Edtharan

There are many different ways that life might have been started, it is pinning down the one that took place here on earth is the problem. Some scientists are coming to the conclusions that there might have been several paths taken and that life originated in several locations in different ways. This is still hard to prove. Also, not being able to know exactly how life got started here on earth has no impact on whether or not we can, ourselves, create life (chemically or electronically) and so is not applicable to the discussion topic.

Yes the climates are different, but we are not looking at the specific climates. We are looking at changes to the entire system. That in its self is why you need to look at the whole system as one. Your initial post stated (and the title of the thread) states Australia is not warming up. You are making a statements about all the different climates as a single entity, therefore you need to look at them that way as that is what you are making a statement about.

As off topic I will only make this one post about it: It wasn't the speed of the tape that was the problem it was the fact that they could not fit all that data onto a tape in a straight line. Think about it. If the drum rotates around 20 times for each cm of tape that passes through the heads (I am not actually sure what the exact rate is, but this will severe as an example), then to put all that into a straight line, the tape must be 20 time longer, and so take up 20 time the space. Think of a VCR tape 20 time it's size . Not what would be convenient to take back from a video store... The angled heads and the wide tape allow the data to be physically compressed into a smaller space. They had computer data tapes at the time that was able to spin faster than the vcr tape, so they did have the technology to read tapes at high speeds. Although you need an observer, that observer does not have to be human. It just has to be something that interacts with the object being observed. A photon can be an observer, an electron can be an observer. Neither of these are human, so human senses, or lack there of, do not come into play. I have essentially 3 issues with the essay. 1) The measurement is not the thing being measured. Counting events that are known to have equal spaces in time (eg: the emissions from the caesium atom in an atomic clock, or the ticking of the second hand in a stopwatch), then al you are doing is counting the events. You are not directly measureing Time. The same is true for space. The ruler (the equivalent of the clock) is the device for measuring, when you count off centimetres, you are not counting off actual space, but counting off marks known to have regularity in space. A clock is just a ruler for time. Measuring the "Ticks" of a clock is not Time. Just a count of the periods/distance between the regularly spaced points. 2) Many of the disproof about Time and relativity uses incorrect frames of reference. More specifically, it ignores the difference in the frames of reference between a Constant Velocity Observer and that of an Accelerating Observer. Relativity shows that there is a difference that exists between these observer types. Ignoring these differences when the situation contains them will give you wrong results and conclusions. In the essay, there is an example of a Nail being fired from a nail gun, to do so requires the nail to accelerate. It goes from stationary to moving. It accelerates. However, in the example, the nail is only assumed to have a constant velocity. Acceleration of the Nail gets rid of the paradox that is presented with this example. No paradox, then any argument that uses the paradox as disproof is a false argument (and if the arguer is aware of this then it is a strawman). 3) The claim that lack of freedom of movement in a dimension means that a dimension has no physical reality. This is used again and again, but no reasoning as to why this must be so. I have presented counter argument with reasoning and they have been called lies (I was called dishonest for using them). Here, again, are my arguments and reasoning on this: If two dimensions are show to have the same properties, then they should be as equally real as each other. So if space can be shown to be like time, then time must be as equal as space. Here is a simple analogy: I am in a space ship and my rear and forwards thrusters are out. In fact I only have 4 thrusters available: Up, Down, Left and Right. I can't even turn. Now in this example I have no "freedom" of movement in the forwards directions. No matter how much I thrust perpendicular to the direction of travel, I can not change my forward motion. Notice the word perpendicular. Now, for a slightly different example: Say I am falling into a black hole and have passed the event horizon. I can not ever escape. I will always fall into the singularity at the centre. This provides a frame of reference for me. As such, the direction to the centre of the black hole is called the Z dimension. Now I have no freedom of movement, I can only thrust perpendicular to the Z direction. It might take a little longer to reach it as the distance I travelled will be longer, but I will still hit the singularity. I have no real freedom of movement in the Z dimension. I can not travel back to a point nearer the event horizon. I must always move forwards. So Space can act like time. You can have no freedom of movement in a space dimension. Just like time. We don't have freedom of movement in time, because we can not "thrust" along that dimension. We can only thrust perpendicular to it as we are only thrusting in space. Time acts identical to space. If we can't thrust along a particular dimension of space, we have no freedom of movement in it. The same as time. Thrusting in 3 dimensions will not allow us to change our velocity or motion in the 4th dimension. As I have shown that lack of freedom of movement is not equal to a dimension not being physical, this argument can not be used as it is. If it can be shown by other methods, that time is not the same as space, then that can be used, but such arguments have not been presented so far.

So if everything in the universe stopped moving, then there would be no time at all? If something doesn't move then it experiences no time? Are these correct interpretations of what you are saying? So humans "invented" time. Who has the patent on it then? No. Humans did not "Invent" Time. We invented a measure of it, just like we invented a measure of distance. The measurement is not the thing you are measuring. By your argument, until we invented the ruler, distance could not exist. This is clearly not the case, so this argument is wrong. And again: Events per second is the measurement of time. Not time it's self. There is no circular reasoning here. If we were to measure distance by counting the number of identical objects placed one next to the other, then this count of distance is not distance. Just like if we count events next to each other, these are not Time. The measurement is not the thing you are measuring. Understand that and you will understand why this essay is not an explanation of Time but just an explanation of the measurement of Time. The measurement is not the thing you are measuring. The whole essay sets up a strawman that is based on the incorrect idea that the Measurement is the thing being measured.

neurons don't just "fire" because another neuron fires. They fire because the levels of neurotransmitters at the synapse reaches a certain threshold. Neurotransmitters can be produced by other cells than neurons, so the build up form these cells could be the stimulus to trigger the first neuron to fire. Once you have that first neuron firing, it can cause others to fire, and so on, in a cascade. Some of these neurons will form a loop and so keep the system active. Also, even without the brain active, we encounter sensory stimulus, even in the womb. These sensory stimuli could also give this "first spark" needed to create the activity in the brain. For either of these situations to occur, the brain doesn't even need to be fully developed. Just have enough neurons to form at least 1 loop. When new neurons are formed, these can then just link up to that loop and the activity spreads. This "theory" also makes a prediction. If the brain is starved of oxygen for a period of time, then the neurons will exhaust their oxygen supply and stop being able to fire. So over a period of time without oxygen, these loops and other self sustaining patterns will fail. If it is these patterns that drive the internals of the brain, then as these fail the brain will fail too. Also this means that once these loops fail, it will be difficult to restart them (especially if the timing of them is important). The might be able to be restarted, by it might produce a different pattern or not all of them will reactivate leading to functional loss. of course this is just a theory, and an untested one at that. But it does make testable predictions, so it could be tested.

