I Think Time Dilation Semantics Are Incorrect?

[antoine]

You have just been banned again from sciforums, I see. This will have been partly at my instigation, as I have no interest in discussing anything with you. Sciforums is now sensitised to your sockpuppets, so you would be well advised to leave that forum in peace. 

 

By the way, claiming that lack of response indicates agreement is absurd, of course. Every nutcase on the street corner is ignored by most passers-by: obviously that does not mean they agree with him. But you know that. Your sole purpose it to try to get attention. Well, you've got one post more out of me. That will have to do.   

I have no problem if yourself chooses to ignore me, I have had some advice on forums and how to courtesy deal with people like yourself who wish to discuss me rather than giving an answer to quite easy questions.  Again no answer is the validation of the truth.   You are quite clearly ignoring the question and focusing your attention on me, mentioning banned etc.  I have no intentions of returning to sci forums, I have far better discussion elsewhere where they protect my right to have the freedom of speech and freedom of thoughts when regarding new theory.

So I will ask you one last time the question, it is your choice to answer it or just put me on ignore, I am sure somebody else will come along one day and discuss it with me. 

 

 

Forward time is directly proportional to the history created

 

Your next chronological position is a (tP) ahead of you

 

Do you disagree or agree with the two statements? 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Maine farmer]

There is a possibility of that or I could just be on ignore by everyone.  However as yourself as replied , I assume you have read the post. I also can assume yourself does not have any valued argument against my post?

Well, if you browse through this forum, you should be able to see that this particular dead horse has already been quite thoroughly beaten repeatedly.  I have nothing to add beyond what has already been said, and I've had enough dejavu ....for now.

[antoine]

Well, if you browse through this forum, you should be able to see that this particular dead horse has already been quite thoroughly beaten repeatedly.  I have nothing to add beyond what has already been said, and I've had enough dejavu ....for now.

That does sound rather like an excuse rather than trying to give any sort of respect for my efforts of the paper and my logical notions.  I do not believe anybody on this forum as ever presented models with such explanation as my own.  Again I can only see the failure to give an answer to the question is no answer is the validation of the truth.

 

I respectfully disagree with you sir, that this thread is deja vu .  The entire paper uses present information and is totally objective. The conclusion of the paper is that by changing the  title wording of time dilation to timing dilation, would be relative correctness.  The twin Paradox and time travel being of the imagination and has the only use of that of the practitioner. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[DaedalusSFN]

Antoine, also known as JohnLesser at scienceforums.net (SFN), I see that you still haven't learned a single thing since you posted your "Time dilation busted!" thread at SFN. In that thread, I provided you a mathematical break down of how to derive time dilation in special relativity, and showed you that time dilation is not limited to units of Planck length or Planck time. I even used those units in the mathematics to demonstrate why your idea is wrong. Your reply to my post was:
 

I appreciate your great effort, however again avoidance of the statement that shows time dilation is not true.

I predicted this would happen.

You don't seem to realise that I know what time dilation is and about, yes you are correct in that I could not do the maths required, but the point is I don't require maths for something that doe's not happen.

Your thread at SFN got closed because you think you know better than anyone else and now you are posting the same nonsense here at scienceforums.com. The sad thing is that you didn't even try to understand the post where I explained relativity to you because you are firm in the understanding that you must be right and everyone else is wrong. Quite frankly, I could care less if you wish to remain ignorant, at least I tried. There is no amount of nonsense that you can spout to change anyone's mind. To do that, you need to define your ideas with the same rigor that is expected of everyone else.

[antoine]

Antoine, also known as JohnLesser at scienceforums.net (SFN), I see that you still haven't learned a single thing since you posted your "Time dilation busted!" thread at SFN. In that thread, I provided you a mathematical break down of how to derive time dilation in special relativity, and showed you that time dilation is not limited to units of Planck length or Planck time. I even used those units in the mathematics to demonstrate why your idea is wrong. Your reply to my post was:

 

Your thread at SFN got closed because you think you know better than anyone else and now you are posting the same nonsense here at scienceforums.com. The sad thing is that you didn't even try to understand the post where I explained relativity to you because you are firm in the understanding that you must be right and everyone else is wrong. Quite frankly, I could care less if you wish to remain ignorant, at least I tried. There is no amount of nonsense that you can spout to change anyone's mind. To do that, you need to define your ideas with the same rigor that is expected of everyone else.

 

But it is limited when your next chronological position is a goolgleplex of a second away.  What you are not considering is that I said I would use (tP) because that is a perceivable measurement to explain it easier.  

