Bigger Ape

You've said; I think its easier to see any such change as a change in energy balance, that way we arent hampered by helpful mathematical tools in situations where they begin to get in the way as we drill below the everyday world into areas that are more fundamental. The things that we use in visualising the world we are used to can't work when it comes to describing the fundamental stuff that makes up the world we inhabit - for instance, we see colour but colour is not useful in describing the wavelength of an electron even though the electron has a frequency. It does YT2095, you should check these linkshttp://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html ...or even better; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ Heres a quote from Stanford (link above) concerning Heisenberg's thoughts

No that's wrong; Philosophy is the backbone of science because all science must be logical.It is ok to use the concept of time in our everyday world in which it makes sense to have some form of calibrated chronology. When applied to the world of modern physics that concept loses meaning because we are reaching deeper to find the very definitions of the properties of our everyday world. To succeed in this we'll quite clearly have to provide extensions to our every day world set of mathematical tools or use them in such a way that it is plain to all that they are just a set of tools - the same old concepts will not work. No? That’s not so, the Uncertainty Principle is handy in molecular physics and below, because our instruments and concepts tamper with the results. If time is a physical reality as some speculate, then it would be possible to create energy by manipulating time (impossible except we bin conservation of energy). However, we create time each time we measure energy (there is no conservation of time). Energy is the only Universal fundamental.

The fact that we percieve things does not make them real - what about colours? They are really the brains way of ordering different wavelengths of light (much similar to the brains way of ordering energetic events as occuring on a timeline). We could easily be be debating the reality of blue or red with one side holding to the view that we see them so they can't be an illussion; and the other holding the correct view that they are just wavelengths that our eyes deceive us about. The major difference between both sides is that one is looking at everyday perceptions, but the other is looking deeper at the mechanics of electromagnetic phenomena.We are conditioned by culture and years of schooling, to the Newtonian methods involving absolutes and time dependent vectors as tools of analysis. However, there are other models of mechanics that do not require vectors like force and velocity (eg Hamiltonian mechanics), but are based on energy balances - energy being the only fundamental of nature from which other manmade units are derived. With such models, it is easy to see the artificial nature of time; it's just a mathematical tool like zero, infinity etc.

Time, no matter which way you look at it, is simply a tool to measure the flow of energy through a given point. Time is derived (merely as an abstract) from energy. There is no such physical fabric as time.

Yes, logic must indeed be central. Sorry to dissapoint you on all counts Tycho. You have totally misunderstood my arguments; that is because you've taken a cursory glance and reached a super quick and super wrong conclusion. On time having a zero point? I claim the exact opposite - the whole construct of time is a mathematical convenience to measure the flow of energy. Time, length, speed and direction are derived from energy flows and not vice-versa. As for the existence of nothingness? It ties up with our concept of zero, to have a starting point, there has to be a zeroth point (a point of total emptiness devoid of energy). In any event, what does zero really mean? If theres no measurable zeroth point ...and there's none; zero goes out the window like the mathematical construct and mental bound that it is. You have to start from an equilibrium. C is constant for a medium, just as the speed of sound is contant for a medium. I do not argue that does not vary with condition, to the contrary, if you pay close enough attention to the papers logic, you'll find that I don't treat C as a rigid constant. Yes, logic must indeed be central.

Yep Tycho ...but logic is central here. I didn't spell check and I'm well aware of that, but where's your argument against the meat of the paper? ...and yes it's been written since 97 - perhaps there are reasons why its only published in 04, but these too do not add or detract anything from the logic of the paper and neither will those reasons be given here (or for that matter anywhere else except it is absolutely necessary). So Tycho, tell me something about the papers logic, then we can start talking, until that time I'll ignore your comments.

The new theory explains difficult concepts with mathematical simplicity - it does not require the reader to stretch or convolute their imagination. It tackles the problem of the gravitational interactions between matter and space giving accurate solutions including a mathematical definition for inertia. It employs common sense potential field laws, Maxwellian electromagnetism and a space similar to (though independent of) that postulated by Dirac in his concept of the particle - antiparticle relationship. The reasons for the seemingly anomalous relations between matter and space are arrived at naturally ...no curved space, no 4th dimension It's at; http://www.acadjournal.com/Articles.asp?article_id=90 Please head out there and let's discuss.

This is an interesting conversation ...NavajoEverclear don't be so quick to raise hell. As for the runner and the other examples you've given, more energy was spent by what we might conveniently term the fastest - that is all. Energy is arguably the only fundamental in the Universe - all other measurements are mere mathematical conveniences that fail when applied outside their scope. There is so much magic and voodoo in modern physics that it takes a lot to see beyond the veil, we are mentally trapped by our conventions and traditions (for instance, what does zero mean? Books can be written on that). Please take time to view a peer reviewed paper I authored; Matter-Space Potential, published at http://www.acadjournal.com/Articles.asp?article_id=90 The arguments made above are thoroughly dealt with. I have other (yet to be published) papers that deal with gravitation, Nuclear Physics and beyond; they are all built on the same foundation.