[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Your writing "physics being part of that Everything" (or, in another way: Everything is not part of physics) rather than writing everything is physics is revelatory. This entire thread has that beyond physics about it. Your fundamental substance rings of Divinity for that very reason.
.

This has gone beyond being a discussion of any type and you have long since moved into some form of infantile rambling, repeating the same sort of thing over and over again, apparently in the vain hope that the more you say it less rudiculous it will sound.

You have been presented with a concept which you choose to ignore and keep ranting on about your beliefs.

It is perfectly clear that you have little intention to either read this thread properly or answer any of the questions that have been asked of you, and there have been plenty that you choose to ignore.

By ignoring the questions that have been posed to you, you have shown yourself to have little comprehension of what you are actually talking about, other than belief in a divine Spacetime. Had you known what you were talking about you would have been able to answer the questions in some form or other.

I suspect you attack other's ideas because of your own lack of imagination.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

The burden of proof is on you to show your idea tenable. So far you have not done so.

The statement from me was in response to a question from you asking for confirmation of what you had read. Saying the burden of proof is now on me. when you have read some of the proof shows how unintelligent your posts are.

Just because you say 'it doesn't make sense' does not lay the burden of proof with me, but maybe suggests that you go back over it to try to understand it, but then why bother. Why try to understand a concept that is completely alien to you. Why don't you just ignore it and start shouting about something else, like you have all the way through.

Maybe you should find a forum for people who spend endless hours harping on about SpaceTime , I'm sure your lack of original thought will be reassuring to them.

Unless you are going to post something even remotely intelligent, don't expect any response. So the chance of you getting any response is fairly small.

Bored now.



PB.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

PB, did you notice the reference, in the paper you cited, to Levi-Civita? He was the greatest early mind of fluid dynamics, as applied to fundamental motions. I like his approach to fundamental motions, since he did most of his mathematical work, in fluid mechanics___something real...

Lloyd,
my apologies, but I got sort of side tracked.

I don't know much about Levi-Civita, except that Einstein used his work when it came to relativity. I get the impression that he impressed you. I'll have to read up on him.

Where were we? Ticks.

The very first tick is something which will remain pure speculation.

For a TOE it must be included, but maybe the answer will come at the end rather than the beginning of thre process. If the cycle of the Universe is cyclical, then what goes around, comes around. The end of the Universe will result in a collapse down to a pythagorian point or some steady state, containing all the energy. The last + 1 tick for the old Universe will in fact be the first for a new interation of the Universe.

So maybe the question is what happens after entropy ?

PB.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

This has gone beyond being a discussion of any type and you have long since moved into some form of infantile rambling, repeating the same sort of thing over and over again, apparently in the vain hope that the more you say it less rudiculous it will sound.

You have been presented with a concept which you choose to ignore and keep ranting on about your beliefs.

It is perfectly clear that you have little intention to either read this thread properly or answer any of the questions that have been asked of you, and there have been plenty that you choose to ignore.

By ignoring the questions that have been posed to you, you have shown yourself to have little comprehension of what you are actually talking about, other than belief in a divine Spacetime. Had you known what you were talking about you would have been able to answer the questions in some form or other.

I suspect you attack other's ideas because of your own lack of imagination.

The statement from me was in response to a question from you asking for confirmation of what you had read. Saying the burden of proof is now on me. when you have read some of the proof shows how unintelligent your posts are.

Just because you say 'it doesn't make sense' does not lay the burden of proof with me, but maybe suggests that you go back over it to try to understand it, but then why bother. Why try to understand a concept that is completely alien to you. Why don't you just ignore it and start shouting about something else, like you have all the way through.

Maybe you should find a forum for people who spend endless hours harping on about SpaceTime , I'm sure your lack of original thought will be reassuring to them.

Unless you are going to post something even remotely intelligent, don't expect any response. So the chance of you getting any response is fairly small.

Bored now.


PB.

Could you please stick to the topic. The attacks above have nothing to do with science.

I asked you specific questions numbered 1-6. They all have to do with a curved spacetime phenomenon called gravity. You say you have an alternate view that excludes spacetime. So how, then, do you explain 1-6?

CC

[Lloyd Gillespie]

CC, why don't you simply read a few physics books, if you can't follow the logical theorizing of this thread? We're simply searching for the absolute fundamentals that created all space/matter/energy actions___At least, I am, and I think Steven is also___But, you continue to just recite your own private language religion...

