Hehe, well it doesn't matter. For now, I'll leave the angle part for what it is as it's not really part of what I'm presenting here. I hope you don't mind.
Established Member
Hehe, well it doesn't matter. For now, I'll leave the angle part for what it is as it's not really part of what I'm presenting here. I hope you don't mind.
Established Member
Alright, as promised, I will attempt to provide you all with a list of what can be seen as observational evidence. It's a bit of a shortlist, because it was actually harder than I thought it would be and because I had to finish it today if I wanted to post it here. (I'll be gone on holidays from tomorrow till the 15th of July)Originally Posted by Seiryuu
I'll give you a warning in advance: physicists may once again find it underwhelming in the sense that most of it is already part of my original premise...
Regardless of that, here it is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence for the motion through time as a dimension of space
-----------------------------------------------------------------
• First and foremost: the fact that we are perceiving time as flowing is a direct evidence of our motion through time.
Preposterous you say? Quite the contrary: it is in fact a straight result of relativity.
Allow me to use a quote from the Wikipedia article ‘principle of relativity’ to back that up:
Source: ‘http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity’The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion. — Henri Poincaré, 1904
• Secondly: there is the existence of the phenomenon that we know as ‘time dilation’.
The very fact that we observe time to passing at different rates when comparing two frames of reference in motion, show that the time flow isn’t uniform over the entire universe. Even though our local perception of time remains constant, as we speed up or slow down relative to other objects in the universe, some may appear to be moving slower or faster as well.
This matches perfectly with my notion that we can move at different speeds through the dimension of chronological time and is again a direct consequence of special relativity.
• Third: the existence of the phenomenon in which time appears to go faster or slower in our perception, depending on the activity we’re doing. Often regarded as a psychological effect, I believe we have ignored this observation for far too long and should start looking at it for what it is: a physically real effect caused by a change in our speed through time. With this speed I refer to the amount of chronae or events that we are experiencing per second.
• Fourth: the existence of the twin paradox. Pretty the same story as ‘time dilation’, but still worth mentioning regardless.
• Fifth: the relation between age and time perception.
Once again I would like to use a quote from Wikipedia:
Source: ‘http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception’Psychologists assert that time seems to go faster with age, but the literature on this age-related perception of time remains controversial. One day to an eleven-year-old would be approximately 1/4,000 of their life, while one day to a 55-year-old would be approximately 1/20,000 of their life. This is perhaps why a day would appear much longer to a young child than to an adult. In an experiment comparing a group of subjects aged between 19 and 24 and a group between 60 and 80 asked to estimate when they thought 3 minutes had passed, it was found that the younger group's estimate was on average 3 minutes and 3 seconds, while the older group averaged 3 minutes and 40 seconds, indicating a change in the perception of time with age. People tend to recall recent events as occurring further back in time (backward telescoping) and distant events occurring more recently (forward telescoping).
It has been proposed that the subjective experience of time changes with age due to changes in the individual's biological makeup.
Instead of attributing the effect to a change in the individual’s biological makeup, why not observe it for what it is: an increase in the motion through chronological time, causing us to experience more events in a less amount of seconds. Alternatively you could state that it is not an increase of a motion through chronological time, but rather a decrease in the motion through durational time, due to the older age.
This brings me to part 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence for the existence of two dimensions of time
-------------------------------------------------------------
I can actually be very short on this part: assuming that we are moving through time, automatically requires two dimensions, due the nature of what a motion is in the first place. Allow me to elaborate:
We all know the aspect of time that refers to the measurement of how long it takes for a change in position to take place. It is the distance between two places (or events!) in the dimension of durational time.
We also all know the kind of time that I’m referring to as chronological time. It’s the aspect of time that refers to our time-position in the timeline of past/present/future or in other words: in the dimension of past/present/future aka the dimension of chronology.
Can it be any more obvious? Do I really have to say anything more other than stating that the observational evidence not only exists, but that once you assume the motion through time to be correct, you will find that the evidence is simply all around us in the first place? Not just in tiny bits here and there that you have to look out for, but rather in an amount so overwhelming that, just like light, it is nearly invisible!
For me, it is also nearly impossible to come up with a shortlist for this part, simply because by now I hope you realise that most of what I have written IS in fact nothing more than... observational evidence in the first place.
Anyhow, let me add a few more that come to mind right now:
• Sixth: the phenomenon of ‘being short on time’ due to having too many things to do in a too short time span. This can be viewed as having too many events in a particular amount of seconds. Hence it shows us the dual nature of time as we are perfectly aware of the fact that the amount of seconds we have in a day is the same as it was ten thousands of years ago. Yet still we feel that we’re short on ‘time’, instead of feeling that we are overwhelmed by events. The reason? Even though the amount of seconds in a day has remained constant, we are moving faster through chronotime than ever before!
• Seventh: the existence of the grandfather’s paradox. A lot of theories dealing with time and time travel violate the laws of causality in the sense that they fail to be consistent. Mine doesn’t, thanks to its reliance on two dimensions of time.
• Eight: both the dimension of chronotime and durational time can be viewed as dimensions of space.
Remember how I wrote in my first chapter that there could only be one dimension of time and that now I am saying that I require two after all? This is the reason.
Back then when I was writing that part, I considered durational time as a dimension of space, while now I view it as dimension of time. However, there is no real difference as in my premise they are in fact interchangeable. We can therefore conclude that they are both dimensions of ‘spacetime’ instead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My apogolies for only providing you with these examples for now. As you can see, most of them were already included in the opening posts and there aren't any 'new' elements in it. However, it’s the best I can do for now, especially as I’m leaving tomorrow on holidays for a week and won’t be back until the 15th of July. Unfortunately, this also means that I may not be able to respond to any questions during that period. It will depend on whether I’ll be able to access the internet on a frequent base, if at all. Worst case scenario, you won’t hear from me until I’m back, so my apologies for that in advance.
Established Member
Alright, as it turns out, I have full internet access, so hurray I can still post!
Since there have been no replies to my last post, I've been working meanwhile on some further updates.
First of all: number nine of the observational evidence list:
· Nineth: the arrow of time.
We perceive time as always moving forward in a linear fashion. This matches with one-dimensional motion moving from point A to B. Most importantly, it matches with the fact that a motion is always forwards and never backwards. Even if you return from point B to A, you will still need to turn around and move forward once again in order to do so. Hell, even if you would be determined to go backwards, in physics, it would still be considered as a forward motion! Why? Simply because that’s what a motion is. No matter what!
Second, I have compiled a second list, in which I did the exact opposite. While this was a shortlist of observational evidence that supports my premise, I've made a new list of possible implications that are a direct result of my theory and how they would match our current observations.
Again I have to give a warning in advance though: while the previous list may have been rather short and underwhelming from a physicist's perspective, I can assure you that this list is the exact opposite in this aspect as well. Not only is it quite long and extensive, it should also be of particular interest to all of you. Once you read it through and realise the full significance of all of it, I hope you also realise that it is nothing short of groundbreaking, as arrogrant and cocky as that may sound.
However, don't take my word for it, and judge for youselves. You can read it through in the following post(s).
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-09 at 11:18 PM. Reason: corrected some mistakes in words and spelling
Established Member
Absolute Relativity
Let’s start off this part with the following question:
Q: In part one you were talking about absolute and relative time. In part two we discover that absolute time corresponds with sequential time or chronotime. However the chronae seem to be depending on the individual observer? When you are having an appointment at 21.30 an event is scheduled to occur for you at that time, but this doesn’t mean I will be there in order to witness the same event. So if the events are relative to the observer viewing them, in what way can chronotime then be viewed as something ‘absolute’?
Excellent question!
Ok, first of all I should be telling you that my views on time have started off with what was written in part one. In that part I viewed it as something absolute yes, because back then I understood that if we are moving through time, we don’t really have a choice in it. Whether we like it or not, we are all in motion, even when we do nothing at all. In part two, however, things are being looked at from a new and fresh perspective. A perspective I had no knowledge of back when I was writing chapter one. Little did I know that my view of what was absolute time would turn out to be chronotime and that it would turn out to be much more relative than I thought, exactly in the way you are describing it.
