Vivant.

Time can be inconvenient at times, but do you realise that it is only a construction. A way to 'measure' events, events that were generated by kinetics acting upon mass. If you have to 'bend' the 'yardstick' to make the measurement correct to what you expect, perhaps your assumptions were wrong in the first place (generally of course, not you personally).

How do you get "pieces of energy"? Is this an about turn on 'the kinetic theory of matter'?

I think that when 'light speed' is considered as a maximum velocity it confuses things. That a 'vibrational energy' propagated in a homogenous medium has this 'maximum velocity' within the medium is possible, but that a 'vectored particle velocity' should also conform to this maximum is improbable.

I'll have another go at getting 4od working.

Best regards, suricat.

Vivant.

It seems that if you register with 4od you have a registration with the remainder of C4, but if you register with C4 you are not registered with 4od!

I'm now registered with 4od and my 'download' is 'rattling' my hard drive as I post.

I'll get back to you when I've seen the programme.

Best regards, suricat.

Did you ever read "A Brief History of Time" by Hawkins; suricat?

mufcdiver.

quote:

Did you ever read "A Brief History of Time" by Hawkins; suricat?

No! But there again, he didn't reply to my letter in the eighties about relativity and the 'communications' anomaly that this evokes (there again, neither did a professor from the NASA space project)! Why should I buy his books when he ignores the 'general' input from the community feedback that we all use as a reference to 'prove' any of our theses?

BTW. It's Hawking, not Hawkins. Apology for illuminating your 'typo'.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

BTW. It's Hawking, not Hawkins. Apology for illuminating your 'typo'.

Either way, it still sounds like someone trying to sell you something that you don't need LOL(door to door)

mufcdiver.

I concur.

suricat,

Time is inconvenient I do agree, as is gravity... as are a lot of things that don't really add up under current thinking - I do believe that significant progress in this field will be made by starting afresh from first principles and working forward to a point where a theory can be tested by known observations. But hey - give me a couple of billion dollar research grant and i give you the answer to anything you want!

As for "pieces of Energy" - I have problems with particles - I see them just as bundles of energy ruled by probability....? anything else just makes my head hurt so I don;t think on what or how the bundles are composed.

I also agree with your comments on light speed and maximum velocity - but I can only just about describe why light has a speed in the first place and what is stopping it being at its destination instantly (its this stuff called time again!) - but any ideas on describing energy without using time, gravity or mass, would be greatly appreciated?

Vivant.

Nice to see you are still 'alive' (pun).

OK. I've got my account sorted out with C4 and 4od (I think) and I've seen the 'Stephen Hawking' programmes to date, but I'm not impressed by their content. The graphics and human content were excellent. However, I question the 'science' content (the mathematics may be good, but what of its application).

quote:

Time is inconvenient I do agree, as is gravity... as are a lot of things that don't really add up under current thinking - I do believe that significant progress in this field will be made by starting afresh from first principles and working forward to a point where a theory can be tested by known observations. But hey - give me a couple of billion dollar research grant and i give you the answer to anything you want!

If I had a couple of billion dollars I wouldn't be here for you, but if I did have that kind of money I'd ask you 'why' (and for that money I'd expect a full and accurate answer for 'everything').

Banter aside, E=MC^2 is a formula relative to electromagnetic propagation. This evokes a question in itself as to 'what about energies that exhibit a characteristic that is different to electromagnetic propagation'!

Quantum theory expresses the 'microscopic', but finds it difficult (nay, near impossible) to express the 'macroscopic' and vice versa for the 'classical' model. How can these two viewpoints be reconciled? I don't think it will be 'string theory'! There are just too many 'dimensions' to this for it to be rational.

It's late and I'll post again in response to your last post.

Best regards, suricat.

suricat,

I know very little about electromagnetism which is a real problem for me - as I have a way to describe gravity, from a photon to a blackhole, using nothing but the inverse square law and a couple of new assumptions - but I have no way of knowing how much influence electromagnetism has on the effect known as gravity (I see it as a quantum property of mater rather than a force). This will explain some of my previous comments about how much spacetime is bent by mass.

