An Experiment With Clocks.

[Rade]

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

Yes, boundaries are common to both models, thus potential for interference exists. I will be off line 2-3 weeks.

 

ps/ Suppose X = |X| = "x", with | = boundary of inside to outside

 

here you may find the interference between ?

 

x = x

X = "x"

Edited April 18, 2013 by Rade

[sigurdV]

sigurdV, on 17 April 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

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

[/b]Yes, boundaries are common to both models, thus potential for interference exists. I will be off line 2-3 weeks.

 

ps/ Suppose X = |X| = "x", with | = boundary of inside to outside (Excellent!)

 

here you may find the interference between ?

 

x = x

x = "x"

This "boundary" hypothesis of yours is a valuable contribution to my yet vague and incomplete theory:

 

Objects are boundaries!

 

A proof that my theory NEEDS participation from other people... I have had EXTREME difficulties in

crossing the boundary between me and other ppl on this subject... almost getting me paranoid in the process.

I am probably the most disliked person in Hypography at the moment. Cant help wondering why?

Social interference? Will harassing of me disappear now? Am I really dislikeable on my own? We will see.

The fact is: My isolation is broken! Somebody improved on my thoughts!

 

here you may find the interference between ?

 

x = x

x = "x"

 

Im contrasting the static concept of time (blocktime: Parmenides, Einstein) with dynamic time

(Time flies...the river of time is never the same: Heracleitos.)

Interference appears if and when both models is united...

REAL TIME is something satisfying BOTH equations.

 

Think a deck of cards: (x=x) represents the pictures on cards. (x="x") represents their order.

Accepting both makes games possible!

Seing blocktime and dynamic time as a system of equations is as far as I know a new perspective!

Edited April 18, 2013 by sigurdV

[Rade]

Objects are boundaries!

Yes, and the add this to your thinking...All Moments in Time are Boundaries, and I think your theory of interference advances, the interference is between boundaries of OBJECTS and MOMENTS. Well, perhaps not what you agree with.

[sigurdV]

Yes, and the add this to your thinking...All Moments in Time are Boundaries, and I think your theory of interference advances, the interference is between boundaries of OBJECTS and MOMENTS. Well, perhaps not what you agree with.

But theres something odd here: What is NOT a boundary? I flatly deny theres a theory yet.

Observations YES!

Definitions YES!

Theory Ha ha!

 

Maybe Im somhewhat too hard here but there remains lots to do.

 

I think hunting for examples is good tactics:

Can we show consciousness to be an interference phenomenon?

Since my two models are so very different then interference may be common,

and an overlooked factor in many a difficult problem.

 

Maybe the theory can begin in the definition of object as the border of the inside and the outside resulting from a categorisation of what is "the outside of the object". (Notice the circle.)Different categorisations gives different sets of objects? I despair of stating a theory and apply it top down... maybe for a change this theory needs the bottom and upwards approach? It simply MUST start from observation? Any understanding of the observed object IS the first categorisation of the object with respect to the observer?

 

Heres my vote on the first theory fragment:

1 To each and every object theres an inside and an outside, the object being their relation to each other.

 

At the moment it seems as the inside always is being a certain part of the whole that IS the outside before categorisation... but in the case of reproduction the point is that later in the process a part leaves what it originally was a part of. While still being part interference is easy : if the whole vibrates the part will be part of the vibration (frequence and amplitude can perhaps make the part feel strong effects) but being born the vibrations of the parent must be distributed by the outside of the parent.

 

The "Mess" in front makes me despair...but looking backwards I realise lots of travel is behind getting here!

[sigurdV]

Yes, and the add this to your thinking...All Moments in Time are Boundaries, and I think your theory of interference advances, the interference is between boundaries of OBJECTS and MOMENTS. Well, perhaps not what you agree with.

Dont worry. IF I disagree Im still open to good arguments. As of now I enjoy ANY statement resulting from thinking in/of/on my theory (If i decide to admit it as a theory that is... in the meantime why not admit its "Metaphorically Speaking" a theory? Done.Ill stop denying it from now on.)

[sigurdV]

Thank you sigurdV for pointing out something

Have fun -- Dick

Well I may have another point...

Your fundamental equation is modelled on x=x , isnt it?

I suspect you missed another half...

I think reality is NOT an equation,

it is perhaps the Equation System!

 

1 x=x

2 x="x"

 

Will that effect your solution?

(Just asking.)

[sigurdV]

Yes, and the add this to your thinking...All Moments in Time are Boundaries, and I think your theory of interference advances, the interference is between boundaries of OBJECTS and MOMENTS. Well, perhaps not what you agree with.

Im impressed by the boundary concept,but im unused to it.It hits my object concept right on its head ;)

Showing the essence of objecthood.

My favorite model of time is a deck of cards, every card a moment of time in itself being some sort of photo

( maybe of all cards that so far have been put on the table...) each card,x, having the sucsessor ,"x".

You "play your hand" and the game is over?

