Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Does any of this make sense ???

Does any of this make sense ??? - Physics Forum

Does any of this make sense ??? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-02-2005, 08:06 PM
Yrael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does any of this make sense ???



"De-Mystifying" Theoretical Physics

I am not a professional physicist. I am nothing but an enthusiastic
amateur. Neither am I a professional mathematician. I would rate my level
of mathematical knowledge as probably just above A-Level standard. So I am
unable to manipulate the tensors of String Theory, and I am also unable to
completely understand the technical details behind most Quantum Physics
experiments. But I believe that my lack of formal knowledge may have
actually helped me to uncover certain valid identifications of semantic and
philosophical errors in Theoretical Physics which many esteemed
professionals either seem to deliberately ignore or not consider as
important. I, however, feel that identifying and explaining these semantic
and philosophical errors is extremely important. My identifications are not
"earth shattering". They don't contain anything which is not already
totally obvious to any professional physicist. So I don't believe for one
second that any explanations I write here will help any professional
physicists with their actual research or anything like that. My ego is not
that big! But I do believe that these explanations may help (some)
professional physicists when they write their "popular science" books and
attempt to "de-mystify" Theoretical Physics for the general public. I have
come to the conclusion that some of the explanations I have read in "popular
science" books do not actually "explain" anything at all. And I have also
read some attempts at "de-mystification" which have actually left me feeling
more "mystified" than I was in the first place!

We may not know exactly how the "Universe" works, but most of us know how
"politics" works. Politicians want to stay in Office, and to do this they
must gain public support. It is not in the politicians' own self interest
to give research grant money to something which the general public feels
"alienated" from. This is obviously why Theoretical Physics must be made
more accessible and interesting to the general public. And explanations
written by top scientists which do not actually "explain" anything are not
really helping matters.

I, and thousands of other enthusiasts, would love to see a "Supercollider"
built with an energy capacity which may be capable of proving the existence
of the "Higgs Boson" or something similar. So my "de-mystifying"
identifications and explanations are my, unfortunately miniscule,
contributions to the cause.

The first thing I would like to address is the way the "mystery" which
physicists call "The Arrow of Time" is treated in most popular science
books. In their "Arrow of Time" discussions, many esteemed physicists pose
the question of: "Why does time always flow forwards?" Or, stated another
way: "Why does time never flow backwards?" And they then go on to attempt
to answer these questions by talking about thermodynamics and entropy etc.
I will show that even asking these questions is semantically and
philosophically incorrect. And I will also show that their
thermodynamic/entropic explanations are actually attempting to answer a
completely different (but semantically valid) question. Furthermore, I will
give a totally complete and correct answer to the semantically and
philosophically ridiculous question of "Why does time never flow backwards?"
in just one short sentence. There is no need for a whole chapter of a book
to answer this question; one short sentence is completely sufficient. But I
have never read this "one sentence explanation" in any popular science book,
and I really don't know why it is not used in ALL physics related popular
science books!

In order for the "Arrow of Time mystery" to become totally non-mysterious,
we first need to understand what time actually is. Some esteemed physicists
do not seem to fully understand a principle called "The Map is not the
Territory". Time appears in their equations along with other variables like
mass etc which actually exist in reality; and because of this, they seem to
see time as a real facet of existence (like mass etc). And, consequently,
they seem to think that they can use time to explain things in the same way
as they would use other real facets of existence (like mass etc) to explain
things. This is the problem! It isn't, so they can't! And if they do,
their explanations are worthless because they are not actually "explaining"
anything at all! I have actually read a book in which an esteemed physicist
attempted to answer the "Why does time never flow backwards?" question by
referring to a thermodynamic equation (in which "time" was one of the
variables) as part of his explanation. This is patently ridiculous. You
can't explain the properties of a "something" by using that same "something"
as part of the explanation. Even if the "something" is actually real, you
are not actually explaining anything at all if you do that. And what makes
this physicist's "explanation" even more ridiculous is the fact that he was
using an equation which exhibits "time-reversal symmetry" (as do all these
type of equations) in an attempt to show why "time never flows backwards"!
What this physicist was actually attempting to do was to answer this
completely different (but semantically valid) question, as I mentioned
earlier. I cannot believe that he didn't seem to realise that this was what
he was actually doing! So I can only assume that he was deliberately
ignoring it, or didn't feel that it was important. Anyway, the point I am
making is that this "non-explanation" didn't help the general reader at all.

