An Experiment With Clocks.

[LaurieAG]

1 What then reflects light from a rotating object in the laboratory?

One of these is supposed to be able to measure the speed up to 60,000 RPM (i.e. 1,000 RPS) for under $10. It actually sends a timed LED light pulse that reflects back off a model R/C helicopter blade and is counted.

 

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19972__FrSky_RPMS_01_Telemetry_RPM_Sensor.html

[sigurdV]

One of these is supposed to be able to measure the speed up to 60,000 RPM (i.e. 1,000 RPS) for under $10. It actually sends a timed LED light pulse that reflects back off a model R/C helicopter blade and is counted.

 

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19972__FrSky_RPMS_01_Telemetry_RPM_Sensor.html

Honestly: I will never dispute you on technical matters! I have some instinct of self preservation left.

I am happy to acknowledge your presense in the thread and admire your resolute way of examining things.

 

Did you notice I asked whether different orientations of its rotation axis effects centrifugal time?

If the axis is parallell to Earth rotational axis then it seems to me that small periodic variations

in centrifugal time might exist... Could you perhaps clear up this matter? I think it may be important.

 

But...ahem...please! Present your final result in ordinary English (Or Swedish.)

 

That said a thought occurs to me:

My experiment was modelled on the Twin Experiment

and the question has been raised

whether my "improvement" is only a "plagiarisation"

or if my experiment has some Scientific Value on its own?

 

I will say neither wouff nor baaah in the matter,

only point out that to settle it

the properties of my experiment needs to be examined

and that the subject of the missing minute

therefore should be put in the back ground temporarily.

http://scienceforums.com/topic/21166-the-nature-of-time/page__st__60__gopid__327442

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

It is with some pain I have attacked an old acquaintance of mine.

He has defended my rights of expression before,

but my defence nevertheless was necessary:

I simply had to nail a fact down into the floor

with as heavy hammer strokes as I could manage!

 

My experiment rests on the fundament that

all things in the laboratory share a common time!

 

I will sometimes refere to that time

with respect to any object x

within the lab as: the "external time" of x.

 

1 Suppose x and y are inside the lab

then the external times of x and y are the same.

 

2 Suppose x is inside y and y is inside the lab

then the external times of x and y are the same.

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV

[Moontanman]

It is with some pain I have attacked an old acquaintance of mine. He has defended my rights of expression before,but my attack nevertheless was necessary: My experiment rests on the fundament that all things in the laboratory share a common time! I simply had to nail that fact down into the floor with as heavy hammer strokes as I could manage!

 

There is no universal time, in fact the time on the clock in the centrifuge slowed down because it was moving in relation to the clock that wasn't spinning, time is relative to speed, gravitational potential ect.. Time is not a constant... Both time frames are equally valid..

[sigurdV]

There is no universal time

 

So there is, according to you, no universal time.

Ok with me... I have no particular use for it.

 

What is it?

 

How do you know that it doesnt exist?

What has it to do with my thought experiment?

 

EDIT:Oh I see! You think common time is universal time? Well I wouldnt know!

(Please tell me all relevant facts you know about it.)

By "common time" I simply mean what any commonly accepted time-measuring method

used in our society tells us is the time the experiment consumes in the lab.

 

BTW Is there, according to you,

any difference between the age of the universe and a universal time?

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

... in fact the time on the clock in the centrifuge slowed down because it was moving in relation to the clock that wasn't spinning, time is relative to speed, gravitational potential ect.. Time is not a constant...

Yes I agree.

 

Both time frames are equally valid...

It is with some suspicions I tentatively adopt your linguistic

concept of frames ...On the condition that the lab time

can be considered to be a time frame for all objects in the laboratory.

But dont let my suspicions stop you from using frames wherever you find them ;)

Its a very old word and concept, traceable down to Nostratic, the origin of all European Languages.

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

It is with some suspicions I tentatively adopt your linguistic

concept of frames ...On the condition that the lab time

can be considered to be a time frame for all objects in the laboratory.

