[dipayankar]

That was a good example. However for me time synonymous with motion. And hence what ever be the measuring devise, it will only depend on whether there is inherent motion or not.

Originally Posted by LeoK Hi, all folks A good mind example for time follows: You got three sets of clocks, two hour glasses, two atomic clocks and two radioactive decay clocks. Place one of each set on the moon for a year. Then take these back to earth. One can then study the following situations: The hour glass once placed on the moon is slower. The atomic clock from the moon is faster. And the radioactive decay clock is in pace. What is time? LeoK

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie And you know more than science? What a joke...hee...hee...hee... Anyone can exaggerate the facts, like you two are... regards,

Hi, all

TOE, and for example GUT, are the merging of ideas, because;

Every human, an unique idea.
LeoK

[dleviwing]

Hi LeoK;
You may wish to brose through this thread to see the previous debates on time.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/time-travel/109-time.html

[baudrunner]

LeoK appears to be attempting to understand the reality of space time using time as a reference in order to derive the nature of space. I have already solved that challenge to my satisfaction. You need not be satisfied with it so I am not asking for your critique, only your attention for a moment.

Space is as much a creation as the matter which displaces it. That which defines the volume of space does not subscribe to the physics of matter. We do understand for certain that spatial density is mutable in nature and we can relate the density of space with the time it takes to pass through it in a "quantum triangulation" of the actual volume vs. the density vs. the time it takes to pass through it. The density of space is a function of the presence of massive bodies displacing it. This implies that space must be composed of some kind of "particle" bearing in mind that these are not related to matter particles. The domains of these particles approach the Smolin limit in size, ie. - the Planck length of 10^-43/m^3. The Smolin limit represents the smallest unit of space that can be occupied by a volume, and there are about as many of these in a cubic meter as there are atoms in the observable Universe. Even the smallest sub-atomic particle displaces space. Let us call these space particles "space bosons", which, while in particle physics a boson is defined as a force particle they are neither force nor matter. Their presence solely defines the volume wherein this three dimensial reality has become manifest. When two masses approach in space the space bosons which each of the masses displace have a phase relationship approaching (dynamics of motion are in effect) 180 degrees of opposition which, while they do not cause mutual cancellation or anihilation since they cannot be destroyed they do effect a change in the volume which they define, and since their very presence determines that they have a shape, a distortion of that shape leading to this reduction of that volume. This reduction in volume between the two bodies in effect causes the distance between the two bodies to diminish, effecting what we call "the force of gravity" which is really momentum, since the properties of matter are determined by the physics of it and we project the assumption of gravity by observation. Since more of these "space bosons" now occupy a smaller physical volume relative to our frame of reference we can see how temporal effects prevail since time has a constant relationship with these bosons, regardless of their physical volumetric dimension as measured within our frame of measurement.

Simple, no?

[LeoK]

"Space is as much a creation as the matter which displaces it."
baudrunner

Space + matter = 0 (Zero.)
0 + 0 = 0

0 may be substituted with "a creation" in your beginning statement.

Mathematically it is correct.
LeoK

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by LeoK "Space + matter = 0 (Zero.) 0 + 0 = 0 0 may be substituted with "a creation" in your beginning statement. Mathematically it is correct. LeoK

Mathematically, subjectively, and objectively, it is meaningless.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Space is not created, it is the ground state infinite eternal fundamental substance of physics. The symmetry of the laws of physics and nature require this...

regards,

[baudrunner]

Yo Yo-doh!

Nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin'.
Ya gotta have somethin',
if ya wanna be believed.

Nuthin' plus nuthin' means nuthin'.
Ya gotta have somethin',
If ya wanna be believed.

I concur. But he makes a point. I like the idea that space could cancel matter, but I don't wanna be believed. Therefore I must conclude that the Universe intends to continue forevermore. Still fits. But what is it that we're adding to? Nuthin'?

[baudrunner]

Space is not created, it is the ground state infinite eternal fundamental substance of physics. The symmetry of the laws of physics and nature require this ...

No, they don't.

[dipayankar]

I agree....

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Space is not created, it is the ground state infinite eternal fundamental substance of physics. The symmetry of the laws of physics and nature require this... regards,