So yes, you are pretty much right in asserting that chronotime doesn’t seem to be so absolute after all. The events that are happening in our lives are different for each of us and therefore very relative in nature as they depend on how the observer witnesses them.
But as you can see, there is something absolute about the whole idea as well. Not absolute in the sense that all the events are the same for everyone, but absolute in the sense that we have no choice but to move forward from the past to the future.
It’s not like we can decide to be in a certain time location and stay there. Instead we are all riding different trains in various directions and with various speeds, but we are also all underway from one time location to another. Unlike a real train, we cannot simply decide to step off at a certain station and be at rest in this dimension of chronology. The fact that we are always in motion, relative towards each other is precisely why I consider it as something ‘absolute’.
The cool thing about it is that I first thought of it as something that was unique to this new dimension of time.
After all: when we think of our normal everyday lives in 3D, we are much more in control of whether we decide to move or not. We can go from point A to point B, but we can also choose not to move at all and remain still. When there is no 3D motion, there is equally no change in position and no motion happening for us. Hence, it feels as if we have a choice and can be at rest. But in reality, this is only true from our perspective!
As we know from general relativity, everything moves in respect towards each other. Therefore even if I remain still and don’t change my position: as soon as someone else does, that person is moving relatively to my position. From my point of view, he is moving and I am being at rest. From his point of view: he sees me being at rest and knows that he is moving, but he also knows that with every step he makes, I am moving closer or further away from his position.
Remember Newton’s laws of motion? The third law states that when two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these action and reaction forces are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction. In relativity we talk about the ‘conservation of momentum’ instead, but it comes down to the same thing: even if I decide to ‘be at rest’ in respect the space I am currently in, I may still be moving in respect to others. Therefore I am never completely at rest relative towards the whole universe.
Let’s also not forget that even if somehow every one of us would decide to be at rest at the same time, we would still be living on Earth. And the Earth is moving regardless of us. Therefore we are in motion as well. Even though it feels as if we have, in reality we don’t have a choice but to be in motion. So as it turns out this absolute aspect I have found in the fact that we are forced to move through time, is really present in all dimensions.
That’s why I’m calling this part: ‘Absolute Relativity’.
Frequency & Vibration
Remember how the chrona is defined as an event or a moment in time? And how a motion through time is expressed in c/s? Excellent! Did you also notice how this remarkeably resembles another unit in physics we are much more familiar with? Yup, you got it right: the ratio for the speed through time matches the unit for frequency!
So, what does this mean you wonder?
Well a frequency or a vibration can be viewed as an action that is repeated a number of times per second. It is expressed in Hz or in 1/s. Since an action can be considered as event, we could also use the chrona for it. Therefore any frequency in Hz can be expressed in c/s, or in other words: the Hz can be used as a unit for measuring the speed at which we are moving through time!
Sounds pretty cool, doesn’t? ^^
Gravity
Gravity? Moving through time has an implication that has something to do with gravity, you ask? Yup, it has. Perhaps the most important implication of them all even! Curious? Well, here it comes:
Gravity can be explained as an effect caused by a difference in frequency between two masses or in other words by two masses moving at different speeds through time. This difference causes objects to be accelerated towards eachother in order to bring the system containing both objects in balance or in other words to put both objects at rest relative to eachother.
Sounds too simple to be true? Can this really be all there is to it to the secret of gravity or the so called curvature of space? Well, you better believe it, for I can guarantee it matches all known observations!
Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it. After all, anyone can make such a claim, without being able to back it up. And of course you are right.
Luckily for me, I can back up this claim by showing first and foremost that it does not conflict with general relativity by relying on another theory that uses five dimensions in an attempt to unify the forces of gravity with electromagnetism. A mathematical theory even that was first published in 1921, but which currently happens to lack a solid theoretical physics framework. Up untill now…
Excited? You’d better be, for that theory is none other than the most famous Kaluza-Klein theory!
How does all of this relate to Kaluza-Klein theory, you ask? Well, its simple really: Kaluza-Klein could never be tested, because no one ever realised what the 5th dimension was. By building a theoritical framework in which I introduced said dimension to be chronotime, I am simply offering you the last piece of the puzzle.
Still not convinced? That’s fair enough. After all, I still haven’t provided a way of actually verifying this by experiment. Truth is, at this point I don’t know how you would have to do it. I hope to resolve this issue in a future update, but be sure to also read the part in which I discuss the energy voltage and potential. It may help in convincing you that I’m not just making this up, but that I could really be right on track with this one!
However in the meantime, I also hope that you’re all at least somewhat excited in the sense that I can give a satisfying explanation that makes sense to a real physical theory of considerable significance. I reckon that alone, should count for something at least.
The Aging process
In the previous list I already mentioned something about the aging process and how as we grow older we perceive time to be going faster. I attributed this as a result of an increase in speed in through chronotime or a decrease in speed through durational time, due to older age. Now I realise that it is exactly the other way around.
Our speed through time does NOT decrease due to older age, but rather we grow older due to the increase of the speed of our universe through chronotime.
What does this mean? Well it means first and foremost that the universe is accelerating! This acceleration is normal, as since we know from the previous part this is caused by the gravitational differences between two objects moving through time.
Secondly it means that all organisms who are unable to match this acceleration by resisting it in some manner are subject to the side-effect that comes with it: they grow older over a period of time. We could also say that all organisms who are subject to gravity are in some way resisting that motion. And this motion we could further describe as nothing other than the very core concept that drives the universe forward: change.
This also implies that if we were somehow able to reduce that resistance, we would have the key to the long sought invention of anti-gravity. However whether that is possible in any practical way remains to be seen…
Energy voltage and potential
As we can see from the previous parts, the way gravity works is very similar to another force we are very familiar with: electromagnetism.
Of course, this is nothing new, since we already knew this from the remarkable similarities between Newton’s law of gravitation and Coulomb’s law of electric charge. What we didn’t realise however, is that a gravitational acceleration is caused by a difference in frequencies, much in the same way an electric current is caused by a voltage, which is in effect a difference in potentials.
This not only opens the door to a whole new world full of potential (pun intended! ^^), it also shows that an acceleration is the gravitational equivalent to an electric current!
Wow! Do you realise what this means? I hope so, because I for one have no idea to be honest.Well, other than the fact that not only it further confirms my views on gravity and that perhaps it can be a good lead to an experiment that makes it possible to verify my claims.
And there’s more! For if an acceleration is the gravitational equivalent of an electric current, let’s take a look at the concept of charge! Any idea what the gravitational equivalent of charge could be?
Well, in order to find out, we only have to look at an electric current to notice that it flows from a negatively charged object to a positive one (I’m looking at the flow of electrons here). So, translating this to gravity, we can see that an object with a higher speed through time equals a positive charge and one with a lower speed equals a negative charge.
Once again, this sounds pretty cool, don’t you agree?
However, one more issue remains to be resolved. In any electrical current, there needs to be a flow of electrons. If an acceleration is the gravitational equivalent, where are the gravitational equivalents of electrons?
The answer is quite simple. Look at the solar system: if the Sun is the gravitational equivalent of a positively charged nucleus, where would the electrons be? That’s right… The planets themselves are the gravitational equivalent of the negatively charged electrons.
But, this is not the full story, because this is only valid when we look at the planets relative to the Sun. We know however also that the planets themselves may have moons and the even the Sun moves in respect to the centre of the galaxy. This means that neither the Sun nor the planets are actually positively or negatively charged in a gravitational sense, but rather that they are simply charged relative to eachother. Once again, this matches with our current observations in space in which most masses are found to be neutral.
