# Farsight

Senior Members

616

1. ## Time Explained

Edtharan, I've got to go so I'll answer just one point: Let's say that a mass is somehow going to steer left because of gravity, and will move towards a planet instead of continuing in a straight line. There is no magical action-at-a-distance "force" zapping through space like cartoon magnetism. Instead the left side of the mass experiences some different local condition to the right side of the mass. If you were to move the mass a little to the right, you'd still see a different local condition on the left and right. There is a left-to-right gradient wherever there is a gravitational "field". If there were no gradient, both sides of the mass would experience the same condition, and the motion would be in a straight line. The effect of this gradient is curved motion over time, but this "curved spacetime" is an effect not a cause. You get a better idea of the cause if you remove time and take a snapshot as at some given instant - or in mathematical terms take the the time-differential of your curved spacetime. The differential of a curve is a gradient. It's a gradient in c, akin to a refractive index. It exists because mass/energy is stress, and gravity is an orthogonal tension that decreases with distance and area. You'll have to wait for GRAVITY EXPLAINED for the full works, and I might have to write SPACE EXPLAINED and/or CHARGE EXPLAINED to set the scene. IMHO Newton and Einstein explained what gravity does, not what it is.
2. ## Area 51?

I used to go night fishing. You spend time on the beach looking up at the glowtube on your rodtip, so you see things in the sky. I've seen some odd things, which were definitely not conventional aircraft, or satellites, or meteors, or the planet Venus. So when I hear of reports being dismissed as such, I feel certain that there is some ongoing cover-up. I'm also certain that there's a whole pile of nutters out there faking abduction reports and photoshopping pictures, plus conspiracy theory nutters and crop-circle freaks sneaking around at night. These guys really muddy the waters. As to what the truth is, I don't know. I don't buy Nick Cook's The Hunt for Zero Point. I think "Black Ops" is too pat, too convenient an excuse. I think there's more, but I don't know what.
3. ## Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future

Jesus H Christ. Do you believe all the nonsense some workshy anarchist big brother shoves down your throat? Grow up.

Hi Albers.
5. ## Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future

I don't complain about people's critiques of my posts. Not that bah, there's no maths so it's not worth reading is a critique. And I certainly don't demand to be revered. All I want is to do is gain and offer understanding without being dismissed by somebody who doesn't.
6. ## Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future

I sigh when I see my stuff lumped into the same bucket as this.

8. ## We are all computer simulations - Not

I'm very cynical about the idea that we're all some figment of somebody's virtual reality. It's a cop-out that we could never prove. Interestingly, this was given prominence in the BBC Horizon "Time Trip" documentary, which I think is what got me thinking seriously about time. See transcript below. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/timetriptrans.shtml
9. ## Mass Explained

jck: I think we both agree that you need space and energy to make mass. Perhaps we can agree to differ for now on whether space or energy is the prime ingredient.
10. ## Mass Explained

I really don't think there is any temporal flow, aguy. See the Time Explained essay for details: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050 Thanks, I'll check that out.
11. ## Time Explained

If they had magic instant subspace radios like in Star Trek, they would each hear the other talking slow.
12. ## Mass Explained

jck: it's a tricky one. Things have properties, but some things are maybe nothing but properties. It all gets kinda fuzzy. Thanks alan.
13. ## Time Explained

I think so. If there is no movement there is no movement. You can't say there is no movement and then allow movement which then lets you say "aha but there is some time there after all." If you take this approach, it means all clocks "travel" through this time dimension at the same rate, independent of their velocity through the space dimensions. But you're just using the mathematical treatment to justify a real dimension that's not there. Yes, it could be there, but the disagreement about distance and time is explained more simply in terms of what we actually see, which is light and motion, and the light triangles and Pythagoras' Theorem in the original Special Relativity before Minkowski came along. I'd like to reiterate that the only moving going on is the movement through the three dimensions of space. The future is not a place you can visit. You're using a misunderstood interpretation of an unproven and unknowable object to justify a misunderstanding about time. Time stops at the event horizon, so no collapsing star has as yet become a singularity. Now take a look at this and compare it with no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension. Huh? I've never claimed special relativity is bunk, or that time dilation doesn't happen. And of course, it could have been antimatter to begin with so an object "travelling backwards in time" can be indistinguishable. How convenient. Edtharan, you kid yourself about moving through time. You kid yourself that I haven't answered your questions, and you kid yourself that you're engaging in debate. You write huge essays trying to knock what I say and you're so keen to do it you start engaging in fiction like I have not been given much in the way of good answers... I've had enough of your kind of "debate". Try some science for a change.
14. ## Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future

Sometimes I get irritated when a carefully constructed piece of reasoning like TIME EXPLAINED gets brushed off into Speculations, and other things don't.
15. ## A query about Black Holes

Thanks Janus.

17. ## Time Explained

Happy Christmas everybody. (Thank Christ it's over!) For the record, I don't think gravity is curved spacetime. IMHO we see a lightbeam curve because there's a tension gradient in space. I'll try to explain my thoughts here in my next essay.
18. ## Time explained

Jerk. One's a later version which a mod moved.
19. ## Mass Explained

OK guys, what do you think? If anybody could point out why this layman's explanation falls flat on its face I'll be sad, but grateful.

21. ## Time Explained

Edtharan: I'm sorry I was rude. Because nothing happens. Nothing changes, and there are no events. It's like heat. You can't have any heat at absolute zero because there is no motion. Because I can move through space. I can't move through time.
22. ## Time Explained

Hmmn, maybe you're going too far there jck. I think colour is something that is totally in in your imagination. Time is something you experience rather than imagine. It's a derived effect of motion like heat is a derived effect of motion. And heat burns.
23. ## The universal constancy of c

Fitzgerald proposed length contraction as an explanation for the null result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fitzgerald I don't know if you'd class that as independent, but eiapeteides was asking for experimental evidence and that's the best I could come up with.
24. ## Time Explained

I think that's about the size of it carol. Though it's the other way round about the moving fast and the ageing.
25. ## The universal constancy of c

How about the Michelson Morley Experiment?
×