The Final Theory

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite' date='whilst nobody would disagree with what you said.I think saying it only showed your[b'] rudeness[/b].

Gamefreek might talk/type the most utterly incomprehensible balderdash of any member here.Yet that does not give you the right to deal with him in a condescending manner.

We dont know his/her age or nationality,gamefreak is simply showing that there is alot to science he/she finds difficult to comprehend.But has shown to us he/she has an enquiring mind(which should be encouraged not put down).If people are going to respond and reply to gamefreak,it should be positive.If not one should restrain themselves,especially respected members.

Newtonian - I flagged my post as heavily as I knew how by saying I was going to be nasty. I characterised myself within the post as one of the most arrogant people I know. I was deliberately rude and said up front that was what I was going to be.

Now why on Earth would I do that? Boredom? Because I really am nasty? Because I have some mental disorder? Try this for a reason:

My deduction was that gamefreak was young (we now know he is fourteen). Clearly he is very enthusiastic, has read quite a lot and has been thinking in that wonderful eyes wide open, inventive, no holds barred way that is commonplace in youth and in great scientists, but quite rare in the rest of humanity, most of the time.

But, it also seemed to me that he would benfit from a little discipline in his thinking, and even a smidgeon of recognition for the work of established scientists. A number of other posters had asked directly and indirectly for just this. The requests were ignored or not recognised as such.

I judged some shock tactics might be in order, hence my post and the character of the post. It is also clear that gamefreak has the confidence and the balls not to be put off by an 'attack' of this nature.

I'm sorry it upset you. I sat with the draft on my machine for half an hour before hitting 'post'. You may consider it patronising and manipulative. I might agree with you one third of the time.

[Ophiolite]

personally people i think you guys are trying not to engage the actual problem of arguing with me so yuo make me seem as dumb as yuo can because yuo cant compete with my theories or ideas

Well lets discuss one of your specific theories. You said earlier that space-time was a nonsense since time is not a dimension.

I agree with you it is not a spatial dimension. The idea of space-time is that is has the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. What do you think is wrong with that? Think about how we even use everyday language - "I'm going to France tomorrow." - "Will you be gone for long?"

We use the dimensional words from space to describe time. I think it is reasonable to think of it as a dimension. What say you?

[swansont]

our 3 dimensions are the width length and height of an object or piece of matter which gives us information on its apperance time how ever gives us information on something that not only can be infinit( an object can do anything at infinit different times where as one single object only has one set of dimensions) be also time tells about how long a object does something time however tells us nothing about an actual object only what its doing( how long is donig it) thus time is not a dimension.

 

Objects can grow or shrink, so saying an object has only one set of dimensions is inaccurate. And for something that does shrink or grow, one could write a function of the variables x,y,z and t to describe its various properties.

 

Time is a dimension. Wishing does not make it not so.

[gamefreek_01]

i mean to say that time is not a dimension i mean that it is impossilbe to change time but only to count it, with length and width and hieght those are effectable changing the object. Although yes if you slow down an object the time it takes to do something will increase and vise verusa but that doesnt mean that you can literally go back or forward in time with increasing yuor speed youll only be able to do things faster but things like aging will still effect you.

[gamefreek_01]

now when i say an object has only one set of dimension i mean relatively like your likely not to find a gigantic ball of yarn or something be more likely to find a giant planet or sun, but never a small sun( say the size of a basket ball) and i mean this as naturally created suns. but with time it can vary from any object no matter the size altough because an object is larger it might take more force to move.

[Sayonara]

oh and to capn refsmmat them proving it could be because of luck or even indirect relation.

Which is why scientists have a requirement for repeatable results, rational analysis, and peer review.

[swansont]

i mean to say that time is not a dimension i mean that it is impossilbe to change time but only to count it, with length and width and hieght those are effectable changing the object. Although yes if you slow down an object the time it takes to do something will increase and vise verusa but that doesnt mean that you can literally go back or forward in time with increasing yuor speed youll only be able to do things faster but things like aging will still effect you.

 

Then what you mean by 'time as a dimension' is not what a scientist would mean.

 

You can vary the passage of time, which is one part of relativity. This is predictable, repeatable and has been/is continually tested.

[gamefreek_01]

what do you mean by vary the passage of time?