Last but not least, I need to tell you one more thing about how gravity works. You see, although the gravitational pull itself may be caused by a difference in frequencies, the amount of mass an object has, also plays a crucial role. For it is the amount of mass that determines how much influence an object will have on other objects. In other words it is the mass that determines the strength or rather the range of the gravitational field. In order for the effect of gravity to be noticeable, the object needs a significant enough amount of mass.
This is why particles of light travelling at c have no significant gravitational influence that is measureable, even though they move at great speeds through time.
So to summarize: the speed through time or the frequency of a mass is the cause of gravity, while its mass determines the range of the gravitational field.
And on that note, you have just found out how gravity really works!
Established Member
The speed of Light
Expanding upon the previous part, I would like to share something more about the speed of light: c.
What we currently know about c is that we see it as the upper limit of how fast objects can move through space. As far as we know, no matter can travel faster than c, due to the equivalence principle. While this is true, there’s more to it than just that.
You see, c is not really an upper limit at all. What c really means is that it is the highest speed attainable by matter, before it is converted into energy. However, in reality, there is no real difference between matter and energy. They are two aspects of the same coin, as is also illustrated by the E=mc2 equation.
Now most people think this still involves a transformation or perhaps a disintegration of objects reaching the speed of light. Nothing could be further from the truth however!
The thing about it is, that we must not forget that the equivalence principle is part of a larger framework. That framework is called general relativity. Why is this important? It is important because you should realise that c is not a constant that marks an absolute maximum speed through the universe, but rather a constant that marks the relative upper limit of how much speed difference there can be between two objects before one is considered to be matter and the other to be energy. From the perspective of the individual objects however, they will both consider themselves to be matter and the other to be either “higher than c energy” or “lower than c energy”…
What else does this mean? It actually means that it is possible to travel faster than c!
Dark matter and dark energy
Okay, so from the prevous part we know that what we perceive as energy, may actually be matter either moving or vibrating at higher or lower speeds or frequencies that exceed the speed of light difference. I hope this concept is not too alien or difficult to grasp, for it is quite important in explaining the notion of dark matter. Luckily, once you understand this part, what follows is actually quite simple:
Dark matter is matter vibrating at frequencies either higher or lower relative to ours that exceed the speed of light difference, making it in effect invisible to us.
Dark energy is matter that is moving through space at higher or lower speeds relative to ours, which exceed the speed of light difference, making it in effect invisible to us.
That’s all there is to it really.
Antimatter
Antimatter is what we understand to be the opposite of matter. According to observations, the universe seems to be almost entirely composed of matter. As far as I know, antimatter has been artificially generated in the lab and as soon as it came into existence it collided with matter, resulting in the destruction of both the matter and antimatter. Scientists suspect that in order for the universe to exist, as we know it, there must be an equal amount of antimatter in order to keep it in balance. However, so far we have only observed it into minute quantities.
According to Wikipedia antiparticles are created everywhere in the universe where high-energy particle collisions take place. The same article states the following:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter"Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetrical and matches the pattern of X-ray binaries (binary star systems containing black holes or neutron stars), mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the mechanism is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron–positron pairs, as ordinary matter gains tremendous energy while falling into a stellar remnant."
I believe I can shed some more light into the understanding of this (anti-)matter. ^^
Okay, what we know about antimatter is that, I quote again from the article: "mixing matter and antimatter can lead to the annihilation of both, in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The result of antimatter meeting matter is an explosion. "
Perfect! This matches my understanding of it.
Now let’s expand that understanding, by building further on the previous parts. Remember the equivalence principle that states E=mc2? We know this to be true and we also know now that this gives rise to dark energy or dark matter, but have you ever wondered HOW that matter is converted into energy?
Precisely! In order for the equivalence principle to function the way it does, antimatter is needed. It’s as simple as that.
So in short: antimatter is generated in order to convert matter into dark matter or dark energy. Vice versa, in order to convert dark matter or dark energy back into matter, an equal amount of antimatter is necessary.
Since we perceive both dark matter and dark energy simply as ‘energy’, we can simplify that statement by just saying that antimatter is needed to convert matter into energy and vice versa.
This explains the origin of the giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic centre, as the galactic centre is precisely the region where matter is being converted into energy. This requires a substantial amount of antimatter.
Light and Darkness
Ready for some more about light and darkness? I hope you are!
What we perceive as light is actually energy being converted into matter (and antimatter). This matches with my earlier notion of light being a force of creation (see chapter 3).
What we perceive as darkness is actually matter (and antimatter) being converted into energy. This matches with my earlier notion of darkness being a force of destruction (see chapter 3).
The universe is in a constant equilibrium of converting matter into energy and vice versa, which explains why there is both darkness and light in the first place.
Note: chapter 3 falls beyond the scope of bautforum and is not presented here as such. Should you be interested in finding out more about it, I can disclose the full document so far which also inludes chapter 3, but I will certainly not be advocating it any further in this topic.
The purpose of the Sun and Stars
The Sun is a generator of light. Just as the galactic centre converts matter into energy, the Sun and the other stars do exactly the opposite: they convert energy back into matter.
This implies that the centre of the Sun should be mainly composed of dark matter, instead of normal matter and that we should be able to find antimatter in there as well. It also explains the presence of the sunspots, as contrary to popular belief it also means that its interior is actually darker than its exterior.
But there’s more. It’s not just that the Sun is composed of dark matter, but rather that the Sun functions more as a sort of lens or focus point that is capable of converting energies. What I mean by that is that we are talking about a dynamic process here. In order to continue producing light the way the Sun does, it needs a constant supply of dark matter, which it receives from the galactic centre. In other words: the Sun is not merely burning up a fixed amount of fuel from within, but is actually externally powered from the galaxy itself. All that the Sun does is focus the dark energies into ‘existence’, by reducing their speed or vibration so that they become visible to us and enter our part of the universe that matches with our frequencies.
The planets in turn absorb the energy of the Sun in the same way and reduce the vibrations even further, resulting in more solid forms of matter. Where the Sun converts plasma into gasses, planets such as the Earth convert those gasses into liquids and solids. If you would be able to look at how the core of the Earth functions, you would actually notice the same process happening as that of the Sun. In effect, you could say that the core of our planet is actually like a miniature version of the Sun.
Thermodynamics
As you can see from the previous part, there appears to be a relation between the frequency or the speed through time of an object and its temperature.
Speeding up causes matter to be heated, slowing down causes it to cool down. Vice versa, matter that is heated will give rise to an increase in its vibration, while matter the frequency of matter who is cooled down will decrease. This is important, for it implies a direct correlation between both properties of frequency and temperature. Which is of course very interesting, since this means that one can be used to determine the other and vice versa, provided that we know the corresponding formulas for conversion.
It could also mean that the force of gravity is directly related to the forces that govern thermodynamics and may even be the driving force behind those mechanics. If this is true, then it should come as no surprise, since the laws of thermodynamics are actually quite similar to Newton’s laws of motion.
Interesting, don’t you agree? Another implication may be that the value for the absolute zero point, 0K, may then be considered as the thermal equivalent of c, the speed of light.
If so, then it makes perfect sense that matter who is speeding up subtracts both heat and light from its environment, creating darkness. Vice versa, matter who is slowing down generates both heat and light to its environment. This matches perfectly with my understanding of the principle behind how the Sun works.
Thermal equilibrium: a symphony of frost and flame
Going further down this road, we can then also see that burning and freezing are really two aspects of the same process: a sudden increase or decrease in temperature, but also in frequency or vibration. This makes not only sense; it also explains why intense cold can have the same effect on the skin as intense heat.
You know what’s really funny behind of all this? The fact that the even the words temperature and temporal are so similar, almost as if they were designed to imply a certain correlation between the speed of time and the value of temperature all along. ^^
Whether or not you agree, I don’t know, but I for one find it outright fascinating!
And on that note, I would like to conclude this chapter. A chapter I consider to be of great significance, as it doesn’t just cover many a topic, but it also reveals all of the hidden relations between them. Isn’t this what scientists have been looking for all along for many years now? A theory that could unify all others and tie all the loose ends together?
