north

Originally Posted by north

there two definitions of " nothing " ;

 

1) nothing in the bank , nothing in the fridge for example

 

2) nothing is the complete opposite to something , which is defined as ;

 

something has physical , depth , breadth , dimension ,movement and space and the ability to manifest

 

" nothing " has none of these qualities

?? Where are you bringing these definitions from?

me myself and I

Not sure I agree with the definition, to say the least.

not sure ? interesting

what are you not sure about in my definitions ?

There is nothing that is somewhere as in a space that contains nothing, but can there be nothing that is nowhere?

Ignoring the matter in the universe for the moment could the universe be a whole lot of nothing that is somewhere having originally come from a nothing that was nowhere?

there two definitions of " nothing " ;

1) nothing in the bank , nothing in the fridge for example

2) nothing is the complete opposite to something , which is defined as ;

something has physical , depth , breadth , dimension ,movement and space and the ability to manifest

" nothing " has none of these qualities

You now have two definitions on the table, north. Which one do you claim is right?

"the consequences of the measurement"

 

or

 

"the measurement of the consequences"

measurement of the consequences

is right

Merged post follows:

to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion?

is not actually prove the opposite ?

is it not then that the object controls time ?

rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ?

it seems that it is the object that controls time

if our universe worked like this at the quantum level.

 

 

From one angle certain events are possible/impossible, but if you rotated the angle of observation, the perspective shift might form "trick of the eye" qualities or patterns, which alter the relevant cause-and-effect mechanisms to fit the new physics allowable by the dimensions of this illusion as if it were real.

not everything is possible

the Universe has limits

for instance , if I were to give you a hockey stick and asked you too knock down the CN Tower

it is an impossible task , no matter the angle

The oscillations are because the atom is in a coherent superposition of states — the oscillation is between the states, and you could describe that as a single state if you chose to. You can't tie any of that back to anything like a classical trajectory of an electron. (In microwave clocks these states are spin orientations of an electron) "Motion" really isn't well-defined here; it's a classical notion, and this is QM.

yet neither ammonia or caesium atomic clocks work without movement

My view on this is that "time is motion" is metaphysical

this definition of time as " time is motion " is inadequate

time is the measurement of the consequence of movement(s) by object(s) and their interaction(s)

as is any "nature of time" argument. You can't get rid of motion, or stop time

you can't get rid of movement but you can get rid of time

can the introduction of time , in and of its self , to a vehicle , cause the vehicle to move ?

to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion?

NO

because actually the faster the object goes, movement , the less time it takes for the object to get there , Naturally

if I have a lawn mower , and a Mustang

and they both have to cover a mile , what do you think will cover this distance faster ?

need I say what will ?

[Originally Posted by north]

time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

north, I am glad to see your offer of a flat-out definition of time, in reply to the question "What is time?"

I see that for you motion (and interaction) are prior to time,

in the sense that time is a "consequence" which means something that follows from.

actually rather than motion , I still perfer movement

For the moment, I will keep my comment to a minimum and for the moment simply thank you for coming out with an explicit statement.

your welcome

[Originally Posted by north]

well of course Paulii said this

it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space

Actually unless a sub atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time... time it has everything to do with wave functions.

And thus my hidden dimension explanation is plausible, although quite unlikely.

 

I just like to look for simple reasons for all unusual behavior.

~minus

correction , about Paulii , it has not only to do with space but also about the object

its not about time of whether a sub-atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time , it is about the the object its self

too your last statement

time is ABOUT behavior , movement but NOT the essence of the cause of this behavior

this is why movement(s) by object(s) is more fundamental to the understanding of any interactions between objects

time explains the consequences , the behaviour , but not the fundamental why(s) !!

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

 

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

 

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

 

how so ?

 

Spin is an attribute not a motion.

 

spin is a movement regardless

Then it should have precession.... NO?

 

before .. yes

 

 

Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain.

 

explain further

 

Wave function is a quantized set of mutually exclusive states... they might as well be location in some very small quantized direction, thus the Paulii exclusion principle could be nothing more than "no two physical objects can occupy the same place at the same time"

well of course Paulii said this

it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space

by the way minus_Ph use

"quote" in front of a quote and response in square brackets [] and / in front of [] quote in the end of the quote or response

it makes your responses much more clear

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

how so ?

Spin is an attribute not a motion.

spin is a movement regardless

I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement.

 

change without movement ? how

Wave function change

and what caused this change in wave function ?

Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension?

 

~minus

NO

Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain.

explain further

Merged post follows:

look

no matter what atomic clock you talk of , caesium or ammonia there is movement involved on which time is based

[Originally Posted by north]

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess.

how so ?

I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement.

change without movement ? how

Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension?

 

~minus

NO

Swansont is the guy I turn to for things like this, his knowledge of time is far far greater than mine. And I've seen him argue many times, that no, time is not the measurement of motion. If you consider a modern atomic clock you don't measure motion but oscillations between states. He'll hopefully post a correction/clarification to this shortly.

and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ?