 

 

No, this is not true, the time frame of objects moving in respect to each other is independent of each other...

[sigurdV]

No, this is not true, the time frame of objects moving in respect to each other is independent of each other...

Im not sure I understand you:

 

Suppose we also have a clock moving towards a corner from the opposite corner.

Then please apply your frames to the situation so you become understandable.

 

Please arrange things so the passage takes 60 minutes common time.

And show what the independence consists in.

 

The lab could be filled with clocks in varying conditions

making the frame approach somewhat tiresome so:

 

Let the time any clock x shows at a moment z in common time

be the internal time of x,

and the time any clock y shows be the external time of x with respect to y

then I think what you are trying to tell me is

that internal time is independent of external time. No?

[Moontanman]

Im not sure I understand you:

 

Suppose we also have a clock moving towards a corner from the opposite corner.

Then please apply your frames to the situation so you become understandable.

 

Please arrange things so the passage takes 60 minutes common time.

And show what the independence consists in.

 

The lab could be filled with clocks in varying conditions

making the frame approach somewhat tiresome so:

 

Let the time any clock x shows at a moment z in common time

be the internal time of x,

and the time any clock y shows be the external time of x with respect to y

then I think what you are trying to tell me is

that internal time is independent of external time. No?

 

 

Any two or more objects that are moving with respect to each other are in different time frames, the difference may be to small to measure but it is still true. it is 20:29 here where I am at, it is not 20:29 on the Moon or Mars and the car that just went past my house not to mention the airplane that flew over head has an independent time frame as well. the difference between most of these objects is quite small but it is still there.

 

Our own internal sense of time is far too coarse to measure this but is still true...

 

If i am on top of a mountain and you are at sea level we are in independent time frames, not enough to notice but it is still true..

[sigurdV]

Any two or more objects that are moving with respect to each other are in different time frames, the difference may be to small to measure but it is still true.

You mean that their internal times need not be the same? You never explain the consequences of being in different frames to me why?

 

 

 

 

it is 20:29 here where I am at, it is not 20:29 on the Moon or Mars and the car that just went past my house not to mention the airplane that flew over head has an independent time frame as well. the difference between most of these objects is quite small but it is still there.

My experiment is not yet extended to include the external spots you mention can you stick to the topic?

Besides ALL you are saying is that their internal times differ!(However little.)

 

Please stop repeating the same statement.

Try researching my experiment instead of telling me that speed affects time!

 

 

Our own internal sense of time is far too coarse to measure this but is still true...

 

If i am on top of a mountain and you are at sea level we are in independent time frames, not enough to notice but it is still true..

Im NOT denying dilation... I dont deny that differences in speed and gravity effects internal time.. but I dont understand what time frames are necessary for!

 

Please do show that there are statements using the concept of "time frame" that cannot be translated to a statement instead containing the concepts "internal and external time".

[Rade]

SigurdV...concerning your question, I voted for (2), time has been cut not compressed, as explained in above post. How vote you ?

[sigurdV]

SigurdV...concerning your question, I voted for (2), time has been cut not compressed, as explained in above post. How vote you ?

LOL!

Thank you, I needed a good laugh! Your remark is witty!

You restored my belief in Hypographykind ;)

 

I vote for quantified time. I hasten to add that I have no proof of time quanta.

Its just that energy is quantified and theres some connection between time and energy!

Exemplified in motion... No motion no time, its said, and motion can be converted to energy.

 

Also its Occams razor at work, its the more simple solution: I dont have to find out HOW

quantization works... we already know that, but the cutting wakes follow up questions.

 

I have no idea if there are other arguments for Time Quanta and if they have any practical use.

(Except explaining time dilation that is.) I really should search the net

for opinions on time quantization... but its not vital to my experiment,

it works either way, but I cant help finding the matter interesting.

 

On the Experiment: What Im most interested in at the moment

is how to detect small periodic variations in the internal time,

and it there are variations of it in the spinning clock?

 

Such variations have no other explanation, is my idea, than some relation

existing between internal and external time contrary to my beginning expectations.