Watch the actual landing. You will see a lot of dust kicked up, but a lot of it is still remaining. And it still forms all those little craters. Watch the moment of landing. Also, the astronauts have been moving around and kicking up a lot of dust themselves. They have to have placed that camera, put the flag in the ground, put in that little device near the flag (and most likely use it for some time). So a lot of activity has been carried out (and you can see some of the footprints too). When an meteor strikes the surface of the moon it will produce a lot of heat. The moon does not have the atmosphere of the earth, so all that energy is released in the moment of impact. What happens if you heat dust up to thousands of degrees. It melts. What happens if you then let it cool. It solidifies. The moon is scattered with billions of meteor craters. The dust around these has solidified and it would not just get "blown" away by the rockets. And yet, you say that the surface dust underneath the lander was not blown away. Doesnt this contradict what you previously said. If the dust under the lander was blown away and all that was left was rock, the lander, despite being 17 tons, would not make that big a dent. Piles of dust left in craters and behind rocks would still allow the astronauts to leave foot impressions. There is no air on the moon so these hollows would not be disturbed at all. Umm, no air resistance, means no friction with the air. The flag flutters because it was moved and there is no air to slow it down... It is not fluttering, it is still shaking from when they put it there. Also, the flag was most likely stored and could have been creased. On Earth, gravity is strong enough to overcome these small creases and smooth the flag out. On the moon, the gravity is less, so the stiffness of the material (and flags are made out of fairly stiff material) would prevent it from be uncreased. Oh, and for the shadow thing, the sun is at quite a low angle (as can be inferred by the angles of the shadows), so the astronaut is not in direct light. But is the astronaut is not is direct light, why can we see him. Well there could be lights like flashes (or if it is a hoax then there would at least be studio lights), but then the shadow of the lander would not be as black. What is actually happening is that the light from the sun is reflecting off the surface of the moon. Because the reflected light is going away from the surface of the moon, it will not light up the shadows (on earth we have the scattering of light in the atmosphere to light up shadows), but it will light up objects that are not flat against the surface (like the astronaut and the flag). It is to do with exposures. It is something that any camera operator knows. If you take a picture of something bright, to avoid having that section over exposed, you need to reduce the exposure time. But this means that dim things do not necessarily show up in the picture. Stars, compared to the sun are very dim. The light of the sun is bright, and to avoid the over exposure in those sections (and the person who took that photo surly knows this as it is a very clear photo with no overexposure), the exposure time was set very low. So dim things, like stars would not show up. If I actually saw stars in a photo like that I would know it is fake. True, your mobile phone is a far more powerful computer than what they had on the Apollo missions, but remember, they had all these massive computers here on earth, and they were sending data back and forth. Ever heard of a wireless network? Do all the big calculations here on Earth and send that data back to them. Still, they spent years, before launching the first rocket, doing all the calculations needed to make it possible. So they had, time and a computer large and powerful enough to to actually do the calculations necessary. One of the good things about space travel, though, is once you are moving in the right direction at the right speed, you don't even need a computer, you don't even need a slide rule. You just have to sit back and physics will do the work for you. Well they did. There was this little transmission from the moon that relayed the actual landing. So yes, they did send a signal from the moon to Earth and it was picked up and confirmed. We detected the actual signal of the actual first step here in Australia at a place called Parks (there was even a movie based on it - I have even worked with the daughter of one of the head astronomer there). Magnesium flares. Radio transmission would be easier to set up and harder to fake (they could just dump a lot of flares with an automated ship). Oh wait, they did send radio transmissions from the moon and ther were picked up here on Earth... If you tried to put a radio transmitter in orbit, it would move differently than it would if it came from the moon. If it was in orbit and was moving at the same speed as the moon orbits, it would fall out of the sky. Also, different receivers on earth would be pointed at different places (due to parallax). and this would be a dead give away. Unfortunately for the moon conspiracy buffs, all the angles for the receivers that were on earth were pointing at the moon, not a location near earth. Also the motion of the signal across the sky matched that of the motion of the moon. This is impossible to fake. How could we know what the moon dust is like if we didn't actually land there and bring some back? This can only be true if and only if there was a conspiracy to begin with. This therefore cannot be used as evidence of the conspiracy its self. If there was a conspiracy, the it would be evidence of a cover up. But it is not evidence of a conspiracy its self. Astronauts were people living on the edge. They were usually test pilots flying new aircraft that had never left the ground before. They were people attracted to dangerous situations. What is the rate of death among extreme sports people today. Does this higher level of mortality indicate that these extreme sports people are involved in some government conspiracy? The Apollo astronauts were very much like the people who, today are attracted to other high risk activities like extreme sports. I would expect to see a higher rate of accident and injury among them. Nothing fishy about people who are attracted to high risk activities being injured or killed. It happens every day. I have met and talked with astronauts and have had to understand a lot about the mechanics of space flight (it was my job to explain how it worked to the average person). I am in no way ignorant of what was behind the moon landing. I have heard many theories and done my own research on the conspiracies that have been presented. I have worked with people connected to the infrastructure surrounding the Apollo program. I am not ignorant at all. Neither am I brain washed as I have explored these conspiracies. I have not been "indoctrinated" into believing (or not) anything about the Moon landings. All the evidence you have presented is not evidence at all. To someone who does not know about photography, the claims you made about the photo might sound true, but if you know about photography and exposures, then the evidence you presented is not true. The same with all the other evidence you presented. If you actually know about this stuff and how it actually works, then what you presented is a lie. It is not true. Only to the ignorant do lies seem true.

Yes but this is only in one direction. The twins paradox requires travel in both directions. Do the calculations for both directions and you will see that they cancel out if all you use is constant motion. Since both observers can only measure their velocity relative to the other, under constant motion (no acceleration) both see the other with their time slowed down. No net dilation in time then. So if there is no net dilation of time, why then would the round trip only take 2 years instead of 14? Unless, space was contracted for the observers. Space is relative too. Just like time. Take an observer flying past you while holding a 1 metre ruler. To the observer travelling past, he will see the ruler as the same length as when he was stationary. To the observer that he whizzes past, that observer will see the ruler as shorter than a metre. Space has contracted. Space is relative too. Just like time. Space doesn't need to contract forever, it is not a solid "thing" it is the relative distance between you and an observer. 3 different observers do not have to agree over the length of a specific distance and neither do they have to agree over the period of time. But they will agree over the period of time and length when you apply the formulas of relativity. It is only by considering time and space together, on equal footing, does any of the situations make sense (is match the observed reality and avoid mutually exclusive results). The Doppler effect has nothing to do with red shift. It is just a similar effect but it has a completely different cause. Besides, if you ignore physical observations that occur as the result of an experiment, that you will come to incorrect conclusions. The red shift is predicted by relativity, so why should we ignore it? Light is caused by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. If the source of this oscillation is slower, then the light will be towards the red end of the spectrum. An observer that is stationary to the light source will see one frequency, and an observer that is in motion relative to it will see a different frequency. Now barring a magical effect where the light is changed just to suit the moving observer, what explanation can explain why the two different observers see different frequencies of light? Well, if one observer was travelling faster through time, they would see the light emitted by the source as being slower. The slower emission means a lower frequency of light. Now if we ignore the red shift then regardless of your velocity, you should see the light as the same frequency. But, this is not the case in reality. The Huygens probe sent to Titan had a sight problem. The frequency that the transmitter was not set to the same frequency as the receiver on the the Cassini probe. this meant that no data could be sent from the probe to the orbiter. What a waste of several million dollars. But, as the effects of relativity state, if the observers (the probe and the orbiter) are travelling at different speeds, then there will be a red shift (or blue shift depending on whether they are moving towards or away from each other). If the relative speeds were fast enough, then the frequencies could be made to match. Guess what. This worked. Only through different "speeds" through time can this be explained. If the ships were moving apart the time dilation would give a lower frequency of light, if the ships are moving together they will detect a higher frequency of light. This is the way it is. Ignoring it will not make it different. So, if we don't use acceleration in the twins paradox, we first have a slowdown of time, and then a speed up of time. Constant velocity can not be used to create the twins paradox. If 0 movement can not create the twins paradox, and constant velocity on a round trip can not make the twins paradox, what then can? The only thing left is acceleration. Your disproof all leave out the effects of acceleration in a situation where acceleration occurs. You can not just leave it out because it produces results that are different from what you want. If the observer accelerates, you have to factor that in. You can't just leave it out. Going back to your essay. The nail and the cylinder example. The nail accelerates. This is different from constant velocity. You only factor in constant velocity. It is an incorrect example. It does not prove your claims at all.