I also agree with you about string theory being way too complicated for a combined theory of micro/macro anything - and at present I cannot see how electromagnatism and gravity can be explained in a single theory.... as stated earlier it is the electromagnatism I am struggling with as I can only see it as something to do with the energy "inside" the "particle" -

- food for thought anyway -
Regards

Vivant.

quote:

but any ideas on describing energy without using time, gravity or mass, would be greatly appreciated?

This is getting really difficult. Energy is a potential that can cause change to a system, but changes don't happen unless there is an event or a sequence of events that lead to a changed state of that system. No event/events, no change! Event/events, change happens!

Even one event that causes change can be broken into the degrees of change as the system goes through the process of change, so as you can see, each degree that is defined has a proportional relationship to the whole system change. People have decided to call this relationship 'time' and I don't see how science can be discussed without it.

From your most recent post. If you invoke the inverse square law for gravity, you are already using a time constant of per second squared.

A system needs an overall boundary to be set. That boundary must encompass all the events that are to be observed and, if necessary, account for any excursions or incursions across it. Unless a mass is included within this boundary (even if it is the kinetic proportionality of it) there is nothing within the system. How can we discuss nothing effectively.

If you want me to help you with electromagnetic propagation a relationship with time is essential, if only for the harmonics side of things.

Guess I'm fresh out of subjects, so I'll have to talk about nothing.

The ether (arcane spelling; aether) was always presumed to be non existent. However, I've come to think of this more as a static neutrino 'pea soup'.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

quote:

Did you ever read "A Brief History of Time" by Hawkins; suricat?

No! But there again, he didn't reply to my letter in the eighties about relativity and the 'communications' anomaly that this evokes (there again, neither did a professor from the NASA space project)! Why should I buy his books when he ignores the 'general' input from the community feedback that we all use as a reference to 'prove' any of our theses?

BTW. It's Hawking, not Hawkins. Apology for illuminating your 'typo'.

Best regards, suricat.

Yes , how dare Hawking not reply to some letter from some bloke he's never heard of asking questions that he could find answers to in any graduate physics book when he's busy lecturing and discussion theories with people who've selfishly bothered to get Phds.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Vivant.

Time can be inconvenient at times, but do you realise that it is only a construction. A way to 'measure' events, events that were generated by kinetics acting upon mass. If you have to 'bend' the 'yardstick' to make the measurement correct to what you expect, perhaps your assumptions were wrong in the first place (generally of course, not you personally).

If time is only a man made construction I'd be interested in hearing your explanation into how come it slows down the closer you get to the speed of light and inside gravity wells - and before you say it thats just a theory , its been experimentally verified many many times.

Hi, Boltar.

quote:

If time is only a man made construction I'd be interested in hearing your explanation into how come it slows down the closer you get to the speed of light and inside gravity wells - and before you say it thats just a theory , its been experimentally verified many many times.

If we define that 'time' is a measurement between two concurrent events, are you suggesting that the actual 'time' between the events alters or that the 'yardstick' that we use to measure the distance between the events with becomes less accurate?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Hi, Boltar.

quote:

If time is only a man made construction I'd be interested in hearing your explanation into how come it slows down the closer you get to the speed of light and inside gravity wells - and before you say it thats just a theory , its been experimentally verified many many times.

If we define that 'time' is a measurement between two concurrent events, are you suggesting that the actual 'time' between the events alters or that the 'yardstick' that we use to measure the distance between the events with becomes less accurate?

Best regards, suricat.

Well unless every possibly measuring device (including presumbaly the human brain) from clockwork to atomic clocks somehow becomes more and more inaccurate the greater gravity becomes or the faster you travel - and all inaccurate to the exact same amount and all inaccurate in the same direction - then I think its fair to say its actually time that is altering.

Boltar.

quote:

Well unless every possibly measuring device (including presumbaly the human brain) from clockwork to atomic clocks somehow becomes more and more inaccurate the greater gravity becomes or the faster you travel - and all inaccurate to the exact same amount and all inaccurate in the same direction - then I think its fair to say its actually time that is altering.