Even the great Albert Einstein made a subtle variation of this same
fundamental philosophical "error" in his theories of special and general
relativity. And this error caused Einstein (and everyone else) to draw
inferences about the "structure of reality" which are actually totally
opposite to the inferences they could have drawn if this fundamental error
had not been made. I will fully explain Einstein's fundamental
philosophical "error" shortly. But, as I said earlier, in order to
understand "The Arrow of Time" and Einstein's fundamental philosophical
error, you will first need to be armed with a complete understanding of what
time actually is. So, here we go!

What actually is time?

This is an "official" definition of time:

"Time is a dimension that enables two otherwise identical events that occur
at the same point in space to be distinguished.
-- A Dictionary of Physics (ISBN: 0-19-280030-2)"

I believe that calling time a "dimension" is seriously misleading to the
general public. To include time as a dimension along with the other three
dimensions of height, width and depth to make four dimensional "space-time"
creates a major area of "misunderstanding" for the general public. It
allows people to believe that they can treat the "dimension" of "time" in
the same way as they can treat the other three dimensions. And, therefore,
it allows people to ask totally illogical questions like: "Why does time
never run backwards? etc. Most people do not realise that four dimensional
"space-time" is nothing but a "mathematical model" which happens to be
extremely good at predicting the results of various experiments. In fact,
Einstein's equations were so successful at predicting the results of
experiments that people started believing that these "mathematical models"
actually WERE REALITY and not just representations of reality. But, however
accurate at predicting "reality" Einstein's equations are, they are NOT
actually REALITY. They are nothing but mathematical REPRESENTATIONS OF
REALITY which happen to be able to predict ACTUAL REALITY extremely well.
To confuse a "representation of reality" with "actual reality" is to fail to
understand a principle called "The Map is not the Territory". I believe
that "The Map is not the Territory" type of misunderstanding is very common
among the general public. And even some esteemed physicists seem to fall
victim to it on the odd occasion.

Anyway, back to my question: What actually is time?

Here are some "semantically and philosophically correct"
definitions/descriptions of what time actually is:

Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist. Time is
definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
"dimensions" of height, width and depth. In fact, time is nothing but a
totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
of the universe whatsoever.

Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
quantifiable to us. Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
nonsensical and totally invalid.

In the last paragraph, I gave a precise definition/description of time. But
this precise definition of time does not provide a complete "explanation" of
what time actually is, nor does it give any real indication of what valid
conclusions can be drawn from it. So, because it is essential to completely
understand exactly what time actually is in order to proceed further, I will
now spend some time giving a few examples and "scenarios" etc. Hopefully,
by the end of this next section, the exact nature of time will be so
familiar to you that it will just become "second nature" to think about time
in this "new" way.

First of all, it's important to completely understand the answer to this
question: "How do we actually measure time?" The short answer is that the
only possible way we can measure time is by counting (and sometimes
comparing) "changing patterns of existence". And the more similar these
"changing patterns of existence" are to each other, the more "accurate" our
"measure of time" will be. A good example of this is a grandfather clock.
Some very handy laws of nature have decreed that, whether a pendulum is
swinging quickly or slowly, each swing of that pendulum will take the same
amount of "time". This is (basically, but not exactly) how a Grandfather
clock works. Each swing of the pendulum moves a cogwheel one notch, and
this is translated by others cogs etc to the movements of the hands on the
clock face. So basically we are counting "changing patterns of existence"
by using a cogwheel to count each swing of the pendulum. And because these
"changing patterns of existence" are similar, our "measure of time" will be
"accurate".

You could argue a semantic point here with me by saying that "You are not
measuring a "CHANGING pattern of existence" because the "duration" of the
pendulum's swing IS ALWAYS THE SAME". But this is not what I mean by
"changing patterns of existence". I mean that the "actual pattern of
existence" is changing. For example: If you were to make a video recording
of your grandfather clock's swinging pendulum, and then play it back frame
by frame; you would see the pendulum in a slightly different position in
each frame. Each frame would show you a slightly different "pattern of
existence" which had changed from the previous one. And even if you were to
compare different frames which showed the pendulum to be in exactly the same
position, that would only confirm to you that the "pattern of existence" was
repeating. You could easily confirm that the actual "pattern of existence"
was really changing by looking at the frames before and after the frame you
were originally looking at. Just because a "pattern of existence" is
repeating, it does not mean that it isn't changing. In fact, if a "pattern
of existence" is repeating, it actually proves that it IS changing. It has
to change to a different "pattern" in order to be able to repeat its
previous "pattern". If it didn't change, it wouldn't be repeating. It
would just be staying the same.