Take time out of the universe and there is no movement. Movement is displacement over a period of time. Without time you can have displacement, but it is not movement.

You can also have situations where Neuron A triggers Neuron B which triggers Neuron C which triggers Neuron A. This could also be used to keep the brain "active".

Again, an explanation that is not an explanation. Well I have never actually denied that you don't have freedom of movement in time. I have just said that there are other situation that you don't have freedom of movement in space. So yes they are different, but just being different does not equate with you being right. You insistence on this conclusion (ie Time is different, therefore it is not a physical dimension) is not explained at all. Give us the reasoning that you followed to reach this conclusion. The fact that you keep skirting around it indicates that you haven't followed any reasoning here. If you have let us know so we can evaluate it. So I can't have 5:00pm Canberra and 5:30pm Canberra because they are 2 different times at the same location? Or, I can't have a clock that, due to acceleration shows a different time to one that is only moving slowly so that the clock that is moving slowly passes through Canberra when it shows 5:00pm and then the other one passes through Canberra when it shows 5:00pm and not have them collide? Is this what you are saying? How can time be subjective if you have an absolute frame of reference? This is what you are saying. Your absolute Now is an absolute frame of reference. I have never claimed that I agree with time not being subjective. Time is subjective. This is what I accept. Space is subjective. It can be distorted (gravity). But yet you accept it as being a physical dimension. Space can be distorted in the same way (in fact the same formulas used to predict the distortion of space are used to predict the distortion of time) as Time can be distorted. Space is just as subjective as Time and you accept Space as being subjective at the same time being a physical dimension, so why can't time? When you say two contradictory things, I can't make any sense of what you mean. First you say that one observer only sees 5 beats. But the other observer sees 6. This is a different number of beats. If it was a bomb one observer would see it go off and the other would never see it go off. These are 2 mutually contradictory results. You can not have this as it would be a true paradox. They have performed experiments that resemble this and do not get mutually contradictory results, so your explanation must be wrong. If you conclusions do not match observation of reality, go back to the drawing board. That is the whole reason for performing experiments. You don't seem to be taking into account all the effects of relativistic travel. Not only does the Time shrink, but so does distance. The two observers will actually see the light bounce the same number of times as one observer will see the distance between the mirrors as less than the other and so, even though they see less time, the distance travelled will be less and so the experiences match up. If you dismiss time as a dimension, then you end up with paradoxes like this. If you only consider time and not space, then you also end up with these paradoxes. Only be treating time as a physical dimension do you eliminate the paradox. Time is needed as a physical dimension to avoid the paradoxes. GR has 3 frames of reference. Stationary, Moving at a constant velocity and Accelerating. Your example used acceleration, but only considered the moving at constant velocity and stationary frames of reference. You made a mistake, you left something out. I have looked it up and I do apologise, I gave you too much credit. You don't seem to understand the difference between an accelerating frame of reference and a constant velocity. So Einstein is just human. But the corrected calculations do show that accelerating is necessary to induce the twins paradox. As you move away from light source, the wavelength of light is lowered. This is because relative to the light source you see it as having a slower time. As you move towards a light source you will see a higher frequency of light, this is because relative to it you see it's time accelerated. Because Light is a constant velocity regardless of your own frame of reference, this is what occurs. So outgoing you see time slowed down and going back you see time sped up. The outgoing and incoming time dilations will be the same if you use the same speed (if you are at a different speed the dilations will be different, but you take more or less time to get there and this ends up balancing the equations). So, with constant velocity, you experience no net time dilation compared to a stationary observer. If you only consider the stationary and moving frames of reference you can not get the twins paradox. So why on Earth is there such talk about a twins paradox, there is no paradox to speak of. It would be the same if there was an absolute time or not. But only by including acceleration can we get what is called the Twins Paradox (and it is not really a paradox, it just sounds like one). Under acceleration you experience further time and space dilation. However when you slow down, this is also an acceleration so you experience even more time dilation. There is no cancel to this dilation as is with the constant velocity. It is this "uncancelled" time dilation that causes the twins to have different times. Acceleration is necessary or there would be no differences in their times (perceived or otherwise). That is how you seem to me. I have presented scenarios where you assumptions do not produce results that match observed reality. But you still say that your assumptions lead to a more accurate description of reality. When, in the face of the real world being different from what you think, who is the one clinging to an illusion? I have tried to understand, believe me I have tried. Between posts that directly contradict each other, insulting me and your self aggrandising, I have tried to understand. You have failed to actually show a straw man argument that I have posted. The only times you have stated I used straw man arguments they were references to something you said in one of your posts. Yes, there was a lot of things I said that you didn't, and all of then were question about your essay or situations that I was trying to understand what the conclusions where that could be drawn from your essay. I never put words in your mouth. When I said that something was required by your essay, this was backed up with reasoning and examples. Please post them and I will reply. The ones that you posted about earlier I did re-explain the reasoning and you never disputed them then. The imagined victories were not imagined, but due to the fact that observed reality is different from what you claimed. By that alone I stand. Show, if you can, that the observations are wrong. Yet again you insult me. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: You have no idea of how old I am. For all you know I could be 70 years old. You try to use what you think is my age to bolster you arguments. How old are you? I could be a professor of physics, a descendant of Einstein. You don't know (I an neither of these, but I could have been for all you knew).... Remember this when you are older and wiser: It is not a good idea to make assumptions about people and then use them as insults. It does nothing for your credibility. here is something you can do: Put all you claims into point form and we will discuss each of those points in turn. Between all the contradictions you have posted, I have lost track of what you actually believe you essay says about the universe.

At work we once had a lunchtime challenge to come up with a plausible free energy device. This was for a bit of fun and we did come up with some truly bizarre ideas. Here is my entry idea for it (note: I don't think it would work, I think that free energy is impossible - this was for a bit of fun). As I don't understand the theories enough to actually disprove my idea (and none of us at work could) I would like to see what this community thinks and why it wouldn't work. A bit more explanation: This device would be small. The distance between the curved metal plates would be on the order of atoms. What is supposed to happen is due to the uncertainty principle electrons and positron pairs (virtual) would appear in and around the device. These would have some initial momentum. Pairs moving into the device will curve due to the magnetic field. These would curve out towards and collide with the plates. The positron would annihilate with an electron in that plate (zeroing out the energy from the uncertainty principle). The electron from the pair would end up in the other plate. Electrons moving in the other direction would also experience the magnetic field and curve. However the curve of the plates is designed such that they exceed the curvature of the electron/positron pair. So the E/P pair will never collide with it. Because the E/P pair only collides in one direction, that means that the Positrons only collide with one plate and the Electrons with the other plate. This causes a reduction of electrons on one plate (positive charge) and a build up of electrons on the other plate (negative charge). We3 now have a potential difference between the two plates which can be used. No energy has been put into the system, but energy is coming out. Free energy. Needless to say I won the challenge and got my chocolate bar as reward... Can you tell me why it won't work.

