Time Explained

[Brain Man]

So If I may recap:-

We have farsight a self confessed amateur scientist who has written a book, needing to be sold.
He has been ridiculed on every serious science forum on the web.

He proposes a new explanation for time and uses beginners maths to demonstrate his explanation; when the same maths is used to demonstrate that his bizarre explanation for time applies to space as well, he simply changes his stance saying that maths can’t explain his explanation and uses this:-

No I don't. Hold you hands up a metre a part. There's a space between them. That isn't motion. But waggle your hands. That is.

Which carries as much scientific value as

“everything is made of varying amounts of earth fire air and water”

He also claims his theories lack rigor
He also claims he can’t do the maths, or worse says that the maths won’t prove anything.
He is unable to get any ‘serious’ scientist interested in his ‘postulate’.

Mistermack who claims that he is mainly interested in human evolution and admits that he knows nothing about science cheerfully supports Farsight and all his works. Despite admitting knowing nothing about science he is able to see through farsight’s lack of rigor at the essential validity of farsight’s proposals.

Along comes Brainman who is convinced that there is a conspiracy against farsight by the science hierarchy, who reject farsight’s ideas because they violate scientific dogma.
Brainman implies that if only the right resources were given to farsight then farsight’s proposal would rapidly gain its deserved world-wide acclaim.
He also believes that the way to achieve this aim is to post on a web forum devoted mainly to humorous atheism.
Brainman is not offering to do the maths himself but will go through the references to verify that the ‘proposal’ is watertight.
All of the above mentioned posters refuse to accept point blank that all farsight has to do is the maths for his ‘postulate’and make a prediction.


Please
1 watch these threads; I feel sure that very shortly someone will post something that’s ridiculous.
2 understand, I do not want Farsight to stop posting. His work is far too valuable.
3 tell me if anything is wrong with my recap. I’d love to know (ellipsis)

Well then, with such a fan club emerging that ought to tell u something. BTW I dont propose any conspiracy. That just you doing modern versions of name calling. Systems self organize around resources, creating types of activity and so has science, inline with the mechanisms outlined by the experts discussing modern science in post 77 of farsights electromagnetism thread. Conspiracy implies intent. I have never said any group intends to do any of this.

Back to the subject, I just found out that Milo wolff also has a similiar double photon model for the electron. (what farsight cites) Thats two decent scientists, Williamson and wolff arrived at the same conclusion independently it seems, as their versions have differences.

All we need know is a good mathematician. But do we really need that today ? Langauges change. 100 years ago you had to able to read and write music. Today you need to be skilled at cutting, pasting and mixing sampled waveforms.

Todays einsteins may need a different language. Cutting and pasting, integrating wide range of theories across todays enormous information database, Using computer modeling instead of maths. bypassing journal torture and getting straight into internet discussions with like minded colleagues to thrash out concepts..

you have to remember languages are formats, derived from more basic brain functions such as stringing syntax components, and visual symbol areas of the brain, but these are not hard wired in larger form. i.e. sampled recordings can replace written word, because we dont actually have a part of the brain made for writing. We just chose that because there was no video. Same goes for maths, sitting and writing symbols that represent sculpting mechanism is so inefficient and long winded. I mean have you actually sat with mathematica and seen the amount of maths underlying a simple electromagntic simulation ? It can take years to hand write what the PC can do in seconds. After a while you dont even need to bother caring about the underlying code. I can program in machine language, but its never needed. The only good all that serves me today is i can look at a schematic for a GPU and understand some of the byte shunting, something that anybody could fathom with a 30 minute glance at a wiki on the subject anyway.

you get the idea, maths can easily be replaced by computational modelling, with some short tutorials on underlying concepts. Eventually we will just ask computers to test out ideas for us without any requirement for maths at all. Where is the maths part of the brain ? Maths is just composed of symbols representing preworked mechanisms that obey basic some basic rules of syntax derived from neural processing. I dont see how it is different to object orientated programming, and since that is how computers now work, they can do it for us.

i feel inspired by all this somehow.

