The Dimension of Time
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity Researcher: Increase Your Research Productivity with the Leading Web 2.0 Research Portal
Next: Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 1 Jan 2010 12:44 > > No, I'm sorry. The onus is on the person who presents a new model to > > use that model to cite predictions that distinguish it from other > > models. That is how science operates, and with good reason. > > But how does that work when the new model makes *fewer* unverified > predictions in some respect than the existing model? My model about > relative time simply predicts that time is not navigable, and that > "travelling to the past" in the classical sense is as meaningless in > the physical world as "going to Hell" - in that it is not a place to > which one can navigate by resort to any physical process, if indeed > such a place exists materially at all. I am sorry to snip so much, but that was an awfully long tendril. I understand your frustration with PD, and I share much of your viewpoint Ste. From philosophy to religion to mathematics and physics we should allow for a more integrated approach. But then the issue of tolerance arises and so we all must admit that we exist in some camp that is other than the other camps. Still, the global approach is arriving, and particularly the topic of time is having a lively debate in many camps concurrently. Witness the following http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117 I love this fqxi site and only just discovered it the other day. Julian Barbour is but one of numerous sources discussing the qualities of time. I myself have an arithmetic answer which exposes much of modern mathematics as dubious http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned even while it recovers much of existing mathematics within its construction. Particularly though the existence of a unidirectional set of numbers which are the one-signed numbers have a different behavior than modern cartesian thought can appreciate. The one-signed numbers are congruent with observed time. Time is not a fourth dimension. We have no freedom to traverse time as we do the three spatial dimensions. This is remedied in relativity theory by imposing a light cone, which condenses the 4D back down to 3D. The usage of the tensor as a footing is suspect. The tensor is an arithmetic object which provides a rotationally invariant quality, which simply is not observed with respect to time. We have no freedom to rotate the classical measuring rod into time as we have the freedom to rotate it in space. Einstein's own difficulty with the tensor treatment may be called an even more primal anti-blunder than the cosmological constant. Still, we are all forced to work within the bounds of our times, and if we exceed them then we endanger our credibility. So it goes as you get on to the bleeding edge, which is right where you are. Nicely, gravity and time are each one-signed behaviors and they are both open problems. I strongly reccommend that the likes of PD drink in that openness, for it is a refreshing concoction. I mean no harm, and the discouraging nature of many usenet oldies is more an exposure of the nature of the entire human race so it is not a personal attack on one individual that make. Academia's measure is merely one of mimicry, at least initially. To break out of that shell is to go beyond and in this space one is quite free to criticize the past steps, and without this progress would merely be more accumulation, which is even more discouraging as it is difficult enough to take in all of the present state of human thinking in its tendrilling net of acccumulation. Polysign act as a condensate and provide support for emergent spacetime. It promises to bring electromagnetics directly in with the arithmetic via rotational qualities, but this development is not a solo pursuit. I invite others to enter into the context of polysign numbers. - Tim
From: Ste on 1 Jan 2010 14:12 On 1 Jan, 17:44, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > No, I'm sorry. The onus is on the person who presents a new model to > > > use that model to cite predictions that distinguish it from other > > > models. That is how science operates, and with good reason. > > > But how does that work when the new model makes *fewer* unverified > > predictions in some respect than the existing model? My model about > > relative time simply predicts that time is not navigable, and that > > "travelling to the past" in the classical sense is as meaningless in > > the physical world as "going to Hell" - in that it is not a place to > > which one can navigate by resort to any physical process, if indeed > > such a place exists materially at all. > > I am sorry to snip so much, but that was an awfully long tendril. > I understand your frustration with PD, and I share much of your > viewpoint Ste. PD is actually quite sensible. But also a conservative. > From philosophy to religion to mathematics and physics we should allow > for a more integrated approach. > But then the issue of tolerance arises and so we all must admit that > we exist in some camp that is other than the other camps. > Still, the global approach is arriving, and particularly the topic of > time is having a lively debate in many camps concurrently. > Witness the following > http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117 > I love this fqxi site and only just discovered it the other day. > Julian Barbour is but one of numerous sources discussing the qualities > of time. > > I myself have an arithmetic answer which exposes much of modern > mathematics as dubious > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned > even while it recovers much of existing mathematics within its > construction. Particularly though the existence of a unidirectional > set of numbers which are the one-signed numbers have a different > behavior than modern cartesian thought can appreciate. The one-signed > numbers are congruent with observed time. Like Einstein I think in pictures, so I'm afraid I don't readily understand your work.