I think in the step 3 , you explained the mechanics of perception or prediction . Perhaps , our mind follows quantum-principle .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
I think in the step 3 , you explained the mechanics of perception or prediction . Perhaps , our mind follows quantum-principle .
Scale, which is a none time dependent factor. If something has scale it just exists. If it expands, it is merely soaking up energy in a static space. If it scales up to eventually have locality with another particle then cause can begin, and particles can now cause effects on other particles.
What do you mean by 'scale' ? How is it independant of time ?
What do you mean by 'scale' ? How is it independant of time ?
Time is an outward field for the Universe , but scale is an inward field. I suppose that time does exist inside the particle, but isn't being passed along. You could say that time has began for the particle, but not the universe. The only effects happening are to individual particles.
Last edited:
Do you mean to say that , time and scale are opposite ?Time is an outward field for the Universe , but scale is an inward field.
time also exists outside the particle .I suppose that time does exist inside the particle,
What do you mean here ?but isn't being passed along.
Time is universal.You could say that time has began for the particle, but not the universe.
Time is relative to an observer . An observer is always in the present and this present is part of time . As the observer moves from one 'present' to another 'present' ; so moves the time .The only effects happening are to individual particles.
Last edited:
Do you mean to say that , time and scale are opposite ? time also exists outside the particle . What do you mean here ? Time is universal. Time is relative to an observer . An observer is always in the present and this present is part of time . As the observer moves from one 'present' to another 'present' ; so moves the time .
What observer? You said "What is cause 1?" so how did an observer suddenly appear? This is day 1 of the universe, no time, just scale, because I thought your question was what happened first in the universe. But now it seems like you want to start with space time already evolved. And this is more like.. what is cause(1000000000000000000000000000000E)? And I'm not allowed to answer any further than to say locality, else I go into my own theory.
But I suppose I can link you to it...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110750
Last edited:
I just mentioned my understanding of time in relation with an observer .What observer?
To explain cause(1) ; you came upto scale but havent yet clearly defined as to " what is scale ?" .You said "What is cause 1?"
Where does an observer stands in relation to cause(1) or scale ?so how did an observer suddenly appear?
Day 1 is also part of time . So , how time can be excluded from day 1.This is day 1 of the universe, no time, just scale,
My question is ; what is the origin of time ? or following your explanation ; what is the cause of cause(1) ?because I thought your question was what happened first in the universe.
I just mentioned my understanding of time in relation with an observer . To explain cause(1) ; you came upto scale but havent yet clearly defined as to " what is scale ?" . Where does an observer stands in relation to cause(1) or scale ? Day 1 is also part of time . So , how time can be excluded from day 1. My question is ; what is the origin of time ? or following your explanation ; what is the cause of cause(1) ?
Well I don't have a word for Day 1.. it's like limbo. Time is a field, and its a particle field, a grain. But cause 1 can't happen until the grain becomes a local field. The Early universe wouldn't have a local field. The field would be spread out. X/Y/Z would be fuzzy, and unconnected. Time would just be inflation which is scale. You can't be an observer without a field to observe through, so a particle can only have it's own internal physics, and no outwardly passable physics until it becomes local to another particle. Cause(1) + Cause(2) = Effect(1) is to pass a message, and scale is the only way to pass movement. If you had a bunch of stationary balloons, the only way they could pass a message is to inflate them until they touch one another.
Hansda, the portion in bold above is problematic.
For this discussion just consider the space within our earth . As you earlier said that "absolute rest" for a mass is not possible with relative to space ; but "relative rest" is possible for a mass with relative to space . "Relative rest" is proven with the static-mass within the Earth's space ."Relative-rest" is , as good as "Absolute-rest" (from the point of view for interaction between mass and space) . Within the Earth's space , if a mass is spinned at a very high rpm ; it will cause frame-dragging . But the same mass at "relative rest" with the Earth's space will not cause any frame-dragging .So, this proves that space and spacetime are different .Without clarifying what you mean by "gravity field" and any spacial limitations implied, you wind up with overlapping fields with conflicting influences and momentums.
The Earth's gravity field extends upto a distance , from where a mass can free-fall towards the surface of our Earth .Does the Earth's gravity field extend to the moon or sun?
It interacts through the principles of field-theory .And how does it interact with the gravity fields of other objects in space.
The Sun , moon and other planets cause frame-dragging due to their mass , spin and/or velocity .How does this affect the frame dragging effect associated with the sun, moon and other planets?
