Jump to content

Relativity+


Farsight
 Share

Recommended Posts

RELATIVITY+

 

I’ve always held Albert Einstein in the highest regard. I admire his ability to think outside the box, and empathise with his curiosity and desire to understand the world in terms we can grasp and understand. Interestingly, when you read about Einstein, you realise that some things are incorrectly attributed to him, and there have been some subtle but crucial shifts in interpretation that he wouldn’t agree with.

 

einstein-bboard.jpg

 

If Einstein was still alive today, I think we would have a different interpretation of Relativity. I think he would have explained the postulates he used in Special Relativity and General Relativity, and would have united both theories into something new. I’d like to introduce you to my vision of where Einstein would have gone. I’ve given it a name that is easy to remember and hopefully conveys the right message: RELATIVITY+. There’s already a General Relativity+, but I want something even more general, and relativity++ isn’t so easy on the tongue.

 

We start with time. Albert said “time is suspect”, but we’ve rather forgotten that. We’ve also rather forgotten his Princeton years with Godel. We misinterpreted Godel’s rotating universe as something that permits time travel instead of rendering it impossible, and we brushed aside Einstein’s conclusion. That time is a relative measure of change, and whilst it's a dimension in the measure sense, it really isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space where we have freedom of movement. It exists like heat exists, but like heat, it is a “derived effect of motion” rather than something fundamental. For details read TIME EXPLAINED.

 

clock_silver.jpg

 

Time is the guilty party. Because once you understand time, you hold Einstein's key to all the doors in Physics: Spacetime is a Space. It’s rather difficult to accept this, because it’s difficult to analyse your own long-held concepts. There are psychological factors at work, associated with the phrase “Catch ‘em young”. Since ”Time is Money” and as an illustration why you should persevere, I offer an essay MONEY EXPLAINED.

 

Bank_Of_England10.gif

 

No, time is not money. But it isn’t quite what you thought it was, and if you can accept this you’re starting to understand ontological thinking. It’s a matter of looking at what’s really there, and asking yourself soul searching questions about the concept you hold dear. In the picture below, squares A and B are the same colour. Sounds amazing, but it's true. Follow this echalk optical illusions link to check it out.

 

checkershadow-AB.jpg

 

One such question is: ”If I understand it, can I explain it?” If you think you understand something but you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. You perhaps already understood money, and you may already be aware of some parallels between money and energy. But do you understand energy? See ENERGY EXPLAINED.

 

slinky3tran.gif

 

Energy is in essence stress, quantified by volume. It’s that simple. In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We call it a photon. It has momentum. But it’s all relative. If it’s the photon moving, you feel its momentum when it hits you. If it’s you moving, you feel its inertia when you hit it. When you really understand this relativity, you understand just how simple mass is. See

MASS EXPLAINED

 

photons_loop1.gif

 

In its barest essence, mass is energy going round in circles. When you push an object you deform these circles in the direction of motion, creating a partial spiral. The energy now moves in a helical fashion, rather like a spring. To stop the object you have to push the “springs” back into circles. It’s wonderfully elegant, and what’s more it tells you that everything is basically made of light. We live in a “hard light” world. Everything is drawn in light, and when we measure the speed of it, it’s like we’re measuring the length of our shadow with the shadow of our ruler. We can now understand what Einstein meant in chapter 22 of General Relativity about the non-constancy of the velocity of light. And we can now understand Gravity: GRAVITY EXPLAINED

 

Gravity is not really a force. That’s why unification was so difficult. It’s like an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress. The speed of light is always 300,000km/s but light defines our time. The speed of light isn’t constant, and that’s what the gravity is. There’s no magical mysterious spacetime curvature. Not when spacetime is a space. Not in a world drawn in light. It’s just the permittivity of space that changes. The capacitance. The thing we call c changes, it is not flat. And it all comes down to charge, which is a story of something and nothing.