Now that we have established that a repeating "pattern of existence" must
also be a "changing pattern of existence", we can further clarify things by
using the "video recording the pendulum" example to conclusively prove that
the process of measuring time is absolutely nothing more than counting (and
sometimes comparing) "changing patterns of existence". It is totally
obvious by now that the more similar to each other these "changing patterns
of existence" are, (for example, the pendulum's repeating swing), the more
"accurate" your "measure of time" will be. So I will not mention this
again, as it is not really an important factor in understanding what time
actually is anyway.

Let's say that we wanted to verify that a certain pendulum's swing will
always take the same amount of "time" whatever "speed" that pendulum is
actually moving at, and whatever distance its swing actually covers. We
could easily do this by adjusting the "frame counter" on your video camera
so that it adds a consecutive number to each frame that it records. Then we
could start the pendulum swinging, and film the pendulum until it stops
swinging. We could then choose which side of the swing we wanted to measure
it from, right hand side or left hand side; it doesn't matter. But for
example let's say we chose the right hand side. Then we could locate all
the frames in your video recording where it shows the pendulum at the
extreme right hand side of its swing. Then we could "count" the number of
frames between each of these extreme right hand side positions. Any we
would find that, whatever distance the extreme right hand side of the swing
was from the position where the pendulum is vertical, the number of frames
between all the extreme right hand side positions would always be equal. So
we have now verified that the "time" of that pendulum's swing is always the
same, whatever "speed" or distance it actually swings. (If there are any
Ph.D. physicists reading this, please be aware that I know that this is not
"absolutely" correct and foolproof, partly because we are not measuring the
swing using its vertical as a standard. I am simply using it as a basic
example to illustrate something that I will mention shortly).

Anyway, furthermore, because we have read the instruction manual and we know
how many frames our video camera can film "per second", we can now also
measure the actual "time" it took for each swing as well as verifying that
the "duration" of the swings were all equal. (Are you now thinking: "Why is
he stating the blindingly obvious?" If you are, hopefully it will become
clear why I am doing it very shortly).

Now, let's have a look at what we have actually done. What have we actually
measured, and how have we actually measured it?

First of all, by "counting" and "comparing" the difference between certain
frames, we verified that the "changing pattern of existence" which we are
calling "the pendulum's swing" has a certain constant and repeatable aspect.
Then, by adding a "frame counter" to our video recording and knowing how
many frames we recorded "per second", we came up with a value for this
repeatable aspect which we call "time". So, now, we have used this value
which we call "time" to "quantify" the "duration" of the pendulum's swing.

So, how have we measured this "time"? All we have actually done is counted
certain "changing patterns of existence" and compared them with other
"changing patterns of existence". i.e. One "changing pattern of existence"
was the pendulum's swing and the other "changing pattern of existence" was
the film running through our video camera. And by doing this, we have ended
up with a "numerical value" which we call "time". Remember this: all we
have ended up with is a "NUMERICAL VALUE".

So, where is this "dimension" called "time" that I read about in the
"official" definition? It isn't actually anywhere, is it? If a simple
"numerical value" which is obtained by counting and comparing a couple of
changing patterns is a "dimension", then we may as well call ANYTHING a
"dimension"! For example: I could count the different number of ways that
I can arrange the row of letters XYZ and derive a numerical value of "six
different ways" for an answer. Is the number "six" now a "dimension"? I
have counted six "patterns of existence" here, so why isn't the number "six"
a "dimension" as well? I think it's obvious what I'm trying to say here.
It's this: we really need a more precise definition of what a "dimension"
actually is!

I will re-state some "semantically and philosophically correct"
definitions/descriptions of "time" here:

Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist. Time is
definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
"dimensions" of height, width and breadth. In fact, time is nothing but a
totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
of the universe whatsoever.

Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
quantifiable to us. Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
nonsensical and totally invalid.

Can you see now why this definitions/descriptions are correct, and the
"official" definition is misleading? If not, you will probably see it after
this next example.

But, before this next example, I think it would be useful to state how a
standard period of time is actually defined. Here it is:

"One SI Second (atomic second) is the interval of "time" taken to complete
9,192,631,770 oscillations of the Caesium 133 atom exposed to a suitable
excitation".

In other words: We "count" the oscillations of the "changing pattern of
existence" which we call "the exited Caesium 133 atom" until we arrive at a
"numerical value" of 9,192,631,770. Then, we say that this "period of time"
is equal to "one second".

Well, this is the "official" definition of "one second of time". I can't
see any "dimensions" here, can you"? Personally, I can only see some
changing patterns which are repeating, some counting and a numerical value.
Can you see now that the "flow" of time does not exist anywhere other than
inside our own minds?

Consider this example. Let's imagine a universe that was completely static
and unchanging. This universe would contain no "time". Now, let's imagine
that you invented a spaceship with a "stringbuster" drive which allowed you
to "jump" out of our universe and visit this static and unchanging universe.
Well, as soon as you arrived in this new universe, this new universe now
definitely WOULD contain time. And as you observed its strange static and
unchanging ways from the safety of your spaceship, you would experience the
"flow of time" in exactly the same way as you would in our own universe.
Why is this? It is because you brought your own "time" with you when you
arrived there!

The only reason we experience this "flow of time" is because we all carry
our own "biological clocks" with us inside our own brains. Inside our
brains, there are numerous "biological mechanisms" at work which are
comparing certain "changing patterns of existence" which occur in our bodies
with other "changing patterns of existence" which occur in our bodies. And
the workings of these various "biological mechanisms" are responsible for
giving us the "feeling" which we experience as "the flow of time". And that's
all it is: a feeling! Time is nothing but "changing patterns of existence".
The "flow of time" only actually exists as a biologically created "feeling"
inside our own brains. Time, as a real "entity", DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

Once again, here are some "semantically and philosophically correct"
definitions/descriptions of what time actually is:

Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist. Time is
definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
"dimensions" of height, width and breadth. In fact, time is nothing but a
totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
of the universe whatsoever.

Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
quantifiable to us. Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
nonsensical and totally invalid.

So, at last, we arrive at the semantically and philosophically correct
answer to the question: "Why does time never flow backwards?"

This is the answer: "Time never flows backwards (or forwards, or anywhere)
because TIME DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST!"

(Obviously, something that doesn't even exist can't flow anywhere or do
anything!)

The actual (semantically valid) question that is really being asked by the
"Why does time never flow backwards?" question would be something like this:

"Why don't all the "patterns of existence" which have changed just "undo"
themselves and sequentially revert back through the state changes they have
undergone?"

This is the REAL question that the physicists are actually trying to answer
with their thermodynamic/entropic "explanations" and equations. But, even
then, some of these physicists do not seem to understand (or seem to
deliberately ignore) the fact that a mathematical equation does not actually
"explain" anything! This is a good example of not realising (or
deliberately ignoring) the fact that THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

Anyway, on to Einstein and his four-dimensional "space-time" etc.

Because of Einstein's equations, it is frequently stated that: "Time slows
down when under the influence of acceleration or a gravitational field".

Well, we have just established that "time" doesn't actually exist. So time
can't actually "slow down" or "speed up" or do anything really. Therefore
the statement "Time slows down when under the influence of acceleration or a
gravitational field" is obviously semantically and philosophically
incorrect.

What actually happens is that: EXISTENCE "slows down" under the influence of
acceleration or a gravitational field.

In other words, "changing patterns of existence" do not change as "quickly"
under the influence of acceleration or a gravitational field as they would
if the acceleration or gravitational field was not present.

Or, to give a specific example: A suitably excited Caesium 133 atom would
take "longer" to complete 9,192,631,770 oscillations under the influence of
acceleration or a gravitational field than it would take to complete
9,192,631,770 oscillations if it wasn't under the influence of acceleration
or a gravitational field.

