Time Explained

[ChildInAZoo]

A lot of these people already have high degrees of technical expertise which is beyond the norm for the usual subcultures which embrace delusion. Its clearly obvious that many of these inventors do suffer from degrees of mania, take on any old idea of ether which suits them and barely put in the effort to test the total cost of energy input/output ratio to their inventions. They are mostly interested in social attention or promise of it than any inner drive to get their products right for their own personal pride.but then again in their depressive phase when they are not aiming so high and being far more selective, they might hit on something special. Thats technical creativity for you.

So is your argument that Farsight is not deluded because he is not technically proficient?

[Brain Man]

A lot of these people already have high degrees of technical expertise which is beyond the norm for the usual subcultures which embrace delusion. Its clearly obvious that many of these inventors do suffer from degrees of mania, take on any old idea of ether which suits them and barely put in the effort to test the total cost of energy input/output ratio to their inventions. They are mostly interested in social attention or promise of it than any inner drive to get their products right for their own personal pride.but then again in their depressive phase when they are not aiming so high and being far more selective, they might hit on something special. Thats technical creativity for you.

So is your argument that Farsight is not deluded because he is not technically proficient?

I dont know how you figure that. The point was just the free energy crowd seem to possess some of the seeds for pioneer science in the future.

Farsight is not deluded, because he doesn't show any of the usual pattern of behavior associated with it. If anything he is understated, which causes most of the problems. His simple explanations integrate a lot of high quality knowledge with obvious depth behind it.

So simple are the concepts that they grate with the highly learned who can only be stimulated by pages of complication and intensity.

[Farsight]

That they do, BrainMan, So much so that instead of discussing the subject with a rational counter-argument and counter-evidence, we see attempts to trash the thread along wiht ad-hominem abuse such as "deluded". I don't suppose irony is somebody's strong suit round here.

Note that I'm not an advocate of free energy or "over-unity" devices. Energy is fundamental, it cannot be created or destroyed. And besides, if there was some trick Maxwell's Demons way to somehow wring useful energy from seemingly nowhere, you can bet your bottom dollar it wouldn't actually be free. We'd end up paying for it. And meanwhile you have to think about where that energy came from. If you steal it from "the vacuum" you're actually altering space, and that doesn't sound too clever to me.

[ChildInAZoo]

]Farsight is not deluded, because he doesn't show any of the usual pattern of behavior associated with it. If anything he is understated, which causes most of the problems. His simple explanations integrate a lot of high quality knowledge with obvious depth behind it.

Really? He picks only those equations from science that he thinks support his claim, even when it is science that was abandoned by the original author. He doesn't take the effort to work out any of the consequences of his theory (and he discourages the very idea of working out these consequences). He is definitely more interested in social attention than the drive to be proven right, since he shows no interest in spending the time to learn the basic science of which he speaks and he travels from message board to message board, taking advantage of people who do not know the science. These fit the criteria you laid out in your post.

So simple are the concepts that they grate with the highly learned who can only be stimulated by pages of complication and intensity.

His concepts are not "simple", they are simply wrong. Farsight wants us to believe in an insanely complicated world in which there is one preferred reference frame that we cannot discover through scientific test, that light can mysteriously twist into some sort of spiral motion that mysteriously changes its spin and creates charge, along with a host of other very complicated claims. He does this without offering any evidence that these claims can produce the very detailed measurement evidence that we have about how the world behaves.

[Brain Man]

]Farsight is not deluded, because he doesn't show any of the usual pattern of behavior associated with it. If anything he is understated, which causes most of the problems. His simple explanations integrate a lot of high quality knowledge with obvious depth behind it.

Really? He picks only those equations from science that he thinks support his claim, even when it is science that was abandoned by the original author. He doesn't take the effort to work out any of the consequences of his theory (and he discourages the very idea of working out these consequences). He is definitely more interested in social attention than the drive to be proven right, since he shows no interest in spending the time to learn the basic science of which he speaks and he travels from message board to message board, taking advantage of people who do not know the science. These fit the criteria you laid out in your post.

So simple are the concepts that they grate with the highly learned who can only be stimulated by pages of complication and intensity.

His concepts are not "simple", they are simply wrong. Farsight wants us to believe in an insanely complicated world in which there is one preferred reference frame that we cannot discover through scientific test, that light can mysteriously twist into some sort of spiral motion that mysteriously changes its spin and creates charge, along with a host of other very complicated claims. He does this without offering any evidence that these claims can produce the very detailed measurement evidence that we have about how the world behaves.