 

theswr18.jpg

 

Understanding this is the next challenge. And once we understand it all, we can set to work. And if we can make it work, we’re on the road to the stars. And I like to think that the name of the road is: RELATIVITY+.

 

© “Farsight” 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above is arguably speculative, but don't let that be a reason to ignore it. This is how the world works. This is what you'll be teaching or talking about in years to come. It'll take a while.

 

Give it.. time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above is arguably speculative, but don't let that be a reason to ignore it. This is how the world works. This is what you'll be teaching or talking about in years to come. It'll take a while.

 

Give it.. time.

 

It's pure speculation. And as I understood it GR can be applied correctly to SR situations and gets the same results or am I wrong here? My GR knowledge is not great.

 

And you show nothing about how the world works there's no maths :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Klaynos, I'll copy your response so you can squirm about it later.

 

It's pure speculation. And as I understood it GR can be applied correctly to SR situations and gets the same results or am I wrong here? My GR knowledge is not great.

 

And you show nothing about how the world works there's no maths :P

__________________

Klaynos ~~In quiet protest.

 

PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH

 

<drochaid> Klaynos, lies, I drink urine and call it beer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how the world works.

So you are saying that this is fact.

 

All of the above is arguably speculative

But you are saying that this is not fact.

 

This is what you'll be teaching or talking about in years to come.

So you have worked out conclusions that will result from your "theories" and they have differences from what the current "theories". You have then also performed experiments and found that they agree with your theories and they disagree with currently accepted theories.

 

Well, you'd have to to be that sure of your essay.

 

Many times throughout history (in fact more times than otherwise) people have proposed "theories" that sound good, are elegant and make sense, only, when it came time to actually check if they conclusions drawn from their theories, reality was found to be different. But this didn't mean that their theories were no less elegant or made sense. It just meant that what they were describing was not reality.

 

In its barest essence, mass is energy going round in circles.

How does light going around in circles effect the permittivity of space? And how does this lead to mass?

 

In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We call it a photon.

So a photon is a distortion in space. But that is what "Gravity Waves" are supposed to be. Are gravity waves and Photons the same thing?

 

Everything is drawn in light, and when we measure the speed of it, it’s like we’re measuring the length of our shadow with the shadow of our ruler.

Actually this is a good example, but not of your theory.

 

If the ruler is held in the same direction as you (that is vertically), then it can be used to measure your shadow, just by using the shadow of the ruler.

 

However, if we rotate it out of our direction (make it slightly more aligned with the ground), then we can't use the shadow of the ruler as a direct measure.

 

However, if we know the angle of rotation of that ruler, we can convert between the ruler's shadow's length and what it would be if it were aligned with us.

 

The shadows can't perceive the 3rd dimension, so what a shadow sees is a ruler that changes length. However, if our shadow could do geometry, then it could conclude the appearance of the Shadow ruler would be consistent with a fixed length ruler being rotated in 3 dimensions.

 

Now, when we have a fast moving object, we see it's length contract. Using the same maths that our shadow used to work out that what it saw was an object being rotated in 3D, we can use to calculate that the length contraction we see in fast moving object is rotation in 4D.

 

Now, using the maths from earlier in which we could, knowing the rotation of the ruler, work out how long it really was, we can apply to working out the length of something despite it's rotation in 4 dimension.

 

So we can use the shadow of a ruler to measure the length of a shadow, as long as we know how it is rotated (which we can work out from other measurement - like experimenting with rotating the measuring objects deliberately and measuring the changes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How the world works" and "How the world behaves" are not equivalent statements. Scientific models/theories describe the latter, but do not guarantee the former. However, they do include math and the ability to test them by making predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that this is fact... But you are saying that this is not fact... So you have worked out conclusions... Many times throughout history...
You're clutching at very thin straws here, making a mountain out of my molehill of challenge, presumably because there's not much in the essay you can argue against.

 

How does light going around in circles effect the permittivity of space?
I haven't told you that yet. It'll be in the next essay.