---
Well, that's it for now. I hope that by now you realise that this document on its whole has the potential to be that theory. That is, if you start taking it seriously for what it is and don’t dismiss it on beforehand as merely a concept or fantasy without any merit to it. Whether you will all see it as such, I don't know. Maybe you'll feel that I'm just another crackpot down the line of many who feels that he has discovered something new that makes no sense at all in the real world. In that case, there is little I can do to convince you otherwise and I will have to respect your opinion, even though it would sadden me greatly...
Either way, I have done my part in sharing all this information. Everything else is now up to you who are reading this. Think of it what you want, and if you have any questions, concerns or other feedback, please let me know.
Thanks for reading!
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-09 at 11:35 PM.
Established Member
Are you actually going to present any evidence for what you are asserting about the Sun, Dark matter and so on? So far all I see is stories with no back up at all, no predictions, nothing. It is not science.
Established Member
Hey Shaula, thanks for your comment.
I understand that you want more evidence, but please note that everything written in the last two posts ARE actually the predictions that I'm making in support of my original premise on time.
So in essence, you are asking for me to bring in further evidence to back up my predictions as well... I don't mind looking for it, but at the same time, I hope you realize that there's only so much I can do up till a certain point.
These predictions are my way of explaining some of the current views and observations, nothing more nothing less. Also if you look look at it carefully, the implications I'm predicting here are built one upon the the other. Vice versa however, you could say that each part backs up the previous one as well as they're all pieces of a larger puzzle that happen to fit together. Don't you agree that mere fact that they do and that the whole in turn fits elegantly in the framework of general relativity, indicates that what I have written can be viewed as a possible candidate for a model that is capable of explaining all of these phenomena? And that it is just as much valid as any other theoretical model out there that attempts to do the same?
I respect your opinion, but I would kindly ask you to look deeper. Let me point out what I have done so far in this topic:
1) I posted a hypothesis in the opening posts.
2) I answered and clarified any questions and concerns so far up to the best of my abilities.
3) I posted a list of observational evidence that backs up my original hypothesis.
4) I concluded with an even longer list of implications that can give an explanation on a whole bunch of currently known phenomena. While I didn't specifically use the word 'predictions', but 'implications' instead, I think we can agree on the fact that both words actually mean the same thing in this context.
Now let me ask you: do you still believe that so far all I have done is nothing more but posting stories with no back up at all and no predictions? Do you still believe that what I'm presenting here does not qualify as science? If so, I would very much like to hear what else it is that you require from me in order to be taken seriously and why it is that you still don't consider my methods to be scientifically valid. Depending on your answer, I will see what I can do in order to satisfy your demands. I don't know if it ever will be enough though...
Established Member
Further evidence in back up of my original premise and in backup to some of the predictions can be found in the following articles on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal...m_field_theory
I won't pretend that I understand the quantum mechanics behind them very well, but you don't have to be a genius to see the parallels between the first article about imaginary time and my hypothesis on time.
The second article talks about the De Broglie relations between the frequency of matter waves and the particles energy, which is similar to the relations I draw between frequencies and their energy potentials.
The third article talks about calculating expectation values of physical observables of a quantum field theory at finite temperature. In my last part about thermodynamics I suspect a direct relation between the frequency of a mass and its temperature.
Coincidence? Random luck or only superficial parallels? Perhaps. But let me ask you this once more then: how much further proof do you require then, before you will consider giving my views on time a chance in the first place?
Established Member
What I would like to see is a logical, self-consistent model. The easiest way to do this is to make it mathematical. Show numerical predictions, build your model based on a series of postulates or axioms and go from there. But you have said you cannot do that. Maybe I should not say anything in this thread as I hold to the idea that the only useful theories are scientific. You have already said you are putting together metaphysical theories, which are generally not testable and don't make quantitative predictions.Now let me ask you: do you still believe that so far all I have done is nothing more but posting stories with no back up at all and no predictions? Do you still believe that what I'm presenting here does not qualify as science? If so, I would very much like to hear what else it is that you require from me in order to be taken seriously and why it is that you still don't consider my methods to be scientifically valid. Depending on your answer, I will see what I can do in order to satisfy your demands. I don't know if it ever will be enough though...
Basically word soup is not how you do science. You make testable predictions. None of your implications (which are not the same as predictions) are really testable because you have not quantified any of them. What I require to give your ideas a chance is science. Not metaphysics, not argument by analogy, not verbal logic. I need a model, I need predictions, I need proof that it explains already made observations.
For example you say:
No evidence for that, no measurements we could make to prove or disprove it. Just some words, which may make sense to you but make absolutely no sense to me. I see no chain of logic, no reasoning behind these assertions. You say this is a prediction? What are you predicting? You are putting together a narrative. That is not the same as a model, that is not science.But there’s more. It’s not just that the Sun is composed of dark matter, but rather that the Sun functions more as a sort of lens or focus point that is capable of converting energies. What I mean by that is that we are talking about a dynamic process here. In order to continue producing light the way the Sun does, it needs a constant supply of dark matter, which it receives from the galactic centre. In other words: the Sun is not merely burning up a fixed amount of fuel from within, but is actually externally powered from the galaxy itself. All that the Sun does is focus the dark energies into ‘existence’, by reducing their speed or vibration so that they become visible to us and enter our part of the universe that matches with our frequencies.
Established Member
Too true, Seir. What is needed is observations and predictions. The mere fact that the Sun shines is not enough.
Regards, John M.
I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.
"Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik
Established Member
With all due respect: you have it right in front of you.
This may sound like a silly question, but have you actually read the primary hypothesis or did you skip to the last posts straight away? Because if you have, you should be able to see that what I have written is just that: a logical and self-consistent model. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree that math helps enormously in bringing the logic across in a language that cannot be mistaken and that this is my weak point. However just because I cannot do the math myself, it doesn't mean that I cannot refer to the math of others. Especially if the math belongs to a model that matches my logic, I can only point it out as a source that confirms what I have written.
That being said, I also believe in the strength of the logic itself. Even the logic and the ideas behind general relativity can be fully understood without the math that is involved. I believe that the strength of a model is not just determined by the math that is behind it, but also by its ability to explain all the observations in a plausible and consistent way. My hypothesis on time is capable of doing all that and more, purely by logic alone. The axioms from which I start can all be found in the opening posts, but maybe you don't see them because I express them in words instead of using math. The same is true for my predictions.
While I do appreciate the fact that your input helps me raise the theoretical logic to a model that conforms to more 'scientific' standards, it saddens me deeply that you do not hold any value to the ideas behind the words. Because the words are only the form in which the ideas are presented. When you can look past the words, you might be able to see the logic and consistency in them. When you can look past the form, you might be able to see the beauty and significance of what it is that I am actually talking about.
While this is true in general, I believe that there are enough elements in my logic that you will find to be verifiable by observation. For example, the nine points of direct observational evidence I have listed, each with their explanation on how they support my views. And although my implications or predictions may not be quantitative, they can still be verified by checking if the observations match with what I am describing as well. This is exactly why I mentioned this in some parts myself and what I have been trying to tell you all along: since I am lacking the math, I have nothing else but observational evidence to support my hypothesis and to base my assertions upon.
Let me rephrase that in order to make it very clear: my hypothesis is based upon observational evidence and observational evidence alone. I am aware that is both my strong and my weak point, for if that evidence fails to support my views I don't have the math to back it up any further.
Is this what you think it is that I'm presenting here? It astonishes me that you don't appear to see the logic behind the so called 'word soup'. If the logic makes no sense, then please say so and maybe you will help me in finding errors by doing so. However by dismissing the entire premise as mere 'word soup', you don't even seem to care as to whether there may be truth in it or not as you simply reject the whole idea on the simple grounds that it cannot be tested in a mathematical way.
First of all, let me ask you one thing: are you dismissing my original hypothesis purely based on its implications? Because if you are, then there is something I really must make clear: the implications are a result of the hypothesis and are built upon the original premise. As such, they are NOT the main evidence. The reason why I cannot back some of them up at this point, is simply because that's what my original hypothesis does in the first place.