So the existence of a separate 'time-frame' that can show the true inaccuracies of all the different 'event measuring devices' is not a proposition for you? Just because events may undergo influences that cause shorter, or longer measurements between them doesn't imply that 'time' alters. I can regulate my wristwatch to gain time, but I wont age any faster (just a very basic example). If I did I'd slow it down.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Boltar.

quote:

Well unless every possibly measuring device (including presumbaly the human brain) from clockwork to atomic clocks somehow becomes more and more inaccurate the greater gravity becomes or the faster you travel - and all inaccurate to the exact same amount and all inaccurate in the same direction - then I think its fair to say its actually time that is altering.

So the existence of a separate 'time-frame' that can show the true inaccuracies of all the different 'event measuring devices' is not a proposition for you? Just because events may undergo influences that cause shorter, or longer measurements between them doesn't imply that 'time' alters. I can regulate my wristwatch to gain time, but I wont age any faster (just a very basic example). If I did I'd slow it down.

Best regards, suricat.

If everything is running slower then by definition time is running slower. How else do you define time? Anyway , I suggest you just go read up on special relativity, probably one of the best proven theories in physics.

Suricat/Boltar

quote:

If we define that 'time' is a measurement between two concurrent events, are you suggesting that the actual 'time' between the events alters or that the 'yardstick' that we use to measure the distance between the events with becomes less accurate?

For what it's worth my take is that every perception of time I've come across involves a ratio between physical processes eg distance travelled vs ticks on a clock.

Number of revolutions of the earth around the sun vs number of rotations of the earth.

Ticks of a clock vs the number of vibrations of a Caesium atom.....

So in that sense time is a construct of man and clearly tied to our relationship to complementary perceptions eg movement or other change.

So it can be reasonably argued that time doesn't exist on it's own in an absolute sense. And as such one's perception of time is just one perspective of the changes in the world around us ie if nothing changed we'd have no perception, expression or need of time (or anything else). But such a static universe would be self consistent though trivial and not in need of any physical laws other than 'Nothing happens'.

So when we measure that time is running more quickly or more slowly we're really saying that our perspective of the processes that indicate time to us is changing through change in eg position, gravitational force etc. So nothing is becoming more inaccurate just relatively different but consistently so. And the laws of nature are what define how this relationship changes and our observations enable us to define laws of physics that are compatible with these observations and predict new observations.

Son of Mulder.

You hit the nail squarely on the head that time! However.

quote:

So when we measure that time is running more quickly or more slowly we're really saying that our perspective of the processes that indicate time to us is changing through change in eg position, gravitational force etc.

The 'measurement' alters because of the relative position of the observer etc. Surely this requires a 'correction factor' 'because of the changes', otherwise an 'inaccuracy' would be incurred. This means that the 'time' is a 'constant', but the 'observation' is 'changing'.

quote:

So nothing is becoming more inaccurate just relatively different but consistently so.

Depending how well the changes are understood and applied this may be so.

quote:

And the laws of nature are what define how this relationship changes and our observations enable us to define laws of physics that are compatible with these observations and predict new observations.

The laws of nature are what they are, but that doesn't mean that we can always 'observe' them to enable an accurate 'prediction' of their nature. Especially if we find that we need to 'bend' the valuable constant of 'time' in order to confirm the 'supposition' of our 'observations'.

If you are thinking about 'light speed', don't forget that this is a 'wave harmonic' (akin to sound waves) generated within a 'medium'. It is not a 'vectored trajectory'!

Best regards, suricat.

Galled and appalled ! I am beginning to dismay of this whole physics thing...