 

And how does this lead to mass?
The light going round in circles leads to mass. Here's a precit: in empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We can call it a photon. It has momentum, and energy. But it’s all relative. The photon is moving, so you feel its momentum when it hits you. If however you apply a little relativity and imagine it's you moving, you'd feel its inertia when you hit it. See MASS EXPLAINED for more.

 

So a photon is a distortion in space. But that is what "Gravity Waves" are supposed to be. Are gravity waves and Photons the same thing?
A photon is travelling stress. It travels with an accompanying tension. Gravity is the tension that opposes mass/energy stress. You can't have this tension all on its own, just as you can't have stress without the tension. You can have a reduction in the tension, but you can't have a wave of it without an accompanying stress. If a planet lost some mass it would emit photons, and these would run off into space carried by stress and tension like in the rubber sheet analogy. They have their own gravity, so in this respect they are gravity waves, but we call them photons.

 

Actually this is a good example, but not of your theory... If the ruler is held in the same direction as you (that is vertically), then it can be used to measure your shadow, just by using the shadow of the ruler. However, if we rotate it out of our direction (make it slightly more aligned with the ground), then we can't use the shadow of the ruler as a direct measure...
Your rotation is missing the point of my example. Imagine you measure the length of your shadow using the shadow of your ruler. You get the same result at midday as you do at dusk. In similar vein you always measure c to be the same, even when it is actually different as evidenced by time dilation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're clutching at very thin straws here

Not really. I am asking if you have actually sat down and worked out how a theory like this would actually effect other theories?

 

Do you know how a changing value of C will effect things like E=MC^2 and other tested scientific theories?

 

presumably because there's not much in the essay you can argue against.

Well, there is not really much in that essay. You present no processes, no experiments, no conclusions. You could have at least given us something where your theory would produce a result that is different to what current theories predict. That at least would have given us something to get a hold of and actually attempt to construct a counter argument around.

 

From what I can work out from what you have presented your theory reads like: "everything is different but exactly the same". You say that C is variable, but no one, nowhere no matter how they are moving or what gravitational field they are in can ever do an experiment that would reveal that C has changed.

 

If this is the case, then of what use is the essay? IF we can just continue on exactly the same whether C is variable or not and it makes no difference to the out come of any experiment, how can we ever tell if your essay is correct or not?

 

However if there is some difference that would show up in an experiment, then that should have been included in the essay.

 

If I was to say that my hair was blue, but everyone will always see it as pink, then how can you tell if I was correct in my statement that my hair is blue?

 

This essay's purpose is to convince it's readers of your propositions. However, if you do not include any evidence for your position and no evidence against other positions, then the essay does not succeed at it's purpose.

 

Yes, this is a speculations forum. But, it is a speculations forum in a web site dedicated to the debate of science and scientific theories. Also the way you presented your essays (and the subsequent claims that we will all be learning these in a few years) indicate that this was (to you at least) not mere speculation, and your presentation of this here was for an informal peer review.

 

However, when we do analyse it for it's scientific content, you make comments like:

making a mountain out of my molehill of challenge

and

I'll copy your response so you can squirm about it later.

 

Your responses indicate that all you wanted to do was to preach your pet theories here. If you are really interested in presenting a scientific theory, then you need to follow the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, this is going to show that farsight has actually said nothing and does not understand normal relativity to begin with.

 

RELATIVITY+

 

I’ve always held Albert Einstein in the highest regard. I admire his ability to think outside the box, and empathise with his curiosity and desire to understand the world in terms we can grasp and understand. Interestingly, when you read about Einstein, you realise that some things are incorrectly attributed to him, and there have been some subtle but crucial shifts in interpretation that he wouldn’t agree with.

 

 

and this says... nothing.

 

If Einstein was still alive today, I think we would have a different interpretation of Relativity. I think he would have explained the postulates he used in Special Relativity and General Relativity, and would have united both theories into something new. I’d like to introduce you to my vision of where Einstein would have gone. I’ve given it a name that is easy to remember and hopefully conveys the right message: RELATIVITY+. There’s already a General Relativity+, but I want something even more general, and relativity++ isn’t so easy on the tongue.