Fridges and freezers can keep food fresh for far longer. This is an indication of chemical changes. What other chemical changes are taking place? Could toxins or carcinogens be produced? Again, chemical changes are taking place. I'd be wary of this. yet more evidence of chemical changes taking place. This is sounding like a dangerous practice. Mmmm, mummified meat... You know, in real pyramids, they left the corpse to be mummified in Natron (salt) for about a week to get this effect. In those times Salt was a valuable commodity (ever wonder why we call the pay we receive a Salary? It come fro the fact that salt was so valuable it was a form of currency). If only they knew that they could have just left the old guy under the pyramid and achieved the same effect. What a waste. Positive think achieves the same result. Oh wait, if you think that all that is going to give you a positive effect, that is positive thinking... Well, nausea is not a positive effect by any stretch. If this is caused by excess toxins, then where did these come form? I can't have had them before I went in as I would have been feeling sick before. Oh wait, above was indication of chemical changes, so these toxins are obviously the result of the pyramid energy. I wonder if I could sue the Egyptians for poisoning me Also, maybe these good feelings are just the result of minor poisoning. We take toxins to feel good (alcohol, etc) so the good feelings might not be "good" after all... All pyramids should come with a warning: May induce chemical changes that could result in poisoning. If pyramids did what you are saying, I am going to steer very clear from them. They sound very dangerous. Sorry, couldn't resist

No. If something is wrong, you don't need an alternate explanation to show it is wrong. You have presented your ideas and you have to demonstrate them. You have the burden of proof. This still doesn't answer the question. It does not explain how your position leads to you conclusions. It just restates that this is what you say happens. There is no explanation here. Why is time: "a dimension in that it is a measure, of events and motion using other events and motion." Why are is a dimension that we have no freedom of movement in "not the same" This I agree with, but you end your "explanation" there. You don't go on to explain why this makes time not a dimension like space. As you have not adequately explained, how does the lack of freedom of movement result in time not being a dimension like space. Time, unlike all the other "measurement only" dimensions has reall physical effects in the environment, and the environment has real physical effects on time. It is by these alone that separate Time as being different from just a measured dimension. This means that if (according to you) time is not a physical dimension and it is not a measurement only dimension, what is it? This would make Time a unique dimension that does not belong to any other dimension classification. It make it a special case. It needs its own laws and rules to govern it. But, Farsight, if Time is a physical dimension all these problems are solved. You have never explained why Time should be a non-physical dimension. You have stated that you think it is and that it should be, but never supplied the reasons. You have never given an explanation that addresses this problem of it also being different from all other non-physical dimensions. Interestingly enough, Space has the same differences as Time does to the non-physical dimensions (such as temperature, etc - that is it is effected by and can effect the environment). Repeating you initial claims are not explanations, sorry. To call them such is dishonest. If I keep saying that "The sky is blue" as an explanation as to why the sky is blue, this is not an explanation. You have to do better than that. Here is a big hint: Look for the question marks. Sometimes a phrase the question as a though experiment to test your assumptions. And sometimes I present them as a specific situation so as you can explain how your concepts can explain the out comes of that situation. They are all quite obvious. I do look at it, but I can't see anything. Local time, at the same Location, from their frame of reference. Well from the clocks frame of reference their nows are always different as they have different "slopes". At the point of impact (same location same reference frame) then, relative to each other, the clocks occupy the same space-time coordinates (a collision). What is the problem? This does not highlight a problem with current thinking of time, Why are you using it to state that there is? I just don't "get" why you think it is a problem. no, for time to be local to a place, there has to be an absolute reference to measure the "place" from. So, Time can not be Local to a Place. It can, however, be Local to an Object. This is what "Local Time" means. All Local Times are relative to each other. All Locations are relative to each other. This is relativity. Each clock has it's own Time. The point of collision does not have it's own "Time" unless there is an observer there to provide something to measure against. This is why your example needs that 3rd observer as you are measuring a time relative to it. You use that observer to mark your absolute "now", but if that observer changes their frame of reference, you reference point for your absolute "Now" also changes, changing what "now" is, it no longer is absolute. Yes they occupy the same space-time coordinates. I am not denying the fact that they can collide, just your insistence that this disproves the current thinking about time. For the clocks to collide at the same time regardless of what their own experience of time, requires an absolute time. Otherwise "at the same time" makes no sense. Relativity states they collide, but not at the same time (relative to each other). But if you add in a 3rd observer, then they collide "at the same time" relative to this 3rd observer. This 3rd observer, according to relativity, is the only way you can have "at the same time". You add in this 3rd observer, but then don't mention it (is this dishonesty, or just ignorance). You also don't take into account the frame of reference of this necessary 3rd observer and use it as an absolute. This 3rd observer must be an object, and according to relativity is subject to all the conditions of it. It must determine its time and position relative to other objects. So this 3rd observer can not be used as an absolute reference as it is itself relative to others. How? Yet another example of a statement without an explanation. As you stated above, this is a result of your reasoning, not mine. So it is not my problem, it is in fact yours. I state that they collide "at different times" relative to each other. It is only by adding in a 3rd observer that "at the same time" makes any sense. Without an absolute frame of reference (that is: absolute time -which you have previously stated does not exist), how do you reconcile "at the same time" with out a 3rd observer (frame of reference)? Ok, what if this was a time bomb. After 6 beats the bomb will explode, but with 5 beats it wont. So one observer sees the bomb explode and the other doen't. We one have an observer who according to the one is dead, but to the other he is alive. WTF? This makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about? Now I see, you haven't actually looked at why the Twins paradox actually occurs have you. The twins paradox only occurs if one of the observers accelerates. In the above example there was no acceleration so it wouldn't unfold like your say. This was exactly the same error that you included in your Nail/Cylinder though experiment in your original essay. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. This is because you are using the wrong frame of reference to resolve the situation. The observer under acceleration has a fundamentally different and detectable experience than the observer who remains at rest. It is a similar situation as what occurs under gravity. An observer in a gravitational field is different to one not in a gravitational field (or at least a negligible one). This difference caused by acceleration is what causes the twin paradox. If the same situation is carried out and acceleration is ignored, then, as the twins move apart each sees the other twins time slowed down. As the move together again they see the other twins time sped up. The speed up and speed down will match. Under acceleration the twin that accelerates will experience further slowing down of his time that is not matched by the other twin. This is what causes the differences in their times. If we did this experiment again, but eliminate motion, then we can just use a gravitational field instead. This gravitational filed slows down the time of the twin within it and causes a difference in their times. Now that I know this is your big mistake, I can now see why you have reached the conclusions of an absolute Now. You didn't see why, if you just moves someone away form you and then back that you would have different times as they would both experience a time dilation and contraction that would cancel each other out. In this you are right. Just moving them away and back does not cause different times it is the acceleration that causes it. In none of your examples you presented where you though this was a problem did you take into account that one of the observers undergoes acceleration. It is this acceleration that causes the different experiences of the observers and is the source of there being different frames of reference. You have been working under the assumption of only two possible frames of reference: Stationary and moving. But there is a third: Accelerating.