Maybe rationalia is the place. We could start something right here.

Dont you feel inspired ?

Or is that ridiculous enough ?

[Brain Man]

I think you missed that part where we are all establishment-hugging intellectual philistines unable to bask in the mind-expanding glory of new ideas. Let's face it, maybe we would be more receptive if given large amounts of LSD first, right?

well yeh now that u mention it...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think you missed that part where we are all establishment-hugging intellectual philistines unable to bask in the mind-expanding glory of new ideas. Let's face it, maybe we would be more receptive if given large amounts of LSD first, right?

well yeh now that u mention it...

I think we need a poll on huge amounts of LSD. I vote lavender fishy swirls.

[lpetrich]

Back to the subject, I just found out that Milo wolff also has a similiar double photon model for the electron. (what farsight cites) Thats two decent scientists, Williamson and wolff arrived at the same conclusion independently it seems, as their versions have differences.

I'd like to see them explain e+e- collision data and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and and stuff like that -- the Dirac theory of the electron does just fine.

Also, this confined-photon theory requires an additional physical effect to do the confining. This is much more ad hoc than a Dirac field.

Furthermore, in quantum mechanics, orbital angular momentum always has integer values, and combined with the photon's spin of 1, will always yield an integer spin. Spin 1/2 is not possible, and requires a spinor particle. Fortunately, the Dirac equation describes spinor particles.

you get the idea, maths can easily be replaced by computational modelling, with some short tutorials on underlying concepts. ...

Computer modeling is itself a form of mathematics, and it's helpful to understanding what's going on in it.

I've used computer-algebra software for years, and it's a GREAT convenience. Lots of mainstream scientists also use it. Particle physicists use it heavily to calculate multiloop Feynman diagrams, like what's necessary to calculate the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to high precision.

[Brain Man]

I think you missed that part where we are all establishment-hugging intellectual philistines unable to bask in the mind-expanding glory of new ideas. Let's face it, maybe we would be more receptive if given large amounts of LSD first, right?

well yeh now that u mention it...

I think we need a poll on huge amounts of LSD. I vote lavender fishy swirls.

Hoffman microdots are good if u dont mind losing your wallet and getting arrested for rattling bin lids.

[Brain Man]

Back to the subject, I just found out that Milo wolff also has a similiar double photon model for the electron. (what farsight cites) Thats two decent scientists, Williamson and wolff arrived at the same conclusion independently it seems, as their versions have differences.

I'd like to see them explain e+e- collision data and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and and stuff like that -- the Dirac theory of the electron does just fine.

Also, this confined-photon theory requires an additional physical effect to do the confining. This is much more ad hoc than a Dirac field.

Furthermore, in quantum mechanics, orbital angular momentum always has integer values, and combined with the photon's spin of 1, will always yield an integer spin. Spin 1/2 is not possible, and requires a spinor particle. Fortunately, the Dirac equation describes spinor particles.

Im reading Williamson second paper which computationally models the electron/positron. If anything their spin models seem to explain magnetism better to me..although its too early to say. The representation of Wolffs model by Hazelhurst seems to imply the photons merge into each other and subtract from each others spin. Whether they accurately predict magnetic moments i cannot make out.

And of course they provide intuitive models for the internal structure of the electron which Dirac, QED cannot and resolve wave/particle paradox at the same time.

What more could you want from a model ? .

[Farsight]

I'm taking it seriously, I'm addressing it, I'm giving predictions and observations and references and experimental. You're just carping and trying to stop me.

Look, even you can see that this is simply not true. When you made predictions about how gravity worked, you refused to provide a single observation to back up your claims about dark matter.

Geddoutofit. Dark matter was first proposed by Zwicky in 1934, and there are hundreds of people out there collaborating in making claims about dark matter. And yet, in 76 years, there has been no observational evidence of dark matter. The observations of flat galactic rotation curves and lensing are just that. They are observations of gravitational anomalies, not of dark matter. Dark matter is merely one hypothesis that attempts to explain these gravitational anomalies.