1! What created your theocratic "spacetime?" Just think of it this way___In a theoretical static state universe model___Matter before motion, is the theoretical space state of no time___time requires the distance measure of matter in motion___measure can replace the stupid time concept, in all physics ideas and equations___It just makes the math easier, nothing more. You get down to the absolute fundamentals, and you'll see a very different world of possible new scientific logics. You have to theorize it all, in every possible fashion, in order to truly understand, the universe's complexity of its shear simplicity.

1. How do you explain time dilation [No such thing.]
2. How do you explain gravitational redshift [No such thing. It's a velocity and aether density redshift fundamental.]
3. How do you explain the deflection of light (as it passes a star, say) [simple gravity.]
4. How do you explain gravitational lensing [How would anyone know, since this is only unproven theory, but, forces do attract and repulse, or possibly all repulse. It might even be a propulsion universe, only?]
5. How do you explain gravitational waves [Where are they? I didn't find any___yet.]
6. How do you explain the Euclidean free-fall in a gravity field, i.e., a freely falling object feels no force or acceleration. ["Feels" does not apply to physics. This is physics, not metaphysics, as "spacetime" is.]

BTW CC, space is about real fundamental matter, not time, per say___and that's what this thread is about...

Lloyd

PB, I'll reply later...

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

CC, why don't you simply read a few physics books, if you can't follow the logical theorizing of this thread?

Hmm, let's see, where did I leave my copy of Einstein's general postulate of relativity. There's a good physics book. I know it's around here somewhere.

I'm still trying, don't ask me why, to find the "logic" in this thread.

(Sometimes it sounds like you two should read a few physics books).

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

We're simply searching for the absolute fundamentals that created all space/matter/energy actions___At least, I am, and I think Steven is also

I know you're interested in thermodynamics. So you must realize that energy is not a property that can be created or destroyed Lloyd. I would say the same for space, but I refuse to get sucked into another argument about the most fundamental entity of all.

If you wish to discuss the creation (or the transformation) of matter (say, the light elements), on the other hand, I would be very interested in pursuing the trialogue.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

___But, you continue to just recite your own private language religion...

Physics is not a language I invented. It has nothing to do with privacy or religion.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

1! What created your theocratic "spacetime?"

"theocratic spacetime"? What kind of book did you find that in?

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Just think of it this way___In a theoretical static state universe model___Matter before motion, is the theoretical space state of no time___time requires the distance measure of matter in motion___measure can replace the stupid time concept,...

"Matter before motion, is the theoretical space state of no time" What is your reference for this?

"time requires the distance measure of matter in motion" This is half true (and unfortunately half false). Any radiation without mass is sufficient to keep time ticking. You don't need matter in motion.

"measure can replace the stupid time concept." "Stupid time"? Is that like unintellegent time, foolish time, silly time, laughable time, unwise time, slow time, dumb time, dim-witted time, dense time, brainless time?

Antonym: Clever time, Sensible time.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

1. How do you explain time dilation [No such thing.]

Oh, here it is. Hmm, this is what Albi has to say about your "no such thing":

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein, The General Theory of Relativity: A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity, Ch 22.

See the Shapiro time dilation experiments.

The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar system tests of General relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object takes slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return (as measured by the observer) than it would if the mass of the object were not present."
" see here for example

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

2. How do you explain gravitational redshift [No such thing. It's a velocity and aether density redshift fundamental.]

See Michelson and Morley’s 1887 article in the American Journal of Science: The most famous failed experiment.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

3. How do you explain the deflection of light (as it passes a star, say) [simple gravity.]

Simple gravity does nothing of the kind in my book. How does it in yours?

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

6. How do you explain the Euclidean free-fall in a gravity field, i.e., a freely falling object feels no force or acceleration. ["Feels" does not apply to physics. This is physics, not metaphysics, as "spacetime" is.]

Ok, if you dislike the word feel, replace it with experience.

I don't see what is less physical about spacetime than space and time seperately. Do you?

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

BTW CC, space is about real fundamental matter, not time, per say___and that's what this thread is about...Lloyd

"space is about real fundamental matter" is like saying matter is about real fundamental space. It makes no sense. Or 'space is about matter, not time.' That makes about as much sense.



Enlighten me.


Coldcreation

[Infinite Consciousness]

Quote LG,

We're simply searching for the absolute fundamentals that created all space / matter / energy actions___At least, I am. Lloyd.


Lloyd, are you searching for,

(A) The absolute fundamental that created all space / matter / energy, actions;

(B) The absolute fundamental that space / matter / energy / actions are composed of ; or

(C) The absolute fundamental substance that is manifesting and bringing to life the fundamental substance of the physical-material universe ? ? ?

