The Theory of a realistic

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by absolute-space, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to life, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe, in which the basis of logical process and rational thought will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true.

    Part 1 - The Theory of realistic.

    1. Introduction, explanation of an axiom
    2. Defining various definition
    3. Defining Theory and Hypothesis
    4. The meaning of maths and maths use
    5. The meaning of limitation
    6. The meaning and value of Geometrics
    7. In respect of moving bodies
    8. Examining mass and massless
    9. The relationship between time and mass
    10. The relationship between time and massless
    11. Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light
    12. Explaining observer effect and experiment


    1.Introduction, explanation of an axiom

    An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on our limited finite observation of the Universe. We must presume that axiom's observed in our finite visual Universe, co-exist to be true in a broader scale of an infinite Universe or Multi-verse. There would be no valid reason to assume that our observed physical laws and process is not the same and equal too, on a broader scale. It would be foolish of ourselves to deny axiom's regardless of experimental outcomes, theory or hypothesis.

    2.Defining various definition

    We should take great consideration and respect for definition, it is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content with strict definition, that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information. When observing a definition and considering a definition it is of utmost importance we apply the truths we observe of the thing or phenomenon we are defining.

    In our visual Universe there is several key axiom definitions that need to be applied.

    Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer.

    Distance - A linear quantity of unmeasured space expanding away from the observer

    Length -1. A measured distance of space between two reflective points.

    2. A measurement of an objects dimensions.

    Universe - an infinite space

    Visual Universe - a finite space

    Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space

    Energy - matter of substance with physical presence but without solidity.

    Objects - matter existing with solidity such as a particle.

    Motion - the continuous displacement of matter in space

    Dimensions- The volume of an object



    3.Defining Theory and Hypothesis

    In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an important we understand what a theory or hypothesis is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

    An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more solid than a hypothesis often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit.

    We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

    4.The meaning of maths and maths use

    We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

    It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.

    5.The meaning of limitation

    When we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual restriction that establishes a finite observation visual Universe, we are restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking. Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis and never deemed to be fact until a future time of further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations. However, we must not disregard the axioms of the inside of the ''box'' when thinking outside of the ''box''.

    It is also important that we consider why we have limitation and what is the possible cause(s) of these limitations, not overlooking the diminishing of light over distance, matter reflectivity and the relativity of objects moving away from an observer relatively appear to decrease in size to a point of no existence.




     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Part 1 continued

    6.The meaning and value of Geometric

    Geometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes thus leading us into a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.

    It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski's space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski's space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ''truths'' of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.

    Einstein's relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski's space-time regarding space-time to like'fabric'', however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself. Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light. It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein's work or Minkowski's space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein's relativity thought is of axiom ''truths'' thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.

    In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion, the geometrical relative size of the visual universe. It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.

    In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology

    4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = nothing

    In this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing.

    The big bang also suggests that space is expanding, suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ''growing'' and that space itself is expanding into nothing.

    However, this is not an axiom of ''truth''and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points . Space itself does not reflect light or is observed to be red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect. I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space, a length expansion into a unknown distance.

    Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer.

    In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.

    If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A) standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B).

    Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B)

    Relative to observer (B) they can not observe (A)

    Relatively both observers can concur by voice the axiom truth, that neither observer can observe each other.

    Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet.

    Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B)

    Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A)

    Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.

    My reasoning for this relationship is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of the light off (A), where as observer (B) only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B). The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A).

    There is no apparent reason why this analogy can not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.

    To extend on this axiom, I would direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view. A body in motion travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.

    This can be described in analogy by using a train track.

    If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size.

    This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.

    Thus brings us to the relative geometrical size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth'' that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space itself, this only shows us relative length between objects relative to light.

    To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression

    4/3 pi r(c)³

    Where r(c) represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies.



    To be continue...........
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    Math includes definitions, geometry, theory and hypothesis, axioms and knowledge of limitations (what is calculatable at all, what is calculatable withing a space or time constraint).

    Your list looks good till the point when you mention maths independently from the other points. It isn't. It includes all of the other points.
     
    absolute-space likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    original

    Distance - A linear quantity of unmeasured space expanding away from the observer

    Length -1. A measured distance of space between two reflective points.

    2. A measurement of an objects dimensions.

    edit

    Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space expanding away from the observer

    Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two reflective points.

    2. A measurement of an objects dimensions of its form.
     
  8. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Thank you for comments and criticism, it is not the final edition and open to edit and helpful input of such things as re-phrasing structure. Any ideas what to change or add to that particular section?

    edit - 4.The meaning of maths and maths use dependency.

    We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

    It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be dependent to the process in the use of prediction and calculation of the prediction.

