Time Explained

[Trolldor]

Oh shut up farsight. The whole reason you're presenting your argument on an internet forum is because it's utter nonsense that doesn't hold water in the academic and scientific communities. You're a goddamned underachieving internet scholar. This isn't even a notable forum, it's not even an obscure scientific forum. The best you can do is a forum vaguely linked to the old RDF.

[lpetrich]

And what he got was this: time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it.

I'd like to see how that works out mathematically.

Farsight, why do you think that that's an impossibility? Do you have any argument other than some fallacious Law of Resemblance? I also note that language is a "static one-dimensional linear string of symbols", so according to your claim, language is as worthless as mathematics.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said I thought the problem has been in trying to describe dynamical three-dimensional phenomena in a static one-dimensional linear string of symbols. It isn't easy in English either. That's why we need pictures and analogies and hands-on demonstration. Simulation would be nice of course, but it's a lot of work.

In other words, making lots of pretty pictures. All because of some fallacious Law of Resemblance.

I'll try to write one counterexample, the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid flow:

Conservation of mass:
d(rho)/dt + d(rho*vi)/dxi = 0

The main equation:
rho*(dvi/dt + vj*(dvi/dxj)) + dPij/dxj = fi
or
d(rho*vi)/dt + d(rho*vi*vj + Pij)/dxj = fi

where Pij = (pressure)*deltaij + (viscosity terms)
rho is the density, and f is the force density. Note that both space and time coordinates appear as independent variables.

Farsight, how many others will you need?

... I give you the Einstein information ...

Einstein-thumping is not an argument. I also note that Einstein treated time and space as co-equal, so if you wish to thump Einstein's works, you ought to take that into account.

[Brain Man]

Oh shut up farsight. The whole reason you're presenting your argument on an internet forum is because it's utter nonsense that doesn't hold water in the academic and scientific communities. You're a goddamned underachieving internet scholar. This isn't even a notable forum, it's not even an obscure scientific forum. The best you can do is a forum vaguely linked to the old RDF.

In case you hadnt noticed, quite a lot of published scientists are purely internet scholars, having transferred themselves out the libraries.

Context for where you take your debate doesn't mean a lot these days. The journal publication system is now officially a racket. And thats not coming from those marginalized by it. Thats coming from people who are doing pretty well in it. You cant even use it to research within a university now. Only a few can actually afford to subscribe to them all.

Anybody can be published if you dish out a grand to plos or a host of others now. Want a publication record, buy one easy. Its meaning less and less. 500 people might read you, and you will be lucky if you get one email. Mostly what you get is list of publications and the oppurtunity to be part of todays groupishness. Its not all bad, i mean look at the way groups are able to subdivide complex biology. No single person can do this. That is completely impressive, and cannot be aruged with, but a lot of whats going on today is basically about dividing up the pie, and not rocking the grant application boat.

Where as jumping online, trying something new, refinining your ideas through this rough and dirty method. This is a couragous way to do things. Swashbuckling stuff, It must stimulate farsights learning far faster than the handfull of brief emails most scientists get in the traditional route.

i am envious to be honest. If i did what he did my nice public profile on google with publication and affiliations would be swamped by Bboard discussion of people calling me crackpot. However I am seriously thinking hes got the right idea. i.e. Going the traditional route has been a complete waste of time. All it leads to is promises from my supervisor that i keep my seemingly assistant research contract. But is always on condition this and that, and i always am made to feel i am so lucky to have it. A job which i am not sure i fancy. I ask about doing challenging projects and get fobbed off, with statements like most creatives spend all their time doing mundane work, with a few high spots. Ok regular money and status is good for a stress free family life. But u have to just kiss ass on a constant basis, and be careful about everything you say. Bite your tounge etc.. To do real challenging science today it is clearly better to just drop the secure position, have a part time business or somethign else and use it to fund challenging pursuits yourself.

Again i feel quite inspired by farsight, lisi and those others of a similar ilk. i.e. To do science in spite of science. maybe we need to call it something else now.

Think about it, well maybe you havent met many 60 year old scientists, but there are so many, they are getting on. A lot of their work was not read, except to back up somebody elses work of a similiar mediocre quality. They all reference each other from their departments, with the best at the game getting to write a boring book which references everybody else.

We only live once, we are here to break down frontiers explore the way things are, not to create piles of mind numbing work..

or are we...

[Trolldor]

are purely internet scholars

I take it the term 'internet scholar' has been misappropriated once again.