Although whether or not I define time makes no difference to this discussion. What is important is that if you are going to argue against a definition of time, you should argue against a definition of time. Look, all this is is just restating you initial proposal, it is not explaining what it is that makes you proposal true. Why does motion through space necessitate time not being a dimension? Why can't you have motion through space and yet still have time as a dimension? Why does lack of freedom of movement through time mean it can't be a dimension (and yes I do know that you state that it isn't because of motion through space - but you never explain your reasoning behind that claim)? You make these statement, but you never explore the negative, you never disprove the opposite of your claims and never provide a reason why your claim must be true and other claims can not. Just stating and restating your initial claims does not make them any more true or provide any explanation pr show your reasoning. This is the last time I am going to ask for these answers. If you can not provide these then the only conclusions I can make about your reasoning is that you came up with this by guessing or picking something that sounded good without any thought what so ever. If you did arrive at your conclusions through rational though, then please provide how you did this. I don't understand this paragraph. First you have previously stated that the local times on the clocks can be different, but then you say that they can't be different. Am I missing something here? The only way I can seem to make sense of what you are saying is that if a 3rd observer is present that give the two clocks a fixed reference point in which to compare their relative space-time positions with. What if there is no 3rd observer? What then dictates the "Now" that is absolute? What if you also have a 4th observer but is in a different frame of reference than the 3rd? What if the 3rd observe4r changes their frame of reference by accelerating? What then can be used as the reference to an absolute Now? Relativity states that in all frames of reference Light will be measured to have the same velocity. Therefore an observer travelling with the light+mirror arrangement will see light travelling at C. An observer that this clock moves past will also observe the light bouncing between the mirrors at the velocity of C. Yet, the observer travelling with the clock will see the light take a longer route. This means that that moving observer will count less bounces than the stationary observer. But these are the same object. Not a different one. How can two observers observing the same object and see it behave in two contradictory ways at the same time? Using what is presented in your essay could you explain this.

No it doesn't. All it means is that your interpretation is wrong or you belief that SR is telling us more (and what exactly you think it is telling us). Umm, you posted this exact argument to support you claims in you essay. It was this circular argument about velocity and use of time to determine velocity that was at the core of your essay. So if you are not using it, why was it in you essay? And I quote: But, Farsight, that is not the actual definition of time. So way on earth are you calling it a definition of time. It is not a definition of time. And can;t that just be applied to space as well? What you describe could just as well be applied to a Ruler used to measure space. Again, you have failed to explain what your proposal about time means it is not like space. Yes, but what if the clocks were to pass through that same location in space, but at 13:49pm local time (from their frame of reference)? The would not collide then, even though, according to themselves, they were in the same location in space at the same time. The conclusions you reached in that discussion require a 3rd observer who can give a definitive view on what "Now" is. As I showed, if this 3rd observer is constantly observing one of the clocks, then, as both must (by your claim) constantly be able to agree to a Now. But if they do this then that clock can not experience time dilation as then there must be a discrepancy between the Now that the clock experiences and that of the 3rd observer. Being that the time dilated clock's Now must be shorter than the 3rd observer) or that the 3rd observer would experience "more" nows than the clock. This is the reason that an absolute Now must lead to an absolute Time as the act of observing means that the Nows must constantly match up and if an absolute Now exists then constant observations by one observer means that every Now that occurs must match up with every Now for the subject being observed regardless of either frame of reference. Sorry, I meant independent of the units used. Not a unitless value. If I used a ratio of 300,000,000cm in the X dimension to 1 cm in the Y dimension, weather I used metres or inches, you would still get that 300,000,000:1 ratio. So regardless of the measurement scale used you get the same result so long as you use the same conversion multiplier for both sides. Changing the scale on one side means that you must change it on the other side. So if you have a velocity for light in one set of scales, all you need is for the other person to give you a conversion factor for just 1 term and you can derive the units for the other term. But this is a little off topic.

This is my main argument against Farsight's essay. Farsight is creating this circular argument to disprove Time as we know it, but it is a false circular argument as the method the Farsight uses as the definition of time is not a definition of time at all. The whole essay is a big stawman as the definition that is being argued against is not what is used as the definition of time. It is in fact a ratio between Distance and Time that defines the Speed of Light. The accepted definition of Time has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light.

The speed of light is not dependant on the measurement scales that you use. It is really just a ratio between Time and distance. That is for every X distance that light travels, it will take Y time. It doesn't matter weather your distance is in Metres, Inches, Nelson's Columns or if you time is in seconds, or any arbitrary scale. All that matters is the ratio. This means that the speed of light or "C" is not really dependant on our measure of distance (metre) or our measure of Time (second), but can be expressed as a ratio between them which is 300,000,000m:1s. If we choose to measure it in inches and minutes it would be 196,850,393":1minute. If we were were able to establish radio contact with an alien race, we could not just explain to them what a metre or a second is, but we could explain the ratio that is the speed of light and form that explain metres and seconds. This argument about how we define a metre by the distance light travels in a period of time, and then use that measurement to express the speed of light is all just a massive lack of real understanding. We know what the ratio of Distance and Time for the speed of light is. We just use the units that we are familiar with as one form of expression. The "Metre" and the "Second" no more define the "Speed of Light" than the term "100km per hour" define the terms "Kilometre" or "Hour". I have been trying to explain this and you don't seem to be able to understand. Just because we use the word "Metre" as the unit in an equation it does not mean that we use that equation to define anything else in that equation. We usually are not even trying to define any of the unit in that equation. Weather you measure Time by the rotation of the Earth, or the pulses of photons emitted by a caesium atom, neither of these measurement units define the "Speed of Light". The only thing they can do is specify the value on one side of the ratio. Farsight. The main problem you don't seem to grasp, is that you say that the Speed of Light is a velocity, and we can use that ratio to perform calculations that can give us a measure of Time, that this must mean that Velocity defines Time. Again. I did explain this. On one hand you told me to shorten my posts and then you say I do not provide enough explanations and that I am "Glossing" over parts of the explanation. Please be consistent in what you want from me and I will attempt to do so. Until you do, I will do as I see best. So either be clear or live with it. Yes. you own hand can be in a different frame of reference than other parts of you. Why not? If I move my hand it has accelerated, but my head has not, it has therefore, according to relativity experienced a different frame of reference than my head. My feet are closer to the ground than my head and therefore will "see" my head as moving faster through time and my head will "see" my feet as moving slower through time. This effect has actually been measured and is quite real. This sounds impossible, but that is only if you subscribe to an absolute time. We have measured this effect, we know it occurs, and yet an absolute time can not make sense of it. As this clearly does not leads to a nonsensical world, then some other explanation must be the truth. Only through a relative time can this situation be resolved. Yes you might be able to measure the motion, but that still does not mean that motion defines it. You have not provided an explanation. Just a restatement of you axiom (that time is determined by velocity). The units of measurement do not determine what time is. How many time must this be restated. We define the measurement unit of time as a second and then use a periodic event to accurately define that measurement unit. The atomic clock is not defining timer it is marking off points. The only thing it is defining is the scale that we use to measure time, not time its self. You seem to be saying that the units that we define something by, define the thing they are supposed to measure. So in other words, by counting beans we define what a bean is. But mathematically motion is derived from time. I have presented this formula and it is very well know anyway. I have asked it before and I will ask it again: On what do you base this claim on. You repeatedly make this claim and don't back it up. Back up your claims. I have used observational evidence to back up the claims I have mad. For every "Axiom" that I presented I have provided situations that have been observed (admittedly I have not referenced specific experiments, but these are well observed phenomena so their existence is not in question). Any axioms I have used that I could not provide direct support for, I took the time to explain why those axioms exist (that is if they didn't then the world would not be the way it is). And then you complain that my posts are too long. Please give us this explanation, this reason as this would be the one piece of evidence that would answer all my questions and definitively prove you right. Your essay presents your opinion. But that is all it presents, nothing else. I keep asking for more and you just keep telling me to re-read your essay. No matter how many times I re-read it, if the information I need is not in there, I will never get it. Well, I would disagree then that your explanation was clear. I have an IQ of 140, I have a reading ability of over 700 words per minute at a greater than 90% comprehension rate. I too over 5 minutes reading you explanations and yet I seem to have misunderstood. Based on other "explanations" in this thread I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say as they seem to me to contradict each other. Either you are being too vague, or are not properly explaining what you mean. If there is a failure in communication, most (not all) of the blame lies with the party that is initiating the message. <rant> Not really most of your answers seem to be: "Re-read my essay" (which I have done so over 10 times). If I have made a mistake in understanding what you are saying in your essay, then instead of just saying "re-read it" you might take the time to actually re-explain it. I haven't just "brushed" you explanations under the carpet. I have questioned them. Any "strawman" you seem to claim that I have made is its self a straw man. I question you claims and try (with the small amount of non contradictory explanations you have given) to work out what conclusions one can make from it. When I ask where I have gone wrong in reaching those conclusions, you brush me off by telling me to re-read you essay. For future reference: I have read that essay several times and not just skimmed through it. I have exercised a lot of patience in the face of some certain comments that are obviously designed to impute my character (if you really want I could quote them). You make claims as to my behaviour without actually know it and have been quite condescending in some of your remarks. I have, until now chose to ignore them and concentrate on the matter at hand, further postings on this I will not be handling with as much patience. </rant> Sorry everyone else.