 

you think genral relativity and special relativity are completely separate? well, special relativity is a special case(see how the name 'special relativity' comes about?) of general relativity. this special case is where acceleration is zero. it only applies when acceleration is zero. for everything else we can use general relativity as it accounts for accelerations and collapses to special relativity when acceleration is zero anyway. this would indicate that you don't understand relativity if you didn't realise that they were already the one theory.

 

We start with time. Albert said “time is suspect”, but we’ve rather forgotten that. We’ve also rather forgotten his Princeton years with Godel. We misinterpreted Godel’s rotating universe as something that permits time travel instead of rendering it impossible, and we brushed aside Einstein’s conclusion. That time is a relative measure of change, and whilst it's a dimension in the measure sense, it really isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space where we have freedom of movement. It exists like heat exists, but like heat, it is a “derived effect of motion” rather than something fundamental. For details read TIME EXPLAINED.

 

so what if he said 'time is suspect' he didn't put it in his theories. therefore is not applicable in this context.

 

and look, your referencing yourself. an essay that also contains little content. you provided no evidence of your claims. why should it be used to prop up another hypothesis of yours?

 

Time is the guilty party. Because once you understand time, you hold Einstein's key to all the doors in Physics: Spacetime is a Space. It’s rather difficult to accept this, because it’s difficult to analyse your own long-held concepts. There are psychological factors at work, associated with the phrase “Catch ‘em young”. Since ”Time is Money” and as an illustration why you should persevere, I offer an essay MONEY EXPLAINED.

 

and what in the name of the little green man from khazakstan has money got to do with relativity in any way shape of form? is it the phrase 'time is money' because if thats your justification its pretty weak. 'time is money' came about because if a business isn't producing for any length of time, it loses money it could have made if it was producing. hardly crucial in a scientific theory.

 

also, again you reference yourself. hardly the good little scientist are you?

 

No, time is not money. But it isn’t quite what you thought it was, and if you can accept this you’re starting to understand ontological thinking. It’s a matter of looking at what’s really there, and asking yourself soul searching questions about the concept you hold dear. In the picture below, squares A and B are the same colour. Sounds amazing, but it's true. Follow this echalk optical illusions link to check it out.

 

'no, time is not money' then why bring it up?

 

a matter of looking at whats really there eh? well, i'm looking and all i'm seeing is smoke and mirrors that don't even hide anything. also, what do optical illusions have to do with anything? i don't think that the way our brains process colour information from our eyes has much to do with relativity.

 

One such question is: ”If I understand it, can I explain it?” If you think you understand something but you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. You perhaps already understood money, and you may already be aware of some parallels between money and energy. But do you understand energy? See ENERGY EXPLAINED.

 

I contend that you can understand something and still not be able to explain it. I understand imaginary numbers, i know what they are, ho to use them and where to use them but i can't explain them to my dad.

 

also, so what if there are parallels between money and energy? doesn't mean there is a relation.

 

also also, another self reference.

 

Energy is in essence stress, quantified by volume. It’s that simple. In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We call it a photon. It has momentum. But it’s all relative. If it’s the photon moving, you feel its momentum when it hits you. If it’s you moving, you feel its inertia when you hit it. When you really understand this relativity, you understand just how simple mass is. See

MASS EXPLAINED

 

thats 1 type of energy, there are other yous know. thats not a photon, a photon is a disturbance in the electro-magnetic fields existing in space.

 

and, if your moving, it still hits you at the same speed, c is constant remember? unless your accelerating, then there are a few difference which get explained through GR. and another thing, photons are massless.

 

so you were talking about energy but link to your own 'mass explained' essay. not very fitting.