 

If I start saying your next chronological position is an instant away, it becomes imperceptible to most people because it is absolute so can only be described by a mathematical expression .  (tP) is the smallest expression we have t=Δ(tP)

 

for all observers. 

 

Now my writing as gone red, apologies.   I do not believe anyone in the world can say their next chronological position is not immediate ahead of them. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[DaedalusSFN]

But it is limited when your next chronological position is a goolgleplex of a second away.

Why are you incorrectly using the name for an extremely large number to denote a fraction of a second? It lends nothing to your credibility and, to make things worse, it demonstrates how incredibly ignorant you are when it comes to math and physics.

 

What you are not considering is that I said I would use (tP) because that is a perceivable measurement to explain it easier.

Do you really think that units of Planck time are actually perceivable? The unit of time you use to describe your idea does NOT matter. You keep insisting that there exists some discreet duration of time that somehow disproves time dilation, but you fail to realize that time dilation is dependent on the observer's frame of reference. You refuse to learn the physics that defines what time dilation is and state that you do NOT need to know the mathematics to understand it. How arrogant you must be to think you can understand the laws of nature without having to understand the language used to define such laws.

 

If I start saying your next chronological position is an instant away, it becomes imperceptible to most people because it is absolute so can only be described by a mathematical expression .  (tP) is the smallest expression we have t=Δ(tP)for all observers.

 Although Planck time is currently the name for the smallest unit of time, I can easily define units of time that are smaller than that. However, none of that matters. Time dilation is an observable phenomenon that occurs in nature. Not only have we observed it, but we have also measured it and defined mathematical models that predict it. Nothing you say will change that. So, either present us a mathematical model that explains why you are right (units of measurements are not mathematical models) or go back to your cave like a good little troll...

[antoine]

Why are you incorrectly using the name for an extremely large number to denote a fraction of a second? It lends nothing to your credibility and, to make things worse, it demonstrates how incredibly ignorant you are when it comes to math and physics.

 

Do you really think that units of Planck time are actually perceivable? The unit of time you use to describe your idea does NOT matter. You keep insisting that there exists some discreet duration of time that somehow disproves time dilation, but you fail to realize that time dilation is dependent on the observer's frame of reference. You refuse to learn the physics that defines what time dilation is and state that you do NOT need to know the mathematics to understand it. How arrogant you must be to think you can understand the laws of nature without having to understand the language used to define such laws.

 

 Although Planck time is currently the name for the smallest unit of time, I can easily define units of time that are smaller than that. However, none of that matters. Time dilation is an observable phenomenon that occurs in nature. Not only have we observed it, but we have also measured it and defined mathematical models that predict it. Nothing you say will change that. So, either present us a mathematical model that explains why you are right (units of measurements are not mathematical models) or go back to your cave like a good little troll...

Well ! We will have to wait and see what the peerview says about it when I send it off to them when it is complete.  As you keep repeating the present information I can only assume you do not understand the paper .  You explain in the second part of your post the observation of time dilation, I am not saying your observation is inaccurate. I am saying science have the semantics wrong, it is actually a timing dilation. The mechanics of relativity being timing. 

 

You do not personally have to like my idea, no answer is still validation of the truth. 

 

 

Your next chronological position on the time line is how far away? I can tell you now that 1.s or 3.26cm , is a much  longer  duration than the flow of time passes between chronological positions. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Super Polymath]

Why are you incorrectly using the name for an extremely large number to denote a fraction of a second? It lends nothing to your credibility and, to make things worse, it demonstrates how incredibly ignorant you are when it comes to math and physics.

 

 

Do you really think that units of Planck time are actually perceivable? The unit of time you use to describe your idea does NOT matter. You keep insisting that there exists some discreet duration of time that somehow disproves time dilation, but you fail to realize that time dilation is dependent on the observer's frame of reference. You refuse to learn the physics that defines what time dilation is and state that you do NOT need to know the mathematics to understand it. How arrogant you must be to think you can understand the laws of nature without having to understand the language used to define such laws.

 

 

 Although Planck time is currently the name for the smallest unit of time, I can easily define units of time that are smaller than that. However, none of that matters. Time dilation is an observable phenomenon that occurs in nature. Not only have we observed it, but we have also measured it and defined mathematical models that predict it. Nothing you say will change that. So, either present us a mathematical model that explains why you are right (units of measurements are not mathematical models) or go back to your cave like a good little troll...

The troll knows what he's doing.