[Rade]

You "play your hand" and the game is over?

Yes, or, you cross the finish line in 100 m dash and the race is over.

[Rade]

But theres something odd here: What is NOT a boundary? I flatly deny theres a theory yet.

Time is not a boundary, moments are the boundary of time

 

Can we show consciousness to be an interference phenomenon?

... maybe for a change this theory needs the bottom and upwards approach? It simply MUST start from observation? Any understanding of the observed object IS the first categorisation of the object with respect to the observer? Heres my vote on the first theory fragment: 1 To each and every object theres an inside and an outside, the object being their relation to each other.

Memory may be such an object you look for, a relation of inside and outside for an object.

 

We start with a definition of memory as a relationship between present state of human mind "observable" via conscious now and past state stored in unconscious that is "non-observable" now. The object is the human mind, the inside is the conscious, the outside is the unconscious, the object (mind) links the two via memory.

 

Using this definition memory becomes a relational concept that our mind invokes to fill the difference caused when some set of stored non-observable variables of the past cannot be transformed into observable variables within conscious at a present moment. Memory thus becomes an act of communication between the OUTSIDE (the non-observable unconscious mind) and the INSIDE (what is observed by conscious mind). So, a picture of memory as a relationship of the object (mind) with inside and outside: Outside <----memory----> Inside = object (mind)

 

Thus we see that memory being a relationship that links inside and outside is not a "thing" that can be lost, it is a coding of information communication between inside and outside aspects of the mind that can be lost, when you 'forget' you lose the link between inside and outside = memory. As object, the mind does not forget things, it forgets how to code information. Not sure this example fits your theory. Last post for 2-3 weeks.

[sigurdV]

I would like to thank Hypography for its serious treatment of my question!

And especially ALL ITS MODERATORS! You make this forum outstanding in the search for TRUTH!

You allow participators to post their bewilderments without fear of unjust treatment... THANK YOU!

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

This warning/infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

 

Original Post:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4352895

 

First the problem question: What is interference?

 

In order to understand the question

we need to observe "interference", as understood above, in action.

 

Model 1: Systems of sentences.

 

1 sentence 1 is not true

2 sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"

 

The sentences ARE interfering with each other and interference produces a paradox!

To observe interference removed we replace sentence 1 with "x":

 

1 x

2 sentence 1 = "x"

Provided sentence 1 IS a sentence theres no problem now because interference stopped!

 

Model 2: An experiment with clocks.

http://www.physicsforums.com/newthre...newthread&f=14

 

At the moment the Physical Model of interference , meaning the experiment with clocks,

has not progressed to the stage where interference is demonstrated...

The mentioning of the Physical model at this early stage is done to assure the reader

that the interference phenomenon is not restricted to obscure "sciences"

like Logic, Semantics and Mathematics...

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

EDIT: At the moment Im not allowed to publish and continue the experiment...here is what I wanted to post:

The "gamma" you refer to is the time dilation factor inversed. Is it? The time of the spinning clock is dilated 59/60 with respect to the lab, and inverting it gives 60/59 which is the gamma factor if I understand your term "gamma" correctly. Hopefully you will explain.

 

The difference in my experiment compared with Einsteins version is that in his experiment the twins...here represented by two clocks,

can not be considered to be in the same frame... here represented by the lab:

 

The traveling twin leaves the gravitational field of earth... but supposing the rocket were rotating instead of travelling in a straight line then the experiments would in principle be the same experiment wouldnt they? I ask this in order to ascertain that I adhere to the forum rules in discussing this "unpublished" experiment.

 

Time is ordinarily understood as an order of moments, of "minimal durations". By laymen like me considered as "points in time". It is possible to calculate the "length" in spacetime (59 minutes) of the time segment representing the time passed in the frame of the rotating clock where the clock is experiencing the effects of "acceleration" from two sources: the gravitational field of the Earth and the rotation caused by the centrifuge.

 

Considering the Earth rotational axis and the axis of the centrifuge to be parallell then perhaps (Please!) You could do me the favor of verifying that interference should occur: Half the time in its rotation period the clock is moving towards the Earth and the rest in the opposite direction.

 

When the clock is closest to the Earth the effect caused by Earth is at its peak and when the clock is at its farthest away its at its lowest. This surely should result in a periodic variation of its time dilation factor... Shouldnt it? The short distance between the points is making the periodic variation very small indeed... but surely not undetectable?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<

 

Any questions this far? Can I go on? The experiment in Model 1 is not finished.

 

Lets make sure that we are dealing with sentences, let "sentence 1" = x.

Since x is a sentence there must be a "Z" such that x = xZ and we have:

 

1 xZ

2 x ="xZ"

 

Now it can be seen that interference will return IF Z = "is not true"

And here I rest temporarily to give the reader a chance to think.

This is hard to understand even for a Logician ;)

But the example IS important in its own right so Im afraid I will stick to it,

but we can meanwhile check a simpler example on the semantics of translation:

 

Model 3: A translation difficulty.

