks. Making the velocity of light constant is the same as saying the only clocks that record the velocity of light as c are correct. This serves as a calibration of clocks. Only such clocks will be accepted as correct. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Only clocks that record a velocity for light of c are correct therefore only the velocity c for light can ever be recorded. DOPPLER EFFECT Light is a clock. In fact every particle is a clock. Actually every particle in motion is a clock and since every particle is in motion every particle is a clock. All particles are clocks! That is if time is motion. To the physicist any stable vibration is a clock. Every quantity can be reduced to one of time. You see this in met achromatism, a change in color due to a change in temperature. Since heat is time you could make color changes a function of the time. Frequency is just variation in time dilation thus the spectrum of frequency is just a spectrum of time dilation. Frequency is just the comparison of one time dilation to another. The time dilation or frequency of a particle changes with the motion. This is the same as the Doppler shift for light color. If a frequency was so many per second this would be its rythem or time. Changes in that frequency indicate changes in both energy and the time dilation of a body. Basically all electromagnetic radiation is a kind of a clock with the frequency playing the part of the length of the period. As light falls in a gravitational field its frequency is increased, IE its clock runs faster, or as it rises its frequency is decreased. That time has direction can also be demonstrated by the Doppler effect. Pulsars are superbly accurate clocks. Being masses they can also be in motion. The timing of a pulsar can be effected by its motion. The pulse rate is increased when moving toward a observer and decreased when moving away. Thus time dilation is a extension of the Doppler effect. This is because time dilation is frequency and frequency is subject to the Doppler effect. Since the Doppler effect is dependent on direction then so too must be time dilation dependent on direction. Every particle is a wave, every wave has a frequency, every frequency is a clock. Are all particles clocks because they are waves. Or are all particles waves because they are clocks? This of course makes time a micro property of particals. It is ridicules to believe that such fundamental properties as time or space could have been associated apart from material bodies or particals. Every property is a particle property. TIME AND ENERGY There is a connection between time and energy just as there was a connection between electricity and magnetism. In 1820 Oersted discovered that when a electric current flows thru a wire a magnetic field is set up, conversely Faraday discovered that when a magnetic field is set up a electric current will be induced in a wire. Similarly when a clock is heated it appreciates time dilation and if you could induce time dilation artifacts would heat. This may be possible and a way to generate power. If a moving compass needle was sufficient to connect magnetism and electricity then a moving clock hand is sufficient to connect time and energy. Thus it is apparent that energy can be converted into time (dilation) and therefore time should be able to be converted into energy. this means, T = E This shows a undeniable connection between energy and time just as a undeniable connection was made for electricity and magnetism. It means that time is a form of energy! Time is motion, motion is energy therefore time is energy! Time dilation is therefore a relation of energy and there is a form of time dilation for every form of energy. There are not two forms of time dilation but many more. (i) Mechanical time dilation. (ii) Electrical time dilation. (iii) Thermal time dilation. (iv) Radiant time dilation. (v) Gravitational time dilation. (vi) Kinetic time dilation. (vii) Potential time dilation. (viii) Chemical time dilation. There may be more. Time dilation is caused by varying the energy levels of clocks. And there are many ways to vary the energy of clocks. For these reasons time dilation should not be analyzed according to motion but according to energy and specifically changes in energy. Actually we don't want a Lorentz type equation based on velocity we want one that is based on energy. But I don't know how to formulate it. Because the energy varies according to various frames of reference the time also varies. To obtain different frames of reference requires energy. This makes it unlike Einstein relativity where values just only seem to exist in relation. These are real values that can only be appreciated by real expenditures of energy. The difference between the Earth and the moon is not just a relative value. To get to the moon requires a hell of a lot of energy. If you want to appreciate that reference frame you will have to expand that energy. This moves physics away from the relative back to the absolute. Reference frames, they're energy, are absolute. Different reference frames require different energies. So what relativity really means was that we exist at different energy levels! That's what's relative. Frequency, wavelength, velocity, period, amplitude, all the properties of any particle are interconnected and interrelated by a common denominator - energy. All these attributes appear to be functions of the energy. These of course are all reminiscent of Planks constant, Time is the rate at which energy and matter interact. TIME IS A FORCE! The measurement of any time requires generally a acceleration, I mean something must set a body in motion. Accelerations require a force, time is a acceleration, IE motion, therefore time is a force! All time dilation therefore is not the result of motion but the result of variations in the gravitational force surrounding a object. The variations in time modulate just like variations in a force field. In fact directly proportional to the force of gravity. This suggests that time is a force like gravity. Since we have no notion of any other force like gravity except gravity we should accept that time is gravity. This is because time is gravitation. Motion dilation is a subdivision of gravitational time dilation. Motion dilation must be explained it terms of gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation is the cause of motion dilation. TIME = GRAVITY If time is a force and forces are accelerations then time is a acceleration. Time = acceleration The energy of any body varies with its motion. If t=f then, time =s force. t=mxa and time =s mass times the acceleration. A change in the force changes the acceleration. An increase in the force causes a increase in the acceleration. A increase in acceleration decreases the oscillation period. Therefore an increase in the force causes time to run faster. Time also varies with the square of the distance just like gravitation does. Or something like that. Since time is a force it should be possible to express time as a force in equations. Every time a time variable (t) appears it should be able to substitute it for the force of gravity. Or analogously since time is energy it should be possible to express time as a unit of energy. We would not say 15 billion years have gone by since creation we would say 20 trillion units of this energy has been expended. We may find out the universe has 100 trillion of these units therefore it would be one fifth thru its cycle. So the universe would be one fifth old. Time only exists in proportion. GRAVITATIONAL TIME It will become obvious after I demonstrate a new theory of motion later that motion is a subdivision of the greater concept of gravitation. It is totally dependent on gravitation and specifically on gravitons. Because time is motion if motion is a property of gravitation then time becomes a property of gravitation. Time=motion, motion=gravitation, therefore time=gravitation. The cause of time is gravity, the effect of gravity is time. Just as gravity envelopes us time envelopes us. All properties of gravitation are properties of time and vis versa. What drives time is clocks, what drives clocks is motion, what drives motion is gravitation therefore what drives time is gravity. Gravitational time dilation and motion time dilation are really the same effect and are caused the same way. Both are caused by variations in the gravitational field. Motion is energy, energy is a form of mass, so motion produces mass, the greater the motion the greater the mass, the greater the mass the greater the field strength, variances in field strength are time dilation, therefore the mechanism behind motion dilation is gravitation. All kinetic time dilation is gravitational time dilation because all motion is motion thru a gravitational field and thru a range of energy levels. Special time dilation (as given in special relativity) does not exist because special motion does not exist. In special relativity the direction does not matter. In gravitational time dilation it has to be considered. Since time equals motion/gravitation all the properties of gravitation are properties of time. (I) Time varies in direct relation to the strength of gravity. The stronger the gravity the faster the time. (II) Motion is only defined in a gravitational field therefore time is only defined in a gravitational field. (III) Since motion is a vector quantity time is a vector quantity. If time =gravity then time is a sensation of gravity. This is what I mean when I say time is a gravitational effect. There are several gravitational effects. Weight is the most obvious one, inertia, and time. At first I though that weight=inertia=time but this was wrong. They are of course all connected but each is a particular sensation of a different aspect of the force of gravitation. The first difficulty is "How can so many various sensations be generated from the same stimulus?" One could ask the vary same question about electro magnetic radiation. Indeed we seem to experience a wealth of sensations from a poverty of stimulus. Since there are only four of them. For each is felt in a different way. Weight is felt at rest in a gravitational field. Inertia is felt while in motion in a gravitational field. Time is a pure experience of force alone. For example, in free fall say in orbit around the Earth we understand our weight to be zero yet we still experience time. So time cannot be weight. The same holds true for inertia. If one of these is varying then the others are also varying in exact proportion. The relationship of time to weight and force indicates that time should be able to be expressed as derived units, Because time is gravity and gravity is a force it should be able to be expressed as units of force. But I do not know what these units would be. The rate of time depends on the gravitational force which in turn depends on the mass of the related bodies. Which in turn depends on the amount of energy they posses. Rates of time are different for different masses with different energy levels. A flea does not experience time at the same rate as a elephant. If you could change the time of a mass you would change its mass. This may allow for perpetual motion. Time cannot be warped by gravity because it is gravity. In this sense gravitational time dilation does not exist. VECTOR TIME Time dilation depends completely on the energy and mass of a clock that records it. Since energy/mass varies with the position of a body in a gravitational field and the direction of motion in that field time is shown to be a vector quantity. Time is a vector quantity. Because time is motion and motion is a vector quantity time is a vector quantity. Just as a proper description of motion must include direction so too does a proper description of time require direction. THERMODYNAMIC TIME DILATION AND OTHER FORMS OF TIME DILATION We know time changes with motion But we may well ask, "How does time know how to do this?" This appears to be another sticky action at a distance. Actually it is a property of gravity and everything associated with gravity appears to be a action at a distance. If you have a action at a distance problem it would pay to start looking at gravity. A change in the mass/energy of bodies alters the surrounding gravitational field which in turn alters time. We know from the equivalence principle the motion, IE inertia is equal to gravity. This can only imply that, time = motion and motion = gravity therefore time = gravity. Time is a effect of gravitation like weight or inertia. Because time = motion then it is inevitable that the perception of time will vary with motion. Every observer has his own peculiar energy