Your continued insistence about providing observations makes you look like a liar or a fool. Forget references to papers you take words from, let's see an actual experiment with actual measurements and actual predictions from your theory. So far you have a big fat zero on this score. If you disagree, show us where you made a prediction and the observation that matches it.

It isn't me who has scored a big fat zero in 76 years. So I'd hazard a guess that it isn't me who's the liar or the fool.

[Farsight]

If the new idea is supported by scientific evidence and the old one isn't, then the old idea is just a faith. I can show you space and motion with my hands. But you can't show me time flowing. And you can't show me any motion through time. It's that simple.

We have a built-in sense of time, and we have memory, which is time-related.

No problem.

Also, seeing separation is not seeing space. Farsight, your argument seem to be that if we don't see something, then it doesn't exist. Have you ever seen

• Space
• Inertia
• Pressure
• Temperature
• Gravitational fields
• Electric fields
• Magnetic fields
• Light passing by

?

That isn't my argument. You know this, because you've read the OP, where I start by talking about our senses. It isn't just a matter of seeing. You can feel things too, such as temperature and pressure. You can feel an electromagnetic field with a pair of magnets. We don't doubt the reality of inertia or gravitational fields or passing light, even though we can't "see" them. And nor do we doubt the reality of the space between our hands, even though we can't see it.

All that happens is freezing the Universe for that amount of time.

And how do you measure that amount of time if everything is stopped? You can't. That's why you don't need time to have motion, you need motion to have time. Come on lpetrich, Einstein is with me on this. Read the essay and think it through.

[colubridae]

you have to remember languages are formats, derived from more basic brain functions such as stringing syntax components, and visual symbol areas of the brain, but these are not hard wired in larger form. i.e. sampled recordings can replace written word, because we dont actually have a part of the brain made for writing. We just chose that because there was no video. Same goes for maths, sitting and writing symbols that represent sculpting mechanism is so inefficient and long winded. I mean have you actually sat with mathematica and seen the amount of maths underlying a simple electromagntic simulation ? It can take years to hand write what the PC can do in seconds. After a while you dont even need to bother caring about the underlying code. I can program in machine language, but its never needed. The only good all that serves me today is i can look at a schematic for a GPU and understand some of the byte shunting, something that anybody could fathom with a 30 minute glance at a wiki on the subject anyway.

woo
(Keep up the good work with the wicki condensates. It’s becoming quite an art form now.)



Whereas:-
Prediction

1 watch these threads; I feel sure that very shortly someone will post something that’s ridiculous.

evidence

(I think implying that nobel laureates now begin at rationalia)
Maybe rationalia is the place. We could start something right here.

Now that’s science in action.


…

[ChildInAZoo]

I'm taking it seriously, I'm addressing it, I'm giving predictions and observations and references and experimental. You're just carping and trying to stop me.

Look, even you can see that this is simply not true. When you made predictions about how gravity worked, you refused to provide a single observation to back up your claims about dark matter.

Geddoutofit. Dark matter was first proposed by Zwicky in 1934, and there are hundreds of people out there collaborating in making claims about dark matter. And yet, in 76 years, there has been no observational evidence of dark matter. The observations of flat galactic rotation curves and lensing are just that. They are observations of gravitational anomalies, not of dark matter. Dark matter is merely one hypothesis that attempts to explain these gravitational anomalies.

