but as yet y0u still have not provided material evidence to suggest that time segmentation is a reality and not just a mathematical principle.
You do realise the distinction do you not, between the two, material evidence and mathematics?
Does Distance exist without time?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
You do realise the distinction do you not, between the two, material evidence and mathematics?
For three years I have been asking at various forums for unambigious proof of the existance of our space traveling photon.
In all instances apart from intense ridicule, I have failed to acquire evidence that supports the photons existance in an unambigious fashion.
Why the ambiguity?
If the effect of light as proven in countless experiments is in fact an inertial effect on the surface of objects of mass and not caused by photons travelling at, but simply because the mass changes at 'c' then the photon as a inter galactic traveller becomes uneccessary.
Are we looking at an object of mass illuminated by it's own inertia or are we looking at photons reflected off that mass and entering our eyes.? Is the effect of light a resonance effect that is inhibited by mass inertia over zero space? I think so.
To measure the speed of light one can not do so with out using an object of mass to do so , as the photon can not be detected with out it. So is the photon existant ..... or is it just the mass that is existant?
If you can differentiate between photons an reflector with material evidence then I shall consider the ambiguity resolved. But until then the photon has yet to be proven.
The strength of gravity can be detected using the same method as light.
Put an object of mass at any distance from the test object and you will get a measurement of gravity. Light as far as I can see is no different.
But does gravity travel at 'c'? Again the question of ambiguity comes to the for. You can not test the strength or speed if you will of gravity with out using an object of mass to do it. So is the gravity a mass effect or a free ranging "graviton" effect?
It is not up to me to disprove the existance of a photon but it is up to science to prove it's existance other wise the light effect could be anything an di wonder what is so special about our photon model when some smart person could use a pseudo 6 dimensional wormhole generating "qintel" or some such rot. [ maintianing existing data validity of course.]
I happen to know from personal experience that the photon model is wrong. This in itself is not evidence but it is what drives my complaint.
So is it a photon or a mass change event that takes 'c' to occur?
Now that Sciforums is back, we can continue Quantum Heraclitus!
I should sooooo wax Godel on you and pull out a Platonic theory of mathematics. But I won't, because I am not a mathematical Platonist.
To begin my physical proof, let me start qith a question: You agree that that time is measured by change, yes? With no change, you'd have no time, yes?
I should sooooo wax Godel on you and pull out a Platonic theory of mathematics. But I won't, because I am not a mathematical Platonist.
To begin my physical proof, let me start qith a question: You agree that that time is measured by change, yes? With no change, you'd have no time, yes?
But saying "time is measured by change" is circular too.
Time is change, or it's stuff that collapses from out of a cloud that we never see, we just see "things". Otherwise we would see a big cloud and not notice any change - i.e. any time or distance. There wouldn't be any gaps, just a cloud everywhere.
Time is change, or it's stuff that collapses from out of a cloud that we never see, we just see "things". Otherwise we would see a big cloud and not notice any change - i.e. any time or distance. There wouldn't be any gaps, just a cloud everywhere.
Vokthii:
I am afraid I have no idea what you are discussing regarding a "cloud".
I am afraid I have no idea what you are discussing regarding a "cloud".
the debate is not whether time exists or not but whether segmentation of time can be supported materially by physical evidence.
However yes no change = no time = non-existance
Quantum Quack:
And change is a physical process, correct? Regarding spatial objects and such, yes?
And change is a physical process, correct? Regarding spatial objects and such, yes?
4 dimensional objects of mass ...yes...
Quantum Heraclitus:
Suppose then I was to place two kettles of water on a stove. I then turned on the stove so that one burner was burning twice as hot as the other. How would you discuss the relation of the water boiling in each kettle relative to one another? Let's call Kettle A the one that is burning low, Kettle B the one that is burning high.
Suppose then I was to place two kettles of water on a stove. I then turned on the stove so that one burner was burning twice as hot as the other. How would you discuss the relation of the water boiling in each kettle relative to one another? Let's call Kettle A the one that is burning low, Kettle B the one that is burning high.
Vkothii:
I know what a cloud is, yes.
But I am not seeing the point of your cloud/fog distinction in regard to time. Are you saying without intervals time becomes meaningless?
I know what a cloud is, yes.
But I am not seeing the point of your cloud/fog distinction in regard to time. Are you saying without intervals time becomes meaningless?
PJ, I really do not want another run down on Zenos Hare and the Tourtise paradox if thsi is what you are about to show. Which I happen to think is a mathematical delusion designed purely to describe the nature of infinity in mathematics. This is of course not material evidence of change or time segmentation down to the infinitesimal. All it proves is that mathematics is flexible enough to accomodate such extremes if it needs to. IMO
Quantum Heraclitus:
My line of questioning is not leading to Achilles and the Tortoise. Don't worry. I like that paradox, but it isn't applicable here.
But again: You'd relate that one kettle boiled faster than the other? Let's say by five minutes, correct?
My line of questioning is not leading to Achilles and the Tortoise. Don't worry.
I like that paradox, but it isn't applicable here. But again: You'd relate that one kettle boiled faster than the other? Let's say by five minutes, correct?
Vkothii:
Meaningful would be "practical application".
Intervals would mean segments of time as opposed to a continuum which we could make no segmentation of that was meaningful.
Meaningful would be "practical application".
