Does Distance exist without time?

QuarkHead said:
This is an assertion in desperate need of proof; I propose the alternative. If a proposition is logical it is, ipso facto, true, Show me I am wrong....
Click to expand...
I think you can agree that something may appear logical based on the current level of understanding and be proved wrong later when new developments occur? Yes?
And I guess we can all say "well it was a logical outcome given the circumstances of our ignorance"

The world was once considered logically to be flat. Need I say more?
had they taken the effort to provide proof of that logic in reality they would have found out that they were in fact being illogical or irrational in assuming that their logic was sound. [ failure to accept the limitations of our own knowledge ]
 
A good example was shown not that long ago in a documentary about how natives on an island could not "see" a fleet of tall ships in their bay simply because to their perceptions such an event was illogocal and irrational.
A bullet in the head soon proved how wrong their logic was.
 
sisyphus__ said:
This is not the place for this. Personal conversations in the physics sectioin can only lead to corruption. Calling me a prickface won't solve anything. I flame you because, I am scared of you. I call QQ the devil, because QQ is very mysterious. But, I don't feel anymore that he is the devil. If anything you are the devil. Or you are acting like a little minature devil running around with it's head chopped off. In every case, it would appear that I am the devil. That suits me fine, it isn't news to me. I take any and whatever flaming is necessary to help me realize the truth.

As far as prickface is concerned, you can simply shove a toothpick up your ass and laugh as you get so excited that you think it's a dick. Guys and lesbians have that in common, ya know.

And about being illogicial. I would love for you to show me where and how exactly I am. Sort of like QQ here. You won't.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for the way i spoke to you -- i shouldn't have done that.

It's just that you have made a few snidey comments recently to me, and i let it go, for so long. But, with that aside, forget this shall we?
 
Quantum Quack said:
If the unverse as imagined by current thinking existed the notion of aTrachyon is merely a compensation for data that doesn't fit the pre-existing scientific understanding just as "gravity wakes", "photon splitting" and other interesting notions.

I have already clearly stated by default that as I believe that vacant space between any object of mass is zero dimensional therefore transit times are zero and not infinitely fast that my zero or instantaneousness is competitive with your infinitely fast, in fact I can almost say with tongue in cheek that instanteousness is faster by an infinitely small nose so to speak.
The paradox exists simply because currently accepted scientific theory therefor pre-conceptions are in error.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with this, just not entirely, not sure why yet though... however...

... on a similar note, just the last couple of days, some things concerning relativity struck me, in ways i had never thought before. A local universe can satisfy the equations for a static dimension, somewhat ironic to the sense of your notion or principle if you wish, of static distance.

A non-local universe, gives answers to momenta and expansion, and hence arises the complications of the related topics so far, distance, time, space, energy, speed, ect, all come down to the actual state of the universe.

It has been proposed that this universe may not only be static, but also a relative universe. In this case, we are talking about a static time dimension, and a non-static time dimension, which seems to unify many unsolved equations in physics.
 
Reiku said:
... on a similar note, just the last couple of days, some things concerning relativity struck me, in ways i had never thought before. A local universe can satisfy the equations for a static dimension, somewhat ironic to the sense of your notion or principle if you wish, of static distance.

A non-local universe, gives answers to momenta and expansion, and hence arises the complications of the related topics so far, distance, time, space, energy, speed, ect, all come down to the actual state of the universe.

It has been proposed that this universe may not only be static, but also a relative universe. In this case, we are talking about a static time dimension, and a non-static time dimension, which seems to unify many unsolved equations in physics.
Click to expand...

hmmm explain more if you can...[please clarify definitions as well if you can]
 
Last edited:
btw IMO there are many aspects of Alberto's work that is utterly amazing. And extremely benficial and useful so please do not get me wrong. I just believe that what the problem is in the main is an interpretation problem and how duplicity is occurring because inertia is not included in SRT.
If we remove the duplication we shall see how inertia and other universal constants can function.

ie.
How long does it take an object of mass to reflect a photon?
How long does an object of mass build enough intensity to show light?
What restricts the objects ability to change? [inertia]

What is inertia?
The fact that energy can travel no faster and no slower than it does. In this case defined as 'c'.
How is inertia achieved?
The universe is essentially a self governing, self contained singularity. The mass is what contains the singularity. Mass is the cap on the bottle so to speak so energy must be constant neither faster nor slower nor even more intense [per unit] becasue no matter how the universe changes the governing aspect of this singularity determines the constants for the complete universe.
So 'c' is constant with slight fluctuations as the universe changes as a whole.
In some respects and I cannot remember the logic at present you can if you wish determine the total size of the universe just by using 'c' as you primary and fixed variable. [ assuming space time curvature over a given distance in an imaginary 3 dimensional vaccum]
So using SRT and other allows us to utilise the logic but not necessarilly the truth.
 
Last edited:
Ok.

''... on a similar note, just the last couple of days, some things concerning relativity struck me, in ways i had never thought before. A local universe can satisfy the equations for a static dimension, somewhat ironic to the sense of your notion or principle if you wish, of static distance. ''

Here, i am relating that the static distance theory you suggested, can apply to a static time dimension. Where nothing really moves, and nothing is really seperated by time.

The UCS prof of physics suggested that a static and relative time dimension, and this is one way your theory could be integrated as an actual proof.

(And when are you going to contribute to the Theory of the Mind thingy we where going to do. I've been working my ass of in psuedoscience area, and not seen you once?)
 