Internal and external time is supposed to be independent of each other...

But treating matter as collections of clocks makes me doubt the dictum.

 

Remember theres no mystery involved in "internal" here: Internal time is what the clock x shows.

And I suspect it might be effected by the external time relative to y, if y and x are rotating.

In particular the effect might be noticeable if y is a large mass compared to x.

 

Im not claiming that it IS the external time all by itself "printing the effect" on x.

How things work is what Science attempt to discover.

 

In the beginning of the experiment the rotation axis of the centrifuge is perpendicular to

the rotational axis of the Earth. What happens if we move it so axises become parallell?

 

Are there now small periodic variations in centrifugal time

caused by the fact that the clock half of its rotation period is

moving towards the earth and away from it the other half?

 

EDIT: Hi again Rade! While visiting threads I found this post of yours. I think its a good piece of work so I publish you in here... mind you... I dont agree.

I simply think your work is honest work related to my questions and therefore should be read:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hello Deepwater6....you will want to read the book below by C.J. Masreliez, where the argument is made that spacetime is constantly expanding, always has been, always will be, thus no need for a Big Bang cause. I like this thinking because both space of universe (e.g., the inner most boundary of it as a thing that contains) and time (as number that measures motion), are infinite and by definition, that which is infinite can always have something added to it without end.

http://www.estfound....ads/thebook.pdf

 

But, one correction I would make to your question, plus wording in the book by Masreliez...for me, time is not FAST or SLOW, time is LONG (MANY)or SHORT (FEW). Also, time does not move, entities move, time is nothing more than a number that is the measure of motion of entities (and thus indirectly,rest). I discuss my opinion on this in the thread by SiguardV about clocks and his twin paradox experiment.

 

Concerning book of Masreliez, on p. 19 he makes statement.."when space expands the length of second also must expand, i.e. time must slow down". This is not my view. I would say, i.e., the number of time must be shorter. Why ? Let |__| be the length of a second, and this many seconds between two moments (M) of fixed scale, M1|__||__||__||__|M2. Now, as per suggestion of Masreliez, let space expand such that length of second also expands, thus new expanded second looks like this |______| and new relationship of time to the two moments that maintains scale becomes M1|______||______|M2. So, do we conclude that time must slow down ? No, we say that after space expansion, the number of time as measure of motion must be shorter or fewer...that is, it is now 2, instead of initial 4.

 

0

Edited April 16, 2013 by sigurdV

[Rade]

I vote for quantified time. I hasten to add that I have no proof of time quanta. Its just that energy is quantified and theres some connection between time and energy! Exemplified in motion... No motion no time, its said, and motion can be converted to energy.

LOL, you vote for something I would have voted for if you had presented the possibility :P You only allowed compressed vs cut, now you add QUANTIFIED to the stew. So, now my vote is: TIME can be quantified and cut. How is time quantified ? For me, as a number, thus ...1,2,3,4,5... each number is a quantum of time. Support for my argument comes from Webster definition of a 'quantum': from Latin-how much, thus quantity or amount. Thus, for me, in quantum theory of physics TIME can be a quantum as unit number, as ENERGY is a quantum unit as wavelength, which is called photon. I already presented argument that time is cut not compressed. Do you agree ?

 

Edit: To clarify, I do not mean that 1,2,3,4,5...means number 5 has more time than number 1...no, each number, whatever it may be, equals one quantum unit of time. Consider each number 1,2,3,4,5...to be a tick of time of some defined duration (sec. min. year. etc)

 

Also its Occams razor at work, its the more simple solution: I don't have to find out HOW quantization works... we already know that, but the cutting wakes follow up questions. I have no idea if there are other arguments for Time Quanta .

You must read carefully the thoughts of Dewey Larsen, see here, plus it helps if you read first more recent works of others then move on to Larsen.

 

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl/

 

Larsen presents his 'Reciprocal System of Theory". This theory is based on one unique assumption, MOTION itself is a quantized entity that moves exactly at c = speed of light. So, as a picture, let [] equal one unit of quantized MOTION. This [] unit then evolves over spacetime as this picture.