[YT2095]

velocity will alter the passage of time in that frame when compared to the rest frame upon return, thus varying it, and of course the greater the velocity or time spent at that velocity the greater the difference will be

[swansont]

velocity will alter the passage of time in that frame when compared to the rest frame upon return, thus varying it, and of course the greater the velocity or time spent at that velocity the greater the difference will be

 

Also one's position in a gravitational field.

[YT2095]

aha! very true also, I forgot that sucker

[gamefreek_01]

well i can tell you that is incorrect because as you may be gonig faster and you may do things faster literaly decreasing your time to do things you not however being actuly effected slower but at the same rate as everyone else no matter there location or speed, speed can not effect time nothing can effect time, time is our measure of how fast we do things.

[swansont]

well i can tell you that is incorrect because as you may be gonig faster and you may do things faster literaly decreasing your time to do things you not however being actuly effected slower but at the same rate as everyone else no matter there location or speed, speed can not effect time nothing can effect time, time is our measure of how fast we do things.

 

Well, you're wrong. If you move fast relative to me, or are in a gravitational well, and we compare our clocks, they will differ. This has been verified by experiment. Perhaps you have heard of the GPS system? The clocks onboard the satellites have to be adjusted to run slow relative to clocks next to them when they're on the ground, because once in orbit the decrease in the gravitational potential speeds the clock up. The motion slows it down, but that's a smaller effect.

[gamefreek_01]

i bet that the only reason the gravition differnce is there is because on earth the gravity creates more friction and thus the clock moves slower

[gamefreek_01]

and no moving faster should only effect that im would be doing something faster than you not that effects on us are different

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Atomic clocks are not affected by friction.

 

Cesium vibrates the same way with or without friction.

[gamefreek_01]

how exactly have they testest these theories?

[Ophiolite]

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)

 

Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

[swansont]

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating' date=' Science 177, 166 (1972)

[/quote']

 

And also, as I said, with GPS clocks every day, and with national frequency standards being reported to the international bureau of weights and measures, which must be corrected for altitude because of the change in g. Also with measurements of radioactive decay of high-energy cosmic ray particles, as compared to their natural lifetime measurements, which is a measure of the time dilation of special relativity.

[swansont]

and no moving faster should only effect that im would be doing something faster than you not that effects on us are different

 

The speed of light is constant for all inertial observers, and that has certain ramifications for the passage of time. The spatial 4-vector in invariant between frames; if you are moving, the time part of the vector has to be shorter.

 

If you really are 14 and want to be a scientist you really need to shed the idea that you know everything and do a little bit more absorbing of knowledge gleaned over the years by your many predecessors. Relativity is ~100 years old and has been investigated for that long (the general theory being ~ a decade younger than the special theory).

 

If you don't undertstand a concept it doesn't mean the concept is wrong. You can ask for help in undertsanding it rather than, in effect, declaring everyone else to be stupid by saying the concept is wrong or silly.

[gamefreek_01]

first what do you mean by light being a constant for all inertial observers? and another as i had said before time is not a vector or dimnesion ( ill assume there similar) time is just a way to measure things, time only exists because of being alive we can understand how long things happen because we can percieve it to happen longer or not without lving beings time is nothing in the universe. and just because im 14 doesnt mean im incorrect and also even if people study the theory of relativity for hundreds of years. yes i understand i could be wrong but to me i fell as though im right and until i get very strong evidence im right in my head.

[gamefreek_01]

about the experiment why according to einstein theory would the clock increase in time going west instead of decreasing i dot understand why there is a difference there

[Ophiolite]

as i had said before time is not a vector or dimnesion ( ill assume there similar) time is just a way to measure things[/u'], .

That seems a passable definition of a dimension to me.

 

.about the experiment why according to einstein theory would the clock increase in time going west instead of decreasing i dot understand why there is a difference there

In one direction the clocks are moving with the Earth's rotation, in the other case against it.

[gamefreek_01]

so as the planes fly the one that is more oppsite to the station on earth, and that should prove that time could be altered be difference in speed i never trust experiments because thy can be somehow false where hypothes give you a very good estimate.

[Ophiolite]

The basis of science, gamefreek, is that you start with some observations, based on which you construct a hypothesis, which you then test by experiment. If you don't have the experiment the hypothesis is not science, merely speculation.