Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jane_smith)
    It is a loop. Technically there is no such thing as time.
    I am not sure I would agree with a loop but I would certainly agree that there is no such thing as time in the sense of something that can be measured.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    ''Poppy ****'', you are clearly mistaken and trying to materialise time by the representation of time in the form of the Caesium cycles.

    Admittedly I have no formal ''education'', but that does not inhibit my ability to consider ''things''.

    There is clearly magnetic fields involved inside the Caesium clock, it is not hard to consider the possible affects of the Earths magnetic field on the field of the magnets in the clock. Clearly you do not understand magnetic field polarity and compass needles which tend to ''point'' a certain direction.
    So where do you think compass needles 'point' ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    So where do you think compass needles 'point' ?

    What a strange question, the compass needles north magnetic polarity ''points'' to the magnetic south polarity field ''of'' the Earths North pole which I think everyone knows.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    What a strange question, the compass needles north magnetic polarity ''points'' to the magnetic south polarity field ''of'' the Earths North pole which I think everyone knows.
    Just as I expected a schoolboy answer. The 'Earths North pole' has nothing to do with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    Just as I expected a schoolboy answer. The 'Earths North pole' has nothing to do with it.

    What? I know the Earths north pole has nothing to do with it, I was stating a ''rough'' direction that is why I put ''to'', the Earths magnetic pole axis moves about, the longitude and latitude position is a variable over time.
    The compass needle ''points'' to where ever the magnetic south is , pfff.

    If the poles reversed, the compass needle would ''point'' the opposite direction .

    Are you satisfied I know how magnetism works?

    Added - I will even add just to assure you that I know magnetism, like wise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract,
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    What? I know the Earths north pole has nothing to do with it, I was stating a ''rough'' direction that is why I put ''to'', the Earths magnetic pole axis moves about, the longitude and latitude position is a variable over time.
    The compass needle ''points'' to where ever the magnetic south is , pfff.

    If the poles reversed, the compass needle would ''point'' the opposite direction .

    Are you satisfied I know how magnetism works?

    Added - I will even add just to assure you that I know magnetism, like wise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract,
    I was hoping you would at least have described how the Earth's magnetic field creates this affect.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Ok congrats we have established caesium isn't time. Any other revelations?
    Just because you have a gripe against general relativity does not mean it does not have empirical evidence supporting it. Thats how science works, its not what you THINK its what you KNOW.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    Ok congrats we have established caesium isn't time. Any other revelations?
    Just because you have a gripe against general relativity does not mean it does not have empirical evidence supporting it. Thats how science works, its not what you THINK its what you KNOW.
    I have no gripe against general relativity or science. I have lots of revelations based on what I know about present information but of course unless you are truly objective, you would never understand.

    I know how science ''works'', however if the elementary evidence is perceived wrongly then the future interpretations could also be incorrect if based on the wrong assumptions to begin with.

    Yes we have established a Caesium is not time, therefore we can also conclude that the representation of time by the caesium cycles even when expressing a lower rate of cycles does not affect the rate of real time . which is continuous with no spacing between increments like the former mentioned ''rod'' example.

    When considering time it is important to consider the precedence of a constant rate that is an invariant for all observers in any reference frame.

    Any inferred alteration of the constant can only be deemed to be observer effect and subjective to personal belief.

    When we strip time back to the rudiment of evidence,

    1 cycle a second or 2 cycles per second, the second remains constant and only the rate of cycles changes, i.e it is slower.

    I could go on and on about the Universe, but I am sure you would find objective thinking rather boring.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    I was hoping you would at least have described how the Earth's magnetic field creates this affect.
    In what way?

    Consideration for the dark forces (invisible linkage) between two masses?

    Consideration for like wise magnetic polarities and opposite magnetic polarities?


    Consideration on a Quantum level and electrons and protons?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Let me leave you with this for a while,

    In my opinion the electron is not attached to a Proton or attracted to a Proton, if that was the case the electron would be ''firmly'' fixed in the center of the Proton (there would be no electron ''shell''.

    I believe this, that the Higgs Boson is attracted to all other Higgs Bosons by being some sort of mono magnetic polarity particle. However when the higgs gains hf it emits an electromagnetic field that we mistake for the electron shell, all these higgs then have a gyroscopic electromagnetic field and emr then causes a magnus type effect on the particles to create rotation of the particles.

    Something liker that.