 

In its barest essence, mass is energy going round in circles. When you push an object you deform these circles in the direction of motion, creating a partial spiral. The energy now moves in a helical fashion, rather like a spring. To stop the object you have to push the “springs” back into circles. It’s wonderfully elegant, and what’s more it tells you that everything is basically made of light.

 

any evidence? calculations to show why? any reason for the photons to move in circeles? any explanations for point masses? any explanation for photns moving in smaller circles than QM would allow?

 

We live in a “hard light” world. Everything is drawn in light, and when we measure the speed of it, it’s like we’re measuring the length of our shadow with the shadow of our ruler. We can now understand what Einstein meant in chapter 22 of General Relativity about the non-constancy of the velocity of light. And we can now understand Gravity: GRAVITY EXPLAINED

 

and we can now see more self referencing. all your claims are relying on things you have said being true. these are called assumptions. if the assumptions are false then the hypothesis is false. your assumptions have no basis in reality.

 

Gravity is not really a force. That’s why unification was so difficult. It’s like an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress. The speed of light is always 300,000km/s but light defines our time. The speed of light isn’t constant, and that’s what the gravity is. There’s no magical mysterious spacetime curvature. Not when spacetime is a space. Not in a world drawn in light. It’s just the permittivity of space that changes. The capacitance. The thing we call c changes, it is not flat. And it all comes down to charge, which is a story of something and nothing.

 

so now its all down to capacitance and charge? what? so are you bringing electrostatics into this then?

 

i won't even mention the variable c aspects of this part.

 

Understanding this is the next challenge. And once we understand it all, we can set to work. And if we can make it work, we’re on the road to the stars. And I like to think that the name of the road is: RELATIVITY+.

 

reality doesn't care what you think, 'nuff said.

 

so, here we are at the end of another of farsights essays. yet again, we have seen nothing but reiteration, false assumptions and zero mathematics. Farsight, i honestly hope that you do not believe that anybody with a rational mind would take all the claims on blind faith as you seem to expect us to do. it you want us to accept relativity+ as anything other than garbage then you will have to provide math to PROVE that you are right. with zero evidence you can say anything. so give us evidence and maths and if you are right then it will only strengthen your argument, if you are wrong, it will show you that you are wrong and you can learn from it. if you refuse however, you will be condemned as a crackpot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, this is going to show that farsight has actually said nothing and does not understand normal relativity to begin with... you think genral relativity and special relativity are completely separate?
You try to pretend I know no history, that I don't know that GR is a development of SR. Because of the word united? In an essay called RELATIVITY+. Oh please. That is weak.

 

so what if he said 'time is suspect' he didn't put it in his theories. therefore is not applicable in this context.
Yes it is, because of his Princeton years with Godel. This is what Einstein might have come up with remember? It just won't do to discount everything Einstein said or thought post 1916 to protect your stance.

 

and look, your referencing yourself. an essay that also contains little content. you provided no evidence of your claims. why should it be used to prop up another hypothesis of yours?
Huh? It's a linking essay.

 

and what in the name of the little green man from khazakstan has money got to do with relativity in any way shape of form? is it the phrase 'time is money' because if thats your justification its pretty weak. 'time is money' came about because if a business isn't producing for any length of time, it loses money it could have made if it was producing. hardly crucial in a scientific theory.
Like I said in the essay, it's showing you that something you take for granted isn't what you thought it was. Did you actually read the essay?

 

also, again you reference yourself. hardly the good little scientist are you?
You haven't have you? You haven't even read it!

 

a matter of looking at whats really there eh? well, i'm looking and all i'm seeing is smoke and mirrors that don't even hide anything. also, what do optical illusions have to do with anything? i don't think that the way our brains process colour information from our eyes has much to do with relativity.
No, you're not looking. Not at all. Where's your comment on the echalk colour perception test?

 

I contend that you can understand something and still not be able to explain it. I understand imaginary numbers, i know what they are, ho to use them and where to use them but i can't explain them to my dad.
Then you don't understand them. That's the whole point. And you don't understand relativity, or time, or the other things that you think you understand.