I would go, at the drop of a hat, my only problem is I have an injury that means that I will never be able to undertake such a mission (but if they can ever fix it, I will be willing to go). I think that such a journey is necessary. One day Earth will no longer be able to support human existence (for a variety of reasons - asteroid, overpopulation, etc, etc), so we need to be able to get off this rock. Such a journey to Mars would demonstrate and test the needed technologies to move people between the planets safely. Even a failure would be important as it would allow us to understand the difficulties more. This would not be about exploration of Mars, we can do that fairly well with rovers and satellites. This is all about humanity being able to get all their eggs into more than one basket. Long term habitation is another hurdle to overcome, but this would be a first and important step.

And at the point of impact, it is (relative to each other) 0. So they are both in the stationary frame of reference to each other. There were in different frames of reference leading up to the impact, but at the point of impact, they are not moving relative to each other. And here is where your mistake in logic occurs. We do not define time as the distance that light moves in one second. We define a light second as the distance that light moves in a second, but that is not the definition of time. We use this velocity in the calculations of how space and time relate to each other, but again, this is not a definition of time. If two events occured in the same location then they can not be separated by 2 light seconds. Light seconds are a measure of space, not time. How is this at all relevant to your argument? You seem to be using a completely irrelevant measurement to "prove" your point. Two events might occupy the exact same space, but be separated in time by 2 seconds. How does this then show that it is motion that causes time? There was no motion (same location), but there was time (2 seconds). Where is your motion in this? So what you are saying is that there is an absolute "Now" for each observer and all of them are relative. Doesn't that sort of contradict one an other? Yes you are. Anything that you do will occur 3 seconds in the past of Swansont and anything that Swansont does will occur 3 seconds in your past. You are both 3 seconds in each others past. If you fired a laser at Swansont at 20:00:00 and you were both stationary relative to each other, then Swansont would see it at 12:00:03 and if Swansont fired a laser at you at 12:00:00 you would see his laser at 12:00:03. If you both fired your lasers at 12:00:00 local time, and you know that they are 3 light seconds away form you, then you calculate that the other's 12:00:00 was 3 seconds in your past. But each calculates this so each is 3 seconds into the past of the others.

At the point of collision they can be treated as one object as at that instant (what Farsight calls "Now") they are in the same frame of reference. Strictly speaking it is not absolutely true for real clocks. But I was thinking of them as discrete systems, like a single particle (photons for instance). Two photons can collide and become 1 system that has 1 frame of reference. But to cross the room takes time. So is that not travelling through time? Again you side step the issue that even if we have no freedom of movement in time, how do you come to the conclusion that it therefore doesn't exist. Please state clearly you reasoning on this.

When the two clocks collide they are in the same reference frame so of course their "Nows" will coincide as they share the common reference frame. I never disputed that they do not agree on the "Now" of the collision. I just disputed the fact that it means that it is an absolute now. There Now might coincide, but what of another observer flying past. Remember for an absolute Now to exist, there must exist a Now that all observers agree with. In you explanation of the clocks, you only consider 2 observers and they share the same frame of reference. If your premises lead to that logical conclusion, I am not putting word in your mouth. I am just trying to understand what your essay would lead to in the real world. Yes you didn't actually say that there is an absolute time. But because of the analysis with Calculus, An absolute Now, can only lead to an absolute time. It is mathematically required. You may not have intended it to be that way, but that is the mathematical conclusion of having an absolute Now. You can't escape it with words. But a collision between A and B will not negate observer C (or even a collision between A and C will not eliminate observer B - that is why I included 3 observers not just 2). I think I use fairly good logic. The only initial assumptions I used was that there is an absolute Now and that Calculus can be used in analysis of these kinds of situations. Nothing wrong there. As these were the only initial assumptions and calculus has had a long history of use in these kinds of situations, I don;t see a problem with it at all. So it disagrees with what you assumed your initial premises lead to. But I have the maths backing me up. you can't just state one thing, then state what you think is the result of it and then claim it as true. You must show how your initial premise leads to your conclusions. Taking your initial premise of an absolute Now. Calculus gives us the conclusion that this must lead to an absolute time. umm, the initial assumptions of Black Holes had this problem too. They didn't take into account the local frame of reference (the actual calculations are quite hard to do as they do require some assumptions on the behaviour and properties of black holes). In your example of the black hole you failed in this respect too. Yes according to ouside observers it will appear that it take an infinite time for matter to fall into a black hole. But from the local from of reference it doesn't take an infinite time to fall in. There is a distinct Now that the local observer has when they cross the event horizon, but there is no such now for the outside observer. Another case of Now not being absolute (in fact one observer never sees the Now of the other - you can't get less absolute than that). Then please be more precise in your explanations. As you have never shown why that particular result comes form your initial assumptions. But again: You have never show that the non existence of a dimensions is a conclusion draw from the fact that we don't have freedom of movement in it. You keep stating that it is so, but offer no explanation of it. Please, please, please give us this explanation. I have not forgotten it. You have never given a reason for that conclusion. So he posed the problem. What are you trying to say? Even though it might have originated from someone else, and even though Einstein might have not like the idea initially, he still did include it, so it must have some merit. How does your claim dispute me. You offer no explanation of you position. You just keep stating it over and over again as if this will make it true. As I have said many times in this thread and even in this post. Give us your explanation as to why lack of freedom of movement means that time dose not exist as a dimensions. I have never disputed that we don;t seem to have a lack of freedom of movement in time. I have only disputed that this leads to the conclusion it doesn't exist. And you have never answered that question, only danced around it and restated you assumption. Yes, I am sorry that they are long. But There is a lot of necessary explanation that you seem not to have taken into account in your posts. I have to go right back to the basics. Early on I just used short points. But then you complained that I was just making assumptions. To counter that it is necessary for me to use a lot of explanation of my reasonings. You can have one or the other, Concise posts, or the appearance of me making assumptions. Your choice.