 

[] (universe begins at unity, a single quantized unit of MOTION itself)

[][]

[][][]

[][][][]

 

and so on to infinity

 

<--spacetime-->

 

Somewhere along the evolution the first quantum unit of photon is formed from [], and given that photon is trapped with space of motion it must move also at c, speed of light. Note, time does not exist within this fundamental unit of motion with only photon present, they are both outside of time because there is nothing relative to them to measure. That is, motion cannot measure motion itself. Photon energy then leads to formation of matter, which will always move at a speed less than c, thus is the begin of the concept time. Thus, the reason that both space and time are quantized is because they both follow laws set by something more fundamental, MOTION itself as quantized unit. Well, this is my understanding of Larsen after brief reading of his work, perhaps I error, let me know after you read him.

 

On the Experiment: What I'm most interested in at the moment is how to detect small periodic variations in the internal time, and if there are variations of it in the spinning clock?

Yes, this has been discussed, you detect the variations by simultaneous measurements of both clocks at two moments within time, at begin and at end. You need to make 4 sure measurements, correct ?

 

Such variations have no other explanation, is my idea, than some relation existing between internal and external time contrary to my beginning expectations. Internal and external time is supposed to be independent of each other...But treating matter as collections of clocks makes me doubt the dictum.

Well, here is the problem, internal and external time are NOT independent of each other, they are relative to each other. In GR theory you CANNOT make space and time independent. If you want to do that, fine, but then you cannot make any reference to Einstein.

 

How things work is what Science attempt to discover.

I agree, but remember that the answer Science gives is always uncertain knowledge of how. One reason Science allows for many many different theories or models of the how of Science, we then select the one that most agrees with rational facts of observation and experiment, the best we mortal humans can do.

 

In the beginning of the experiment the rotation axis of the centrifuge is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the Earth. What happens if we move it so axises become parallel?

Yes, you keep asking this question and I cannot yet find an answer. My first reaction is that 'nothing happens to time' if you move the axises of the two watches, they both move different relative to each other independently. But, I keep searching the web for you. Edited April 16, 2013 by Rade

[sigurdV]

LOL, you vote for something I would have voted for if you had presented the possibility :P You only allowed compressed vs cut, now you add QUANTIFIED to the stew. So, now my vote is: TIME can be quantified and cut. How is time quantified ? For me, as a number, thus ...1,2,3,4,5... each number is a quantum of time. Support for my argument comes from Webster definition of a 'quantum': from Latin-how much, thus quantity or amount. Thus, for me, in quantum theory of physics TIME can be a quantum as unit number, as ENERGY is a quantum unit as wavelength, which is called photon. I already presented argument that time is cut not compressed. Do you agree ?

 

Friend and co-worker...this last post of yours will take some time to digest! But Im happy that you decided to publish together with me! And I would like to continue our discussion! I should warn you though that I am a Philosopher not a Scientist (Using the words ordinarily.)And though I tried to understand the essences of Quantum Theory And Relativity the lack of actual practise in use of their terms is making me slow beyond belief for scientists!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What I lack in maneuvrability I compensate with precision and special knowledge derived from logic ...in particular the theory of paradoxes where I a decade ago made a surprising discovery coloring my thoughts from then on...

Ill give you for later reference the intro:

Show without exluding self reference that sentence 3 does not follow from the preceeding sentences.

1 sentence 1 is not true

2 sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"

3 "sentence 1 is not true" is not true

As you probably is aware of its the so called Paradox of the Liar! But I prefere Caling it: Pandoras Box ;)

Dont post on it in here message me if you get any thought or want to ask something...later on Ill show the connection to my experiment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Well then...Introducing models to study is a nice unexpected surprise...ill not make any judgements yet I only note that we should from now on be somewhat careful in the use of inside/outside since we both use them ;)

 

"Note, time does not exist within this fundamental unit of motion with only photon present, they are both outside of time"

 

I dont mind a connection between outside and inside time, I try to prove there IS interference between them!

