Re: Revised Hypothesis
From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/05/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Previous message: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Revised Hypothesis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Nov 2004 19:24:04 -0800
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:<N-qdnfP77f_icBXcRVn-tA@conversent.net>...
> Measure mass (the density of a bound collection of particles): Take a basic quantity of
> mass (a cubic cm of water), assign a label to this unit (i.e., gram), and use it to
> measure all other masses.
>
> Measure distance (the interval between two points in space): Take a basic quantity of
> distance (1/10,000,000 of the distance from the North Pole to the equator), assign a label
> to this unit (i.e.., meter), and use it to measure all other distances.
>
> Measure temperature (the measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a
> sample of matter): Take a basic quantity of temperature (i.e., the range between the
> freezing and boiling points of water), assign a label to this unit (i.e., degree), and use
> it to measure all other temperatures.
>
> Measure motion (a change in special position): Take a basic quantity of motion (i.e., one
> rotation of the Earth), assign a label to this unit (i.e., day), and use it to measure all
> other motions.
>
> Measure time: (what clocks measure) Take a basic quantity of time (i.e., one rotation of
> the Earth), assign a label to this unit (i.e., day), and use it to measure all other
> times.
>
>
> Of the above phenomena, which one of the basic quantities least matches the phenomenon to
> be measured? Which of the phenomena is least readily tangible? Which of the phenomena is
> most difficult to define? Which measurement process more is more closely appropriate to a
> phenomena other than that which it attempts to measure?
>
>
> Thanks to some of the exchanges I've had here with various folks (and no thanks to the
> idiots here), I've adjusted my hypothesis. I'm now claiming that motion, not speed, is a
> fundamental property which deserves the same priority in physics as do distance, mass,
> temperature, and others. As such, the ratio of distance to motion (two fundamental
> properties) will yield speed (the calculation). I was incorrect to claim that we
> observe speed. Instead, it is more accurate to state that we observe motion.
>
> However, my hypothesis still includes the claim that time is simply a concept conjured up
> by man. The natural consequences of this hypothesis are:
>
> That time neither flows nor does matter flow through time.
>
> That concepts such as the space-time continuum or the space-time coordinate system
> should be replaced by space-motion.
>
> That there is no time dilation. Instead, all motions slow (just as distances shorten) in
> accelerated frames of reference.
>
> That all events are triggered by motion or a phenomenon equivalent to motion, even if at
> some sub-atomic level yet to be understood.
>
> That time is just a tool conjured up by man and that it is motion which we use in the
> margin of the scroll of history by which we order all events.
xxein: I was not sure if this made it through post.
Order all events, eh? Which comes first - cause or effect? While I
write this, an insane number of ticks are accounted for with the
transitional effects in cesium. I have a relation of what I do while
cesium sets a count. It is a comparison of one chain of events to
another. And while that cesium count may be random on its own fine
scale of events, It more than suffices for a regularity in which to
make a comparison to more coarse cause-effect events. It is this
seeming regularity, that seems to carry on while other events go
through cycles of changes, that makes this type of event a standard
to compare a count with. Time is a comparative count of events ---
one being regular, another general. We cannot deny that things
happen, nor that they have cause to effect. We compare.
But this comparison is not man-made. It exists without our being
aware of it in the sense that it does happen. If you wish to quibble
about that, then you will have to say that NOTHING HAPPENS UNLESS WE
ARE AWARE OF IT. And THEN there is no time (for you). I am quite
happy to be aware of time and cannot - will not deny its existence as
a comparison of regularity of events (as long as events happen (change
- motion - displacement - transition - transubstantiallity)).
That events are triggered is a chicken-egg thing. We have no sure way
of knowing that a big bang (the one we may believe) is anything other
than us (our universe) being the product of some large cancerous cell
in an entity or product vastly larger than we can imagine a google
times the iterated fractal. This is the price of infinity. No
beginning --- no end. But what in between??? By what do we set
conceptual bounds??? Well, that part is pretty easy. We have a range
of observability - both distance (speed of light) and fine structure.
They are bound to give a believable conception because of a continuity
that should exist beyond our range. (Yet to be understood (..).
Time dilation goes hand in hand with the notion that light has a
certain speed (in an ill-defined medium). If you can be willing to
say that you observe light-Doppler effects, you have to admit to some
sort of speed limit for light. Once you begin to realize THAT, you
should no longer doubt that a moving object depends on that external
lightspeed to function internally. When you get that far, you can
imagine that regular internal events must slow down compared to a
non-moving identical substance. Time.
But to cap it all off there, is not logical. It does not correspond
to continuity, what we observe and measure, nor the math that we use
so successfully to describe and predict (although we are all still in
a little haze about that when getting down to the nitty-gritty).
