[analog]

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Scientist always try to break things down to it's smallest component. This is a good way to analyze structures in life. We look through microscopes to find cures for viruses and bacteria detrimental to our health. So, it's natural to look for and find the smallest particle in the universe so we may understand it's inner and outer workings.

Reducing the complexities of our universe is the goal for science indeed; whereby we can make predictions and feel we have an element of control in an otherwise seemingly random world. We look for patterns and then try to reduce those patterns until they are irreducible.

I've explained some about the method a few of us here use, and I'm just trying to get a feel for your reasoning whereby I can better communicate with you about it.

Do you have a full model of what your trying to describe or are you still working on your thoughts, because there are many phenomena to take into account when trying to formulate such a framework, and I would have to see how you relate all this to other things before I could comment much about it?

Are you aware that propagating light can be slowed to a snail's pace in a condensate, and if so how would this affect your framework?

Originally Posted by timeparticle

To explain why light, gravity and electromagnetism moves at the same speed is also important. They all have the same number of time particles in their basic forms. What differentiates the three are the way time particles are connected to each other for each of the three forms. Photons are in a string, gravitons are in a stack and particles of electromagnetism are in a circle.

You speak of light and electromagnetism as if it's two different phenomena, but light is merely a visible wavelength of electromagnetism; there are many more wavelengths.

You also give photons a different structure from electromagnetism then make a reference to other "particles of electromagnetism". In the standard model, photons are considered the carrier particles of all wavelengths of electromagnetism.

Do you see this differently?

I'm not preaching standard model. I encourage thinking out of the box (i.e., intellectual claustrophobia). I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, that's all.

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by analog

Reducing the complexities of our universe is the goal for science indeed; whereby we can make predictions and feel we have an element of control in an otherwise seemingly random world. We look for patterns and then try to reduce those patterns until they are irreducible.

I've explained some about the method a few of us here use, and I'm just trying to get a feel for your reasoning whereby I can better communicate with you about it.

Do you have a full model of what your trying to describe or are you still working on your thoughts, because there are many phenomena to take into account when trying to formulate such a framework, and I would have to see how you relate all this to other things before I could comment much about it?

Are you aware that propagating light can be slowed to a snail's pace in a condensate, and if so how would this affect your framework?




You speak of light and electromagnetism as if it's two different phenomena, but light is merely a visible wavelength of electromagnetism; there are many more wavelengths.

You also give photons a different structure from electromagnetism then make a reference to other "particles of electromagnetism". In the standard model, photons are considered the carrier particles of all wavelengths of electromagnetism.

Do you see this differently?

I'm not preaching standard model. I encourage thinking out of the box (i.e., intellectual claustrophobia). I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, that's all.

I wrote down my theory on a web.. Freewebs.com/sbfox
It is not a very formal scientific method theory but it will give you and idea on my position.
By slowing light, aren't you just condensing time?
I will be away from a computer for a couple of days...talk to you then. Freewebs.com/sbfox/ may work, also.

[analog]

I'll be sure to check it out.

Originally Posted by timeparticle

By slowing light, aren't you just condensing time?

This is one of the many phenomena I was referring to earlier. A theory must tie in many mechanisms (e.g., time, motion, temperature, perceived fundamental forces, their relative natures to each other, etc.) and never contradict to attempt to answer such a question.

Just admitting to a new fundamental particle doesn't solve anything unless its interactions tie in flawlessly to the whole without contradiction of known observations (i.e. empirical data). Just ask the scientist who keep finding new particles for the standard model, every time they smash others together. It's also nice if their existence simplifies things.

Electromagnetic radiation are waves that propagate through the aether due to its nature of condensing and expanding volumes of itself relative to the motions of those volumes due to its bonding property. EM waves communicate the motions and states of all volumes within the aether throughout the whole. Light (i.e., a narrow band of wavelengths of EM radiation) linearly propagates through the same volume of aether at the same linear velocity; thus the same amount of time.

The scientist, doing the experiment, formed a spatial condensate by using a laser to cool sodium atoms to near absolute zero (which represents another part of the phenomena), which means they condensed a large amount of aether into a small spatial volume, whereby the propagating EM waves linearly slowed relative to the observers due to having to travel through a more dense volume of aether (i.e., Bose-Einstein condensate); thus, being as time is a product of absolute motion, and they are condensing motion by converting random motion to uniform motion, then yes, you could say that they are condensing relative time. That's the purpose of Einstein's relativity which is what Dave (dleviwing) was referring to in his earlier post:

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Relativity has only to do with clocks and measurements, not the concept of time itself as an absolute.

It would seem when you accelerate a clock it tends to measure a lesser amount of elapsed time/motion (runs slower) than an identical clock at relative rest to it. This is due to acceleration (i.e. increased uniform linear motion) having the ability to condense the volume of aether (i.e. clock) being accelerated; thus effecting the frequency at which it records time/elapsed motion. Nothing magical happened during any of this; spatial dimensions changed along with spatial densities due to the conservation of absolute motion, but that's just my interpretation from the absolute motion framework a few of us here use. Dave's actually the originator of the concept, and I'm fortunate to call him a good friend. I'm just a flunkie.