[Originally Posted by north]

is that not what time is all about ?

just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ?

For starters, how about you lay your cards on the table and make a clear proposition?

 

If you have a philosophy about time, tell us and back it up with links, if you have some.

If you have a proposed definition, an answer to the question "What is time?", then state it clearly. Again, you are welcome to back it up with links if you can.

 

In other words, make a positive declaration. Let the rest of us ask you questions about your time concept, if we choose. Let's see how that goes.

 

I'll put that as a direct question, north.

 

Take your best shot: what is time?

time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects

is that not what time is all about ?

just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ?

Physical nature of gravity and

imponderability of solids is discovered.

what do mean ?

explain

these entities wouldnt have that property. stop trying to visualize it. you cant visualize it because it isnt visual. its a concept. you conceive of it.

visualizing is important though

it is through visualizing that you see how they work

that is where you can see your mistakes

to suggest there is no space is a mistake

north, you are in a science forums. The original poster was required to post proof for his claims.

 

So are you. Empty claims without proof are irrelevant.

 

 

I am not sure I know what you mean. Regardless, you seem to be suggesting - again - a gender difference here. In which case, you are in need to supply PROOF.

 

 

 

PROVE IT.

 

Your surprised comments or baseless attempts at personal-incredulity are not enough. If you think there is a gender difference, it should be possible to demonstrate such difference scientifically.

 

Since you are not in a mythology forum, but rather a science forum, you are [acr=by the rules of the forum]required[/acr] to supply such proofs.

women , if you question the hormonal difference between a women and a man and therefore the gender difference between a women and a man

then you are surely , surely confused

the difference is public knowledge and is surely nothing that I need to prove

what are you about ? where are you coming from , deep down ?

Originally Posted by north

so this about risks with women ?

What do you mean?

 

If you're classifying something as "with women" or "with men" then you suggest there's a gender difference.

there is a gender difference

men , for the most part want to prove themselves worthy of your attention

I am not sure there is in these things.

there is

a male must be understood as much as a female wants to be understood

And it should be *proven* that there is, since it doesn't seem to be related to hormones or genes.

what ???? it is absoulutely about hormones and genes

Only in the movies, really.

 

If I take this forum as example, there are quite a large majority of men who fit your category, it seems, right here.

 

If I take my school as an example, there are too. So does my work. So does the bar I keep going to with my friend, occasionally (not quite my kind 'o bar).

 

I think the above judgement is a bit unfounded, tbh. It's a misconception, in my opinion, to claim that most guys are not nice, intimate, secure, loving, etc, and it has nothing to do with gender.

 

There are lots of women who are *FAR* from being that (or looking for that), either. The only thing this has to do with gender is what it "seems like", and "seems like" has never been a good scientific measure.

so this about risks with women ?

Those are not specific to any one gender or sexuality.

true

but does not it seem that women find it harder to find than males do ?

isn't this more about just different kinds of personalities

more women I would say want and enjoy intimacy , security , loyalty , honesty, trust , commitment , kindness, understanding etc.

than any other type of personality in the end

I think post 3 answered that better than I could.

 

anyway, what you say is exactly what I am saying may not be true.

 

 

 

 

thousands of years ago it was common sense that the earth couldnt be round because everyone knew that objects would fall 'down' off the sides. we know now that they had it backwards. 'down' is whatever direction objects happen to be falling.

 

you say that its common sense that objects require 'space' to exist.

 

of course

 

think of the space that is IN the object its self

 

 

 

 

 

what if you've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact.

 

above

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think you are onto something because I have been wrapping my brain around the idea that the root of matter is nothing more than waves through time/gravity and in that thought, space isn't real, just an illusion.

 

even waves need the space to move in and out of

 

if you eliminate the " space " in which you can move , meaning total confinement

 

how does time come to be or gravity ? both are based on movement

 

inotherwords think as confinement of space , as shrunk to absolute zero

 

space has no dimension , no movement and no change

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

further

 

quantum particles are about the continuous combinations and recombinations

 

thats the importance of the quantum realm

 

flexability

First I think north needs to explain what that means.

" what that means " ? be specific

I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma

OK. You've made the claim now let's see you support it.

well now in the mainstream thought , they are looking at Quasars being ejected from some galaxies

your thoughts

Well that's what you need to prove.

 

At the very least, you need to provide some basic substantiation for this claim.

That's why it's in speculations. Go ahead and prove this is mainstream science, and your post will go back to the mainstream forum.

actually its not about " mainstream science " at all

mainstream figures that the Universe has been created from BB

however I say not

I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma

I know that mainstream cosmology is looking at Quasars as being ejected from the galactic core of galaxies

your thoughts

I am not sure what claim it is you're making..?

So far this is a discussion on what is or isn't possibly maybe was before perhaps the Big Bang.

 

What's the claim?

that there was before the BB

based on the infinity of something as opposed to nothing

and really in the end BB is an inadequate theory of the Universe because energy/matter to BB gets stuck at the begining of

but energy/matter has always been and always will be

when you reason it out