So let's be clear about this: the hypothesis is the primary theory that supports the implications, not the other way around.
That being said, I figured that if I could show how some of the implications match with current observations or other theories on their own, it would be a nice way of extending the primary observational evidence for the original hypothesis as well. You are right that some of them cannot be verified at this point, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that my original hypothesis can still be verified on its own. Perhaps you are also right in stating that an implication is not entirely the same as a prediction, but I fail to see the difference. For me, both words imply that we are talking about logical consequences one way or another.
You state that you require a model, yet you choose to ignore all verbal logic I have provided, brushing it off as mere 'word soup'.
You state that you require predictions, yet you choose to focus on the most exotic ones that I have indeed provided no back up for, while at the same time ignoring the ones that I attempted to support with current observational evidence or that I could relate to already known other models that are talking about similar ideas.
You state that you require proof that it explains already made observations, yet for some reason you choose to ignore all of the observational evidence I did actually manage to list?
Truly, we seem to have very different ideas about what science means.
The evidence is in the whole of both the original hypothesis AND all of the previous implications. The chain of logic builds up from one implication to another. Each one is somewhat loosely based upon the previous implication. The reason why you don't see the reasoning behind this particular quote is because you are isolating it out of the whole and try to find all the answers and evidence in just one part, instead of looking for the answers and evidence in the other parts.
Yes I do put everything together as a narrative. But once again, don't be fooled by the form. I am presenting it as such, because for me it was clear that every part follows up from the previous one and because I was confident enough in the strength of my logic.
Perhaps you are right in the sense that I was being over-confident and I will admit that I could have used a different wording in which I do not present that what I am predicting as an already established fact. However, if I state that "the Sun is composed of dark matter and functions as a focus point", then you should interpret this not as a fact, but in effect as a prediction. That's all there is to it.
My apologies if this post sounds rather harsh. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I have the feeling that you don't really care about whether there are any truths into what I'm presenting here. It's like you said, in the end you expect me to come up with the math anyway, before you will even consider giving it a chance or deem it worthy enough of further exploration. The thing is, no matter how hard I try to live up to your expectations, I don't think I can. Sure I can try to make it all more acceptable to the current scientific standards, but who am I kidding? As stated in my opening post: I am not a physicist. I don't have a real scientific background and I don't have any fancy PhD titles to my name either. All I have is my innate ability to grasp advanced abstract concepts by analyzing and looking at them from a totally different perspective than most other people and my ability to build models that are purely based on logic and reasoning.
That is why I feel so strongly about all of this. I realize that maybe I was deluding myself in believing that there would be people here on this forum that would actually see the value of my ideas. And I realize also that perhaps my ideas aren't even all that great as I thought they were. But all I was asking for was a chance to be heard, in the hope that there would be some folks here that would understand the significance of what it would mean if my original premise really happens to be true, regardless of the fact whether I could prove it or not. So yeah, I won't lie to you: of course I am very much disappointed...
Established Member
I wish there was a way of convincing you that I have been presenting all of that and more in my latest posts, John.
While it may look like a 'word soup' on the surface, there's more to it than just that. And while I would love to state that you don't have to take my word for it, I cannot, since you have already judged it for yourself. So yeah, I don't think there's anything more that I can add or do in order for you to change your opinion.
I would like to thank you for your interest in this topic, but this is the point at which I simply have nothing more to say than: 'I give up...'
Wish you all the best,
Seiryuu
Established Member
First, I respect the thought you have put into formulating your ideas. I too am math-challenged.
You are asking for some acceptance of your ideas based on logic alone. Logic is valuable in the formation of an hypothesis, but carries much less weight for mainstream acceptance of a theory, where maths, experiment and observation are far more important. For example, if quantum theories were based solely on logic, they would have gotten nowhere. Besides, a logical conclusion is only as valid as the premises that lead to it and your premise of a physical time dimension is not yet supported by observation or experiment. That's why string "theories" are not even accepted mainstream theory yet.
The ATM subforum is not intended as a place for brainstorming or offering logical thought-exercises. The most you can hope for here is that someone who does have the math background and the ability to scientifically test your ideas will be motivated to take them a step further, but you have not presented enough for anyone to consider your ideas anything more than interesting. No one here can say, "Yes, you must be right" based on what you've offered. Please don't be too angry with your responders here. I'm sure they're feeling some frustration after wading through all your text without seeing hard-science support for your ideas.
But I thank you -- this thread has been an interesting read.
Mike
Established Member
In the mainstream we have two meanings for time, corresponding to contravariant and covariant measurements. How are your seconds and chronoseconds different from these, respectively?
Your concept of the eternal present appears mathematically identical to defining our existence as a line of events in space-time, with our now being the place on this line we are experiencing. Is there any difference between your concept of time differ and a static space-time, other than our perception?
You assert that your model implies the existence of time travel. Our perception appear to move along our space-time path at a fixed rate (actually, the rate appears to accelerate exponentially with age, days and even years are not what they used to be), and we can define a time parameter along our path so that the change in path per change in time parameter has a unit norm. This parameter would then measure our rate of moving into the future.
SR resists allowing this path to become light-like, keeping the path future pointing. This would require closed time-like curves in the geometry of space-time for time-travel to be possible. Are closed time-like curves required for your theory?
Established Member
Thanks for your reply! I really appreciate it.
You raise a very valid point here and I agree with you, except for the part that states I am asking for the acceptance of my ideas based on logic alone. Quite the contrary, I believe that everything I have written IS supported by our observations and would therefore like to challenge the following statement: 'the premise of a physical time dimension is not yet supported by observation."
The whole point of sharing my ideas here on this forum is that I am desperately trying to show that this is not true. That's exactly why I posted the list with the nine observational evidences as well: to show that it is actually the other way around and that the observations are much more in favor of the premise of moving through a physical time dimension than we give them credit for.
I respect that what I have presented isn't enough for anyone to be convinced that I am right. But I wouldn't have posted it in the first place if I didn't believe that there is no support at all for it. In fact, from my point of view, it is very hard for me to understand why people are overlooking the parts in which I am showing how the observations support the premise and vice versa. Honestly, I don't get it. Obviously I am seriously failing in presenting this evidence in a clear and understandable way.
So I ask myself: am I that much deluded in thinking that I am presenting something that isn't there for anyone else to see? It really puzzles me and the worst thing is: because I don't understand why you all seem to believe that the observational evidence is lacking, I can't do anything about it either.
That being said, you can still argue that even if the observations were in favor of the premise, it still does not qualify as hard-science support. If that is what you mean, then yes you are right. But this is why I did try to warn readers about what to expect upfront. It's not even that I'm angry, but rather that I too was very much frustrated and disappointed on the mere fact that the people who have a far greater understanding of physics than I have, don't really seems to notice how it matches with our observations either. If even they don't see it, then yes you are right in stating that no one will ever consider it to be anything more than just an interesting read. And as long as the people who do have the proper background don't see the value behind the ideas, I don't even dare hoping that anyone will be motivated to take it a step further.
Again, I didn't mean to be disrespectful. But for me it means that I am still failing in actually bringing it all across. Even though it means a great deal to me that there are people who find it interesting in the first place.
You have my gratitude. Both for your interest and the kind words. As I said, I really do appreciate it!
Established Member
Thanks as well for joining in.
In order for me to give you a proper answer, I first need to understand the question properly. I've been looking it up, but at this point, I must admit that I have no clue.
All I can say for now is that the seconds and chronoseconds are measuring two entirely different quantities. If you were to view the second as the traditional unit for how much time it takes for an object to move from point A to point B, then the chrona or chronosecond would actually measure how many events happened along the way. That's the main difference really. I don't know if this makes sense or if it actually answers your question. My apologies if it is beside the point.