 

You're wrong, the Planck length & Planck time do make a difference, in so that time dilation becomes radical at that level so as to transform the linearity of the temporal dimensions we know & love.

 

Which was why he added that "assuming chronology isn't broken" in his OP. It does get broken.

[Super Polymath]

But that doesn't debunk time dilation, time travel was something Einstein predicted, so.

[DaedalusSFN]

You're wrong, the Planck length & Planck time do make a difference, in so that time dilation becomes radical at that level so as to transform the linearity of the temporal dimensions we know & love.

Please provide evidence / reference that "time dilation becomes radical at that level so as to transform the linearity of the temporal dimensions we know & love". As far as I know, relativity makes no assertion about the nature of space-time at the Planck length / Planck time scale.

[antoine]

As far as I know, relativity makes no assertion about the nature of space-time at the Planck length / Planck time scale.

As far as I know , likewise.

 

Added- My paper however has considered the nature of space-time at the Planck length/Planck time scale to show a different conclusion than Einstein.

 

 

added- Could I please ask you now to re-consider my notion and paper in respect to using a Planck time format, which knowingly by yourself, Einstein did not consider.  

Edited August 3, 2017 by antoine

[Super Polymath]

As far as I know , likewise.

 

Added- My paper however has considered the nature of space-time at the Planck length/Planck time scale to show a different conclusion than Einstein.

We have real evidence for relativity. Einstein's conclusion was that time reverses on both ends, your conclusion is that time dilation isn't real. Edited August 3, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Please provide evidence / reference that "time dilation becomes radical at that level so as to transform the linearity of the temporal dimensions we know & love". As far as I know, relativity makes no assertion about the nature of space-time at the Planck length / Planck time scale.

However, physical laws that use time as a reference work equally well for time reversal – going backward – a particle hitting another particle, generating other particles and emitting photons will work just as well running backward according to physics. We just have never experienced time reversal and this disconnect with the laws of physics seems to be a mystery.

 

I've been writing about special relativity beyond the speed of light here for months, in Sanctus' master thesis about the CMB he refered to this on large supergravity scales as acausal symmetry.

[antoine]

We have real evidence for relativity. Einstein's conclusion was that time reverses on both ends, your conclusion is that time dilation isn't real.

Quite clearly my paper shows Einsteins conclusions were incorrect.   Einstein , never considered time at really small scales such as a Planck time format (rightfully pointed out by Daedalus.)

 

Did you read my brief conclusion? 

 

The mechanics of relativity are timing not time.  

[DaedalusSFN]

However, physical laws that use time as a reference work equally well for time reversal – going backward – a particle hitting another particle, generating other particles and emitting photons will work just as well running backward according to physics. We just have never experienced time reversal and this disconnect with the laws of physics seems to be a mystery.

 

I've been writing about special relativity beyond the speed of light here for months, in Sanctus' master thesis about the CMB he refered to this on large supergravity scales as acausal symmetry.

When I asked for evidence / references, I was referring to mainstream physics. I read some of what you have written and considering a frame of reference from the point of view of a photon or anything that moves at the speed of light is meaningless in the framework of relativity. From what I read, you still don't provide a mathematical framework that shows that "time dilation becomes radical at the Planck scale".

 

Furthermore, just because a process exhibits T-symmetry does not actually mean it operates in a true reversal of time. It's just that the process can work in reverse. Of course, I have my own theory of time using a mathematical framework that extends relativity and demonstrates that time is simply a mathematical consequence of space, but I won't go into that here.

 

I would urge caution before telling someone they are wrong regarding mainstream physics when your intent is to imply they are wrong within your own theories.

Edited August 3, 2017 by DaedalusSFN

[antoine]

Of course, I have my own theory of time using a mathematical framework that extends relativity 

Newton described time as absolute and could only be defined by a mathematical solution. I would like to hear about your framework if you have the ''time'' to explain. 

[Super Polymath]

Based on Einstein's model:

 

Many have dreamed of figuring out how to travel in time—and dismissed it as impossible. Now, researchers have proposed a mathematical model that makes time travel possible, using concepts of Einstein’s theory of general relativity coupled with the hypothesis that time is not a separate dimension.

 

Regarding the math on this, which I have provided in the PDFs:

 

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/specialrelat.jpg

 

These negatives could refer to anti de sitter space but they do refer to transtemporal dimensionality within rescaled regions of spacetime, which is another way of speaking of acausal symmetry.

 

@ Daedalus, you should share your model as it pertains to special relativity beyond the speed of light, which was what this thread was intended to falsify.