 

Translate "This is English" into any non English language ,Z, and notice that the translation is no longer a true sentence... Z, the new environment and the structure of the translated sentence interferes with each other...Making the translation unsuccessful. This can be fixed (and understood) by translating this whole post into Z where then Z = "English" ...meaning "English" MUST be translate as Z in this case"!

Edited April 19, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

There is an aspect of the experiment Id like to stress!

By an interference effect it is possible to deduce facts outside the laboratory: We can find out the orientation of the rotational axis of the Earth.

Without looking at the rotating sky outside the lab! By changing the orientation of the axis of the centrifuge we can find

the position that maximises the interference effect

and then its axis is parallell to the Earth axis!

 

Again: If the experimental situation is complicated enough then it is possible to deduce the existense of some property of the outside

ONLY by looking at the inside! Deducing external properties by studying internal ones...

 

Maybe Im mistaken? Because this smacks of Magic and Astrology!

Deducing external properties by measuring internal interference sounds weird "outlandish".

But its no Mumbo Jumbo,I am talking of a measurable experimental effect here:

Its just the concequence of changing the rotational axis of a centrifuge containing a device for measuring time

and measuring an interference effect caused by the gravity of the Earth!

 

Can we in a similar manner detect interference caused by interference coming from a hitherto undetected outside environment of our Universe? Is the Universe rotating...sounds very unlikely and would we really be able to align our "new centrifuge" with a rotational axis of the universe... I doubt it, but the thought is provoking!

And who knows what limits there are to the detectional uses of interference?

 

I know of no research done on the subject. I suspect there are some treatises dealing with minimizing interference? Seeing it as an unwanted effect? ...I dont think anyone thought of interference as a useful phenomen before this!

 

What makes it of even more interest is that interference effects might be noticed and studied in very different situations! When my Doctor tested my blood sugar I asked him what "interference effects" (besides troublesome patients) he notices in HIS profession... He asked a few questions to get my point behind the question and said that when you make a test of liver condition you will "discover" a correlation with tobacco smoking but its because smokers often drink as well. Is this similar to your concept of interference, he asked?

 

How would I know? There is no general theory of inference to Google for! What shall I do? Return to old outmoded methods of Scientific Research by deducing facts from observations instead of finding answers on the net?

 

Must I make appointments with Scientists from all the Scientific Disciplines in order to interview them on the effects of interference within their fields of expertise? How many Scientists from every disciplines need to be examined and questioned before conclusions can be drawn? Will they find time to answer questions from a total stranger with no Scientific Legitimation? I foresee some difficulties in the approach...

 

What CAN I do? Sit here filing my nails waiting for them busy Scientific Practitioneers to find their way in here here to report their pet interference effects?

Come to think of it, I myself, IS a Scientist. In the disciplines of Logic and Semantics I have made a very important Scientific Discovery waiting to be noticed....(Yawn!)

 

Paradoxes are caused by interference! (ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................)

 

So friends of scientific research!

Would you mind the interference of my request that you share your experiences of interference with me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference

As you can see there is no Theory of Interference!

http://scienceforums.com/topic/27350-two-existing-non-existing-objects/

Edited April 24, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

In order to be able to triangulate, more centrifuged clocks are needed but since all matter objects gravitate then a map of the outside surely can be made? : The gravitational influence from a human is rather small but with precision clocks it might be possible to detect "terrorists" hiding behind walls and oil companies could find oil without drilling... saving some bucks in hitting the oil at first attempt. The question that interests me the most, though , is penetrating the opaque period after Big Bang where ordinary telescopes are blind...hopefully my detector could be of some use there.

 

Probably it will be the military to be first to recognise the value of such a device ...

Why use clocks? Ive been asked... People tend to recommend pendulums a la Focault.(Imagining sigurdV wants to improve the discovering of the rotation of the Earth not, say , the universe) That would be a sight: Soldiers using pendulums over a map of the battlefield. He he.

It would be nice if there were any engineers in here.Predicting technical limits. All I can do is layman guessing, and enemies will not miss any chance of exploiting any errors on my part.Theres two improvement directions: One wants a compact easy to handle detector capable of detecting closeby hidden enemy forces. Larger detectors to map movements within enemy country including insides of buildings.(Let one clock of mine lock on a dictator and he cant hide anywhere!) And enourmous detectors perhaps capable of studying Big Bang itself! (if at all possible... Im just hypotizing at the moment) Oh! theres more: maybe theres some interest in studying really small individual pieces of matter? Never really thought about it until now... thats the reason I write in here... its the fastest way to bring up ideas from the subconscious...I pretend there is somebody here that listens and asks good questions... BTW you will be happy to know I opened up a personal forum so soon things will return to normal in here ;)

I really miss questions... even annoying stupid questions sometimes does the trick, of inducing new ideas... and Im addicted to them.

Edited April 25, 2013 by sigurdV