exploring time and what it really is

Logical to whom?

Agreement with ALL observed evidence?
Does it offer anything that relativity doesn't?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dywyddyr,

Pretty much.

It offers a simpler explanation then Relativity. No time dilation or length contraction is required.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that evasive-speak for "not really"?

So it'll re-write (for example) GPS calculations?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dywyddyr,

It means that I'm not aware of all the evidence that supports relativity.

Probably not. It's very possible that the decreased speed of reactions in my model produce the same results as time dilation in Relativity.

 

So does it agree with ALL the evidence you know about?
And that's... how much?

Possible?
In other words you have speculation but nothing else?

 

Dywyddyr,

It agrees with the all of the general evidence that is used to support Relativity.

I have the abstract model. I did not work out the mathematical details.

 

In other words you have a concept but nothing else.

 

Dywyddyr,

I just started a new thread in the Physics & Math forum called "Gravities Influence On Light". It gives the basics of my model if your interested.

 

There is no difference between 299792458 meters and one second because these two quantities are one and the same. There is no difference between one year and one light year because these two quantities are one and the same. There is no difference between the planck time and the planck length because these two quantities are one and the same. Like I said before, fundamentally speaking there is nothing to distinguish time from space just as there is no distinction between 299792.458 kilometers and 186171.1164 miles. They all convert to the same value.

 

space is not a mathematical value

space is a quality , not a quantity

 

So volume is not a quantity?

 

no , it's not

you can measure volume of course

but that doen't make volume a consequence of quanity

but rather makes the measurement of volume the consequence of the quality of volume

 

Vol-ume (n)
capacity or amount of space or room;
a book;
a quantity;
the loudness of a sound

 

forget about dictionary explainations

just think about space its self

and like I said what came first the quality of volume or the qunatity of volume ?

 

You can fit the whole Universe into a speck...why....space isn't a fixed quantity...it is relative....

 

Thinking,
"Forget about dictionary explanations just think of space . . ."
Do you know how silly this makes you look?* Surly you don't call 299792458 meters, 1ly or the planck length a quality? This doesn't even make sense. You do know that you can't have mass without volume don't you?* This must really be a thorn in your paw. I thought this thread was about exploring time and what it really is. I stand by my reply to your question in post 29 and await your implied contionuation.
.
*Rhetorical question

 

look time is nothing more than the measurement of the movement of objects in space , their Nature of interactions with other objects in space and their very inner Nature atomicaly

if I were to inject time into any the above , time alone , in and of time its self , physically nothing would happen because time has no inherent physical properties

time is the consequence of the initial movement by objects first only

 

No, measurement of movement in space is done in metres etc. That's length.

Not even close.

Also wrong: as stated you keep throwing strawmen into the argument with this nonsense about "time alone" since you can't isolate time any more than you can isolate length.

The same way length is the consequence of A not being in the same position as B?