He takes his theories to some of the hardest physics and science BB boards out there, gets trashed, then uses that to learn more concepts. If he was trying to con people you would see see a clear shift away from that stress and a move to retreating and trying to sell his theories to the free energy guys. Go on those forums and they tend to agree with anything you throw at them.

So here we are years later, still on a hard board. Also from his connections it looks to me like he is just working away with the skills he has to go find suitable collaborators who are doing actual scientific work. But you wouldnt hear about that, because youre projecting what you want, and so are hardly likely to elicit from him the positive things happening behind the scenes.

Basically you are just doing anything you can not to think if his ideas could alter your views. i.e. That time plays second fiddle to motion, or his easy integration of many marginalised works of physics into one cohesive framework.

This is because they arent presented in the rigid format you expect. If they were you still wouldnt take them on, it would just be one less degree of having a more extreme reason to reject. Science trains you that we have to be open to new ideas, but in reality its a major worldwide business now, which doesnt want its boat rocked. So lip service must be paid to being open in combination with any tactic possible to discourage the proponent.

Thats the way it is. Thats group behaviour. In group behaviour, creativity must be sanctioned to emerge by the hierarchy. But science is not supposed to have a hiearchy. The method stemmed in part to find reason of appeal at the most hard to argue with level, so it could deal with the reason that remained in humans when the rigidity and censorship of large religious organizations, which were little more than big business had taken hold.

So what happens today when this conflict arises again between the closed mindedness of groups when lots of humans are interested in distributing themselves with a common cause and the tenents of science itself. You get lies again. People paying lip service, putting up barriers, making demand after demand, but really nothing will ever happen except you age and are eaten away by it. As Garret Lisi says "making you jump through too many hoops". What did he do. He lived in a camper and got out the system totally.

Its not about science any more. Pioneer Science is dying on its feet. What we have here is just the latest format for groupishness.

[Brain Man]

His concepts are not "simple", they are simply wrong. Farsight wants us to believe in an insanely complicated world in which there is one preferred reference frame that we cannot discover through scientific test, that light can mysteriously twist into some sort of spiral motion that mysteriously changes its spin and creates charge, along with a host of other very complicated claims. He does this without offering any evidence that these claims can produce the very detailed measurement evidence that we have about how the world behaves.

thats because he cant. Nobody can. Those ideas on electromagnetism are derived from some pretty clever people in the scientific system who got nowhere with them.

Why would anybody want them ? Look at the employment you get from keeping science obscure. Research councils can basically keep asking governments for larger amounts of the public purse, because "its got more complicated". I am not saying its a conspiracy, but obscurity, complexity and that theories are never really proven has turned out to emerge as the perfect business model. Its just naturally self organized, so that nobody has an interest in anything which works it all out, so there is no payoff to anybody anymore for solutions. We are just disovering more and more about smaller things. Dont take me out of context. Its not a conspiracy, it just self organizes, because a good slice of the public pie is divided up into lots of interesting reasonably paid jobs, along with the status of being a respected scientist.

Only when the public actually realise this is going on, will there be changes to this state of affairs and large scale integration will occurr. This is the remedy. Scientists who can integrate will take over. Garret is one example. All the subatomic particles integrated, after being outcast from the system thats supposed to do facilitate this kind of thing within its departments. Farsight is a theory integrator. Integrative theories are generalised and hard to falsify. Evolution is an example of that. You just dont want physics integrated really.

[ChildInAZoo]

I hope you only do computer modelling and don't actually do any psychology!

[Brain Man]

I hope you only do computer modelling and don't actually do any psychology!

not my thing, although i could tell u how a lot of our brain bits work, and in what way they cross link to categories for personality

[Farsight]

thats because he cant. Nobody can. Those ideas on electromagnetism are derived from some pretty clever people in the scientific system who got nowhere with them.

Why would anybody want them ? Look at the employment you get from keeping science obscure. Research councils can basically keep asking governments for larger amounts of the public purse, because "its got more complicated". I am not saying its a conspiracy, but obscurity, complexity and that theories are never really proven has turned out to emerge as the perfect business model. Its just naturally self organized, so that nobody has an interest in anything which works it all out, so there is no payoff to anybody anymore for solutions. We are just disovering more and more about smaller things. Dont take me out of context. Its not a conspiracy, it just self organizes, because a good slice of the public pie is divided up into lots of interesting reasonably paid jobs, along with the status of being a respected scientist.