Here's some links to the light experiment mentioned above:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...stoplight.html
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/multimedi...id_hau2001.swf
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/multimedi...id_hau2007.swf


later,

Tim

[dipayankar]

You are violating the basics of science. Unless you explain how you will overcome this violation, how would you prove your theory?

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Hi guys, It's me, Timeparticle. I thought I might interject for a moment. My idea was to assert that the time particle is the singularity at the beginning of creation. Remember, a time particle moves at the speed of instantaneousness and as it is a velocity, can be squared. So, therefore, the square of a time particle is creation... or the big bang. Additionally, if you want to say there exists more than one universe, then, a time particle cubed is the creation of all the universes... parallel or not.

Therefore, the singularity of time squared created mass or matter, space , energy and a lot more time.

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

You are violating the basics of science. Unless you explain how you will overcome this violation, how would you prove your theory?

Yes, this time particle theory is new and way outside the box of the basic science that we know, today. Can I prove this theory to be a true and valid one? Maybe.... in time..
Maybe I should ask you to treat this observation about time as I do... a sandbox. Remember the first time you were put in a sandbox when you were very young. It was a joyful experience. At first, you felt the sand with your fingers, tentatively. Then gradually you experimented with the sand. You sifted the sand through your fingers, you threw the sand to watch it scatter and you dug holes in the sand to see how deep you could go. You took your shoes and socks off and felt the sand with your soft feet and squeezed it with your toes. The sandbox was a big toy to play with as you wished.
This is how I play with time particles in my minds eye. I watch them as they float across my sight. I pop them with my fingers to see what might happen. I tear them apart and then put them back together again. I crash them into each other making loud noises, like millions of ping pong balls smashing into each other creating enormous sounds. I feel free to control time particles with a thought or a wish. I swim through oceans of time particles as they rub up against my sides popping and jumping as if they were excited about existence.... I build shapes in great sizes with them, always being aware of the endless colors and radiance they seem to emit without being an actual light source. I slow them down, I freeze them, I move them backward then I speed them forward again. Time is my play, bending it, popping it, throwing it, and squeezing it in between my toes...
I suppose I am having too much fun with the thought of time particles existing to try to prove that they exist....however I believe I may be able to.
Talking about them makes me feel good. If they aren't your cup of tea, you can look elsewhere for delights in the universe.

Thanks for your feedback, Tp

[dipayankar]

Good to see your enthusiasm Time Particle. However once you come out of the fanstasy, it would be good to start proving this concept. If you need any help, do let me know.

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Yes, this time particle theory is new and way outside the box of the basic science that we know, today. Can I prove this theory to be a true and valid one? Maybe.... in time..
Maybe I should ask you to treat this observation about time as I do... a sandbox. Remember the first time you were put in a sandbox when you were very young. It was a joyful experience. At first, you felt the sand with your fingers, tentatively. Then gradually you experimented with the sand. You sifted the sand through your fingers, you threw the sand to watch it scatter and you dug holes in the sand to see how deep you could go. You took your shoes and socks off and felt the sand with your soft feet and squeezed it with your toes. The sandbox was a big toy to play with as you wished.
This is how I play with time particles in my minds eye. I watch them as they float across my sight. I pop them with my fingers to see what might happen. I tear them apart and then put them back together again. I crash them into each other making loud noises, like millions of ping pong balls smashing into each other creating enormous sounds. I feel free to control time particles with a thought or a wish. I swim through oceans of time particles as they rub up against my sides popping and jumping as if they were excited about existence.... I build shapes in great sizes with them, always being aware of the endless colors and radiance they seem to emit without being an actual light source. I slow them down, I freeze them, I move them backward then I speed them forward again. Time is my play, bending it, popping it, throwing it, and squeezing it in between my toes...
I suppose I am having too much fun with the thought of time particles existing to try to prove that they exist....however I believe I may be able to.
Talking about them makes me feel good. If they aren't your cup of tea, you can look elsewhere for delights in the universe.

Thanks for your feedback, Tp

[timeparticle]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Good to see your enthusiasm Time Particle. However once you come out of the fanstasy, it would be good to start proving this concept. If you need any help, do let me know.

Imagination; esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.-- a definition of "fantasy"

Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Average imagination creates average insight; Great imagination brings forth great insight.-- Timeparticle

Relax, lighten up, and close your eyes. What can you imagine about time? Set your mind free from the boundaries of the physical universe, if you can, and just simply look. Write down what you see. Let the possibility of time particles into your imagination. Without analyzing or invalidating what you see , just let the concept of time flow into your mind. Share your awareness with us.

Tp

[dipayankar]

Thats all right Time Particle. However imagination needs to be backed up by solid scientific evidence at some point. So now lets set about doing that. If you can see your imagination turning to reality, that is the greatest feeling...

Originally Posted by timeparticle

Imagination; esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.-- a definition of "fantasy"

Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Average imagination creates average insight; Great imagination brings forth great insight.-- Timeparticle

Relax, lighten up, and close your eyes. What can you imagine about time? Set your mind free from the boundaries of the physical universe, if you can, and just simply look. Write down what you see. Let the possibility of time particles into your imagination. Without analyzing or invalidating what you see , just let the concept of time flow into your mind. Share your awareness with us.

Tp