Now is a Time. An absolute Now means that if local time for me is sped up (show to be true through experiment) then I will see a different Now to you, but according to the whole point of an absolute now, this can not happen. So an absolute Now means that time can not locally speed up or slow down. If there is an absolute Now, then it means that all time, no matter what observational frame of reference (stationary, accelerating or moving) the observers must agree on the what Now is. Take this example: With an absolute Now, all observers, no matter at what point in the experiment, must agree on when Now is. So we have 3 observers: Observer A is travelling on a space ship at a high speed. Observer B is stationary at the destination. Observer C is also stationary at the destination. Observer A, because of the time dilation, see the distance between the start and finish lines contract. And also that it took a certain amount of time to complete the course and from the observed length of the course and the time it took, Observer A can calculate how much fuel was used. Observer B observes the ship at the start of the trip and at the end of the trip. Therefore the Now at the start of the trip and at the end of the trip must match up with the Now that Observer A experiences at the start and end of the trip. Observer A and Observer B disagree over both the time it took and the length of the course. But when they do calculations with relativity, these match out and the discrepancy is explained. Observer C, however continuously observes the space ship and Observer A. If there is an absolute Now, then at all times in that trip, the Now for Observer A and C should match. That is if we consider the smallest possible time period (that is 0), we can do a calculation to work out how fast time is moving. Isaac Newton created the mathematics to handle this with Calculus). If we then take Newtons calculations and, assuming that both observers must be able, at all points in time, agree on when Now is, then it works out that Observer A must not experience any time dilation because at all points Observer A's Now must match Observer C's Now. This is the Absolute time that is the result of an absolute Now. If there is a Now that all observers must agree on, then there also has to be an absolute time. One is an inescapable consequence of the other. This is the reason that Newtonian mechanics breaks down at relativistic speeds and in high gravitational environments. Newton's mathematics assumes an absolute Now. Do not ignore something because id disagrees with your conclusions. If you agree with the initial premise, but differ in the conclusions, then somewhere along the line someone has made a mistake. The fact that I came to different conclusions and you agrees on the initial premises, means that one of us is wrong. The logic of my example has had many different scientists and experiments applied to it, where as you have not provided any supporting evidence for you conclusions. Please take a look at it and explain where my logic in that example failed. Not what you disagree with, but what logic and what premises that you disagree with. If we follow your reasoning, then it is impossible for any matter to fall into a Black Hole. What will occur is a shell of matter surrounding the event horizon (as it will always be encountering matter that fell in before that has a greater time dilation). And as it is out side the event horizon, it has not yet exceeded infinite time dilation its self, it will be able to support more in falling matter. And so on. So once a star has begun to collapse into a black hole, some of its matter will still exist outside the event horizon, will be at an extremely high temperature and thus still radiate light. So black holes aren't black, but are very bright very hot objects. Why then can't we see the objects? We have them in our galaxy. Of course this paradox only occurs if we assume an absolute Now that all observers will agree with. If we assume a relative Now, then this paradox fails because the Now that the in falling matter experiences is different with the Now of the distant observer which allows matter to cross the event horizon without a problem. Again, observations (no super hot very compact objects exist in our galaxy), disprove the concept of an absolute Now. Yes the mathematical and scientific definitions of Dimension are different to the colloquial/linguistic definitions of a dimensions. But this is your argument. You are arguing on one hand that according to the scientific and mathematical definitions, space has dimensions. But then go on to argue that Time (which has a scientific and mathematical definition) is only a dimension linguistically. As it conforms to the scientific and mathematical definition of a dimension, and shows actual effects caused by real objects, then one can only conclude that Time is a Real dimension on par with Space (which the exact same mathematics - equations even - that prove Spatial dimensions are real, physical dimensions also when applied to Time come to the same agreement). You have never shown adequate reason (or any reason other than unrelated phenomena like colour and temperature) why you think that Time is not a real physical dimension. The thing about relativity is that it is misnamed. Most people think that relativity is about the relative velocity of C. However the only constant is C. No matter what frame of reference, all observers will agree on the velocity of C. Because of the fact that C is constant, we can do the calculations that show the distortion of Space due to the observers frame of reference. However, if we only assume 3 physical dimensions, these calculations do not match observed reality. It was this problem that originally led Einstein to include Time as a Dimension. When Einstein included the 4th dimension as Time, the equations matched observations and everything worked. But this result can only be reached if Time is a real, physical Dimension and is effected by exactly the same way as the Spatial Dimensions. There was an old tale about a couple of philosophers discussing reality. One was arguing that nothing was real. The other kicked a rock and said " thus do I dispute you". In my case I am using the fact that Time is effected (and effects) real physical object to dispute your proposition that it doesn't really exist as a physical dimensions. Under relativity, under certain circumstances (frames of reference), Time behaves exactly the same as the Spatial dimensions and is completely indistinguishable from them. You have also never explained why not being able to freely move in a dimensions means that it doesn't exist. If we knew of a 2 dimensional creature, and could observer it, It would say that it could not freely move in 3 dimensions so therefore the 3rd dimension can;t exist. But as Observers, and being 3D ourselves, we can plainly see that the 3rd dimension exists, even if those 2D creatures can not move freely in it. So, on what grounds do you dismiss Time as the 4th dimension, other than the fact that we can not move freely in it (as that rational has been shown to be false - or if it is true, somehow, you have not explained why it must lead to that conclusion).

I was not talking about reference frames as the time on a clock. A reference frame is covered under relativity. If you are moving, that is one type of reference from. If you are stationary, then that is another. If you are accelerating, that is a third type. So under these 3 conditions Stationary, Accelerating and Moving, we need to apply you notion of and "Absolute Now" and see what it produces. We know from experiment that in an accelerating frame of reference it reduces the length in the direction of motion. But from a stationary frame of reference, this does not occur. So two observers, one accelerating and one stationary will observe two different distance. They will disagree over how far one has to travel. With an "Absolute Now" the two observers must agree over the time it takes to traverse the distance (this applies even if you treat time as a dimension or not - but only if there is an absolute now). So the observers disagree over the velocity of the traveller. If we were using a rocket, then we should be able to calculate the amount of fuel needed to reach the velocity and so measure it. but, the different observers have observed different velocities and so would calculate different fuel usage. This is a problem as Observer 1 will say the rocket has used X fuel and observer 2 will say that the rocket has used Y fuel, but the two numbers will not agree. This kind of result makes no sense. On one hand we have a single rocket that has a single value for the amount of fuel it's used, but we have two observers, seeing the rocket use different amounts of fuel. I am sorry, but reality is not like that. If we abandon the notion of an absolute time, then we can let time also be distorted by the acceleration. So that although they disagree over the distance travelled, they will also disagree over the time taken. This works out that the time distortion exactly matches the what is needed by the spatial distortions to balance the observers assessment of the fuel use and no paradox is generated. As I have said, just because you don;t have the freedom to move in a dimension does not mean it does not exist. After crossing the event horizon of a black hole, you have no freedom to move in the vertical. Does this mean that the vertical dimension doesn't exist? Your reasoning on this is not that clear. Why does lack of freedom necessitate the non existence of a dimension? The formula you're looking for is probably sqrt{(1-v^2/c^2)}, but this moderates time experience, and it is late. I take it that V and C are Velocity and the speed of light respectively. If they are then both V and C are both dependant on time. that is V=D/T (where D is Distance and T is Time) and C= 300,000km/s (km is a distance and s is a period of time) I do not see how this proves your point? The equation if you look at the units involved are (D/T)/(D/T). Which cancels each other. So we are left with a number without any units. This means that is not distance nor time. So this can't be calculating time as you have just cancelled it out of the equation. Time can not be on the left hand side of the equation and therefore you are not calculating Time. Yes. Yes, now that I look back I didn't "explain" it, mainly because I was trying to keep that post short - but it is not easy to do when explaining these kinds of things) and you original post was approximately as long as mine (and yet you accuse me of not reading it thoroughly). But, Ok here: Because, when you need to do calculations using Time, mathematically the result is that of a dimension. Take the value C (the speed of light). It is a vector. It is also a velocity. This velocity is expressed as a displacement in distance (300,000km) over a period of time (1 second). or If you move 300,000km in any of the spatial planes (or combination) and you took 1 second to do it, you end up with a new vector in 4 dimensions. If we treat time as a scalar, then all we can do is shorten or lengthen the distance. This would apply to any velocity. Distance of 10m. Say I was to travel this in 10 seconds. This means that it should be 10m/10s or 1m. As we have assumed time is a scalar (according to you it is not a dimension so must therefore be a scalar), then it can't effect the units of the vector (it only effects the magnitude) so we don;t include it. This means that 10m divided by 10 seconds = 1m. This does not make any sense. Only by using Time as a Dimension can we do any useful calculations with it. Physical objects (namely through gravity) have been shown to distort the spatial dimensions and that the only way we can make sense (ie avoid paradoxes) is if Time is also distorted by these situations. So we know that real physical objects also have an effect on time in the same way that they do on space. How does your notion of Time not being as real as space solve this conundrum when it is effected by real objects the same way that space is?