level. Change the energy level and you change the frame of reference. You also change the apparent motions. So it is not motion that occurs but only changes in energy levels. A different energy level and the motion seems faster or slower. There are more then two forms of time dilation. For every kind of energy transfer there is a kind of time dilation. If motion can cause time dilation then so should any and every other kind of energy since energies are interchangeable. Heat causes time dilation. Heat causes expansion, variations in length cause clocks to run at various periods. Generally the greater the temperature the slower the period. This is because heat is actually a form of motion. The bigger something is or the more massive the slower it will vibrate given a constant source of energy. This is also true of mass increases with energy. The more energy the slower something vibrates. Therefore the greater the mass/energy the slower the clock. According to the kinetic theory of heat the hotter a body is the more the molecules within it vibrate and the greater the heat the greater the amplitude each molecule vibrates. It is by this greater amplitude that heat is conducted in a solid. This is similar to varying the length of a pendulum, the greater the length, IE amplitude, the greater or longer the period. So the greater distance thru which a atom must vibrate because of its heat the longer the period of oscillation. Molecular clocks operate the same way as regular clocks. Or in a different way of thinking what is true on the molecular level will always carry over onto the macroscopic level. Thus microcosm and macrocosm are in harmony with regards to time. So why when you heat something up do processes run faster. Shouldn't change which is a kind of time be in relation to time? Change, processes etc. require molecular interactions. Undoubtedly when the amplitude of molecules is increased the statistical probability of interactions must increase. Therefore generally molecular changes increase when you heat them up. So change is not time, at least not molecular change since it is not harmonious with time. And for this reason it has been falsely believed that with energy increases time speeds up not slows down. Chemical processes may be misleading in the notion of heat and time. We cannot think of process change as time. If processes are quicker then we think of time having speeded up. But this is just a chemical anomaly. Hot clocks run slow, cold clocks run fast. Hot clocks are more massive, cold clocks less massive. The greater the mass the slower the clock. Potential energy. Just as there was no difference in inertia mass vs. Gravitational mass there is no difference in how energy is acquired by a clock. If the clock obtains more energy in any way, be it heat, position etc., it will experience time dilation. There is no difference in regards to time dilation with regards to potential or kinetic energy. Energy is energy. TWIN PARADOX In the traditional analysis of the twin paradox no though is given to the variations in gravitational force as two twins separate, this is because it is common in physics to neglect gravitation because its effect vary at every instant. It is time to put gravitation back into physics! You need three reference frames for the twin paradox. Each twin and a control reference frame. Twins inn different gravitation fields also age at different rates. CONSTANTS The speed of light as a physical constant is not a fundamental property of nature. It is arbitrary, a quirk of time dilation, it just happens to be. There is nothing particularly significant about it. The importance of it was that it illuminated the fact that time was relative and thus a relation. For every constant there must be a compensating relation. Because the constant velocity of light turns out to depend on a relativistic effect (time dilation) this means that it also must be a relativistic effect. If something is constant then something else must vary. For light it is time. Constants are more the result of the fundamental parameters we choose then the physical properties of nature. Choose one set of fundamental parameters get one set of constants, choose another set of fundamental parameters and get an alternate set. Just like alternate geometries. The human mind is always looking for landmarks on which to anchor itself. We require constants as a frame of reference. So constants are mental properties more then physical ones! NEWTONIAN TIME / ABSOLUTE TIME / COMPENSATED TIME / THE EXTENDED CLOCK How many kinds of clocks are there and what is there functioning. Are all clocks relative or is it possible to make a perfect clock, ie, one that is not effected by motion. Let us say from a particular reference point we had a clock and so calibrated it such that for changes in motion we altered its period according to the Lorenz contraction in reverse proportion. The result would be a clock that was not effected by motion. It would not be relitive. It would be absolute. At least in relation to a particular frame of reference. Any observer can work out how much time dilation does or would occur in relation to another body. The calculation can be made if he knows the precise velocity and trajectory. We could in effect extend the area over which such time is measured and effective thus creating a zone of absolute time. Time would not be relative to any effects motion or gravitational. I call such a time zone a extended clock and such absolute keeping of time may be beneficial. It is certainly possible. In a sence every clock is extended in the sence that its time is absolute over its effective range. How to make such a clock? The Lorentz contraction gives us a way of calculating exactly the relative time of other positions and motions. We can thus compensate for motion mathematically . If we know our motion then we can recalculate for any time dilation. We can synchronize clocks according to We can do a similar thing for gravitational time dilation for clocks at rest in a gravitational field and combine the two effects if necessary for clocks in motion in a gravitational field. This in effect makes a clock that is absolute to a particular frame of reference. Using such a clock its period of duration varies. We can use any time keeping method we desire. Since there is a absolute kind of time this also