Intervals would mean segments of time as opposed to a continuum which we could make no segmentation of that was meaningful.
Uh huh.Prince_James said:
So then intervals are "segments of" time. All we need is a definition of what that is, or how to make or produce a "segment of", this time stuff.
If we want to understand what its "practical application" might be.
See how I'm playing along here. But I can't say we've managed to dig any higher.
OK maybe this will help,
we have your segment of infinitesimal moment. And then we have your next infinitesimal moment.
1] How much time is involved between moments?
So we have moment A and then moment B they are consectutive.
How much time is between moment A and moment B?
2] If the moments are sequencial and consecutive they must have a past and future and a middle [ start and end] how much time is it in the middle of your moment.
3] say momeent A is in the past and moment B is in the future how much duration is in between moments [ now ]?
I'll post another example shortly...
we have your segment of infinitesimal moment. And then we have your next infinitesimal moment.
1] How much time is involved between moments?
So we have moment A and then moment B they are consectutive.
How much time is between moment A and moment B?
2] If the moments are sequencial and consecutive they must have a past and future and a middle [ start and end] how much time is it in the middle of your moment.
3] say momeent A is in the past and moment B is in the future how much duration is in between moments [ now ]?
I'll post another example shortly...
ok.. example of relative zero
we have a bar magnet about 6 inches long.
we know that one end is poled North or positive and the other is poled South or negative.
At some point in the middle between poles there is a nul point. Magnetic Lagrange I think they call it.
The lagrange point is there but can not be identified in a material sense.
As you move an infinitely thin iron rod from the North pole towards the South pole at some point the infintely thin rod must cease to be attracted to the magnet as it passes a zero point and moves to the other pole in this case being the South.
Now remember our rod is infinitely thin yet it will not ever be able to find the lagrange point and entirely cease to be attracted to the magnet. Because the point is zero dimensional and our rod according to your hypothesis PJ has thickness of the smallest amount. Yet it must pass through the zero point to get to the other pole. No matter how small the measurement is, the zero point will never be found and yet it is definitely there as it has to be for the poles to be opposite. Unless science has found a way to prove otherwsie.
The same issue arises with your infinitely small moment of time as described in my previous post the moments muct be segmented by separating them with a zero other wise your smallest moment is no longer smallest.
And most importantly, if the segmental border is zero duration then what makes the segment a segment and not a continuum?
If we start to take slices of our magnets north pole we would hypothetically be able to reduce it to a 2 dimensional object that has positive pole on one side and a negative pole on the other. Like a sheet of zero think paper that has positive pole on one side of the paper and a negative pole on the other.
In another thread I attempted to describe how if we trurn this dimensional plane so that it is facing opposite to the forces of attraction we have an understanding of metastability and why matter is constantly moving and nerver still. thus energy is constantly moving, thus time is never segmented into infintesimal parts.
I think I managed to show why the dimensional plane must be inverse to the forces of attraction as this can be shown through simlpe lab experiments with magnets although not conclusive as other alternatives are possile.
another interesting diggy is :
How many 2 dimensional planes can fit into a 12 inch brick?
Infinitey yes?
How many infintesimal thick planes can fit into a 12 inch brick?
Infinitey.......hmmmm something stinks.....
we have a bar magnet about 6 inches long.
we know that one end is poled North or positive and the other is poled South or negative.
At some point in the middle between poles there is a nul point. Magnetic Lagrange I think they call it.
The lagrange point is there but can not be identified in a material sense.
As you move an infinitely thin iron rod from the North pole towards the South pole at some point the infintely thin rod must cease to be attracted to the magnet as it passes a zero point and moves to the other pole in this case being the South.
Now remember our rod is infinitely thin yet it will not ever be able to find the lagrange point and entirely cease to be attracted to the magnet. Because the point is zero dimensional and our rod according to your hypothesis PJ has thickness of the smallest amount. Yet it must pass through the zero point to get to the other pole. No matter how small the measurement is, the zero point will never be found and yet it is definitely there as it has to be for the poles to be opposite. Unless science has found a way to prove otherwsie.
The same issue arises with your infinitely small moment of time as described in my previous post the moments muct be segmented by separating them with a zero other wise your smallest moment is no longer smallest.
And most importantly, if the segmental border is zero duration then what makes the segment a segment and not a continuum?
If we start to take slices of our magnets north pole we would hypothetically be able to reduce it to a 2 dimensional object that has positive pole on one side and a negative pole on the other. Like a sheet of zero think paper that has positive pole on one side of the paper and a negative pole on the other.
In another thread I attempted to describe how if we trurn this dimensional plane so that it is facing opposite to the forces of attraction we have an understanding of metastability and why matter is constantly moving and nerver still. thus energy is constantly moving, thus time is never segmented into infintesimal parts.
I think I managed to show why the dimensional plane must be inverse to the forces of attraction as this can be shown through simlpe lab experiments with magnets although not conclusive as other alternatives are possile.
another interesting diggy is :
How many 2 dimensional planes can fit into a 12 inch brick?
Infinitey yes?
How many infintesimal thick planes can fit into a 12 inch brick?
Infinitey.......hmmmm something stinks.....
Last edited:
PJ.
I have started a thread on this use of infinitey issue in physics and maths
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1894880#post1894880
which you may care to join in on
I have started a thread on this use of infinitey issue in physics and maths
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1894880#post1894880
which you may care to join in on