Ok here is my proof: So by this you are saying that there is an absolute "Now. Am I correct in this interpretation? If I am incorrect in this interpretation of your statement then let me know. I have presented this several times and you have ignored it time and again. So if I have understood you correctly, then you have put forward the idea of an absolute "Now". This is an absolute frame of reference as one can just use "Now" as a reference point and no matter what motion you are in then there has to be a "Now" that everyone will agree is "Now". So we have established that, from your own words, that your essay advocates that there is a universal frame of reference, the "Absolute Now". However, experiments have been done that disprove the existence of an absolute frame of reference, so here you essay differs from what has been observed. At no pint in this entire debate have you even addressed this question which came up on page 1 of this thread and started the whole colliding clocks discussion. So as it stands, your essay has been shown to disagree with reality. Please address this and let me know how you can reconcile an "Absolute Now" with the observations that there is no "Absolute Now". Now for another point: In your essay you make the claim that Time is not a dimension. However Time passes all the mathematical criteria for being a dimensions. Also Einstein showed in Relativity that Time and Space can be twisted (warped). Observations of certain astronomical phenomena confirm this (eg: pulsars and their magnetic fields). So we have a dispute between claims: Namely that you think that Time is not a dimension and the current view that Time is a dimension. The only way to resolve this is through observations. If the conclusions drawn from either premise/idea differs form the other, we can look for phenomena that would demonstrate this one way or the other. The observations of Pulsars show that Space is rotated in a 4th dimension and that the effect of this rotation match up with Time being that 4th dimension. I am not just spouting axioms here, these axioms are backed up by observation and experimentation. Neither of which you have presented for your own ideas. This is the point that I keep making and you keep ignoring. I am not just using "Axioms", but have repeatedly shown that through observations they have been confirmed. So observations (not axioms) have shown that the 2 major claims made by your essay do not match the real world. It is on this that I base my arguments, not the axioms, but the evidence from observations. And the final point: If as you claim in your essay that Velocity determines time, then there must be some mathematical function that allows us to compute Time starting from Velocity (V) Or in more mathematical terms: T=f(V) (note: f means some function) As we know the formula for Velocity, we can put that in the equations (and please note you have not provided any framework that demonstrates that the formula for Velocity is any different that this one. If you have that then please post it as it is essential to making any sensible conclusions from your essay) The formula for Velocity is: V=D/T where D= the displacement in distance and T= the displacement in time (at this point we do not even have to assume that Time is a dimension, just a scalar measurement as this is what the displacement in time is). So putting in the formula for Velocity we get T=f(D/T) or T= f(D)/f(T) But now we have T on both sides of the equation. However on one side functions are being applied and then we are dividing another number by T. There are only certain cases where both sides of the equation will produce an equal result, for all other situations, this formula fails to produce any sensible result. I constructed this formula from the information in your essay and the clarifications that you posted. therefore if you have given incorrect or incomplete information, then that would be your fault (not mine or anyone else's) or demonstrates that you have not given proper thought (ie an error in the logic or initial premises) to the conclusions that can be drawn from your essay. No I am not straw manning you, I am just saying that if you want your argument to hold more weight, then this kind of "preamble" is pointless. If you are using these phenomena as examples to help people understand your essay, then you would be much better off if you used examples that actually had some relevance to the points in your essay. If they do have relevance, then they are by dictionary definition analogies. If, as you claim, they are not analogies, then you are stating that they have no relevance to the points in your essay and therefore do not aid in peoples understanding and only add to confusions about them. I have repeatedly shown that my claims are backed up by observation, a fact that you have repeatedly ignored (and then had the audacity to make the same claims about me with no evidence for them - ad homin). This is a straw man. At no point did I say that temperature is a dimension, if fact I even showed mathematically why it couldn't be one, and yet you ignore that and post that I am making such claims in order to disprove me (a classic straw man if ever there was one). Temperature is a scalar, not a dimension. It is you who are making the assertion that Temperature and Time are the same things, not me.

But then you compared them to time. That is you used those experiences as analogous to (in some way like) Time. Therefore they were analogies. If you are using them to "aid our understanding" of your points then they must have some relevance to your point (ie that they are experience and time is experience) there fore they are an analogy. According to all definitions of the word "Analogy" they are analogies. Well from what did you base your ideas on? These are the axioms in your essay. You present initial "ideas" that the rest of your essay is based on. These are the axioms. You have axioms in your essay. no matter how rigorous you logic, if you start form incorrect assumptions/axioms/ideas/etc about reality then you will end up with conclusions that do not conform to reality. I'm sorry, are you calling established mathematical concepts not rigorous logic? I have shown that using the mathematical definition of a dimension that time is a dimension. I have also shown that you claim/idea/axiom that Time is dependant on velocity is wrong (through mathematics). I have also demonstrated that conclusions drawn from your ideas/axioms/claims produce results, and confirmed by you as being correct (in one place you stated that you essay meant that there was an absolute frame of reference - that there is an absolute "now"), that do not agree with known and observed reality. Yes, as I stated above (several times now), that I did use the :time is length" preposition/axiom/idea/concept as a starting place, but then I explored what would happen if this was true. I didn't just state "ergo your essay is wrong QED". I explored what it would mean if it was correct. I also did this for your claims/idea/concepts/prepositions/axioms that you presented in your essay/theory/post and reached conclusions that you even corrected me on (so I can only take it that those conclusions are your conclusions) and compared these also to reality. Your conclusions were found not to have the same result as observed reality. The only conclusion from this is "ergo your essay is wrong QED". If conclusions drawn from your essay and confirmed by you do not match up with observed reality, then no matter how accurate or rigorous your logic, you must have made some error. If the logic is perfect, then you must have started from incorrect assumptions/axiom/ideas. Sorry? Pretend? I used the exact words that you typed and they contradicted each other. I can't pretend anything there. You contradicted your self several times. They are your words, not mine or anybody else's. Not only that they were key aspects of your essay/post/explanations. I haven't ignored your explanations, but you do seem to have ignored mine. You dismiss evidence that I have presented that originates in observations of the universe. This is where I am coming from. It doesn't matter how good your logic or how aesthetically pleasing your concepts/ideas, if they are different from observed reality or produce results that are different from observed reality, then they are wrong. Ok I'll repeat it here again: It doesn't matter how good your logic or how aesthetically pleasing your concepts/ideas, if they are different from observed reality or produce results that are different from observed reality, then they are wrong. You essay and the results that one can conclude from it (and even concluded by you) differ from observed reality. Therefore your essay is wrong. There is no fault with that logic. No dishonesty. I am not ignoring you explanations (I am using them). I am not "pretending" anything. Your essay produces results that do not match with observed reality. Therefore, you are wrong.