But firstly many thanks to suricat who make me go and read up about this subject - as a non-scientist who watched the Hawking: master of the universe programme and thought about it enough to help (I spend my day job solving problems for various businesses often from limited data sets) - I now find out that the whole of this genre of physics is completely devoid of agreed points of reference - (start at first principles and then work onwards????no!) - but more over it is full of mathemeticians who limit themselves by their ability rather than by their imagination - hey guys don;t fudge the end of your theories just because you can;t work it out - inspire others with your imagination - (it is always easier to visualise a picture that has already been painted than it is to paint the sound of light) - how is it that the scientic community can spend billions on particle accelerators when there is no agreed definition of what a particle is? It appears that the current establishment has a current view and all other views are wrong... our brightest new minds who do not conform to this view stand no chance of getting their new views heard without being ridiculed - they might just as well pack up and go to China.

For those of you who are interested in how I started to think about Hawking's problem - I started at first principles i.e his singularity (apart from disagreeing with the given definition) - I saw three possible ways of extrapolating from this point.
Theory one: - Take a singularity, split it in two - you have two singularities, you can do this ad infinitum as for any singluarity you can measure its position but you cannot measure its mass.... so any mass could ultimately be a singularity thus infinitly bend spacetime.
Theory two: - A singularity is not the (current) natural state of mass, so it could be said that mass is described as the opposite of a singularity, now depending on the definition of a singularity this gives rise to either mass having three seperate states (mass, antimass and other) - or mass being measured to where it is not rather than where it is.
Theory three: - Mass is measured as a probabilty density of energy with singularities being nothing more that a mathematical anomaly. (measured in four dimentions not three).

Working forward from any of these starting points describing all particles and their interractions up to a black hole is quite fun and some recorded observations can be explained - As for me I am going back to the day job - unless C4 would like to put together a programme on alternative thinking and help promote new ideas and open science up to those people who have few limits on their imagination......

Suricat

quote:

The 'measurement' alters because of the relative position of the observer etc. Surely this requires a 'correction factor' 'because of the changes', otherwise an 'inaccuracy' would be incurred. This means that the 'time' is a 'constant', but the 'observation' is 'changing'.

No, you miss the point, no correction factor is needed - the relative change is what happens , it's natural. Anything other would be incorrect and require correction.

quote:

Depending how well the changes are understood and applied this may be so.

See above.

quote:

The laws of nature are what they are, but that doesn't mean that we can always 'observe' them to enable an accurate 'prediction' of their nature. Especially if we find that we need to 'bend' the valuable constant of 'time' in order to confirm the 'supposition' of our 'observations'.

If it's not observable (directly or indirectly) it's not part of our universe, ie disconnected and has no perceivable effect so not something to worry about. Why do you apply a value judgement to time? It's just a convenient variable that is convenient to express relative relationships.

Vivant

quote:

Galled and appalled ! I am beginning to dismay of this whole physics thing...

Why - what is there if you are interested in the workings of the physical universe other than physics?

quote:

I now find out that the whole of this genre of physics is completely devoid of agreed points of reference

That's part of the beauty, if you consider that there is no special frame of reference then many of the laws of physics just drop out of the simplicity. But you need to study Newton and Einstein to appreciate the beauty of it and more importantly how to express classical physics and its symmetry. Then move onto Quantum physics and begin to appreciate the divide between the classical and quantum physical representations of reality and how to join them together.

quote:

It appears that the current establishment has a current view and all other views are wrong... our brightest new minds who do not conform to this view stand no chance of getting their new views heard without being ridiculed - they might just as well pack up and go to China.

Establishments always have views eg Classical Greek, Roman, earthncentric, Elephants on the backs of turtles etc. Trust none of them but study what they say and justify to your own sarisfaction why they are wrong by creating a logical, contradictory alternative that explains what they can't without them invoking magic and dogma.

Vivant.

I'm sorry that you dismayed about the current state of physics debate on this site, but that is the 'nature of the beast'. I live with it.

I like your poetic reference of "to paint the sound of light". Though perhaps I'm being egotistical, as I have likened light to sound in a previous post.

With regard to your 'theories', I can only accept the latter of these if you are describing it as a 'quantum'. The brackets can be dispensed with because all natural things exist in four dimensions (they have the additional dimension of 'change', 'evolution', or perhaps 'energy' [time to most people]).

Best regards, suricat.