Lets check a parallell from semantics: Translate "This is English" into some other non-English language,Z,and notice that the word for word translation of a true sentence in English is a false sentence in Z! Then translate the whole piece of text that contains the problematic sentence and you realise that in order to succeed you MUST change the word "English" into "Z" .Showing that context (=outside) and content (=inside) of sentences can interfere with each other!

 

I understand if youre surprised to see in semantics a model of a structure in physics but dont blame me,I didnt create Reality. And we need to take a closer look at concepts eventually so im just preparing the ground for now. Take anything said by me "outside" my experiment as a joke if you like ;)

 

Actually I suggest we do some messaging since I fear we run the risk of getting accused of trolling if we dont in here concentrate on clear "Scientific" issues...

 

And you are exactly on the spot when you say that variations are detected by simultaneous meeasurement but not only at common endpoints of the time segments they are registered as two arrows see #21:

 

"Instead of imagining a hawkeyed observer able to actually see the arrow on the rotating clock we alter the clock:

It has no visible arrow now, instead it sends a continuous report to something, some advanced computer? ,

able to produce an image of what the clock should tell us if we could observe it directly,

on a screen conveniently placed in front of the observer sitting at the table.

 

Lets do the same for the other clock so theres on the screen pictures of both the clockfaces...and by all means let there also be

 

a superimposed picture so any differences between the speed of the arrows is easily spotted

 

...and let the computer be able to represent the information from the clocks as two parallell arrows growing in the tempo of each clock... or any other interesting and convenient way of presenting the recieved information from the clocks."

 

So looking at the arrows we will see wriggles in the arrow depicting centrifuge time

not being present in the lab arrow thereby proving the lab has an outside!

 

To me this is a very important result in need of generalisation!

 

EDIT:The above result is what Ive been looking for but the experiment still interests me in its own right. I suppose we no longer need the lab walls (and floor?) we consider only any ensamble of clocks and define the fastest clock as stationary. And call the ensamble a Universe,U, and the time of the fastest clock as universal time with respect to U.

 

I believe all constituents of our own Universe perhaps can be considered as "clocks" and that I showed that in principle we CAN detect interference inside our universe coming from outside. This was what I had in mind when I two years ago entered Hypography and published in the thread "Is the age of our universe an absolute time" or something of the sort...you can find a link to it in a post from JMJONES.

 

My next question is simply: What is interference in general? We see it not only in Physics! But also in the Theory of Concepts.

Edited April 17, 2013 by sigurdV

[Rade]

As you probably is aware of its the so called Paradox of the Liar! But I prefere Caling it: Pandoras Box ;)

As suggested I'll not comment here but there are many ways philosophers suggest you can open the Box and walk away happy the paradox does not exist...the Wiki on Paradox of Liar gives many examples.

 

I dont mind a connection between outside and inside time, I try to prove there IS interference between them!

OK, a good problem to work on

 

Actually I suggest we do some messaging since I fear we run the risk of getting accused of trolling if we don't in here concentrate on clear "Scientific" issues...

Well, we are in help section of forum, a place where two people interfere with each other, so, given you look for general rules of interference, I think it OK for us to continue dialog here.

 

And you are exactly on the spot when you say that variations are detected by simultaneous measurement but not only at common endpoints of the time segments they are registered as two arrows see #21:

Well, this is the question at hand, correct ? We look to see if the two arrows of your experiment must always interfere when represented as parallel arrows growing in the tempo of each clock over a time interval such as start and stop of clocks, as you say below. I think this is a nice question to consider (the question of interference), because clearly two clocks as written words represent two things as being in reality as phenomena that may have possibility to interfere always, not only at simultaneous moments, but also during their state evolution...correct ? Am I understanding you correctly ?

 

So looking at the arrows we will see wriggles in the arrow depicting centrifuge time not being present in the lab arrow thereby proving the lab has an outside!

Well, sure, the lab clock on table has an outside time relative to it because that is how you designed your experimental thought experiment, the spinning clock is outside the lab clock and the lab clock is outside the spinning clock. Why would this be a surprise ?