An internet scholar is not a scholar at all, or they wouldn't be consigned to obscure internet forums and backwater blogs - places without peer review and admission conditions.
Secondly, having your work exist solely online means nothing to your credit at all. Unless the organisation is recognised by the scientific community it means nothing at all that it's here on the internet.

[colubridae]

Oh shut up farsight. The whole reason you're presenting your argument on an internet forum is because it's utter nonsense that doesn't hold water in the academic and scientific communities. You're a goddamned underachieving internet scholar. This isn't even a notable forum, it's not even an obscure scientific forum. The best you can do is a forum vaguely linked to the old RDF.

In case you hadnt noticed, quite a lot of published scientists are purely internet scholars, having transferred themselves out the libraries.

Context for where you take your debate doesn't mean a lot these days. The journal publication system is now officially a racket. And thats not coming from those marginalized by it. Thats coming from people who are doing pretty well in it. You cant even use it to research within a university now. Only a few can actually afford to subscribe to them all.

Anybody can be published if you dish out a grand to plos or a host of others now. Want a publication record, buy one easy. Its meaning less and less. 500 people might read you, and you will be lucky if you get one email. Mostly what you get is list of publications and the oppurtunity to be part of todays groupishness. Its not all bad, i mean look at the way groups are able to subdivide complex biology. No single person can do this. That is completely impressive, and cannot be aruged with, but a lot of whats going on today is basically about dividing up the pie, and not rocking the grant application boat.

Where as jumping online, trying something new, refinining your ideas through this rough and dirty method. This is a couragous way to do things. Swashbuckling stuff, It must stimulate farsights learning far faster than the handfull of brief emails most scientists get in the traditional route.

i am envious to be honest. If i did what he did my nice public profile on google with publication and affiliations would be swamped by Bboard discussion of people calling me crackpot. However I am seriously thinking hes got the right idea. i.e. Going the traditional route has been a complete waste of time. All it leads to is promises from my supervisor that i keep my seemingly assistant research contract. But is always on condition this and that, and i always am made to feel i am so lucky to have it. A job which i am not sure i fancy. I ask about doing challenging projects and get fobbed off, with statements like most creatives spend all their time doing mundane work, with a few high spots. Ok regular money and status is good for a stress free family life. But u have to just kiss ass on a constant basis, and be careful about everything you say. Bite your tounge etc.. To do real challenging science today it is clearly better to just drop the secure position, have a part time business or somethign else and use it to fund challenging pursuits yourself.

Again i feel quite inspired by farsight, lisi and those others of a similar ilk. i.e. To do science in spite of science. maybe we need to call it something else now.

Think about it, well maybe you havent met many 60 year old scientists, but there are so many, they are getting on. A lot of their work was not read, except to back up somebody elses work of a similiar mediocre quality. They all reference each other from their departments, with the best at the game getting to write a boring book which references everybody else.

We only live once, we are here to break down frontiers explore the way things are, not to create piles of mind numbing work..

or are we...

This is an endorsement of how he is putting his ideas. Not what is ideas are.

You have simply said "I like the way he is doing his promulgation, therefore his ideas are good"

[Farsight]

And what he got was this: time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it.

I'd like to see how that works out mathematically.

It's just the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime, only you're drawing lines in it to represent motion through space and bearing in mind that t is a cumulative measure of local motion, the rate of this being reduced by your macroscopic motion through space.

In other words, making lots of pretty pictures. All because of some fallacious Law of Resemblance.

No, it's correcting mistaken concepts of what t is, and you have to grasp the correct concept to make progress. Then you can understand electromagnetism and gravity and see how they fit together.

I'll try to write one counterexample, the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid flow:

Conservation of mass:
d(rho)/dt + d(rho*vi)/dxi = 0

The main equation:
rho*(dvi/dt + vj*(dvi/dxj)) + dPij/dxj = fi
or
d(rho*vi)/dt + d(rho*vi*vj + Pij)/dxj = fi

where Pij = (pressure)*deltaij + (viscosity terms)
rho is the density, and f is the force density. Note that both space and time coordinates appear as independent variables. Farsight, how many others will you need?

None. Navier Stokes was a good choice. But you're still not seeing what t means. What's flowing here is the fluid, not time. Take away the fluid flow, and freeze all the motion, including all motion in the observer. Where's your t now?

Einstein-thumping is not an argument. I also note that Einstein treated time and space as co-equal, so if you wish to thump Einstein's works, you ought to take that into account.