Again, to answer your question properly, my understanding of what a static space-time means, must be correct. And for that it appears that I must first understand what Killing vector fields mean and how they relate to all of this. I need to look into this further, although I fear that it may be beyond my abilities of understanding.
That being said if the main idea behind a static space-time means that we define our existence as a line of events in space-time in the way that you are describing, then I am inclined to answer that it means the same. What is important to understand is that although all events happen simultaneously in the present, they are perceived to happen at different moments due to our motion through the dimension of time. To clarify this further: if event X is perceived at certain time for observer A, it may take several more seconds for observer B to actually notice it as well, because from a global perspective observer A and B are both in different places on this line of events. However, from a local perspective they both perceive it in their present moment.
Correct. This is why I introduced the chrona. The chrona is defined to be the equivalent of one event in the line of all events. In order to experience the next event, we need to change our position in that line of events, by moving through that dimension. This is the change in path you are describing. The change in path per change in time is what I defined as the speed at which we are moving through time. I defined it as the amount of chronae per second, which is expressed in c/s.
My understanding of how we move along our path of events is that we can only move forwards and never backwards as well. Even if we were to visit the past, it would require a forward motion that brings us to a future state of events that resemble the past. However, I don't see this as the same past as the past we came from, since it actually happens in the future.
Then again, in my theory, due to all events happening simultaneous, it is impossible to determine whether a past event causes a future one, or vice versa. And even then it depends on the observer. It is possible for observer A to witness event X first and then event Y, while observer B can witness event Y before X from his position in spacetime. In the moment in between two events, X happened in the past for A but will happen in the future for B and vice versa. But if event X and Y happen to be related in cause and effect, then we cannot know which one is the cause and which one is the effect either. I don't know if that makes sense.
Does this imply closed time-like curves then? I am also not certain to be honest...
So yeah, it seems I am reaching the limits of my understanding, since I'm having trouble answering your questions here. My apologies.
Established Member
Indeed. And given that my day job is Scientist...Truly, we seem to have very different ideas about what science means.
Sorry for the delay. Forum merger gave me some problems.
I have reread your initial posts and as far as I can see your logic stems from trying to reconcile selective elements of the subjective experience of time with objective measurements of it. Your later pieces of what you claim as evidence are a series of logical leaps for which I see no justification. "Mass if frequency which explains gravity" is a particularly spectacular series of (to me) incoherent leaps. You claim to be math challenged and yet able to use the formalisms of Klauza-Klein theory to back up your ideas? Care to show how? Because as far as I can tell you are merely saying "This looks a little bit like that as I see it so it must back me up".
I stand by my previous assessment: These ideas may make sense to you but they are not science and as far as I can tell have no predictive power. The 'logic' you use is so rooted in your own understanding of what words, concepts and relationships mean that they are simply not comprehensible (in a logically consistent way) to me. Maybe that is a failing on my part.
Established Member
While I respect that and while I have no doubts that you are very good at what you do, I believe this may be the exact reason why it is hard for you to take anyone seriously who doesn't have the same scientific background as you have and who isn't as skilled as you are in presenting it all in clear and easy to understand manner that conforms to the scientific standards of today. I can't blame you for that, but believe me, even though you may not see the efforts, I'm trying to present it as good as I can...
First of all, I should probably be grateful that you are still willing to give this a chance, despite the fact that you didn't really see the value behind it all. I must admit that I thought you would have given up after my previous post. For that alone, I would like to express a sincere "thank you".
Sadly, my gratidue alone isn't enough to solve the barriers between our conflicting views. However the least I can do after all your efforts, is to search for a way that gives you a better understanding into why I consider my logic to be supported by observational evidence in the first place. Please bear with me, for I have no idea on how I am supposed to clarify it any further other than by using more verbal logic...
The best way for me to do this is by simply starting from your quote and go from there. The main thing to me is that it appears you're seeing now what it is that I'm trying to do in the first place. For me this is a major step forward, as by doing so, you at least acknowledge that there is logic in it, instead of just calling it a word soup with no meaning. You may not realize it, but again, just this simple acknowledgment means a lot for me.
"Reconciling the selective elements of the subjective experience of time with the objective measurements of it", is actually a good way of describing it all. But, although a close approximate, it is still not entirely accurate. You see, although the statement appears to be 100% valid, it carries an important assumption along with it. In fact, it carries the most important assumption of all that is standing in the way of accepting my views. The assumption that our experience or our perception of time is subjective in the first place...
I am challenging this assumption.
For what you are calling a 'subjective experience of time', I call an 'objective frame of reference'. That's the main thing really: the notion that our individual experience or point of view can be viewed as an independant frame of reference from which we are all 'perceiving', or in other words: observing our reality. I believe that once you get this idea, everything else may suddenly start to make sense as well.
Now, I don't know if you will agree with my take on this, but even if you disagree, allow me to present you my observational list of evidence once more. Only this time, just for the sake of argument, imagine that we are assuming our experience of time to be objective, instead of being subjective. What would that mean for the nine points I'm making?
Let's take a look.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence for the motion through time as a dimension of space, revisited from another point of view
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• My first argument: the fact that we are perceiving time as flowing is a direct evidence of our motion through time. If this is supposed to be objective instead of subjective, would you agree that qualifies as observational evidence in support of my theory? If not, may I ask you to let me know why?
• Second: the phenomenon that we know as ‘time dilation’ exists. In our perception, time appears to pass at different rates in the universe, when comparing two frames of reference in motion. Imagine that this is not a subjective effect, but that time really DOES pass at different rates in the universe and that we are observing this to be true! Would you then accept this argument as valid evidence in favour of objects being capable of moving through the dimension of time at different speeds?
If not, let me also deal with the contra-argument: the fact that we are also observing time to pass at the same rate no matter where we are in the universe. How can this be explained in my theory? Well, guess what: it's simple really! What we are observing is NOT the rate time passes in the entire universe, but rather our OWN rate of moving through time, which happens to remain the same, no matter where we go...
• Third: the existence of the phenomenon in which time appears to go faster or slower in our perception. Again, assume for the sake of argument, that it is not a subjective effect, but rather a physically real effect caused by a change in our speed through time. Please let me know if you would then accept this argument as valid evidence in favour of my logic.
• Fourth: the existence of the twin paradox. Pretty the same story as ‘time dilation’. If you have any reason to believe why this should not be counted as valid evidence, be my guest.
• Fifth: the relation between age and time perception. Instead of attributing the effect to sujective perception, why not assume it to be an objective increase in the motion through chronological time? Under the conditions of this assumption, would you be willing to accept even this point as evidence?
• Sixth: the phenomenon of ‘being short on time’ Same story. If we assume this to be objective instead of subjective, we can conclude that we are actually speeding up through time, instead of it passing at a fixed rate. However, instead of observing our days to become longer or shorter, we notice this by the increase in the number of events that happen during a day, compared to the distant past. Assuming this effect to be objective, please confirm your acceptance of this point as evidence.
• Seventh: the existence of the grandfather’s paradox. A lot of theories dealing with time and time travel violate the laws of causality in the sense that they fail to be consistent. Mine doesn’t, thanks to its reliance on two dimensions of time. But more importantly, my doesn't because I'm not talking about time travel in the traditional sense. I am simply stating that we are moving through time, instead of time passing. Moving implies changing your position, aka 'traveling', so hence moving through time, implies travelling through time. That's all there is to it. Again, please let me know any concerns or objections you may have.
• Eight: both the dimension of chronotime and durational time can be viewed as dimensions of space. Motion requires space. Without space, there can be no motion. Hence motion through time, implies time to be a dimension of space. Once again, observational evidence, that makes it possible for us to move through time. Will you qualify this as such?
• Nineth: the perception of an 'arrow of time'. A motion explains the arrow of time in an objective way. There is nothing subjective about it. Can you see why? And will you validate the arrow of time as pure evidence of my theory? If not, would you mind elaborating further on why this is not possible?
Fair enough. Perhaps it is not as clear for others as it is for me. I will try to demonstrate the chain of logic in short. If this still fails to show the logical connection, please let me know.