 

thats 1 type of energy, there are other yous know. thats not a photon, a photon is a disturbance in the electro-magnetic fields existing in space.
Yes I do know. And what's not a photon? Are you seriously trying to make out that I don't know what a photon is and you do?

 

and, if your moving, it still hits you at the same speed, c is constant remember? unless your accelerating, then there are a few difference which get explained through GR. and another thing, photons are massless.
You didn't quite get round to reading MASS EXPLAINED did you?

 

any evidence? calculations to show why? any reason for the photons to move in circeles? any explanations for point masses? any explanation for photns moving in smaller circles than QM would allow?
No. I've tried to keep it simple. And judging from your responses so far, anything else I did include would be useless. By the way, there are no point masses, because there are no infinities in nature.

 

and we can now see more self referencing. all your claims are relying on things you have said being true. these are called assumptions.
Oh get out of it. You're the one full of assumptions. So full you can't be bothered to actually read the essay, and you drum up any old stuff to try to demonstrate a hatchet job on something you don't understand, and don't want to understand. That's what I meant when I said I understand people. I understand your psychology of belief. You don't.

 

so now its all down to capacitance and charge? what? so are you bringing electrostatics into this then?
Yep. Next essay.

 

so, here we are at the end of another of farsights essays. yet again, we have seen...

 

LOL, I'll snip the fiction and abuse. Listen up: you've said nothing of value. Don't waste my time like this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You try to pretend I know no history, that I don't know that GR is a development of SR. Because of the word united? In an essay called RELATIVITY+. Oh please. That is weak.

 

well, you are implying that they are separate concepts like relativity and QM for instance. but they are the same theory. just different applications.

 

Yes it is, because of his Princeton years with Godel. This is what Einstein might have come up with remember? It just won't do to discount everything Einstein said or thought post 1916 to protect your stance.

 

then where is the paper he published? he also spent his last years trying to disprove quantum mechanics because he didn't like it. the reference was an argument from authority at best.

 

Like I said in the essay, it's showing you that something you take for granted isn't what you thought it was. Did you actually read the essay?

 

i did read the essay. i still don't see what it has to do with 'relativity+'

 

You haven't have you? You haven't even read it!

 

yes, i have.

 

No, you're not looking. Not at all. Where's your comment on the echalk colour perception test?

 

as i said, what has the way our brains process colour information got to do with relativity in any way shape or form?

 

from where i'm standing just now i can't see any link, its completely unrelated.

 

Then you don't understand them. That's the whole point. And you don't understand relativity, or time, or the other things that you think you understand.

 

i understand imaginary number perfectly. the 98% mark on the last class assignment(which was on complex numbers) could be considered proof. they are not difficult to understand. its just hard to explain them to my dad.

 

and how do you come to the conclusion that i don't understand relativity? why should i believe that you do? why should i take your word over the entire scientific community?

 

Yes I do know. And what's not a photon? Are you seriously trying to make out that I don't know what a photon is and you do?

 

did you read what you wrote? no? allow me to refresh your memory.

 

In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We call it a photon.

 

and again.

 

A photon is travelling stress

 

now, i know what a photon is. and it isn't stress. its a quanta of an electromagnetic wave, it consists of a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field. because of this it travels at the speed of light(since light is EM radiation) and it exhibits wave-particle duality like all other subatomic particles.

 

this is not what stress is, stress is the distribution of internal forces with a body of material. doesn't sound quite the same does it?

 

You didn't quite get round to reading MASS EXPLAINED did you?

 

i read it. didn't see much explaining going on.

 

No. I've tried to keep it simple. And judging from your responses so far, anything else I did include would be useless. By the way, there are no point masses, because there are no infinities in nature.

 

well, particles that are small enough to be considered point masses even when viewed on the quantum scale? and what about my other questions? believe me you do not need to keep anything simple here.

