QWC revisited 2011
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Axioms or postulates, in my pea brained usage, are things that we can't readily prove but that are not easily refuted as in things that seem self-evident or that seem to have to be true, i.e. necessary truths. If you read the opening post you will see how I use axioms in my personal view of cosmology. I am the first to admit that if someone wants to they can find plenty wrong with the terms I use throughout my threads but I got over worrying about that long ago. I'm not writing this for professionals, I'm writing this to get input from anyone who wants to contribute. I pretend that QWC has no internal inconsistencies and is not inconsistent with known science and data. If you think I'm wrong about that your input would be appreciated.
Thanks for asking.
Is this still going on?! I haven't posted on here for quite a while, but this thread makes me feel like its 2008 again! Hooray! I've got another 3 years to write up my PhD!
I've missed you, though not much, lol. I remember you were able to man up, unlike AN who could never admit I was right and cannot prove I'm wrong.
I thought you had your PhD, I'm sure you did. They can't take that away from you.
We talked about the time continuum. It is still a major departure point between me and the community. I'm still waiting for someone to straighten me out on what causes time dilation in Special Relativity. Can you help.
Maybe. Please tell me your view of my first axiom: It is axiomatic in QWC that the universe has always existed; there was no beginning. It didn’t come from nothing, and if God did it we can’t prove it.
My two cents on time......
The passage of time is relevant to the interval observed, which is unique to the individual/species.
When we are young, time seems to drag and as we mature, time seems to grow wings.
This observation is in relation to the number of 'intervals' we have observed and experienced.
Our mind is capable of high-speed capture of input data, and of 'time-lapse' review.
It is always 'now'.
It is our perspective that changes.
Done for now.....trusting that I have not derailed your thread. You can always have a Mod. sweep me under the rug.
The passage of time is relevant to the interval observed, which is unique to the individual/species.
When we are young, time seems to drag and as we mature, time seems to grow wings.
This observation is in relation to the number of 'intervals' we have observed and experienced.
Our mind is capable of high-speed capture of input data, and of 'time-lapse' review.
It is always 'now'.
It is our perspective that changes.
Done for now.....trusting that I have not derailed your thread. You can always have a Mod. sweep me under the rug.
:shrug:
What you say is so true. What did you say??? See what I mean? The nows go by faster and faster, lol. (But I'm not sure how a young thing like you would know so much about it :shrug:.
I have you scared, don't I? No need for moderator action on my threads.My two cents on time......
The passage of time is relevant to the interval observed, which is unique to the individual/species.
When we are young, time seems to drag and as we mature, time seems to grow wings.
This observation is in relation to the number of 'intervals' we have observed and experienced.
Our mind is capable of high-speed capture of input data, and of 'time-lapse' review.
It is always 'now'.
It is our perspective that changes.
Done for now.....trusting that I have not derailed your thread. You can always have a Mod. sweep me under the rug.
What you say is so true. What did you say??? See what I mean? The nows go by faster and faster, lol. (But I'm not sure how a young thing like you would know so much about it :shrug:.
The reason for time dilation is that it's encoded into the mathematical laws of the universe.
Well, that would explain it then. I'm more of a 'natural laws of the universe' man but to each his own.
But what you are saying is pretty much what I thought. Not that there is actual physical time dialtion without gravity or acceleration, but that the basis for it in SR is purely mathematical.
Now, can you help with any physical evidence of it?
But what you are saying is pretty much what I thought. Not that there is actual physical time dialtion without gravity or acceleration, but that the basis for it in SR is purely mathematical.
Now, can you help with any physical evidence of it?
Just type "evidence for time dilation" into Google and I'm sure you'll get tons of different examples of how it's measured. Just one example: the average lifetimes of unstable particles as measured in the lab frame are known to increase with the velocity of said particles in the exact manner predicted by Relativity. If time dilation didn't occur, we'd only be getting a tiny fraction of the cosmic ray muons we actually observe making it to Earth's surface.
I believe time dilation occurs. I have cited examples of it. I was talking about SR.
Yeah and I said the amount of time dilation predicted by SR is exactly what we observe, in situations where gravitational effects can be neglected. And in cases where gravity must be accounted for, the time dilation matches almost precisely with General Relativity, and GPS systems wouldn't work properly if this weren't true.
Well, there we have it. Thanks man.
No problems. Science tells you what happens and what patterns can be consistently observed in the happenings, it doesn't tell you why those patterns exist.
No, only I can do that.
And thus with the divine blueprint of the universe already seeded into your mind from birth, you should be able to do something a scientist can't do using the old-fashioned, observational "hard way". So why don't you tell us something we don't already know, like what the high and low temperatures will be in Manhattan on October 10?
. . . might I refer you all to the following link:
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/columnists/jayant-v-narlikar/frontiers-free-inquiry#comment-32200
wlminex
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/columnists/jayant-v-narlikar/frontiers-free-inquiry#comment-32200
wlminex
Cpt, not to assume that we will be carrying on a discussion about QWC, but this is my last post on the other thread:
We both agree we are not talking science. Just as a reminder read the opening post one more time and decide if there is anything going on in this QWC thread that you would have any reason to or interest in commenting on.
So over here, is there anything left for us to discuss regarding QWC, axioms, derived speculations, or the details of "reasonable and responsible"?
We both agree we are not talking science. Just as a reminder read the opening post one more time and decide if there is anything going on in this QWC thread that you would have any reason to or interest in commenting on.
A very interesting article, wlminex.
One could draw the parallel after reading it, that you are in good company Quantum. The more who criticize you from the traditional (though still incomplete) theories, the more minds that are drawn to the task.
Disproving one theory does not automatically advance another.
Every inch gained must withstand the weight of the entire universe, to be the foundational theory of all.
I find it fascinating that the universe apparently feels no need to 'explain' itself. It just goes about it's functions while we seem to be driven to find a satisfactory theory for existence,
, or at least the measurable evidence that would seem to support such premise.Such an interesting hobby you have, Quantum, that could conceivably occupy much time and yet require no space......
Thank you for indulging my sleep deprived meanderings of mind.