Just one more remark however is that I must repeat that the later pieces are supported by the theory instead of the other way around. You shouldn't see this as the primary source of evidence at all. I don't require it, provided that you accept my previous nine points of evidence.
That being said, I will try to show how they are supported within the framework of my logic.
1) I start from the basic premise: we are moving through time instead of time passing.
2) In order to move through time, the time dimension must be physical, as I require space in order to make a motion from position A to position B.
3) In order to measure the motion through that physical dimension, I need a parameter to quantify the change in position.
4) I introduce 'the event' as the physical quantity of the time dimension.
5) I introduce a unit that measures the quanity of events: 'the chrona or chronosecond'.
6) I introduce the relation between this new quantity and our current time quantity and call it 'the speed through time'
7) I define this relation as expressed in their respective units: chronae/second or c/s and in doing so obtain the paramater that is able to measure our change in position through time.
8) I talk about how relativity is true on all levels, therefore making it in a way 'absolute'
9) I notice the similarity between the c/s ration and the ratio that we know as frequency: 1/s
9) I relate my c/s parameter to the 1/s parameter of frequency and call the c/s to be the equivalent of the Hz.
10) I move on to the topic of gravity with no apparent connection to the previous nine steps, except for a small remark in the part that talks about 'absolute relativity'. That remark talks about Newton's third law of motion or Einstein's conservation of momentum.
11) I use these principles to conclude that the effect of moving through time has an equal but opposite reaction on the motion through space and derive from it my principle of gravity, in which I assert that it is an effect caused by the motion through time.
12) I take a sidestep, talking about age being caused by motion through time as well, instead of the other way around (see the observational evidence list).
13) I move back to the topic of gravity, relating it to electromagnetism, by looking at the parallels between a voltage differential and the differential in frequencies that may be the cause behind gravity.
14) I delve deeper into the parallels between currents, charge and electrons and their gravitational equivalents.
15) I move on to the topic of the speed of light, by stating that c could never be an absolute limit to anything, since it is part of general relativity and since I have shown in the first part that the only thing that is absolute in the universe is in effect the relativity of all things.
16) I assert that from our perspective matter can be perceived as energy and vice versa. Once again, this is based that all things are relative and that our perception itself is relative.
17) I move on to the topic of dark matter and energy, by assuming that this is matter which we are perceiving as energy. In order for matter to be perceived as energy, it needs to vibrate higher or lower above the speed of light difference, due to the equivalence principle.
18) I move on to the topic of antimatter, by looking at the equivalence principle and wondering how it works and how it relates to the fact that matter and antimatter both destroy itself in an explosion that results in an energy release.
19) I relate the topic of antimatter to the perception of matter as energy principle that I talk about in the dark matter part.
20) I move on to wonder what light and darkness really are, by relating it to the two previous topics which are about energy conversion.
21) I move on to wonder how exactly the Sun functions by relating it to the phenomena of light and darkness.
22) I conclude that in order for the Sun to work the way it does, it has to convert dark matter into matter.
23) I realise that the Sun needs to get that dark matter from somewhere and remember the observation of a large could of antimatter near the galactic centre.
24) I conclude that the Sun gets its energy from the galactic centre instead of producing it itself.
25) I relate the conversion of dark matter into matter to the conversion of plasma into gas.
26) I relate the workings of the Sun to the workings of the planets.
27) I notice that when matter is being converted to more solid forms, the temperature decreases as well.
28) I relate the mechanics behind gravity to the mechanics behind thermodynamics.
29 ) I conclude the chain of logic by noticing the similarities between frost and flame as the last step.
I think that this is pretty much it. I hope I didn't forget too many steps...
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-15 at 03:19 PM. Reason: corrected some linguistic mistakes
Established Member
I look at the relations between things, by focusing on the similarities.
I never pretended to understand the formalisms behind Kaluza-Klein. I don't. What I did do is look beyond the math and focus on what it was that they were trying to achieve. And what they were trying to achieve was pretty easy to understand, even for a layman like me. I only had to look at Wikipedia to read that they were attempting to unify the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism by extending general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime.
This isn't just a superficial analogy to my ideas, because it describes in fact the exact same thing as what I did. The only difference is that I used verbal logic instead of math to achieve the same goal...
I understand that you find it hard to believe that I could achieve the same thing by logic alone and that therefore you don't find my explanation to be scientifically acceptable. I accept that, but have no other way of convincing you. In a sense you are right, with the statement I have bolded in your quote, even though you are formalizing it in a simplistic and almost ridiculising way. But I stand by my words, because I know I look deeper than most and don't base myself upon simple analogies alone. My ability is to see the hidden relations between things that aren't always clear to others. Nothing more, nothing less.
Of course, I can't prove that by formula's or anything. I guess you will just have to judge me and my understandings based upon my answers in this topic and upon the chain of logic I have presented.
You are probably right and that is my tragedy. To have access to knowledge and being unable to share it with anyone else... It's not something you can do anything about, but it sure as hell hurts when there appears to be no one that truly understands what I mean. Do you have any idea how frustrating that is?
If not, then just know that when I was writing my previous reply to you, I couldn't help but cry in the process. You may find that pathetic, but that's how strong I felt the pain of not being comprehended or given a chance in the first place...
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-15 at 03:23 PM.
Established Member
OK let me try to counter some of your points. I really would not take my criticisms to much to heart. I am among one of the more brutally reductionist of the "Shut up and calculate" school of science. I do not discount other ways of exploring the world but I am very, very harsh on what I call science and what I call something else. It should not be taken as me dismissing things as useless when I say that they are not science.
We do not just percieve time to be flowing/us being moved through it. Our models have underlying concepts such as causality and entropy that are non-symmetric in time or require some formalism for describing the ordering of events in a causal set. I have no issue at all with us moving through time, in fact that is mainstream. In GR we move through 4D spacetime and things like time dilation and so on are simple consequences of how we move through it.My first argument: the fact that we are perceiving time as flowing is a direct evidence of our motion through time.
Time dilation is very real. However it is not as simple as stuff moving through the time dimension at different speeds - space and time are interlinked (this is again mainstream). So it is the case that the objects motions through spacetime are why time dilation occurs. It is analogous to looking at x and y coordinates independently. 2 sine-like waves are actually projections of a circular motion and so on.Second: the phenomenon that we know as ‘time dilation’ exists. In our perception, time appears to pass at different rates in the universe, when comparing two frames of reference in motion.
This is where it breaks for me. If I accelerate through time with respect to you then why can you still see me? If time is a physical dimension then increasing my speed through it will lead to a seperation between us. I have sat through exams where for some people they were dragging on forever, for others they were over in a flash. However at the end we were all there, back at one point in time walking out of the room. These subjective moments are subjective and cannot be due to real physical effects. If they were then there would be observable consequences.Third: the existence of the phenomenon in which time appears to go faster or slower in our perception. Again, assume for the sake of argument, that it is not a subjective effect, but rather a physically real effect caused by a change in our speed through time.
As before. If my mother were moving through time at a greater rate than me then why can I still interact with her?Fifth: the relation between age and time perception. Instead of attributing the effect to sujective perception, why not assume it to be an objective increase in the motion through chronological time?
No. Time and spacelike dimensions have slightlydifferent properties. They can be mixed up and messed with but they are still different. One simple factor: Time symmetry in the laws of physics leads to energy conservation. Spatial symmetry leads to conservation of momentum. If you say they are the same we have problems with fundamental conservation laws.Eight: both the dimension of chronotime and durational time can be viewed as dimensions of space.
No it really really doesn't. You have in no way rederived Klauza-Klein theory verbally.This isn't just a superficial analogy to my ideas, because it describes in fact the exact same thing as what I did. The only difference is that I used verbal logic instead of math to achieve the same goal...