 

Oh get out of it. You're the one full of assumptions. So full you can't be bothered to actually read the essay, and you drum up any old stuff to try to demonstrate a hatchet job on something you don't understand, and don't want to understand. That's what I meant when I said I understand people. I understand your psychology of belief. You don't.

 

could you list some of my assumptions then? please do.

 

Yep. Next essay.

 

so your trying to explain everything but everytime you keep going 'next essay' without ever fully explaining the previous one.

 

LOL, I'll snip the fiction and abuse. Listen up: you've said nothing of value. Don't waste my time like this again.

 

i could say the same about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is, because of his Princeton years with Godel. This is what Einstein might have come up with remember? It just won't do to discount everything Einstein said or thought post 1916 to protect your stance.

 

So, tell me, how do you know what Einstein might have come up with. He might have done a lot of things. However, he came up with a theory that is consistent with observation and made predictions.

 

RELATIVITY+

 

That time is a relative measure of change

 

 

 

Time is not a relative measure of change. Time is a physical dimension in which events occur in sequence. Like any other dimension, things move through it and measurements of it can be made.

 

And what do optical illusions have anything to do with the theory of relativity? An optical illusion occurs because your brain tries to make order of the oncoming information that it is processing.

 

I can list much more than this, but the others have already pointed those flaws and incorrect statements out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I've tried to keep it simple.

Yes, in the essay this might have been your goal. However, in your posts defending your essay, you have absolutely no need to do this (that is unless you don't think we are as intelligent as you are and feel the need to talk down to us?).

 

So this defence is either an insult to our intelligence, or that you really don't have any rational arguments for your position. Which one is it?

 

Like I said in the essay, it's showing you that something you take for granted isn't what you thought it was. Did you actually read the essay?

Please read this very carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

 

The fact that an optical illusion like that exists has no direct bearing on whether or not Time is real or that your essay has even a grain of truth.

 

What if we flip it around? How do you know that what is in your essay is not an "illusion", that your essay is not what you thought it was?

 

No, those analogies are not actually a good reason to even consider your essay as being true. They are not proof, they are not even really relevant to your essay being true. They are not evidence, and as people that understand the scientific principle, we know that what we think is true might not be. That is the central underpinning of the scientific method: The willingness to abandon preconceived notions in favour of evidence to the contrary.

 

You have not offered any evidence to the contrary. So for what reason should we accept your essays. You are obviously so confident in them that you proclaim that we will all one day be learning them and that we will fell silly that we even argued against them. To me, this sounds like you have conclusive proof (and if you are even claiming to be doing anything like science you would have to have this proof before posting statements like those), but you seem to be refusing to share this proof.

 

We don't have to believe you just because you claim that the humans can be fooled (as an amateur magician I know and use that fact), and that you claim that you are right.

 

If you have enough evidence to convince your self (and you have claimed that you are using science to reach your conclusions), then all we ask is that you let us know too. Otherwise, you will just sound like a "Carney Barker". You promise the world but offer nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, tell me, how do you know what Einstein might have come up with. He might have done a lot of things. However, he came up with a theory that is consistent with observation and made predictions.

 

I've read some history, and seen the things Einstein said long after he did GR.

 

Time is not a relative measure of change. Time is a physical dimension in which events occur in sequence. Like any other dimension, things move through it and measurements of it can be made.

 

Wrong. You cannot move through time. I can move through space. Would you like to prove me wrong? Easy. OK I've just hopped back back a metre. Now you hop back a second.

 

And what do optical illusions have anything to do with the theory of relativity? An optical illusion occurs because your brain tries to make order of the oncoming information that it is processing.

 

A lot. The point is that the optical illusion is that A and B are different when in fact they're the same. There's another illusion going on with your concept of time, and it's so total, you take it so much for granted, that you can't even think about it. All you can do is repeat the mantra that you've been taught from an early age. This ppsychology of belief is why we have suicide bombers, and it's actually more prevalent thank you might think.

 

I can list much more than this, but the others have already pointed those flaws and incorrect statements out.