What does fill the bill is a length contraction. Not of the space and
object, but by the object moving in space. That space must be defined
by the limited speed of light. I'll issue in advance that we cannot
measure a space. We define it by the speed of light. We have no way
of determining that a space here is not moving wrt a space there.
That would be an energy containing medium occupying an otherwise truly
EMPTY and infinite space.
When an object moves in relation to lightspeed in that local medium of
energy space, a simple math will tell you that its internal clock will
slow down, but it (to repeat) is not sufficient to explain all that we
can observe. I don't really know what the best way of explaining it
is, but it is recognized that the strong force displays a
counter-intuitive property that would cause the apparent slowness of a
clock (because of a separation of the fore and aft regions due to
biased lightspeed motion) to contract upon the line of motion. If you
can find a good description of a lightclock, preferably motion-visual,
it would be useful. Just remember that in order to recieve-back a
particular photon that was sent out by an object in motion, it has to
be reflected back to a future position.
The strong force indicates that when an otherwise unnatural separation
(used loosely) of internal components takes place, the force gets
greater to pull them back together. This is what appears to happen
with motion biased to lightspeed. The math holds that there is a
trade-off between the motion due to lightspeed (to separate) is
partially balanced by the strong force. Hence a continuity and not a
discontinuity.
Geez! I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but if you let go
of all SR-GR and think of continuity on an objective-come-subjective
reality, you may possibly get the hang of a logic that even allows
SR-GR to have its credibility in its subjective observational system.
There are still a few items that SR-GR fails upon, though. Eg:
Because of clockrate, neither mountain-top observers nor sea-level
observers can realize the true relation of circular orbit velocity to
R to M. What's more is that each has a different length meter.
Science-theory talks out of both sides of its mouth and neither is
truth. But both are correct for what we measure.
That, my dear friend, is our universe telling us that no matter how it
convulses, what we try to measure will follow a certain relationship
that we might call Relativity on the local scale (SR) and suggest a
General Relativity as to how we relate it to a larger scale.
A principle of relativity is surely what the universe exibits (its
continuity), but we got it wrong with the implicational concepts of SR
and GR. There are surely a number of theories that are deeper and
more wide-scoped than SR-GR. I have my home-grown favorite. You
won't find it anywhere as a theory, but you may be able to deduce it
from my posting history (even though I have posted some trash there).
I don't even know that there is enough info to do that. All I really
know is my homework. And that is very good.
Your point about speed vs. motion is good. Because of time dilation
and length contraction, we cannot determine distance, or timerate wrt
to lightspeed. It becomes a local measurement that is deficient of
objectivity on the larger scale.
Back to your top: Mass and motion are the basics. But it is
comparative mass and we have to start to assign values from someplace.
I don't think that the present pop theories can handle this. They
introduce a momentum and a relative velocity. Let's think deeply
about this.
Let's say that I hold a brass ball of 100 kg. You shoot at it with a
1 kg brass bullet that travels at 5000 fps (as I measure its velocity)
and a certain destruction, heat and penetration will occur. If all
were a mater of relative velocity, I could move at 5000 fps with my
brass ball and have the same result if your bullet were stationary
(you measure my velocity). But one silly little thing messes all this
up. I would have to have 100x the energy you used to do so.
Let's try a different approach. I observe you going away at .2c (with
the brass ball) and a bullet coming at us at .5c (along the same
line). I predict a certain destruction for you that is based upon the
velocity of .7c to you (+ a penetration, heat). You, otoh will
measure it coming to you at 63636...c and should decide the
destruction parameters with a different energy potential.
Do you really think there is no bias of time dilation and length
contraction? Do you really think that there is an invariant mass that
is NOT affected by an absolute velocity? As you can see, the
destruction parameters should not change. Well then, what did for
you?
Did the bullet become less solid? Did you become more solid wrt the
bullet? What changed from the way I see it (.7c) and the way you see
it (.63636...c)? Is it purely a measuremental value; how do you wish
to explain it?
Accelerated motion? Wrt WHAT does motion slow. How do we measure
this? How do we know if THAT or THIS was accelerated?
You need a more comprehensive theory. You need an absolute. BUT we
all do. Anything that is relative on the square scale NEEDS an
absolute. Even a pure math that recognizes only positive numbers
cannot escape this. How did we build a theory of this universe that
escapes this simple fact?
Perhaps, after a few years, you will recognize a more complete and
objective logic that will lead you to develop a theory that is worth
thinking about.
I hope that I expanded your considerations for a reality (even the ref
to a cancerous tumor). We all need to think a little more critical.
A parting thought for you: If the Earth were perfectly spherical and
of homogeneous composition, whose clock will measure the period of a
circular orbiting satellite? Would it be one on the surface or one on
a 5000 meter tower? Why? How does that relate to center of mass and
the radius of the satellite? How do you determine the radius of the
satellite? How do you determine the mass of the central body?
On and on.
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Previous message: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Revised Hypothesis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