It's an "interest group", Brain Man. The world is full of them. I liken it to the search for the holy grail. There's a lot a knights in shining armour enjoying a good life, feted and treated as heroes. The last thing they want is for anybody to find the damn thing,

Only when the public actually realise this is going on, will there be changes to this state of affairs and large scale integration will occurr. This is the remedy. Scientists who can integrate will take over. Garret is one example. All the subatomic particles integrated, after being outcast from the system thats supposed to do facilitate this kind of thing within its departments. Farsight is a theory integrator. Integrative theories are generalised and hard to falsify. Evolution is an example of that. You just dont want physics integrated really.

You hit the nail on the head. Well said Brain Man. I hope you understand my fear. I set out to "do my bit for physics", and help save it. But instead of helping to save it, I may be helping to slay it.

[Brain Man]

You hit the nail on the head. Well said Brain Man. I hope you understand my fear. I set out to "do my bit for physics", and help save it. But instead of helping to save it, I may be helping to slay it.

These kinds of politics have always been part of life, and we still managed to transcend it on a regular basis and end up here. Often some people are just ahead of their time. So there has to be a payoff which has nothing to with the self interest groups. i.e. The area is interesting, it helps your own understanding of life, and there is the personal feeling of satisfaction at leaving an area taken further.

Good quality work is good quality work. Somebody will need solutions outside the politics at some stage. I needed somebody asking questions on the fundamentals of time for neuroscience, a different field.

I looked around for a combination of the best objective research on the subject. And there wasnt a lot surprisingly. Julian barbour dives in, but he seemed to gloss over the time derived from motion aspect and drive it further into a harder realm of common reference points. There may be something in this. Then there was yourself, going into the motion aspect from many angles which is easier way into the subject. There was amrits paper, which is more astrophysics of course.

That was about it. I would say you are in the top three of not many when searching for that subject, and should probably consider writing a paper on that. The traditional discipline of introduction /background/ hypothesis/rationale the testing methods and summary helps both the author and reader, as its clear sequence of rationality from start to conclusion.

I just had the idea that there could be entirely new ways to do this that grabs people. A scientific paper for youtube, which uses that structure. Sections of the video are split up with title pages, and hyperlinks put on the video to reference other works.

Time always makes a good subject for video as you have all the time altering tricks of that format, which barbour used in his video on the subject.

[colubridae]

In a nutshell time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion.

Unfortunately your maths says that space is an emergent property as well. That kind of fucks things up?

You can't switch on maths and switch it off .

[Farsight]

These kinds of politics have always been part of life, and we still managed to transcend it on a regular basis and end up here. Often some people are just ahead of their time. So there has to be a payoff which has nothing to with the self interest groups. i.e. The area is interesting, it helps your own understanding of life, and there is the personal feeling of satisfaction at leaving an area taken further.

Well said.

Good quality work is good quality work. Somebody will need solutions outside the politics at some stage. I needed somebody asking questions on the fundamentals of time for neuroscience, a different field. I looked around for a combination of the best objective research on the subject. And there wasnt a lot surprisingly. Julian barbour dives in, but he seemed to gloss over the time derived from motion aspect and drive it further into a harder realm of common reference points. There may be something in this. Then there was yourself, going into the motion aspect from many angles which is easier way into the subject. There was amrits paper, which is more astrophysics of course. That was about it. I would say you are in the top three of not many when searching for that subject, and should probably consider writing a paper on that. The traditional discipline of introduction /background/ hypothesis/rationale the testing methods and summary helps both the author and reader, as its clear sequence of rationality from start to conclusion.

I think Barbour has missed the obvious, and amrit tries to take things too far in that paper. That's if the one I'm thinking of, where I gave him a hand with the colloquial English. As for me, this time is an emergent property of motion thing isn't something new. I just restated it afresh. As for other sources, you could try talking to the International Society for the Study of Time, see http://www.studyoftime.org/. Try Friedel Weinert at Bradford University or Peter Hancock at the University of Central Florida. They won't tell you anything that's particularly different to Time Explained. For example Freidel said he liked it and agreed with a lot of what I said, but would class time as objective rather than subjective because motion was objective.

