exploring time and what it really is

Prosoothus said:
Why use Einsteins calculations at all. Just replace them with a more logical theory.
Click to expand...
Logical to whom?

I've got the same evidence that relativity uses. I only interpret it in a different way.
Click to expand...
Agreement with ALL observed evidence?
Does it offer anything that relativity doesn't?
 
Dywyddyr,

Is that evasive-speak for "not really"?
Click to expand...

It means that I'm not aware of all the evidence that supports relativity.

So it'll re-write (for example) GPS calculations?
Click to expand...

Probably not. It's very possible that the decreased speed of reactions in my model produce the same results as time dilation in Relativity.
 
Prosoothus said:
Dywyddyr,
It means that I'm not aware of all the evidence that supports relativity.
Click to expand...
So does it agree with ALL the evidence you know about?
And that's... how much?

Probably not. It's very possible that the decreased speed of reactions in my model produce the same results as time dilation in Relativity.
Click to expand...
Possible?
In other words you have speculation but nothing else?
 
Dywyddyr,

So does it agree with ALL the evidence you know about?
And that's... how much?
Click to expand...

It agrees with the all of the general evidence that is used to support Relativity.

In other words you have speculation but nothing else?
Click to expand...

I have the abstract model. I did not work out the mathematical details.
 
Dywyddyr,

I just started a new thread in the Physics & Math forum called "Gravities Influence On Light". It gives the basics of my model if your interested.
 
There is no difference between 299792458 meters and one second because these two quantities are one and the same. There is no difference between one year and one light year because these two quantities are one and the same. There is no difference between the planck time and the planck length because these two quantities are one and the same. Like I said before, fundamentally speaking there is nothing to distinguish time from space just as there is no distinction between 299792.458 kilometers and 186171.1164 miles. They all convert to the same value.
 
Acitnoids said:
There is no difference between 299792458 meters and one second because these two quantities are one and the same. There is no difference between one year and one light year because these two quantities are one and the same. There is no difference between the planck time and the planck length because these two quantities are one and the same. Like I said before, fundamentally speaking there is nothing to distinguish time from space just as there is no distinction between 299792.458 kilometers and 186171.1164 miles. They all convert to the same value.
Click to expand...

space is not a mathematical value

space is a quality , not a quantity
 
Acitnoids said:
Vol-ume (n)
capacity or amount of space or room;
a book;
a quantity;
the loudness of a sound
Click to expand...

forget about dictionary explainations

just think about space its self

and like I said what came first the quality of volume or the qunatity of volume ?
 
You can fit the whole Universe into a speck...why....space isn't a fixed quantity...it is relative....
 
Thinking,
"Forget about dictionary explanations just think of space . . ."
Do you know how silly this makes you look?* Surly you don't call 299792458 meters, 1ly or the planck length a quality? This doesn't even make sense. You do know that you can't have mass without volume don't you?* This must really be a thorn in your paw. I thought this thread was about exploring time and what it really is. I stand by my reply to your question in post 29 and await your implied contionuation.
.
*Rhetorical question
 
Acitnoids said:
Thinking,
"Forget about dictionary explanations just think of space . . ."
Do you know how silly this makes you look?* Surly you don't call 299792458 meters, 1ly or the planck length a quality?
Click to expand...

no a measure



This doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

what doesn't exactly

You do know that you can't have mass without volume don't you?*
Click to expand...

of course


This must really be a thorn in your paw. I thought this thread was about exploring time and what it really is. I stand by my reply to your question in post 29 and await your implied contionuation.
.
*Rhetorical question
Click to expand...

I looked at post #29 I see no question by you
Click to expand...
 
look time is nothing more than the measurement of the movement of objects in space , their Nature of interactions with other objects in space and their very inner Nature atomicaly

if I were to inject time into any the above , time alone , in and of time its self , physically nothing would happen because time has no inherent physical properties

time is the consequence of the initial movement by objects first only
 
thinking said:
look time is nothing more than the measurement of the movement of objects in space
Click to expand...
No, measurement of movement in space is done in metres etc. That's length.

their Nature of interactions with other objects in space and their very inner Nature atomicaly
Click to expand...
Not even close.

if I were to inject time into any the above , time alone , in and of time its self , physically nothing would happen because time has no inherent physical properties
Click to expand...
Also wrong: as stated you keep throwing strawmen into the argument with this nonsense about "time alone" since you can't isolate time any more than you can isolate length.

time is the consequence of the initial movement by objects first only
Click to expand...
The same way length is the consequence of A not being in the same position as B?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top