    Does that read better?
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  9. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    second edit -
    Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space

    Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
     
  10. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    [double, sorry]
     
  11. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    I'm struggling with "the meaning of maths and maths use"

    Basically math is about symbols, relations and transformations of those symbols. Usually math is only seen in regard to numbers as symbols, and the rules for numbers. But it is more basic, math is the science about any set of symbols, their relations and transformations. Relations and transformations also are symbols, so it works like an onion, with similar, but growing layers from inside out.

    Math has no meaning beyond that. It is about the basics, the most basic of all basics. It wants to find out what sorts of basic things there are (sorts of symbols), what one can do with them (transformations), and if there are relations between them.

    Numbers are not the most basic symbols. Actually they are very complex ones, and math has ways to define numbers and their meaning through more basic concepts, the set and the empty set. The idea that things can be grouped (a set), and that this groups can be empty, is sufficient to derive the concept of numbers. And it's hard to find somethign more basic that the idea of a set, and that it can be empty.

    You see, math is really more than calculations with numbers. It is about structure and rules.
     
  12. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Would your advise me to just remove the section and not mention the realistic values of maths? I see that without the process there is no maths to the process and the maths always comes after the process , like the Maxwell , Faraday pairing. It was several years before Maxwell made the maths ''to fit'' Faraday's ideas. I have also not added the value of 0 and that 0=1 which you may not understand at this stage because it is not written yet.
    I may also not quite be understanding what you mean exactly, I know maths is very useful, but I also know it works because it ''fits'' the process.

    added edit , - I think I understood you now.

    4.The meaning of maths and maths use dependencies and in-dependencies.

    We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved. It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, it is important to recall our history, Maxwell several years later creating the maths to ''fit'' Faraday's findings, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be independent to the process in its use of prediction and calculation of the prediction of Universal events.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Good job posting in the right section.
     
  14. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    Yes, but I use to take this a step further. Almost anything we know are interpretations or concepts. We very likely never know the real thing - we observed it, got some knowledge about it, and made a concept to describe it. We should not mistake our concepts with the real thing.

    To live, to plan, or even, to invent, good concepts are totally sufficient.

    Numbers are a very useful concept. But also a tricky one, see this example:

    If there are 3 people in a room, and 5 leave the room, how many must go in, so that the room is empty?

    Now, meditate about the question of negative numbers being real, or not.

    First, there was the addition - you can always add something to another. Then there was idea of reversing the addition, and subtraction was invented. Very useful ... but in some cases you can't go below zero, even that the abstract rules would allow - you can subtract 5 from 3 and get -2, but you can't have 5 persons leave a room where only 3 are in.
     
    absolute-space likes this.
  15. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    I really like the embolden sentence, can I use an interpretation of this in my theory?

    4.The meaning of maths and maths use dependencies and none dependencies.

    We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. . Almost anything we know are interpretations or concepts, we our very likely to never know the ''real thing'' - we observe something, , gain some knowledge about that something and create a concept to describe it. We should not mistake our concepts with the real thing.
    The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved. It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, it is improtant to recall our history, Maxwell several years later creating the maths to ''fit'' Faraday's findings, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be independent to the process in its use of prediction and calculation of the prediction of Universal events.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  16. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    Sure, you can use that. I'm pretty sure it's not a genuine idea of mine, but picked from somewhere, and adapted to my view of things.

    I think I have it from here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

    I think we are a bit like them - we observe and give the things names, but we can't even be sure if we observed the thing istelf, or just a shadow of it. Nevertheless, even from a shadow one can learn about the object in question, so we're still well advised to observe carefully. We just must keep in mind, that in our head, there is an interpretation of the observation (*), and this interpretation is made by ourselves. And even before that, we're not sure if we observed the real thing, or it's shadow (or other trace or footprint).

    (*) Our brain almost immediately links new perceptions to memories, and often what we "realize" is not the pure observation, but the augmented mix of observation and added information from the memory. E.g. painters must learn to "see", so they can draw what actually is there, and not what they "know" is there. E.g. children pain animals with four feet in almost random positions, because they know animals have four feet, even if in the case they can see only two or three of the four feet - they do not paint that they see, but a mix of what they see and what they know ("It has four legs therefore I must draw four legs"). It's actually hard to interdict this augmentation of observations that our brain does.
     
    absolute-space likes this.
  17. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    edit - time defintion
    I really like your way of thinking, constructive and in and out of the ''box''. I have continued to piece my theory together with several more edits, I am unable to upload a PDF so I can only post sections that I have written so far,

    Would you please look over the next section your comments are appreciated.