In fact, atomic clocks have been used to "prove" the semantically incorrect
assertion that "time slows down" under the influence of acceleration or a
gravitational field. Various people have been given "portable" atomic
clocks and then sent either into space or on very fast accelerating
aeroplanes etc. Then, when these people return from their "acceleration
trips", their atomic clocks are compared with other atomic clocks which have
not undergone these "accelerations". And, upon comparison, it is always
found that the atomic clocks which have undergone "acceleration" have
recorded a "shorter" period of "time" than the atomic clocks which did not
undergo "acceleration". Then, it is said that the people who carried the
atomic clocks on the aeroplanes are a few microseconds "younger" than the
people who stayed on the ground etc. Well, that's as may be. But nothing
about "time" has actually been explained by these "measurements", has it?

There are a few different types of "atomic clock". But, for the purposes if
illustration, let's imagine that the type of atomic clock used in these
"time slowing down" experiments were the "Caesium 133" type that I mentioned
earlier.

Well, again, we established earlier that "time" doesn't actually exist. So
it is not "time slowing down" that is making the "accelerated" atomic clocks
record a shorter period of "time" than the "non-accelerated" atomic clocks.
The only way that something which does not actually exist can affect
something is for it to be "conceptualised" by the brain of an animal, and
then acted upon by that animal. Like me writing this last paragraph, for
instance.

Anyway, something is "slowing down" and making the "accelerated" atomic
clocks record a "shorter" period of "time" than the "non-accelerated" atomic
clocks. So, if it's not "time" itself slowing down", then what is it? It
is actually "changing patterns of existence" which are "slowing down". All
the "patterns of existence" which are under the influence of "acceleration"
will change at a rate which is "slower" than the rate they would change at
if they were not under the influence of "acceleration". Including the
"changing patterns of existence" which we refer to as "oscillating Caesium
133 atoms" in our "accelerated" atomic clocks!

i.e. A suitably excited Caesium 133 atom will not oscillate as "quickly"
under the influence of "acceleration" as it would oscillate if it was not
under the influence of "acceleration".

The reason that the "accelerated" atomic clocks record a "shorter" period of
"time" than the "non-accelerated" atomic clocks is because the oscillating
Caesium 133 atoms in the "accelerated" atomic clocks have not "oscillated"
as many times as the oscillating Caesium 133 atoms in the "non-accelerated"
atomic clocks. And because 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the Caesium 133
atom is recorded by the atomic clocks as "one second", it is obvious that it
is going to take "longer" to record "one second" on the "accelerated" atomic
clocks than it is going to take to record "one second" on the
"non-accelerated" atomic clocks. Therefore, when the "accelerated" and
"non-accelerated" atomic clocks are compared, the "accelerated" atomic
clocks are obviously going to register that a "shorter" period of "time" has
elapsed than the "non-accelerated" atomic clocks. i.e. Less "oscillations"
= less "time" recorded.

So where are we now? We have established that "time" doesn't actually exist
in reality and, because of this, we have also been able to correct a few
semantically "dodgy" questions and statements which were misleading in their
previous forms. We have established that "time" is nothing but "changing
patterns of existence". And we have also established that the "measurement"
of "time" is actually nothing but "counting" and "comparing" certain
"changing patterns of existence" with other "changing patterns of existence"
in order to arrive at a simple "numerical value". Then, with these
"understandings" under our belt, it became obvious that it was "existence
itself" that "slows down" under the influence of acceleration or a
gravitational field - not "time".

But this last observation leads us logically on to another observation.
i.e. SOMETHING must be causing "patterns of existence" to change more
"slowly" when they are under the influence of acceleration or a
gravitational field. And this SOMETHING leads us on to the subject of
Einstein's fundamental "error", which I mentioned earlier.

Albert Einstein's "mathematical models" which describe something known as
"space-time" are extremely successful at predicting the results of various
"experiments". And, incidentally, so is something called "The Standard
Model". "The Standard Model" is excellent at predicting the probabilities
and results of various Quantum Mechanical type experiments, even though it
contains about a dozen completely "made up out of thin air" terms or
"constants" which are necessary to make the equations work at all. However,
Einstein's "space-time" representation of the universe only seems to contain
approximately ONE "dodgy" aspect. But, unfortunately, this "dodgy" aspect
is "time".

