SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE DISCOVERED A FIFTH FUNDAMENTAL 'FORCE OF NATURE,' THEY’RE CALLING IT X17 https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scie...-of-nature-theyre-calling-it-x17-7710261.html I was hoping it would have been fundamental time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but no Still looking Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Last I heard there was considerable skepticism around the claims, plus, isn't it inconsistent with the Standard Model? Should be fun times ahead if it is verified, therefore. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I'm not betting on that happening. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm disappointed it did not turn out to be FUNDAMENTAL TIME It would have proven the physicist who claim TIME does not exist wrong (along with myself) So the search for FUNDAMENTAL TIME continues All posters in SciForum claiming FUNDAMENTAL TIME exist have not put forward a skerrick of proof Strange Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm. Certainly not a new designation, but OTOH quite a novel turn when it comes to naming fundamental 'forces of nature". Lockheed X-17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-17 Bell X-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-16 North American X-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15 _
This very poorly explained article is 3 years old. If there were any substance to it, we would have heard more by now.
I'm waiting for the bouncy ball power generator lighting up Times Square and the bouncy ball Jumbo noon stop flight from Sydney to London Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When I was a kid I had a model of the X15. It probably cost about 3 dollars back then, and now they are selling for around 200 dollars on Ebay. (Notice that I spelled out the word dollars instead of using the symbol, which breaks Sciforums for some reason. )
I don't know how "fundamental" time is different from regular time; it sounds like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Here is a proposed definition for time and how it must exist (without going into how exactly it operates): Time is measured by a vector - having both direction and magnitude - that connects cause and effect. Its magnitude is always greater than zero, and it always points from cause to effect. Without this property, effects could occur simultaneously with - or even precede - their causes. Since this does not happen, we label that property 'time'.
I would say those who propose TIME has existed since The Big Bang would consider that to be FUNDAMENTAL What we call time is an agreed upon measurement system Good because I am sure you have no idea and the reason you have no idea is because there is no such thing as time to have a idea about Ummmm I think physics would vigorously oppose - effects could occur simultaneously ...... or even precede - their causes Really? as per vector definition below? DEFINITION vector TechTarget Contributor A vector is a quantity or phenomenon that has two independent properties: magnitude and direction https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/vector Currently I have a fairly large distraction occupying my life Please just provide a certified photo of TIME Or machine which is able to detect time Really you have sunk this low Here is a proposed definition for time and how it must exist (I'm all in and 100% got this nailed down) (without going into how exactly it operates): ( don't you worry your pretty head about it) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah. Oh well. I thought I might inspire you to some fresh thought on the subject, but you're still just trolling this same old nonsense. I am beginning to wonder if you've been hacked and your identity stolen by a bot. Anyway, never mind. I won't engage you about this again.
Yup. Just like music, tingling, gravity, wind, radio signals, cosmic rays, the sweetness of chocolate, beauty, and the smell of copper. All things that don't exist. Because the definition of existing is 'can you take a photo of it'. I'm done with this foolishness.
That could be neaerly akin to asking a religious person for proof of God, and the religious person pointing at a tree. Time is a manner of differentiation. Your effect is to ask why the Universe exists, at all.
Sound waves of music, noted and recorded ✅ Exist ✅ How about that? Is it your contention you cannot provide a photo of TIME but you can provide a recording of TIME? Perfectly acceptable. Thank you Felt as an experience. Exist ✅ Another gem TIME can be felt as a tingling. Never knew that. Are the tingles like pins and needles? Really? who said that? Not my position in the least Please Google exist You get exist meaning and the guff below exist /ɪɡˈzɪst,ɛɡˈzɪst/ verb 1. have objective reality or being. "dossiers existed on almost everyone of prominence" ......gravity, wind, radio signals, cosmic rays, the sweetness of chocolate, beauty, and the smell of copper. And I am sure you do not believe any of the items on / in your list above are not above having objective reality or being. Heard that from another poster. Didn't last but as I said earlier I have been a little distracted (50cc motorscooter (me) / small car bingle the result of which needed me having a left hip replacement) Quick glance over post did not see engagement so hopefully........ such continues Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Could be Isn't Distraction certainly Nothing to do with Does TIME exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is it? Your (MY effect?) effect - well there are a number of physicist who have a greater claim to whatever effect is / should be present than this Minion Why would I ask anyway? Universe exist because physics allows its existence Physics didn't - no Universe /ˈfɪzɪsɪst/ noun an expert in or student of physics. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
DaveC: That doesn't work as a useful definition of time, which is a scalar. The closest analogue to your idea I can think of is a spacetime 4-vector called the spacetime interval in relativity. The problem is that a vector in physics has spatial components. 4-vectors in relativistic physics have both spatial and time components. Trying to important notions of space into a definition of time is fraught with problems.
Moderator note: This thread was originally posted in the Physics and Math subforum. I have moved it because (a) this idea doesn't seem to have progressed beyond the initial paper and (b) this thread is clearly an excuse for michael to play Write4U, inventing excuses to discuss a bad pet theory for the n-th time.