implies that there is a absolute kind of space and mass too. Which means we can define a universe which is Newtonian if we liked and it would be valid. Consider two clocks in a gravitational field that are extended, ie, sharing the same time. Lets say the higher clock is set such that it records the velocity of light as c. Now consider the lower clock. For this clock light gains velocity as it falls. The lower clock records the velocity of light as C+ gravitational acceleration. Indeed all light velocity measured by this clock will also be the same and all greater then c. This is because this clock has been set to run slower then it would normally at its particular energy level. But it runs at the exact same rate as the higher clock. We don't find a thing wrong with its measuring. So which is right? Is the lower clock right and does light have various speeds? Or is the upper clock right and the speed of light is constant? Here are clocks running at the same speed that record various velocities for the speed of light. It is important to remember that extended clocks while I say they run at the same speed or frequency they are not synchronous. If light pulses are exchanged between them they will not be harmonious. They are only mathematically synchronized not physically synchronized. This experiment introduces into physics the idea of extended time. A artificial kind of absolute time. A universal time that everybody who can communicate with each other and thus synchronize by extension they're clocks. So we now have several kinds of time. Extended time- Extended time reintroduces into physics a notion of absolute time. Since it is not depended on anything. Using such a clock we can synchronize over great distances a absolute time scale. We can use such a time as any other. We can call such a extended radius of time a extended clock. In a way every clock is a extended clock because it generates a spacial region of time over its length although such lengths are usually small. But it is easy to see how they can be increased arbitrarily. (I) Relative time- Clocks that start off synchronized but change as they are moved. (II) Absolute time- Keep by extended time, clocks that operate without regard to motion. Given various kinds of time one may well ask, "Which is the true time?" Neither one is any less consistent. It thus appears there are two valid physics, one Newtonian the other Einsteinian. In one the velocity of light varies in the other it is constant. There is obviously a duality working here. This means that Newtonian physics is just as true as relativity. When you take the speed of light as a variable. Depending on the kind of time you choose. Physicist like to think that physics is the most fundamental science but a great deal of physics depends on the theory of dimensions. Time is defined by what clocks we accept as accurate. It is really a state of mind. How dimensions are chosen, whether they are relative or absolute is completely arbitrary. Such things as the velocity of light, spacial coordinates, distances, time...One can use any coordinate system one liked, nature does not favor any one. Nature has no knowledge of time. Actually its takes not 4 coordinates to determine any event but 5. You not only have to specify the coordinates but what kind of co-ordinates they are. This can and is done now by specifying the velocity of light. Which both selects the fundamental dimensions of physics , like time distance and mass and governs the choice of instrumentation. The theory of dimensions will decide the topic of physics. Whether you decide that the theory of dimensions is physics or not is arbitrary. MOTION DILATION = GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION Motion time dilation is just a form of gravitational time dilation. Time dilation varies with the force of gravity, the force of gravity varies with the mass, the mass varies with the motion, therefore motion dilation is actually the result of gravitational dilation. For this reason the direction of the motion becomes important. Because mass/energy varies with position. So whether a object is receding or preceding also has a effect on its time dilation. For this reason gravitational equations will have to be used to describe motion dilation. The Lorenz contraction is not accurate or completely accurate. . Einstein had two different kinds of time dilation because he still had two different kinds of motion, (I) inertia (II) gravitational altho
From: nonsense on 28 Feb 2007 13:01 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <es3v6k$8qk_001(a)s823.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>There exists a Murphy's Law corrollary that guarantees each time >>a file is opened an error will be introduced. > This is simply bogus BS. Any time you open a file in a writable mode an error may be introduced. Now consider your linux system. Every time access any file, changes are written. Believe it or not, an error may be introduced. Knowing Murphy as intimately as I do, some significant number will end up introducing an error. When it is, in my case, the error will be important. "Reliable" systems are defined by a threshold in the number of errors/some_number of operations. But you knew that, no? BAH's career included a requirement that she be paranoid about all things that can go wrong. There's no sense arguing these issues because in the different worlds you live in each of you is right. Also, check out "real time reliable" systems.
From: krw on 28 Feb 2007 15:02
In article <97v6u2hhdaf437oki5ujqt4q3gkjghn3dv(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Mon, 26 Feb 07 12:36:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >> > >The wrinkle to the new process is that the checks have stopped > >traveling. > > > Bullshit. My landlord gets a check, and his bank submits it to my > bank who has it ON FILE RIGHT NOW, I get an image of the check in my > mailed monthly statement, and can look up a full size image of all my > checks online. Dumber-than-a-dim-bulb, you're wrong. Walk into a large department store. More often than not they will scan your check and hand it back to you. The money is withdrawn from your account before you leave the store. The paper check goes nowhere. > You are CLUELESS. Oh, most clueless one, Google on "check 21". Paper checks are as dead as your brain. -- Keith |