    Defining Time. -It is important in the understanding of simultaneity and simultaneous to completely understand time and to build a central or primary rule or principle on which time is based. Time is the rudiment of existence, time is said to have begun of the big bang some what fourteen billion years ago. Time is said to be the thing that stops things happening all at once. Presently we refer to time as a measurement, the movement of the hands of a clock or the present use of Caesium clocks and it is said that the integral of the frequency is time, 9,192,631,770 hertz being equal to one second of time measurement. In ordinary terms , time is the mechanism that allows us to synchronise our everyday lives, synchronised in respect relative to the inertial reference frame of the gravitational constant of the Earth and relative velocity, but not simultaneous relative to other reference frames according to relativity.
    State 1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities
    1.1- This state of time is originally denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such. A measurement based on a degree of motion /distance or frequency rate.
    1.2-A sun dial works by a degree of movement of the shadow,a clock works by a degree of movement of the fingers, a caesium clock uses a cycle rate equal to one second that is equal to a degree of motion.
    1.3- This abstract time = distance/motion/frequency, this is presently how we record and measure time.
    1.4 - Needed are point values of {A,B} where A≡B which holds true if A||B which holds true when A≡B≡C which holds true if A||B ||C holds true.

    State 2-This element of time is a virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(Minkowskis space-time)
    2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a constant speed of 1 mph. Minkowskis created space-time , virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.
    2.2-Space-time existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence, a virtual representation of vectors existing only in the imagination of the observer to represent spacial distance and the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time synchronised to the observers relationship or expression involving one or more variables.
    2.3-Four dimensions of X,Y and Z and a time linearity, interwoven into a single manifold to virtually represent how long a spacial journey would take an observer to travel or to calculate an objects velocity and as likewise, a three point geometric synchronisation using time to denote four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ''a fundamental concept of the human mind structure human experience(Immanuel Kant)''. Immanuel Kant also believed that time was neither an event or a thing and in-itself unmeasurable.
    2.4-In agreement with Kant, I believe time in space or of space can not exist and is unaccountable in any other sense than abstract and of the human imagination. In the representation of a void, the quantity of time becomes unmeasurable because there is no point to point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true. There is aslo a ''truth'' in that in measurement, any amount of time meausrement greater than the value of 0 becomes instantaneous history suggesting that the value of 0 moves forward at a continuos rate of 0.
     
  18. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    State two of time is dependent to state one of abstract time, without state one , state two cannot exist.
    In considering state one and state two of time, then in a sense of realising the actual specifics of the abstract states, I then considered what real time/absolute time is, and turned my attention towards the Caesium atom and the frequency rate. Although the rate of the Caesium atom was defined to equal an old second denoted by a degree of motion, I could see some significance in time dilation/gravitational time dilation, that gave me a line of enquiries and queries to follow. The present measurement of time and consideration for time is Minkowski space-time, a belief that time is independent of the observer, a belief that the measuring device of time is measuring a time outside of ourselves, which lead me to having an interesting thought of the movement of a clock finger. Whilst observing a degree of movement of a clock finger, respectively measuring an increment of degree equal to an increment of time, what really am I observing?, Am I observing the clock recording its own time? Am I observing the clock recording an independent time? or am I really observing my own time observing the clock?
    Well it just so happens, at a ground state in a stationary initial reference frame, I am observing my time , the clocks time, and a said independent time all in a moment that is an equal rate. (A) the clock finger , (B) myself and (C) a said independent time , A||B ||C, which means (A) is parallel to (B) and parallel to (C). I then considered would anything change if I placed an Atomic clock/Caesium atom, in my room, with myself, the clock, and the independent time. 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state was equal to one second of my clock at ground state, so I observed my clock, myself, the said independent time, and imagined the Caesium atom clock (D). I observed all the clocks were travelling parallel in synchronised time A||B ||C||D at ground state. This was an interesting thought but did still not give me the answer to what real time/absolute time was.
    In consideration of this , the path of investigation lead me to consider time dilation/gravitational time dilation.
    ''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''
    ''According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation,''
    According to time dilation and relativity , the basics are that time slows down when things are moving in comparison to an observer at rest at ground state . This was evidentially shown to be true by the Caesium atoms 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state that was equal to one second, changing , producing a different rate when in motion showing time slowed down by relative motion compared to a ground state rest mass. Of cause if one knows time can change, then one can also presume time travel is possible and likes. Evidentially all must be known about time and Minkowski space-time and relativity must be correct. That would be an assumption someone who was not curious would make and settle to be the answer.
    The rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock, in considering this, something is just not quite right, I am at rest relative to my clock that is at rest, I already know that A||B ||C||D at ground state, so now I am going to consider (E) an atomic clock/caesium clock in motion in respect to the ground state of myself, my clock, my imaginary Caesium clock, and the said independent time. {A||B ||C||D } is-not-parallel-imageE which means E is not parallel to A,B,C.D and is independent of A,B,C,D.
    According to Minkowski and Einstein, time is independent of matter and exists independently as a space-time, but my simple thought experiment shows the atomic clock/Caesium atom is independent from the ground state times and space-time. The effect of time rate slowing down in this instance was only experienced dependently by the Clock in motion independent of any other mass or space.
    This then leads me to what time actually is.
     