The space within the gravity of an astronomical body and the space outer must be same .Gravitional influence may overlap but this will not change the basic characteistics of space .The definition you present above seems more ridged than is possible when the gravitational influence of astronomical bodies overlap.
Last edited:
“ Originally Posted by hansda
What is cause(1) ?
locality. If you imagine an bunch of none local particles, they cannot cause influence on anything else (forget action at a distance, because there is a bunch of invisible locality involved).
non-sense
I would have thought that by know we all know that " space " is NOT empty
chiral condesate
and all the particle get smaller is size as we investigate further into energy and matter
I'm sure I said this before
time is the measurement of the movemnet of things
hence we get the mathematical 4 dimensional representation of things
because we want know where they will be at this point in time , in the future
this is ALL based on the movement of objects
if I were to change any mathematical equation , that included time , and changed the time numbers , nothing would happen physically to the objects involved
time is the measurement of the movemnet of things
hence we get the mathematical 4 dimensional representation of things
because we want know where they will be at this point in time , in the future
this is ALL based on the movement of objects
if I were to change any mathematical equation , that included time , and changed the time numbers , nothing would happen physically to the objects involved
non-sense
I would have thought that by know we all know that " space " is NOT empty
chiral condesate
and all the particle get smaller is size as we investigate further into energy and matter
There are no words in the quote that say anything about empty. In fact the quote talks about locality. For a field to be local, it cannot be empty.
I'm sure I said this before
time is the measurement of the movemnet of things
hence we get the mathematical 4 dimensional representation of things
because we want know where they will be at this point in time , in the future
this is ALL based on the movement of objects
if I were to change any mathematical equation , that included time , and changed the time numbers , nothing would happen physically to the objects involved
All you have done is change the chicken to the egg. Time is a measurement of movement. Movement is measured over time. The 4D can be moved into 3D if you polarize it between particles. This way, the relativistic weirdness is shared between the observer, and the moving body, and equals out better.
“ Originally Posted by river
non-sense
I would have thought that by know we all know that " space " is NOT empty
chiral condesate
and all the particle get smaller is size as we investigate further into energy and matter
There are no words in the quote that say anything about empty. In fact the quote talks about locality. For a field to be local, it cannot be empty.
hence the problem
to say that locality, is only local in is influence is wrong , in my thinking
the outside or how you define locality limits , does but doesn't
there are outside forces that have influence as well , no matter where you draw the line between locality and the without
hence the problem
to say that locality, is only local in is influence is wrong , in my thinking
the outside or how you define locality limits , does but doesn't
there are outside forces that have influence as well , no matter where you draw the line between locality and the without
The space grain has been identified. Even its scale has been identified. Scientists are in a quandary why space-time is smaller in one direction than the other. So there is locality everywhere now. But if you go back to the very first cause.. cause(1) then you have to say that space-time had not formed yet. If you are thinking about attraction... then I feel that attraction is a bad word to use, because science tries to eliminate pure attraction with either Gravitons, or just the bending of space-time. Either way the attraction is being situated locally. And local attraction, is a bit of a paradoxical use of words.
“ Originally Posted by river
hence the problem
to say that locality, is only local in is influence is wrong , in my thinking
the outside or how you define locality limits , does but doesn't
there are outside forces that have influence as well , no matter where you draw the line between locality and the without
The space grain has been identified. Even its scale has been identified.
well lets give this some time shall we
Scientists are in a quandary why space-time is smaller in one direction than the other. So there is locality everywhere now. But if you go back to the very first cause.. cause(1) then you have to say that space-time had not formed yet.
I wonder though in how MANY directions , that space-time is smaller in one direction than another , 360degrees , or there abouts wouldn't surprise me
well lets give this some time shall we
I wonder though in how MANY directions , that space-time is smaller in one direction than another , 360degrees , or there abouts wouldn't surprise me
Scientists say linear, like a magnet North to south pole. But relative to a single body you wouldn't notice the effect.
“ Originally Posted by river
well lets give this some time shall we
I wonder though in how MANY directions , that space-time is smaller in one direction than another , 360degrees , or there abouts wouldn't surprise me
Scientists say linear, like a magnet North to south pole. But relative to a single body you wouldn't notice the effect.
why linear ?
why linear ?
There is a presumption that we are bleeding into another universe.
“ Originally Posted by river
why linear ?
There is a presumption that we are bleeding into another universe.
meaning what
meaning what
Meaning that there is a linear flow as we flow into that Universe.