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 1 Jan 2010 17:00 On Jan 1, 2:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Jan, 17:44, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > No, I'm sorry. The onus is on the person who presents a new model to > > > > use that model to cite predictions that distinguish it from other > > > > models. That is how science operates, and with good reason. > > > > But how does that work when the new model makes *fewer* unverified > > > predictions in some respect than the existing model? My model about > > > relative time simply predicts that time is not navigable, and that > > > "travelling to the past" in the classical sense is as meaningless in > > > the physical world as "going to Hell" - in that it is not a place to > > > which one can navigate by resort to any physical process, if indeed > > > such a place exists materially at all. > > > I am sorry to snip so much, but that was an awfully long tendril. > > I understand your frustration with PD, and I share much of your > > viewpoint Ste. > > PD is actually quite sensible. But also a conservative. > > > > > From philosophy to religion to mathematics and physics we should allow > > for a more integrated approach. > > But then the issue of tolerance arises and so we all must admit that > > we exist in some camp that is other than the other camps. > > Still, the global approach is arriving, and particularly the topic of > > time is having a lively debate in many camps concurrently. > > Witness the following > > http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117 > > I love this fqxi site and only just discovered it the other day. > > Julian Barbour is but one of numerous sources discussing the qualities > > of time. > > > I myself have an arithmetic answer which exposes much of modern > > mathematics as dubious > > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned > > even while it recovers much of existing mathematics within its > > construction. Particularly though the existence of a unidirectional > > set of numbers which are the one-signed numbers have a different > > behavior than modern cartesian thought can appreciate. The one-signed > > numbers are congruent with observed time. > > Like Einstein I think in pictures, so I'm afraid I don't readily > understand your work. No problem Ste. Keep up the good work. I think you make a lot of sense. - Tim
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 15:03 On Jan 1, 1:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Jan, 17:44, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > No, I'm sorry. The onus is on the person who presents a new model to > > > > use that model to cite predictions that distinguish it from other > > > > models. That is how science operates, and with good reason. > > > > But how does that work when the new model makes *fewer* unverified > > > predictions in some respect than the existing model? My model about > > > relative time simply predicts that time is not navigable, and that > > > "travelling to the past" in the classical sense is as meaningless in > > > the physical world as "going to Hell" - in that it is not a place to > > > which one can navigate by resort to any physical process, if indeed > > > such a place exists materially at all. > > > I am sorry to snip so much, but that was an awfully long tendril. > > I understand your frustration with PD, and I share much of your > > viewpoint Ste. > > PD is actually quite sensible. But also a conservative. Nah. What I am is someone who proceeds according to the practices of science. Which means that competing theories are discerned by the places where they make different predictions of measurable outcomes in a common set of testable circumstances. And then experimental measurement determines which of the two is correct on the basis of which of the two makes the correct prediction. It's really straightforward, and I'm surprised you find it difficult. > > > > > From philosophy to religion to mathematics and physics we should allow > > for a more integrated approach. > > But then the issue of tolerance arises and so we all must admit that > > we exist in some camp that is other than the other camps. > > Still, the global approach is arriving, and particularly the topic of > > time is having a lively debate in many camps concurrently. > > Witness the following > > http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117 > > I love this fqxi site and only just discovered it the other day. > > Julian Barbour is but one of numerous sources discussing the qualities > > of time. > > > I myself have an arithmetic answer which exposes much of modern > > mathematics as dubious > > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned > > even while it recovers much of existing mathematics within its > > construction. Particularly though the existence of a unidirectional > > set of numbers which are the one-signed numbers have a different > > behavior than modern cartesian thought can appreciate. The one-signed > > numbers are congruent with observed time. > > Like Einstein I think in pictures, so I'm afraid I don't readily > understand your work.
From: Ste on 4 Jan 2010 16:38
On 4 Jan, 20:03, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 1:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 Jan, 17:44, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > No, I'm sorry. The onus is on the person who presents a new model to > > > > > use that model to cite predictions that distinguish it from other > > > > > models. That is how science operates, and with good reason. > > > > > But how does that work when the new model makes *fewer* unverified > > > > predictions in some respect than the existing model? My model about > > > > relative time simply predicts that time is not navigable, and that > > > > "travelling to the past" in the classical sense is as meaningless in > > > > the physical world as "going to Hell" - in that it is not a place to > > > > which one can navigate by resort to any physical process, if indeed > > > > such a place exists materially at all. > > > > I am sorry to snip so much, but that was an awfully long tendril. > > > I understand your frustration with PD, and I share much of your > > > viewpoint Ste. > > > PD is actually quite sensible. But also a conservative. > > Nah. What I am is someone who proceeds according to the practices of > science. But as we've already heard, the "practices of science" are "the practices of scientists", which really does little to define science. > Which means that competing theories are discerned by the places where > they make different predictions of measurable outcomes in a common set > of testable circumstances. And then experimental measurement > determines which of the two is correct on the basis of which of the > two makes the correct prediction. > > It's really straightforward, and I'm surprised you find it difficult. I don't find science difficult, never did. What I do often find difficult however is the nonsense that is so often peddled as a legitimate explanation of the material world. I mean honestly, at what point did the lunatics escape from the asylum and start preaching concepts like "effect preceding cause" - it's astonishing that any theory suggesting such a mechanism wasn't rejected out of hand immediately. |