And that is kind of rude. I take everyone seriously until they give me reason not to. I have not dismissed your ideas on the basis of your background at all. I have looked at the logic you have used, bearing in mind that this is a science forum, and found it, IMO, wanting. I have expressed this and explained why I think this. I have said that scientifically your ideas are impossible to test and that they are not in the form of a useful scientific model. And that is all. They may be highly relevant and important in the realms of metaphysics or philosophy. I am not competent to judge that.While I respect that and while I have no doubts that you are very good at what you do, I believe this may be the exact reason why it is hard for you to take anyone seriously who doesn't have the same scientific background as you have and who isn't as skilled as you are in presenting it all in clear and easy to understand manner that conforms to the scientific standards of today.
Established Member
My comments in bold:
Sorry but the majority of that makes either zero or negative sense to me. Your logic may work for you but it really, really does not for me. I can keep on debating this with you but I suspect that it will prove pointless. Unless you can produce a model I can test and use then I cannot get inside what you are proposing. Your use of terms is not the same as my use of terms, you do not use physics language (which is a highly precise jargon) but you do use physics words. This confuses me.
Established Member
Point taken. I may have had the wrong impression.
Ok, I will assume that we are at least somewhat in agreement.
Indeed they are. But when I am talking about moving through the time dimension, I am not referring to the dimenion that we are measuring in seconds. I am talking about the dimension of chronology, the one that rules past/present/future, which in my views corresponds with a 'line of events'. The motion through this dimension of time goes from one event to another and has nothing to do with the motion of our positions in 'regular 4D spacetime'.
This is important, because else we're just talking about two different things in the first place! If this explanation still does not make any sense, then maybe the question from utesfan100 will be more clear:
I can't answer the question with a 100% certain 'there is indeed no difference', but he's spot on about how it appears to be identical.
The observable consequence is exactly that what you are describing! ^^
It took an equal amount of seconds for all of you to finish the exams, but an unequal amount of 'events'. I mean exactly this and couldn't have said it any better: "for some it dragged on and for others it was over in a flash". THIS IS IT! Why is there a difference in perception? Because at that point some moved faster through the event than others, in this case the event being the exam! It IS physically real and this IS the observable consequence! That's the whole point really!
She can still interact with you, because the motion through a chronology of events does not affect the motion through time that is linked to our position in 4D space. If she is moving at a greater rate than you, she will experience the same events as going by faster than you do, but the amount of seconds will still be the same! THAT is the difference!
While this may be true, we have a different concept of what that time dimension means. So let's get that straight first, before arguing about this.
I am not going to argue with you over this. I respect that you don't agree, but you are thinking in 4D instead of 5D.
My apologies. I did in no way mean to offend you, but this is how it felt to me after reading your first posts. I will gladly admit that I was wrong, or else you wouldn't have bothered with it any further. I will continue to disagree with the fact that my ideas are impossible to test though, but let's first agree on what moving through time really means for both of us.
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-15 at 09:54 PM. Reason: clarification
Established Member
Er, this is going to get messy. My comments in underline...
My bold. This is the core of our disagreement. I tried to define on how I use these terms by providing some strict definitions in part two, but it may not have been enough. In order to get anywhere further, we'll have to find a way to agree on the terminology or else we'll just end up frustrating eachother even more. That would indeed be pointless. Thanks for your continued interest though.
Established Member
I'm going to butt out. I've raised my concerns and as far as I can tell we are never going to reach a point where we can actually have a proper conversation about this on each others terms. I distrust reasoning using words and find them the slowest, least useful way to express things scientific. I am not out to belittle or insult you but hopefully the sorts of objections I have raised give you an idea why you would get the reactions you would from a science journal if you put this up for review.
Basically you cannot put these ideas into a logical framework that I agree is logical and consistent. That is really one of the two important things that maths in physics is about. It gives us a shared logical structure that is testable, and makes predictions that can be measured and tested. And I cannot put myself into your head and understand what you mean by the terms you use.
Established Member
I see it this way: Our perception of the passage of time is influenced by our activities and state of mind. Watching a clock tick off 60 seconds seems to take much longer than when doing something else while 60 seconds elapses. The more activity one packs into a time period without thinking of time, the shorter that period of time seems (but is not measured) to take. To me, that's a normal result of how our brains work (and can fool us), not evidence for a real difference in the rate of time passage.
Example: As a percussion musician, I have trained my mind to tick off evenly spaced beats in a tempo. To me, that is a refinement of my ability to accurately judge passage of time, not an influence in the passage of time itself.
Established Member
That's fair and understandable. Maybe one day, I will find a better way of expressing myself in a way that is more accessible.
Thanks for all your time and effort!
Established Member
I understand that you see it this way. I really do, since nearly everyone I know sees it the same way. Yet is precisely the reason why some have such great difficulty in understanding what I'm trying to point out: that these so called subjective experiences are a result of the observers perception and that the perception itself is not subjective at all, but objective in the local frame of reference that corresponds with the observer's field of perception.
The thing is, as long as you resist the notion that our perception may be objective instead of subjective, you cannot accept my original premise that states we are moving through this dimension of time either. And then it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong in the first place either, since you're not even agreeing on my basic assumptions.
Consider this an axiom if you will, that is required for my theory to work...
It is. But what does that mean in a physical sense? In my theory, it would mean that you are synchronising your speed through time with the speed of the beat, which allows you to accurately measure the rate of the ticks... Someone who is unable to do so, will not be able to get into the rhythm in the first place. In your words, we observe them as being unable to accurately judge the passage of time...
I don't know how to put it any more simple than this really. I never said that what I'm presenting would be easy to understand, since it requires a lot of abstract insight into what dimensions are. Perhaps that is the problem as well: you seem to have an idea that this extra physical dimension of space is just like our familiar dimensions of length, width and height. You expect that you can litterely see it with the naked eye and move through it with your physical body. Even though in way you are and in a way it is exactly like the others, since it is actually linked to the 4D motion, please realize that this movement is abstract rather than visual. A motion from one event to another is not something you can literally see, but you can still imagine it by visualizing a line that corresponds with it.
I actually have written a part that talks more about these extra dimensions of space and what they really are, but I didn't include it in this presentation, because I didn't want to make it even more complex than it already is. However, if you are interested and if it can help you to get your head around to what it is exactly that I mean with the abstract and fifth dimension of chronotime or events, then I will gladly post it.
Last edited by Seiryuu; 2012-Jul-16 at 06:55 AM. Reason: added some bold, along with the rhythm example
Established Member
On a sidenote: I completely agree that sometimes that math is necessary to provide a logical structure that can be seen and understood by all on the same terms. However, sometimes, even the math itself is not enough.
Look for example at the Kaluza-Klein theory. It's a perfectly valid model and I'm sure you understand how it all works out mathematically. However, up till this date, physicists still haven't been able to test this theory either. And the primary reason for that is because they have no clue on what exactly they need to be looking for, when we are talking about extra dimensions. What good is it to understand what the math says and implies, if you are unable to work out how the math relates to the physical observations?
Same thing for string theory. As brilliant as the scientists may be who came up with it, they still don't have a clue on what exactly it means and how they are supposed to observe these extra dimensions in the first place. They know what the math says and they know that they're there, but what they don't know is how it relates to our physical reality. And that's simply because they have no idea what the hidden dimensions are in the first place. They believe them to be impossible to imagine and therefore unobservable, yet what they don't see is that these so called 'compact physical dimensions' require an abstract minded approach in order to get your head around them.
I can assure you that once you realise what a dimension of space really means and how it works, they are actually VERY easy to imagine. However there is no way of explaining this with pure math alone. The interpretation of the math is just as important and without that aspect, all mathematical theories remain just as useless and untestable, regardless of their scientific value.
Established Member
Yes, I'd like to see it if it's on-topic for this thread.
Established Member
Although related, my views on what dimensions are, is an actual hypothesis on its own.
I believe however, that I am not allowed to start a second topic, while this one is still running. So yeah, I can link it to you, but we'll have to discuss it in pm, as I'd like to keep the focus of this topic on the concept of Time.
Posting Permissions