I just had the idea that there could be entirely new ways to do this that grabs people. A scientific paper for youtube, which uses that structure. Sections of the video are split up with title pages, and hyperlinks put on the video to reference other works. Time always makes a good subject for video as you have all the time altering tricks of that format, which barbour used in his video on the subject.

I've been thinking along these lines.

[Brain Man]

These kinds of politics have always been part of life, and we still managed to transcend it on a regular basis and end up here. Often some people are just ahead of their time. So there has to be a payoff which has nothing to with the self interest groups. i.e. The area is interesting, it helps your own understanding of life, and there is the personal feeling of satisfaction at leaving an area taken further.

Well said.

Good quality work is good quality work. Somebody will need solutions outside the politics at some stage. I needed somebody asking questions on the fundamentals of time for neuroscience, a different field. I looked around for a combination of the best objective research on the subject. And there wasnt a lot surprisingly. Julian barbour dives in, but he seemed to gloss over the time derived from motion aspect and drive it further into a harder realm of common reference points. There may be something in this. Then there was yourself, going into the motion aspect from many angles which is easier way into the subject. There was amrits paper, which is more astrophysics of course. That was about it. I would say you are in the top three of not many when searching for that subject, and should probably consider writing a paper on that. The traditional discipline of introduction /background/ hypothesis/rationale the testing methods and summary helps both the author and reader, as its clear sequence of rationality from start to conclusion.

I think Barbour has missed the obvious, and amrit tries to take things too far in that paper. That's if the one I'm thinking of, where I gave him a hand with the colloquial English. As for me, this time is an emergent property of motion thing isn't something new. I just restated it afresh. As for other sources, you could try talking to the International Society for the Study of Time, see http://www.studyoftime.org/. Try Friedel Weinert at Bradford University or Peter Hancock at the University of Central Florida. They won't tell you anything that's particularly different to Time Explained. For example Freidel said he liked it and agreed with a lot of what I said, but would class time as objective rather than subjective because motion was objective.

Thanks ill check those out. Time seems like an area that needs more fundamental research funds thrown at it, but not many people are doing it.

[Farsight]

I'm not sure there's much more to do, Brain Man. The problem seems to be one of conviction and resistance rather than science and evidence. Hmmn. Perhaps those research funds should go to psychologists, not physicists.

[lpetrich]

I've checked Farsight's and Brain Man's claims against various pseudoscience criteria.

Martin Gardner in his Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science had listed:

1. He considers himself a genius.
2. He regards all colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.
3. He believes himself persecuted or unjustly measured or discriminated against.
4. He has strong compulsions to go after the most famous or accepted leaders of that field and the most-accepted theories.
5. He has a tendency to talk and write in complex jargon, in some cases using figures of speech or descriptions that he himself has coined.

One may object that they have no bearing on the correctness of a theory, but it is an empirical correlation: when the advocates of some theory have as their main argument what oxen the orthodox are, that theory is not likely to be a good contribution to knowledge, let alone a groundbreaking discovery.

Several of Farsight's and Brain Man's recent posts fit criteria 2 and 3 very well, like their recent ones in this thread. Complaining about how difficult it is to get published? Criterion 3. Distinguishing between hill-climbers and valley-crossers? Criterion 2.

Gardner explains criterion 4:

When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. This same defiance can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-established beliefs. Mathematicians prove the angle cannot be trisected. So the crank trisects it. A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one. There are many eccentric theories in which the "pull" of gravity is replaced by a "push." Germs do not cause disease, some modern cranks insist. Disease produces the germs. Glasses do not help the eyes, said Dr. Bates. They make them worse. In our next chapter we shall learn how Cyrus Teed literally turned the entire cosmos inside-out, compressing it within the confines of a hollow earth, inhabited only on the inside.

Farsight's theory of time fits that pattern very well. Instead of motion being a function of time, time is a function of motion.

However, Farsight's and Brain Man's posts mercifully do not fit criterion 5.

I don't have the patience to score Farsight's theories with John Baez's Crackpot index, but from a quick glance, some of it does more-or-less fit. Like:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

Looking at the other sets of criteria, Farsight's quoting of Maxwell and Einstein remind me of the Radners' and John Casti's criterion "Research by literary interpretation".