Quantum Quack said:
btw IMO there are many aspects of Alberto's work that is utterly amazing. And extremely benficial and useful so please do nto get me wrong. I just believe that what the problem is in the main is an interpretation problem and how duplicity is occurring because inertia is not included in SRT.
If we remove the duplication we shall see how inertia and other universal constants can function
Click to expand...

Well, it has been proposed by some bright scientists that Inertia might be the repulsive force located in the zero-point energy field. So as a thing moves through spacetime, the negative energy is what causes the resistence.
 
Reiku said:
Well, it has been proposed by some bright scientists that Inertia might be the repulsive force located in the zero-point energy field. So as a thing moves through spacetime, the negative energy is what causes the resistence.
Click to expand...
not far wrong but uneccessarilly confused IMO due to compromise needed to integrate with existing thought. [ similar to what AE experienced I reckon, after his "wow" inspiration in the 1900's]
:)

A comprehensive theory of mind and matter needs the fundamentals of zero space to be understood first before any theory of mind can be included.
Remember Relative zero is what we see vacant space as normally [zero as the backdrop to 4 dimensions] - mind analogue = consciousness.
Non Relative zero is when all mass is removed and absolutely nothing is present [ zero point theory ] - mind analogue = unconsciousness.

How do you think perceptions of the universe share so much in common?

How do we essentially see the same thing?
So zero point theory includes a solution to the existance of apparent objectivity and allows for subjectiveness as well.
Understanding Zero dimensionals is imperative to any future TOE. IMO

Shall get to Pseudoscience soon enough...
 
Quantum Heraclitus:

A good example was shown not that long ago in a documentary about how natives on an island could not "see" a fleet of tall ships in their bay simply because to their perceptions such an event was illogocal and irrational.
A bullet in the head soon proved how wrong their logic was.
Click to expand...

This was long ago shown to be completely hooey. Social scientific relativism gone completely and utterly awry. The Spark-Worf hypothesis is absurd.
 
I can build you an android analogue that describes zero point objectivity and subjectivity in a universal conscious environment if you like....shall consider doing it in pseudo science over the next few days...depending on developments here. [ very dynamic at present]
 
not to mention "rose tinted glasses" hmmmm
where by "objective" assessment is out the window because of severe belief bias.
 
They often say in critical thinking courses that the mark and key to ego maturation is the ability to put aside strongly held beliefs to allow objective assessment of contra ideas thus developing a better slant on the truth.
 
Also, let's get back on our theoretical stuff. Check my post before my last in this thread (on page 16) for my answer to your moment question.
 
Prince_James said:
Not to the point where you can't see ships where it is "illogical" in one's view.
Click to expand...
yeah ok I'll conceed...it was afterall someone elses testimony afterall. Not my documentary....

May be it was just a need to make the distinction about logic and rational using an extreme and "possibly" true example
 
Quantum Heraclitus:

They often say in critical thinking courses that the mark and key to ego maturation is the ability to put aside strongly held beliefs to allow objective assessment of contra ideas thus developing a better slant on the truth.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it doesn't physically destroy your capacity to see.
 
Quantum Quack said:
not far wrong but uneccessarilly confused IMO due to compromise needed to integrate with existing thought. [ similar to what AE experienced I reckon, after his "wow" inspiration in the 1900's]
:)

A comprehensive theory of mind and matter needs the fundamentals of zero space to be understood first before any theory of mind can be included.
Remember Relative zero is what we see vacant space as normally [zero as the backdrop to 4 dimensions] - mind analogue = consciousness.
Non Relative zero is when all mass is removed and absolutely nothing is present [ zero point theory ] - mind analogue = unconsciousness.

How do you think perceptions of the universe share so much in common?

How do we essentially see the same thing?
So zero point theory includes a solution to the existance of apparent objectivity and allows for subjectiveness as well.
Understanding Zero dimensionals is imperative to any future TOE. IMO

Shall get to Pseudoscience soon enough...
Click to expand...

Finally. Its been a while since i have seen a poster understand how quantum mechanics links with consciousness (despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it) :)

''A comprehensive theory of mind and matter needs the fundamentals of zero space to be understood first before any theory of mind can be included.''

100% Correct. The point in here, we call the internal world, and the place out there, we call the external world, are connected through zero-dimensions, as strange as this sounds. This is because the mind doesn't exist in space, so there can be no dimensional relevance [[SIMULTANEOUSLY]], because they are complimentary to each other, as in, the Complimentarity Principle of Copenhagen.

''the backdrop to 4 dimensions] - mind analogue = consciousness.
Non Relative zero is when all mass is removed and absolutely nothing is present [ zero point theory ] - mind analogue = unconsciousness''

Again, i agree, and i think i can put this into some kind of math. If you want...

You said also

''How do you think perceptions of the universe share so much in common?''

I cannot be sure, as no one but Yahweh Elohim can, but i would guess it has something to do with the fact, that maybe, and i know i am going to be grilled by everyone... but consider this theory i came up with two month ago:

''It is said that when two photons are created from a single system, they are entangled. But we then know that they are entangled, only because of the factors they where born in the paranormal activity of simulaneosity... I ask, then if all matter ''instantly'' appeared from one source (whatever that source is if there even is one), wouldn't that conlude that maybe all the particles in the universe are entangled with one another, according to their groups, such as Bosons and Fermions??? Is this a mental claim?''
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top