  19. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    This then leads me to what time actually is.
    3-Absolute Time is the dependent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)
    3.1- This state of time is all of concrete existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary at a ground state in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence. Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency rate.
    Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy their own time frame.
    Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.
     
  20. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    I prefer to see time as derived artifact, and the history of events as the primary. Without any events, we can't measure time. Without events, we can't even be sure there is time.

    History of events started with the universe, if there was a big bang or other start, so before that, there was no time, just because there were no events. This view solves the question neatly, why we can't ask about a "before", while time seems to be so continuous, that one always wants to ask about a "before" at any point of time, even at the beginning.

    I have doubts about the concept of simultaneousity. I think we never can be sure if two events actually happened simultaneously.

    Let's say we have a an event A, and this event is cause to events B and C, and B and C together cause an event D.

    We can't order B and C clearly. We know there had to be A first, then B and C, and D last, because D neded B and C to have happend.

    But B and C? They can happen in any order, and it would not change anything.

    So if all we have is D (the "now"), we can't order B and C, but we can order A before B and C.

    Personally, I've become doubtful in time, and think that event chains, or rather , directed graphs, are a more useful approach than time. But unfortunately, less handy, because the single number that we account to time, suddenly splits up into a myriad of small arrows which link events.

    These graphs have the problem of duration, though. It would be the length of the arrows, but the length of the arrows can't be measured. Because, without events, we can't measure a duration, so getting a hold of the "in between" of two events, seems to be very hard. Time might not be flowing continuously. It might jump, and we still wouldn't notice it.

    Since I'm self-taught in this area, it's likely that others can come up with better ideas. This was just to give you an alternative view on time.

    What you mentioned, atomic clocks and the definition of a second, is useful to applied science. But maybe you're not close enough to the root, if you want to set up a new theory.

    Oh, and this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

    That was Hawkings idea to circumvent singularities in time, like the beginning of the universe. Time not being a line, but an area. Is it the better concept? It can solve some problems, that is certain. But it brings also new questions.
     
  21. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Thank you for your interesting reply and perspective.

    You say ''I have doubts about the concept of simultaneousness. I think we never can be sure if two events actually happened simultaneously.''

    I may be misinterpreting this, but is this not from only the perspective of the 1 st person view as to considering the view as a whole?

    If you are D , experienced the ''now'' of 0 and I were B or C experiencing the ''now'' of 0, are we not observing simultaneously events?


    ''Time not being a line, but an area. Is it the better concept?''


    Well I don't consider time to be a line or an area, I consider time is a ''scattering'' of individual point sources within a volume of timeless space, each individual point sharing ''time'' with other points.

    I will add from my theory how I define simultaneous-

    Defining Simultaneity - Firstly, we must be certain in our minds that we understand the definition of simultaneity. Albert Einstein defined simultaneity as the property of two events happening simultaneously in a reference frame, however according to Einstein's theory of relativity , this is not a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things, something that is simultaneous in one reference frame is not necessarily simultaneous in another reference frame . Simultaneity is also closely related to time dilation, Albert Einstein's 1905 paper of special relativity and many experiments showing that time slows down relative to velocity.

    Defining Simultaneous-To be certain, for us to reach an understanding, it is an important value to be sure that our definitions use are understood. Simultaneous, is events that happen at the exact same time, a synchronisation. For example, if two different people were both born at exactly 3.30 am on Monday January 1st 2016, these two independent events would be simultaneous events happening at the exact same time.
     
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    azo, it is referred too as postulate in geometry and it is referred too as axiom in algebra--typical azo--having his symbols and thoughts all mixed-up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (shakes head)--carry on.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Congrats for posting in the correct section. It certainly distinguishes you from a number of other nuts at this time posting pseudoscience and alternative rubbish as science, mostly under the pretense of pretending to ask a question, but with absolutely no intention of accepting the answer.

    At this time I wont comment on the content of your hypothetical scenario and terminology, as some of the mistakes and misinterpretations are obvious to all.
    Again congrats.
     

Share This Page