Elvis Sibilia's Philochrony theory of everything

Hipparchia said:
If time can be measured it is necessarily perceptible.
You say time has duration, but you only know this because time is perceived to have passed.
Click to expand...

To your first statement ; fundamentally yes .

To your last statement ; duration is the essence of time . And the essence of duration is based on Real Physical Objects , moving within an Object and in Macro , Galaxies and Quasars .
 
Write4U said:
Question: If Time is measurable at all, it cannot have smaller increments than some relationship to the speed of light.

Note that for an object travelling @SOL, time "stands still" in relation to ?........o_O
Click to expand...

Nothing .

No Something and no Object . Hence No Movement , Hence No Time .
 
Last edited:
Write4U said: ↑
Question: If Time is measurable at all, it cannot have smaller increments than some relationship to the speed of light.

Note that for an object travelling @SOL, time "stands still" in relation to ?........o_O
Click to expand...


river said: ↑
Nothing .

No Something and no Object . Hence No Movement , Hence No Time .
Click to expand...



Write4U said:
Time is a variable?
Click to expand...

Of course , time is based on movement by real physical objects . And stable . Cesium Atomic clock . ( Yttrium is the most accurate clock , number 39 on the periodic table . ( crystal structure hexagonal ) .
 
Last edited:
river said:
Of course , time is based on movement by real physical objects . And stable . Cesium Atomic clock . ( Yttrium is the most accurate clock , number 39 on the periodic table )
Click to expand...
OK, does it tick faster than a photon can travel ?

IOW, travelling @ SOL, does the Yttrium clock tick at all?
 
New
↑
Of course , time is based on movement by real physical objects . And stable . Cesium Atomic clock . ( Yttrium is the most accurate clock , number 39 on the periodic table )
Click to expand...


Write4U said:
OK, does it tick faster than a photon can travel ?

IOW, travelling @ SOL, does the Yttrium clock tick at all?
Click to expand...

Its not about speed , its about consistantancy of travel .
 
river said:
Its not about speed , its about consistency of travel .
Click to expand...
You're avoiding the question.....o_O

If time slows down relative to speed, do all clocks stop ticking @ SOL?
Einstein's theory of special relativity says that time slows down or speeds up depending on how fast you move relative to something else. Approaching the speed of light, a person inside a spaceship would age much slower than his twin at home.Nov 14, 2017
Click to expand...
Would Yttrium stop decaying inside a spaceship traveling @ SOL?
 
↑
Its not about speed , its about consistency of travel .
Click to expand...

You're avoiding the question.....o_O

If time slows down relative to speed, do all clocks stop ticking @ SOL?
Click to expand...

No . Because time in and of its self , can not effect , affect nor cause a clock to any change its " ticking " .
 
Last edited:
Hipparchia said:
If time can be measured it is necessarily perceptible.
You say time has duration, but you only know this because time is perceived to have passed.
Click to expand...

We perceive changes and manifestations of time, but, for example, we don't perceive one hour (an interval). The nature of time is the change-interval duality.
 
river said:
Nothing .

No Something and no Object . Hence No Movement , Hence No Time .
Click to expand...
As pointed out many times, absolute crap!!!
Space and time evolved together at the BB....no space, no time: no time, no space.
Plenty of evidence for that in the sciences river, and obviously many reputable links if you really want to learn.
 
river said: ↑
Nothing .

No Something and no Object . Hence No Movement , Hence No Time .
Click to expand...


paddoboy said:
As pointed out many times, absolute crap!!!
Space and time evolved together at the BB....no space, no time: no time, no space.
Plenty of evidence for that in the sciences river, and obviously many reputable links if you really want to learn.
Click to expand...

BB is wrong then .

Mathematics , the bane of thought .

Mathematics has its place .

The Real Physical Object , is reality .
 
river said:
BB is wrong then .
Click to expand...
:D You keep saying that and yet still have no evidence.
river said:
Mathematics , the bane of thought .

Mathematics has its place .
Click to expand...
Mathematics is the language of physics and a language you are obviously ignorant of.
It also invalidates the many other drag em out of your arse claims you make.
river said:
The Real Physical Object , is reality .
Click to expand...
The reality of the BB, and the reality that supports it, is well known by those interested and knowledgable of cosmology.
 
Prediction 11:

Two observers (A and B) located in two different frames of reference, A must have and objective point of view, and B must have a subjective point of view.

Someone explain to me why both observers are right.
 
Asexperia said:
Prediction 11:

Two observers (A and B) located in two different frames of reference, A must have and objective point of view, and B must have a subjective point of view.

Someone explain to me why both observers are right.
Click to expand...
It's your prediction. You explain it.

My explanation is that your logic is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top