The argument is derived from the scientific evidence. We see space and motin through it, we don't see time flowing. And I note that in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein gave the equations of motion. He didn't give "the equations of curved spacetime". Now read the OP and understand it, and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. Once the penny drops you'll be amazed at how people are absolutely blind to something that is absolutely patently obvious.

[Farsight]

Oh shut up farsight. The whole reason you're presenting your argument on an internet forum is because it's utter nonsense that doesn't hold water in the academic and scientific communities. You're a goddamned underachieving internet scholar. This isn't even a notable forum, it's not even an obscure scientific forum. The best you can do is a forum vaguely linked to the old RDF.

In case you hadnt noticed, quite a lot of published scientists are purely internet scholars, having transferred themselves out the libraries. Context for where you take your debate doesn't mean a lot these days. The journal publication system is now officially a racket. And thats not coming from those marginalized by it. Thats coming from people who are doing pretty well in it. You cant even use it to research within a university now. Only a few can actually afford to subscribe to them all.

I didn't know it was that bad, Brain Man.

Anybody can be published if you dish out a grand to plos or a host of others now. Want a publication record, buy one easy. Its meaning less and less. 500 people might read you, and you will be lucky if you get one email. Mostly what you get is list of publications and the oppurtunity to be part of todays groupishness. Its not all bad, i mean look at the way groups are able to subdivide complex biology. No single person can do this. That is completely impressive, and cannot be aruged with, but a lot of whats going on today is basically about dividing up the pie, and not rocking the grant application boat.

I have a good feeling for what it's like in physics, but I thought other disciplines were better. Hmmn.

Where as jumping online, trying something new, refinining your ideas through this rough and dirty method. This is a couragous way to do things. Swashbuckling stuff, It must stimulate farsights learning far faster than the handfull of brief emails most scientists get in the traditional route.

It has, I've had some brilliant feedback that has really helped kick things into shape. And of course, people tell you about all the papers and articles that you don't get to hear about in the usual media. I was amazed at just how much brilliant coherent material there was out there.

i am envious to be honest. If i did what he did my nice public profile on google with publication and affiliations would be swamped by Bboard discussion of people calling me crackpot. However I am seriously thinking hes got the right idea. i.e. Going the traditional route has been a complete waste of time.

I was actually advised to "take the popularization route" by a sympathetic physicist who knew I'd never get any of this stuff out by traditional channels because there was so much competitive vested interest out there.

All it leads to is promises from my supervisor that i keep my seemingly assistant research contract. But is always on condition this and that, and i always am made to feel i am so lucky to have it. A job which i am not sure i fancy. I ask about doing challenging projects and get fobbed off, with statements like most creatives spend all their time doing mundane work, with a few high spots. Ok regular money and status is good for a stress free family life. But u have to just kiss ass on a constant basis, and be careful about everything you say. Bite your tounge etc.. To do real challenging science today it is clearly better to just drop the secure position, have a part time business or somethign else and use it to fund challenging pursuits yourself.

You could do something under a nom-de-plume.

Again i feel quite inspired by farsight, lisi and those others of a similar ilk. i.e. To do science in spite of science. maybe we need to call it something else now...

Thanks Brain Man. I'm honoured. But can I say we are doing science. All that resistance and denial and abuse isn't science. It's dogma. And it's always been there, that's why there's the old saying science advances one death at a time. Sadly, Don Juan Demarco exhibits it, and he's not alone. Which is why I will probably shut up here and put some time into someplace else. It's been a useful test, but I'm thinking of going over some heads now, damn the consequences.

[ChildInAZoo]

In case you hadnt noticed, quite a lot of published scientists are purely internet scholars, having transferred themselves out the libraries.

But they are still published in the pre-print arXiv. This is something that Farsight will not get access to. It used to be free and open and fortunately only a few crackpots bothered to publish there. Now, however, one has to be nominated to get in there.

[ChildInAZoo]

And what he got was this: time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it.

I'd like to see how that works out mathematically.

It's just the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime, only you're drawing lines in it to represent motion through space and bearing in mind that t is a cumulative measure of local motion, the rate of this being reduced by your macroscopic motion through space.

The question was asking you to demonstrate how your theory can possibly end up producing Minkowski spacetime. I wonder why you've said this, however, since it means that your theory ends up being incompatible with gravity.

[lpetrich]

... time ... it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it.

I'd like to see how that works out mathematically.