 

No you can't, and no they haven't. All they've done is repeated the same old tired old stuff. It goes like this: "Farsight, you're wrong about time because time is a dimension just like the dimensions of space, it does flow, it does have length and we can travel in it, so QED I've proven you wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All: I've just read Edtharan's post. This rather stands out:

 

No, those analogies are not actually a good reason to even consider your essay as being true...

 

I think that says it all. Most of the contributors to this forum have not even considered these essays. Most haven't even read them. Molotov jumps in with same old axiomatic defence. If he'd have actually read this essay instead of skimming it, he would have expressed surprise at the A and B squares in the echalk image. If he'd have actually read TIME EXPLAINED he'd recognise his axiomatic argument as what it is - no argument at all.

 

I have concluded that there are no rational open-minded scientists here who can offer me any feedback of value. You hold concepts that you won't examine and won't talk about. I've tried to engage you. Only Edtharan has put in any effort, but I consider this to have been less than honest.

 

Since I'm busy, I'm going to call it a day here. You will have ample opportunity to reflect hereafter on your contribution to RELATIVITY+. Ciao.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All: I've just read Edtharan's post. This rather stands out:

 

 

 

I think that says it all. Most of the contributors to this forum have not even considered these essays. Most haven't even read them. Molotov jumps in with same old axiomatic defence. If he'd have actually read this essay instead of skimming it, he would have expressed surprise at the A and B squares in the echalk image. If he'd have actually read TIME EXPLAINED he'd recognise his axiomatic argument as what it is - no argument at all.

 

I have concluded that there are no rational open-minded scientists here who can offer me any feedback of value. You hold concepts that you won't examine and won't talk about. I've tried to engage you. Only Edtharan has put in any effort, but I consider this to have been less than honest.

 

Since I'm busy, I'm going to call it a day here. You will have ample opportunity to reflect hereafter on your contribution to RELATIVITY+. Ciao.

 

I love the irony in this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. You cannot move through time. I can move through space. Would you like to prove me wrong? Easy. OK I've just hopped back back a metre. Now you hop back a second.

 

So what if you can't move backwards through time. Just because you can't move backwards through anything doesn't mean you can't move through it. We are moving forward in time.

 

A lot. The point is that the optical illusion is that A and B are different when in fact they're the same. There's another illusion going on with your concept of time, and it's so total, you take it so much for granted, that you can't even think about it. All you can do is repeat the mantra that you've been taught from an early age. This ppsychology of belief is why we have suicide bombers, and it's actually more prevalent thank you might think.

 

No, actually our concept of time is based on experimental evidence. We are not obliged to rethink our concept of time unless experiment suggests otherwise. And also remember that the results have consistently shown that our concept of time is what we say it it.

 

An optical illusion is not when A and B are the same. An optical illusion occurs when your brain is fooled into perceiving images to be one thing when in fact they are something else. What you perceive may not agree with what is measured. It has nothing to do with providing proof of your concepts.

 

I will not comment on your knowledge of psychology. Rest assured, you have not demonstrated that you understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that says it all. Most of the contributors to this forum have not even considered these essays. Most haven't even read them.

 

Yes, Farsight, I have read all of them and the commentary that resulted after them. Your essays are filled with the same misunderstandings and false assumptions, and are not backed by any evidence whatsoever. And you keep contradicting yourself in all of these threads when we ask for evidence. I am commenting on these because I feel the need to educate the ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, you don't.

 

You suffer from the psychology of disbelief, which so utterly convinces you that you're right, that you dismiss new ideas, you disqualify evidence that threatens your current model, and you pay only lip service to scientific principle. There are some unpleasant similarities with religious dogma.

 

Farsight signing off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d'you know what. i ;m not convinced we're right about anything. but, from the evidence, i'm convinced that we have a damn good approximation for our ability to gather data and formulate a theory.

 

you on the other hand, have done nothing but claim things that go against the mainstream without providing evidence. if there is no evidence then there is no theory and no science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.