Before Einstein formulated his equations, it was generally assumed that some
kind of "carrier medium" was necessary in order to explain the "wave like"
ways that light seemed to propagate in. This was quite logical; because in
order for a "wave" to propagate, it seemed obviously necessary to have
something to actually "wave". For example: it would be extremely difficult
to throw a pebble into a pond and make some waves if the pond in question
didn't actually contain any water!

The Michelson/Morley experiment was one famous attempt to detect this
"carrier medium" or "luminiferous aether" as it was then called. The
details of the experiment as not important here but, basically, they weren't
able to detect anything. There are actually some modern physicists who have
identified some problems with some technical aspects of the experiment, but
that is not relevant here either.

What is relevant is that Einstein's "mathematical models" gave a way to
accurately predict the behaviour of light etc, without the need to
incorporate any kind of "carrier medium" or "luminiferous aether" into the
"workings". So, the presence of any kind of "carrier medium" or
"luminiferous aether" was now superfluous in "explaining" the properties of
light etc. Anyway, the "luminiferous aether" idea went out of favour after
Einstein wrote his "equations".

I believe that this was very unfortunate, and it was partly due to a
fundamental non-mathematical philosophical "error" that Einstein made. I
say that it was "unfortunate" because I will now show that Einstein's
"relativity theories" actually SUPPORT the existence of some kind of
"carrier medium" when this fundamental non-mathematical philosophical
"error" is corrected. This "error" revolves around the logically and
philosophically incorrect use of "time".

I don't want to include any mathematics in my "explanations" so I will just
summarise Einstein's conclusions here:

(1) Einstein concluded that the universe was (at least partly) explainable
if it was viewed as being composed of four dimensions. These dimensions
were height, width, depth and "time". And furthermore, these dimensions
combine to form an overall integrated reality which can be referred to as
four dimensional "space-time". Or just "space-time" for short.

This was Einstein's first "error" - One of the "dimensions" he used to form
his "overall integrated reality" doesn't actually exist!

(2) Einstein concluded that "gravity" was a manifestation which was produced
when "space-time" was "bent" or "distorted" due to the presence of "mass".

This was Einstein's second "error" - He attempted to treat "space-time" as
if it was actually real, and not just the "mathematical model" that it
actually only really is.

OK, let's see how Einstein's "relativity theories" do not make the existence
of some kind of "carrier medium" superfluous. In fact, they do the exact
opposite and actually SUPPORT the existence of some kind of "carrier medium".

(1) Einstein's equations predict that "Time slows down when under the
influence of acceleration or a gravitational field". We showed earlier that
it was actually "existence" and not "time" that "slows down" when under the
influence of acceleration or a gravitational field. So, if space is
actually empty and contains no kind of "carrier medium" of any kind, what is
actually interacting with the matter which is under the influence of
acceleration or a gravitational field in order to create the "slowing down"
effect? There must be "something" interacting with the matter, otherwise it
would not "slow down". Human "conceptualizing" aside, something which does
not exist cannot affect something which does exist. So there must be
something there which is affecting the matter which is under the influence
of acceleration or a gravitational field. We can call this "something" a
"carrier medium" or a "luminiferous aether" or anything else we like. But I
think that we should give this "something" a definite name pretty soon.
Because simple logic dictates that this "something" really does exist. And
unlike "time", which only exists as a "concept" - this "something" is a
"real" and "integral" part of the fabric of our universe.