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

1. How do you explain time dilation [No such thing.]

Lloyd,
good point.

As we were previously discussing, there is a base tick which is taken from the most fundemental action in the Universe. What happens to this base tick when in the presence of a large mass or travelling at extremely high velocities - nothing.

The most fundemental action takes the same time to execute no matter where it is or what velocity it is at.

That the number of fundemental actions required to complete a more complex action is increased is what gives us the perception that time has been altered, but as you say, nothing has actually happened to time itself. Refer : my example of the photons around the circumference of a clock.

This does not say that the effects of the apparent dilation of time cannot be measured and there are no end of experiments out there with just such results, but almost each and everyone of them relies a theoretical substance, (I think its been mentioned enough in this thread) but does not attempt to resolve what it is actually happening.

PB.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Infinite Consciousness

Quote LG,

We're simply searching for the absolute fundamentals that created all space / matter / energy actions___At least, I am. Lloyd.


Lloyd, are you searching for,

(A) The absolute fundamental that created all space / matter / energy, actions;

(B) The absolute fundamental that space / matter / energy / actions are composed of ; or

(C) The absolute fundamental substance that is manifesting and bringing to life the fundamental substance of the physical-material universe ? ? ?

I think the answer is B, with a hint of A, assuming that the rules which govern B are the same rules which where used to create A.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Enlighten me.Coldcreation

You can't be enlightened CC. You're too Einsteinian religious...

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Lloyd,
good point.

As we were previously discussing, there is a base tick which is taken from the most fundemental action in the Universe. [Is mass tick the most fundamental action in the universe? First motion is first mass, thus would be required to be first tick, as any matter in motion is required to have mass, and matter in motion produces friction, heat and sound mass___first tick? Just thinking...] What happens to this base tick when in the presence of a large mass or travelling at extremely high velocities - nothing. [Just as mass, it's the same everywhere, here on earth, or on the sun. Mass is mass, it increases with velocity___Newton and Einstein. And I state, all mass decreases to zero mass at true C.]

The most fundemental action takes the same time to execute no matter where it is or what velocity it is at. [Tick must be a property of mass___mass and massless mass___measure and measureless measure. Sounds contradictory, but I don't think it is. Photons are measureless mass, yet if absolutely fundamental, would have to produce both phenomena___measurelessness and measure, masslessness and mass. It would be a logical requirement of the FS, to fill all the universes logical spaces, from infinity, to the infinitesimals, to the finite.]

That the number of fundemental actions required to complete a more complex action is increased is what gives us the perception that time has been altered, but as you say, nothing has actually happened to time itself. Refer : my example of the photons around the circumference of a clock.

This does not say that the effects of the apparent dilation of time cannot be measured and there are no end of experiments out there with just such results, but almost each and everyone of them relies a theoretical substance, (I think its been mentioned enough in this thread) but does not attempt to resolve what it is actually happening. [We need state everything the photon is capable of. Is it capable of everything?]

PB.

Hi Steven, to me, the only way the universe can make any sense, at this level, is if the FS, at some phase space state change point, has the ability to produce a substance/entity that has all state changing abilities/capabilities, as physics, thus far, has never described such a substance. An example would be fire. What is it that is actually cooling with distance? Since all such energy must actually be a real substance, what substance is cooling? Is it the electrons and protons that are cooling? If so, then what is cooling in space, where there are no electrons and protons, or at least too few to supply the cooling substance___em waves? Do em-waves cool proportional to distance from the sun? What is actually cooling? What is actually heating? You say photons can't fill this need, and since light travels as em/photon-waves, what's left to cool or heat?

I think when this question is answered, we may truly find the total mechanics to the FS. Since the Photonic FS has to produce all in the universe, what does it produce, that cools and heats, in all areas and state spaces, in the entire universe, since we absolutely know cold and hot are universal realities? Realities of what substance/entity, and how is it created? IMO, this would be the master mechanics answer to the fundamental clock of the universe, or at the least, has a great deal to do with it... I could state the question as, "How do photons heat and cool the varrying entities of the universe?" I may point out that electrodynamics and absolute velocity do not fit this need, as they are both invarriant forces, and heating and cooling are varrying dynamics, and require varrying forces, to produce such actions and or reactions. Yes, one could say absolute velocity can slow to produce cooling and cold, from its initial heat state, but then, you're left with the largest question of all, what produced absolute velocity? IMO, if one chooses absolute velocity, to base universal mechanics on, one is simply left with another religion___so I don't accept absolute velocity. Give me your responses to the problems I've pointed out, Steven...

Lloyd