This is a perfect example of you dodging a question by trying to appeal to irrelevant (and incorrect) historical details, just like some global warming denier or creationist. Even if we stick with this ahistorical "just an anomaly" story, you say that your theory predicts all of these anomalies. Yet you haven't given any evidence whatsoever that this is the case. You haven't produced a reference to a single galaxy rotation curve "anomaly" that you can predict. On the other hand, people who want to explain these curves with dark matter are able to show how to predict these anomalies. Even people who want to explain it with other theories than General Relativity are able to predict these anomalies--which demonstrates that the anomalies cannot be predicted just using GR, as you seem to claim. (For examples, sift through the TeVeS literature here: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/litsub.html )

If you had any real knowledge of this physics, you could predict one of these anomalies. But since you continually dodge direct questions like this, you have to know, yourself, that you lack this understanding. Let it go, man. Once you admit that you need help understanding this, you'll be a lot less tense and you can begin to learn.

[Farsight]

I'm not the one behaving like a creationist. There's no evidence for creationism. And after 76 years, there's no evidence for dark matter either.

[ChildInAZoo]

I'm not the one behaving like a creationist. There's no evidence for creationism. And after 76 years, there's no evidence for dark matter either.

So your best response is a version of the tu quoque fallacy. Great job. If you had any actual science behind your position, you would actually back up the predictions you made.

[lpetrich]

Im reading Williamson second paper which computationally models the electron/positron. ...

And of course they provide intuitive models for the internal structure of the electron which Dirac, QED cannot and resolve wave/particle paradox at the same time.

Intuitive? Why is that supposed to be a reasonable criterion?

The Dirac equation works much like Maxwell's equations: individual electrons, like individual photons, are the result of the appropriate field being quantized.

Why don't you review the electron-positron collision literature and see if you can duplicate the observed results? Like:
Backreaction: The Hadron-Muon Branching Ratio
Plots of cross sections and related quantities

The graph in Backreaction is a ratio of e+e- -> hadrons to e+e- -> muons.

Those results offer good evidence for quarks coming in three colors: the e+e- -> hadrons rate is otherwise too small by a factor of 3. The background rate also increases as each quark flavor goes above threshold. It also has some spikes or resonances for quark-antiquark bound states, and also for the Z particle.

One can estimate the hadron/muon ratio by adding up the squares of the electric charges of all below-threshold quarks:

(Colors ignored)
Below J/psi: u,d,s: 2/3
Above J/psi: u,d,s,c: 10/9
Above upsilon: u,d,s,c,b: 11/9

[lpetrich]

[Dark matter was first proposed by Zwicky in 1934, and there are hundreds of people out there collaborating in making claims about dark matter. And yet, in 76 years, there has been no observational evidence of dark matter.

Farsight, what would you consider acceptable evidence of dark matter?

Something like this? Cryogenic Dark Matter Search - Wikipedia

It's chilling some germanium and silicon chips down to extremely low temperatures, and then looking for evidence of dark-matter particles colliding with them. One of the teams in this line of research has reported 2 events, but IMO, that's a rather borderline result, and I'd prefer better statistics.

The observations of flat galactic rotation curves and lensing are just that. They are observations of gravitational anomalies, not of dark matter. Dark matter is merely one hypothesis that attempts to explain these gravitational anomalies.

One can work out patterns of distribution of dark matter from stars' velocity distributions and gravitational lensing. One can also try to see if modifying gravity can produce the same patterns.

[lpetrich]

You know this, because you've read the OP, where I start by talking about our senses. It isn't just a matter of seeing. You can feel things too, such as temperature and pressure. You can feel an electromagnetic field with a pair of magnets. We don't doubt the reality of inertia or gravitational fields or passing light, even though we can't "see" them. And nor do we doubt the reality of the space between our hands, even though we can't see it.

Farsight, thank you for destroying one of your favorite arguments against time. We don't perceive magnetic fields. We infer their existence from observable effects.

I tried seeing if I could perceive the magnetic field of a refrigerator magnet. I failed.

Also, do we directly perceive 3D positions? We don't -- our eyes only return directions relative to them.

And how do you measure that amount of time if everything is stopped? You can't. That's why you don't need time to have motion, you need motion to have time. Come on lpetrich, Einstein is with me on this. Read the essay and think it through.

What makes you think that Einstein agrees with you? I wouldn't be surprised if he was talking about measuring time.