(2) By saying that "gravity" was a manifestation which was produced when
"space-time" was "bent" or "distorted" due to the presence of "mass", it
seems that Einstein unfortunately considered his "space-time" to be
something which "actually existed" in reality, and was not just a
"mathematical model" which was extremely good at predicting the results of
various experiments. I believe this to be Einstein's fundamental
philosophical "error". A clear case of mistaking the "Map" for the
"Territory". I say "I believe" this to be Einstein's fundamental
philosophical "error" and not that "it is" Einstein's fundamental
philosophical "error" because I am not totally convinced that a person such
as Einstein could make such a simple error as this. I have to be totally
convinced of something before I am prepared to state it as "fact". But, I
have to go on the evidence. You can't bend a "mathematical model" by
placing it near to a "large mass". So, I can only assume that Einstein
considered his "space-time" to have a physical existence which could
actually be "bent" or "distorted" due to the presence of "mass". So, let's
see where Einstein went wrong. For a start, we established earlier that
time does not actually exist - so the physical existence of something that
contains "time" as part of its "structure" is a logical impossibility. OK,
we have now established that "space-time" only actually exists as a
"concept" and a "mathematical model" and that it really has no actual
existence in physical reality. Anyway, Einstein said that mass can bend
"space-time"; but we have just proved that "space-time" does not actually
have a physical existence. So, obviously, mass is not actually bending
"space-time" at all, is it? But something is being bent, because "gravity"
still exists even though "space-time" has been relegated to a mere "concept"
which has no physical existence. So, let's take everything out of four
dimensional "space-time" which is not "real", and see what we have left.
OK. Height, that's real, keep it in. Width, that's real, keep it in.
Depth, that's real, keep it in. Time, ah that's not real, take it out. So
what have we got left for mass to "bend"? Well, we've only thrown away
"time". So we've still got height, width and depth left. And, height, width
and depth are the three "dimensions" of "physical space". So this is what
mass must be "bending". It is now apparent that mass does not bend
"space-time". Mass actually bends "space", not "space-time". And it only
needs one more logical step to enable us to conclude that "space" cannot be
empty. Because, if space was empty, there would be nothing there for mass
to "bend" in order to produce the manifestation which we call "gravity". So
we have come to the same conclusion that we made in (1) above. This
conclusion is that "space" is not empty at all. This conclusion is that
"space" MUST contain "something" which is capable if interacting with
ordinary "matter" to produce the "effects" or "manifestations" which we call
"time-dilation", gravity, inertia, particle/wave duality, and various other
things.

So there we are. By using the "concept" of "time" in its proper context, it
is logical to conclude that Einstein's "relativity theories" actually
SUPPORT the existence of some kind of "carrier medium" or "luminiferous
aether" or whatever you want to call it. And this conclusion is the exact
opposite of the inferences which were drawn when Einstein's equations
produced their wonderfully accurate predictions which seemed to make the
existence of a "carrier medium" or "luminiferous aether" unnecessary or
"superfluous".

Actually, modern physics is now starting to seriously explore this
"luminiferous ether" theory again, but it's not called the "luminiferous
ether" any more. It's now called the "quantum foam" or the "string
background" or something similar.

One more thing before I leave poor old Einstein alone. I believe that
Einstein's equation E = mc^2 has been used by many physicists in their
"popular science" books in a way that gives the general public a completely
misleading impression of what this equation actually represents. For
example: I recently read somewhere that E = mc^2 represents the colossal
amount of "energy" that is produced when "matter" is converted directly into
"energy". At first glance this seems to be an OK explanation. Any number
multiplied be the speed of light squared is certainly going to end up being
pretty colossal. There is no doubt about that. But this is not the
problem. This explanation leads the general public to believe that matter
can be converted into some kind of weird stuff called "energy". And
therefore it implies that this "energy" has some kind of independent
existence which is separate from "matter". I have asked a few of my
(non-scientific) friends what they thought that E = mc^2 actually meant.
And some have told me that they are 100% certain that matter can be
converted into energy by using atomic bombs or nuclear reactors etc, and
that E = mc^2 is the formula that is used to work out the amount of energy
which can be produced in the process. Well, they are sort of "half-right"
by saying this. But none of my (non-scientific) friends seemed to realise
that matter can NOT actually change into "energy". The only thing that
matter can change into is other forms of matter. They don't seem to realise
that "energy" is a sort of a "catch-all" term which is used to "explain" and
"quantify" certain "changing patterns of existence". For example: consider
an "annihilation event" in which an electron (-) and a positron (+) collide
with each other to produce a "flash of energy". What actually happens in
this an "annihilation event" is that the electron and the positron are
converted into two "photons". And these two "photons" then fly off
somewhere at the speed of light. This is what is meant by "energy".
Electrons, positrons AND photons are all "particles of matter". No weird
"substance" called "energy" has actually been created in this "annihilation
event". The only thing that has been created is a different form of matter.
So the term "energy" is just a "representation" of a "changing pattern of
existence". I think that "popular science" books should give a better (and
less misleading) explanation of what "energy" actually is.