It's just the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime, only you're drawing lines in it to represent motion through space and bearing in mind that t is a cumulative measure of local motion, the rate of this being reduced by your macroscopic motion through space.

There you go again. Farsight, I don't think that you know what you are talking about.

Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity treat time as an independent variable, with relativity making it coequal with space. Neither theory makes it a byproduct of motion. Consider that relativity has Lorentz invariance, which mixes up space and time coordinates. So a supposedly primary quantity (space) gets mixed up with a supposedly secondary quantity (time). How can that be?

In other words, making lots of pretty pictures. All because of some fallacious Law of Resemblance.

No, it's correcting mistaken concepts of what t is, and you have to grasp the correct concept to make progress. Then you can understand electromagnetism and gravity and see how they fit together.

Without any hint about how the numbers work out.

Einstein-thumping is not an argument. I also note that Einstein treated time and space as co-equal, so if you wish to thump Einstein's works, you ought to take that into account.

The argument is derived from the scientific evidence. We see space and motin through it, we don't see time flowing. ...

We don't see space or motion either. All we get is perceptions that we interpret as having spatial properties. Motion one infers with one's internal time sense.

[Brain Man]

... time ... it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it.

I'd like to see how that works out mathematically.

It's just the mathematics of Minkowski spacetime, only you're drawing lines in it to represent motion through space and bearing in mind that t is a cumulative measure of local motion, the rate of this being reduced by your macroscopic motion through space.

There you go again. Farsight, I don't think that you know what you are talking about.

Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity treat time as an independent variable, with relativity making it coequal with space. Neither theory makes it a byproduct of motion. Consider that relativity has Lorentz invariance, which mixes up space and time coordinates. So a supposedly primary quantity (space) gets mixed up with a supposedly secondary quantity (time). How can that be?

In other words, making lots of pretty pictures. All because of some fallacious Law of Resemblance.

No, it's correcting mistaken concepts of what t is, and you have to grasp the correct concept to make progress. Then you can understand electromagnetism and gravity and see how they fit together.

Without any hint about how the numbers work out.

Einstein-thumping is not an argument. I also note that Einstein treated time and space as co-equal, so if you wish to thump Einstein's works, you ought to take that into account.

The argument is derived from the scientific evidence. We see space and motin through it, we don't see time flowing. ...

We don't see space or motion either. All we get is perceptions that we interpret as having spatial properties. Motion one infers with one's internal time sense.

not true, ive explained on the previous pages that the brain perceives motion first, and oscillations are a subfunction of that.

[colubridae]

Think about it, well maybe you havent met many 60 year old scientists, but there are so many, they are getting on. A lot of their work was not read, except to back up somebody elses work of a similiar mediocre quality. They all reference each other from their departments, with the best at the game getting to write a boring book which references everybody else.

We only live once, we are here to break down frontiers explore the way things are, not to create piles of mind numbing work..

or are we...

What about this guy then

http://www.think-aboutit.com/energy/nmachine.html


Think this dumb ass twat deserves your admiration?

[lpetrich]

not true, ive explained on the previous pages that the brain perceives motion first, and oscillations are a subfunction of that.

That's a stupid argument against the existence of time.

Why not believe that the Earth is flat because that's what's most immediately apparent to our senses?

[Brain Man]

not true, ive explained on the previous pages that the brain perceives motion first, and oscillations are a subfunction of that.

That's a stupid argument against the existence of time.

Why not believe that the Earth is flat because that's what's most immediately apparent to our senses?

that was in reply to you and others mentioning that our brain perceives time.

I never said this proved farsights theory, just that it was an interesting correlation with what he says.

i.e. it turns out oscillation is a subset function of motion in the thalamocortical sensory perception.

[Brain Man]

Think about it, well maybe you havent met many 60 year old scientists, but there are so many, they are getting on. A lot of their work was not read, except to back up somebody elses work of a similiar mediocre quality. They all reference each other from their departments, with the best at the game getting to write a boring book which references everybody else.

We only live once, we are here to break down frontiers explore the way things are, not to create piles of mind numbing work..

or are we...

What about this guy then

http://www.think-aboutit.com/energy/nmachine.html


Think this dumb ass twat deserves your admiration?

Is this another test ? I have my limits, but still you never can predict what might emerge from the free energy crowd in decades to come.

It has the pioneering maverick spirit associated with the start of human flight. And we have a real need for a solution to the energy problem, so it could be ongoing for decades, which will increase competition, remove those who are no good and raise standards.

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.