    Just imagine an electron space, but any charge will always read zero because the equipment was calibrated to zero in the environment.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Let me leave you with this for a while,

    In my opinion the electron is not attached to a Proton or attracted to a Proton, if that was the case the electron would be ''firmly'' fixed in the center of the Proton (there would be no electron ''shell''.
    It IS attracted to the proton, and the reason it does not spiral into the nucleus was solved in the 1920s. The total energy between electron and nucleus is constant. As the electron moves closer the kinetic energy increases towards infinity but potential energy decreases towards negative infinity. So the atom balances itself out by keeping the electron at the Bohr radius.
    But it is wrong to consider the electron as a particle, it is more a cloud of probability with an indeterminacy position obeying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    It IS attracted to the proton, and the reason it does not spiral into the nucleus was solved in the 1920s. The total energy between electron and nucleus is constant. As the electron moves closer the kinetic energy increases towards infinity but potential energy decreases towards negative infinity. So the atom balances itself out by keeping the electron at the Bohr radius.
    But it is wrong to consider the electron as a particle, it is more a cloud of probability with an indeterminacy position obeying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
    Well! I can't be correct on everything, My assumption with atoms on an elementary level is that all Quarks have to be attracted to all Quarks?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Well! I can't be correct on everything, My assumption with atoms on an elementary level is that all Quarks have to be attracted to all Quarks?
    Nobody answer this?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    After several years of harsh comments and finding ones own mind, the solution came to me over time rather than a sudden enlightenment. Einstein would have appreciated that time was like a ''rod'' , continuous with no spacing between the next increment.
    A constant, that any attempt of measurement no matter how infinitesimally small or whatever the speed of measurement , would become an instantaneous increment of the length of history.
    One could believe that one could travel faster than time, but one would be mistaken because time is always with the observer in the instance and can never be overtook, time can only be left behind in the form of history no matter what what the velocity of the observer is.
    We simply can not define a constant of time then ignore its precedence altering the perspective of the constant by inferring time dilation ''illusions'' that do not exist in the state of reality.
    I'm afraid I cannot be of help as I don't understand your reasoning, but your argument seems to be grounded in personal beliefs rather than experiments as you have made no reference to empirical observations. In fact, you prefer not only to ignore the theoretical reasoning leading to the time-dilation conclusion, but also the experimental evidence supporting it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    I'm afraid I cannot be of help as I don't understand your reasoning, but your argument seems to be grounded in personal beliefs rather than experiments as you have made no reference to empirical observations. In fact, you prefer not only to ignore the theoretical reasoning leading to the time-dilation conclusion, but also the experimental evidence supporting it.

    Firstly , I do not ignore present theoretical reasoning and experimental ''evidence'' when discussing anything including my own thoughts on the matters being discussed.
    I do not have ''beliefs'' , I only look at the ''evidence'' and I am and have been trying to explain here and other forums that if we look at the ''evidence'' and other things when considering ''things'' from a different ''angle'' or if you like perceive it differently, then we get completely new context to consider that does not conform to present theoretical thought.
    Let me just say that you should consider a part of my learning style is to view new knowledge or information in an ambiguous nature, to be quite clear, I am open to more than one interpretation of the information.
    This part of my learning style is seemingly lost or not recognised in the majority of people , their learning style being different and not open minded enough to even contemplate looking at information with a different interpretation of the information.
    Thus leading me to ask myself the question of , is it worth my time and effort trying to get people to understand while I continue to educate myself or perhaps I should just quit now, knowing that learning styles are an issue in reaching understanding between two individuals who are on completely different ''wave-lengths''.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccrn...ature=youtu.be
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    A clock is not time. It's a tool used to measure time caused by a moving object. So a clock and an object are running,time is not. Time itself can't run and has no direction.

    http://www.nauticed.org/blog/wp-cont...mezone-ani.gif

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is not the correct forum for the proposal and consideration of alternative physics, no matter how "objective" you consider it to be.

    This is a forum for learning and study of physical theories that have been accepted by the majority.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    This is not the correct forum for the proposal and consideration of alternative physics, no matter how "objective" you consider it to be.

    This is a forum for learning and study of physical theories that have been accepted by the majority.

    Well if I wanted be subjective to something, I would go seek religion, If I wanted a subjective education, I would not question the teacher and go jump off a cliff if they told me too, however I am just me, I am not your stereotypical student, I have a learning style different to you .
    So if what you are teaching me is a load of garbage (worded nicely) , I will certainly tell the teacher they are wrong. Because after about 750nm light falls into the infra red range and things such as radio waves, i'e invisible light.

    A simple example, when an object is moving away from an observer the light red shifts thus becoming a longer wavelength. the Universe is observed to be expanding by the evidently observed red-shift by the Hubble telescope.


    Standard stuff of ''yours''


    However and a big however, for something to get longer it has to be short to begin with, i.e a short wave-length of light is blue.


    However blue is not observed in free space, the light in free space is invisible light or ''white'' light. The information ''you'' say fails by your ''own'' information.

    To get a red-shift of light, it has to be a shorter wave-length than about 800nm, therefore red-shift is contraction not expansion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    A clock is not time. It's a tool used to measure time caused by a moving object. So a clock and an object are running,time is not. Time itself can't run and has no direction.

    http://www.nauticed.org/blog/wp-cont...mezone-ani.gif

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    That is about more or less the truth, time exists but it is timeless, free space does not age, we could interpret free space has eternal time and is absolute space-time.
    However this does not remove the rate of decay or an ageing process of ourselves, this matter-time exists in absolute space -time and is independent for all ''observers''.
    However matter-times independent ''rate'' of ageing or decay is also dependent to other matter and thermodynamics and such.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.