 

I believe all constituents of our own Universe perhaps can be considered as "clocks" and that I showed that in principle we CAN detect interference inside our universe coming from outside.

OK. But what do you mean by word 'constituent of our own Universe' ? Why the 'own' ? Your statement assumes there must be a 'not-own' Universe, but we cannot assume this, it must be shown logically. And would a lima bean be a 'constituent', not the words, the real phenomenon of Kant in reality connected to the concept ? If yes, then how do you conclude that a lima bean can be considered as a 'clock' ?

 

Using the definition of time I gave above, a clock is a constituent that measures time (recall, time is NOT measured by a clock, so very important to grasp the difference).

 

So, would you then agree that a lima bean can be considered to be something that can measure time ? Your answer will help me understand you.

 

==

 

My next question is simply: What is interference in general? We see it not only in Physics! But also in the Theory of Concepts.

Wow, good example of how the simple quickly can transform to the complex :)

 

I strongly suggest that you read what the Science of Cybernetics has to say about the concept 'interference', because it gets directly to your interest, the transmission of information...no better yet...the transmission of VARIETY of information ! From this we get a general interference rule: If the interference is to be non-destructive, the variety in the received forms must not be less than that in the original (see W. Ross Ashby, Introduction to Cybernetics, p.159).

 

In more general terms, let me offer my attempt to answer your question. So, what is interference in general ? Interference in general is a simultaneous interaction of the boundaries between the inside and the outside (note I put my wording into terms you use). Interference can be non-destructive or not. Example of destructive interference is when boundaries of electron (e-) and positron (+e) meet, when inside and outside of two boundaries interact simultaneously---boom :ebomb: Example of warm fuzzy non-destructive interference is shell of turtle The inner and outer boundaries of the shell interfere respectively and simultaneously with outside harsh environment (the fox) and inside organs of body of turtle, the effect of the interference is continued survival of turtle over time, as a turtle. The shell maintains the interference rule, the variety of potential destructive information received by the turtle inside the body is not less than the original present outside. Delete argument in edit.

 

 

So, back to your clock experiment. I see no reason there MUST be interference between the evolution of the time arrows of the two clocks, that there MUST be simultaneous interactions of the boundaries of the arrows between the inside and outside variations of their tempos. I only see interference in the experiment when the arrows interact with moments in time (2 for each arrow) and it occurs in a non-destructive way. In short, I suggest there is no superposition between the two time arrows DURING THEIR STATE EVOLUTION, as given from the design of your thought experiment, the interference only occurs at the times of MEASUREMENT by the observer. If you want the two time arrows to interference during their state evolution, you will need to propose an alternative thought experiment...well perhaps I error but this is my thinking until someone shows me how I error.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Rade

[sigurdV]

Well, this is the question at hand, correct ? We look to see if the two arrows of your experiment must always interfere when represented as parallel arrows growing in the tempo of each clock over a time interval such as start and stop of clocks, as you say below. I think this is a nice question to consider (the question of interference), because clearly two clocks as written words represent two things as being in reality as phenomena that may have possibility to interfere always, not only at simultaneous moments, but also during their state evolution...correct ? Am I understanding you correctly ?

 

Not only correctly, it may be approaching congruence! I interrupted my reading to tell you that your sentence in bold to me is proof of your understanding!

Im surprised. (Not too much, but understanding of me IS rare.)

So ok if you think its safe lets open the Pandora Box then:

 

Most attempts is oriented to find some logical error made in first sentence. Yes! There is one there...BUT ...it is hidden from sight. It cant be seen unless the second logical error is discovered. But where might it be found?

How can we demonstrate? Look at other models of interference; do they give you any new idea?

 

We have the box, we have the "this is English" sentence to compare the physical experiment with. They seem (at least to me) to have a common anatomy so I think we should make the words we use more precise and form some simple idea (or theory) of objects:

 

1 To every object there is its outside and its inside and, in at least some cases, the object is perhaps nothing but the relation of inside and outside.