As well as "de-mystifying" a few things, let's see what we have been able to
conclude by using nothing but simple logic and absolutely no mathematical
equations at all. We have concluded that "time" doesn't actually exist. We
have concluded that "existence" (not "time") slows down when under the
influence of acceleration or a gravitational field. We have concluded that
mass actually bends "space" and not "space-time". And from these
conclusions we have also been able to conclude that a "carrier medium" or
"luminiferous aether" or "quantum foam" or whatever you wish to call it -
MUST ACTUALLY EXIST.

These conclusions now cause me to ask another question: Why have I had to
work all this out for myself? The logic which led to these conclusions is
so simple that a child could follow it. So why haven't these conclusions
been made by some people who are much "cleverer" than me many years ago?

I can think of three possible answers to these questions:

(1) I am talking out of my arse, and my "conclusions" are complete
nonsense!

Or:

(2) My conclusions are "correct", and I have found a "new" way of
looking at the "structure of reality" which nobody else has identified
before.

Or:

(3) Some of my conclusions are valid, but some of my other
conclusions are invalid.

I think the most likely answer is number (1) because I can't believe that
someone like me, with only an A-Level knowledge of physics, could see
something that professors of physics have completely missed. But maybe the
correct answer is number (3), I don't know.

Anyway, if anybody would like to put me right on a few points: please feel
free. I am not frightened of being wrong. I am only interested in finding
out whether or not my conclusions are actually valid.

I have actually used my "conclusions" to come up with some simple
explanations to describe various other "aspects of reality". These include
light, the "two-slit" experiment, mass, weight and certain other
manifestations of "quantum weirdness". But I will not write them here now;
in case someone points out an obvious "error" with something I have already
written which may turn my new explanations into nonsense!

I hope you enjoyed reading this. And please remember, ALL comments are
welcome.
















Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-04-2005, 03:07 PM
THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does any of this make sense ???

Dear sir,



I read yours considerations about physics..

But criticism is not enough.

Theoretical physics is on a wrong way from very beginning, when Newton has
introduced the force to explain the accelerated motion.

You can find another way to study the motion of matter via the general
properties of relativistic motions at

[Only registered users see links. ]



Eugen Negut


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-07-2005, 05:09 AM
The TimeLord
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does any of this make sense ???

Yrael <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in
<dfabct$j7i$[Only registered users see links. ].ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> on Friday 02 September
2005 15:06 posted to alt.sci.physics:

[...]
[...]

Time is that which is measured by a clock in seconds. SI defines the a
second as 9'192'631'770 vibrations of the unperturbed hyperfine transition
4,0-3,0 of the fundamental state 2S1/2 in Cesium-133.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

Well, first of all it was waaaaaaaay too long. Secondly, you wasted an
inordinate amount of posting space with just ranting your complaints about
physics and none giving a scientific justification for your position.

The real problem is that you are complaining and denegrating something you
don't understand. Then you come up with something that is totally at odds
with reality: time does not exist. In physics, if it is quantifiable in
terms of its definition and domain, then it exists. Time is measured with a
clock consistent with the definition and the clock does not depend on a
human for its measurement. So time exists. Everything you base on your
wrong conclusion is also wrong. You can not get to reality physics by
simply defining time away.

My strongest suggestion is that you take a few more physics classes.
Everything else will become clear then.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-2005, 03:11 AM
The TimeLord
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does any of this make sense ???

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in
<FCBTe.186333$E95.71864@fed1read01> on Wednesday 07 September 2005 08:08
posted to alt.sci.physics:

[...]

I'm not sure that this came from Ernest Wittke. I think there are some that
are followers of some psychic who just wants to redefine physics in terms
that she considers consistent with her "revelations". At least it was some
psychic that was posting that idea around usenet, including in
alt.sci.time-travel.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
make , sense


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
>>>> MAKE RADIO <<<< Tania Guthrie Forum Physik 0 09-23-2009 04:43 PM
What is Gravity? sdr@sdrodrian.com Physics Forum 1 01-27-2008 02:53 PM
Politics And Cannibalism? Introducing The Dourties, Chelsea, Bill, Hillary, Barrack Obama, George Bush, Jr., And All Of Capital Hill! jon_johnfrancisayres@yahoo.com Microbiology Forum 0 10-06-2007 05:59 AM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.33705 seconds with 16 queries