 

2 Example: Suppose there is a book containing the sentence: "This is a sentence in the book."

Its obviously true so take a scissor and cut it out! Now the sentence is not true!

 

3 Is there a physical/mental objekt "sentence" that is the same object both in the book and outside it?

 

4 If the lab is the book what are the equivalences then?

 

Well then Rade... are you still claiming I make sense? You do see the "interference" common to the models?

 

Is there, or is there not, a possibly important unresearched something I name "interference"?

[sigurdV]

I really should read the rest of your post now Rade. But your positive response helps strenghtening my confidence.

Dim new thoughts are coming out from my subconscious: I want to make sure youre up to date with my view of this weird theory of interference. How far does it reach? I believe it shows how to detect if there is someting outside the universe. Is that its limit? Are we clocks? Is Life a Clock? What IS then Death? I have no idea!

But I feel like somebody holding a tiger in the tail... Spin or die!

 

BTW was my hints on the box sufficient for you to see the solution? No? Hmmm...why not try a scissor then?

Cut out the first sentense but leave the the number "1" to left of sentence 1 out of the removed sentence one.

 

Now WHAT are the liars jointly telling you now?

 

The cut sentence says: I really dont know what sentence is not true!

The sentence 2 says : I really dont know what sentence IS the sentence 1!

 

Their interference is now gone and thereby demonstrated for all (non logicians).

 

EDIT 2: If you did as instructed you probably forgot(being no logician)

to cut out sentence 1 from both places?

Heres the result after cutting...I put "x" where sentence 1 once was:

 

1 x

2 sentence 1 = "x"

This (ahem...) is important!

Suppose: x = sentence 1 (as the case SHOULD be) then we get:

1 x

2 x = "x"

Since x is now for sure a sentence then there is a Z such that:

1 xZ

2 x = "xZ"

And the domain of self referential sentences shows itself.

Any independent axiom in a consistent theory (is our equation system consistent?)

can be replaced with its negation so negate sentence two and you have

 

The domain of ordinary binary logic!

1 xZ

2 for no x, x=xZ.

And if this domain is consistent then so is the system it came from.

Actually Im doing this to show that I really AM a logician... it has been questioned.

My personal style differs from the other logicians...sorry! Its me or them Im afraid!

 

For the laymen i will now translate: The existence of paradoxes made logicians exclude

ALL self reference. Above I prove that the solution is illusory!

Logic cannot be proven consistent unless

the domain of self referential sentence proves to be consistent at the same time.

 

The problem is simple: Can it be the case that Z = " is not true"

in the domain of self referential sentences?

To my surprise I saw that the answer is NO!

 

Any faults this far? No? We have:

1 xZ

2 x = "xZ"

And we get:

3 (x="xZ") implies (xZ="xZZ") Which exlcudes x = "x is not true" , Which excludes Z = "is not true"

And the domain is free from paradox! Is therefore consistent, which proves ordinary binary logic consistent as well.

 

 

Edit 1: Cybernetics... throwing it onto the bed... opens at page 56... page begins with the words "much more detail in the chapter devoted to the theory of communication."

copyright 1948 eight printing.

 

Well then today I decided to call my theory for The Theory of Interference provided the name is free! As of now it does not exist at any particular place and moment. It remains to be understood and written. I only demonstrate two important examples of interference: My experiment with Clocks and Pandoras box.

 

I have had this book all my life... well ahem... since before I became teenager that is... I read what I could and decided that when I get older I shall check the maths in it...well...I forgot to do that... but maybe it was Norbert all the time encouraging me to go on against ANY odds stacked at me.. not true of course but Ill say something that shocks even myself: Who cares!

 

Two weeks ago I discovered Henri Bergson ... and noticed that he defends x="x" but tries to disprove or diminish the value of x=x tsk tsk... BOTH are needed: To be is to satisfy both equations: their interference IS reality.(maybe)

 

1 x=x

2 x="x"

Now if youll excuse me Ill dive into Norbert discussing Henri...

Edited April 18, 2013 by sigurdV