Proof of Time

[IDMclean]

A Lorentz transformation (LT) is a linear transformation that preserves the spacetime interval between any two events in Minkowski space, while leaving the origin fixed (=rotation of Minkowski space). The transformation describes how space and time coordinates are related as measured by observers in different inertial reference frames. Poincaré (1905) named them after the Dutch physicist and mathematician Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928). They form the mathematical basis for Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. The Lorentz transformations remove contradictions between the theories of electromagnetism and classical mechanics. They were derived by Larmor (1897) and Lorentz (1899, 1904). In 1905 Einstein derived them under the assumptions of Lorentz covariance and the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial reference frame.

 

[math]t_1 = \gamma (t_2 - \frac{v x_2}{c^{2}})[/math]

[math]x_1 = \gamma (x_2 - v t_2) \,[/math]

[math]y_1 = y_2 \,[/math]

[math]z_1 = z_2 \,[/math]

 

where

 

x1 is the x component in S1 of the position of an event,

x2 is the x component in S2 of the position of the same event,

t1 is the time since time zero in S1 of the event,

t2 is the time since time zero in S2 of the event,

y1 and y2 are both the y component of the position of the event in both reference frames (same with z1 and z2),

[math]\gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} = \frac{c}{\sqrt{c^2 - v^2}}[/math] is called the Lorentz factor,

c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and

v is the relative velocity between the two observers.

 

[math]\begin{bmatrix} c t_1 \\x_1 \\y_1 \\z_1 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \gamma&-\beta \gamma&0&0\\ -\beta \gamma&\gamma&0&0\\ 0&0&1&0\\ 0&0&0&1\\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c t_2\\x_2\\y_2\\z_2 \end{bmatrix}. [/math]

 

[math]s^2 = - t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = constant[/math]

Motion in Space-time

[arkain101]

I was doing some contemplating of this subject awhile ago and I wondered something.

 

If time is real part of the function of the universe, like a dimension on its own, then is time a force? and if it is a force does it have a energy value. If not then is it only a term to describe a series of fundamental blips of frequency? At the smallest of detail we have frequencies. What is 'between' those frequency spikes. Is the frequency fundamental or is the frequency a term like time to explain the action of a fundamental object like a string.?

 

So,

 

Is time a force? If so nothing of physcial value should be absolute or fundamental.

 

or,

 

Is time term for a series of actions of fundamental physical objects that are next to absolute in life span?

[dagaz]

If not then is it only a term to describe a series of fundamental blips of frequency? At the smallest of detail we have frequencies. What is 'between' those frequency spikes. Is the frequency fundamental or is the frequency a term like time to explain the action of a fundamental object like a string.?

 

As in Planck time?

 

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length, and is thus considered to be a "quantum of time". URL

[LaurieAG]

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

[IDMclean]

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

 

If this is true, then it can be expressed as:

Infinity/Infinity = 1.

Infinity - Infinity = 0.

 

I prefer time with 1 unit, or more. Zero is the undefined varible in the system.

 

If I designate a room as a system, or a reference pane, and a person who exists (= 1) is absent(=0) from the system, then we are simply saying that said person is undefined in this system. If that person walks into said room, and said person is therefore defined(1) within the system.

[LaurieAG]

If I designate a room as a system, or a reference pane, and a person who exists (= 1) is absent(=0) from the system, then we are simply saying that said person is undefined in this system. If that person walks into said room, and said person is therefore defined(1) within the system.

 

The same could be said of particles that mysteriously appear/disappear in vacuums.

[IDMclean]

Indeed. You can do the same thing with data structures. When they aren't part of a system, you can dereference them, by denoting their connection as null. The data structure stays intact, but the reference by the system disappears, and therefore the structure doesn't take up cycles.

 

It is merely a Mathematical/Logical observation that such is true.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This stuff is flawed kids. You are taking our perception of something that happens to be purely mental and assuming there is a corresponding entity outside of yourself, and in the case of 'time', there isn't.

There is only 'now' outside of ourselves. Something drives the changes that take place but it is NOT time. That is a mental construct.

If you had no memory, or ability to compare changing states of things and the resulting differences from previous 'nows', you would not be aware of the fact that something had changed. You infer that time exists but you cannot reach out and touch it. Ask yourselves instead, 'what drives change?'.

The idea that time drives change is what stops us from understanding that there is only now in metaphysical terms. See the thread started by InfiniteNow.

 

Mark McCutcheon's "The Final Theory" shows that there is something that drives the universe. His underlying process is the expansion of all particles in the universe and it is only because of this expansion that the universe as we know it even exists. All physical properties and events are driven by this expansion. If you want to continue to walk down the road of fiction and 'time travel', ignore this .. but if you want to see that there might just be another explanation of all things including the physical characteristics of existence, check McCutcheon out. In McCutcheon's view 'time travel' is out because to reverse the process would destroy the fabric of existence which exists only because of the expansion of all particles and the resulting interaction of those particles.

 

One warning though. If you treat Einstein and Newton as religious icons, then you will not be happy with McCutcheon.

[Boerseun]

Oh hell - here we go again.

 

We've got a enormously gigantic elephantine thread about Mark McCutcheon's rather arrogantly named "The Final Theory", and the theory claims to debunk Newton, Einstein, all of them - but can't even explain a simple orbit. This is only one instance.

 

I'll save you the trip, 'kids'. McCutcheon's theory isn't 'Final' by any stretch of the imagination. It's more a Strange Claim than anything else.

 

Expansion, as McCutcheon would have it, is also critically dependent on the flow of time. Time is essential for something to 'expand'. 'Expansion theory' therefore, even if true, adds nothing to this thread, which is about the Proof of Time.

[IDMclean]

Einstein derived that Time is a function of distance. That Light travels a constant distance. That mass (fields) deform as you approach c. Distance for mass reduces as you approach c, such that "time" dialates, or rather simply distance contracts.

 

this is a simplification, if you wish to understand it in full I would suggest reading Einstein's work.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Oh hell - here we go again.

 

We've got a enormously gigantic elephantine thread about Mark McCutcheon's rather arrogantly named "The Final Theory", and the theory claims to debunk Newton, Einstein, all of them - but can't even explain a simple orbit. This is only one instance.

 

I'll save you the trip, 'kids'. McCutcheon's theory isn't 'Final' by any stretch of the imagination. It's more a Strange Claim than anything else.

 

Expansion, as McCutcheon would have it, is also critically dependent on the flow of time. Time is essential for something to 'expand'. 'Expansion theory' therefore, even if true, adds nothing to this thread, which is about the Proof of Time.

Well, old buddy old pal I think you've missed the point again. The same way you missed how expansion could explain orbits. The same way you had trouble understanding why objects can expand and still stay the same size relative to each other. Others have started seeing that there might be some truth in what he says, but not you.

 

You have an almost pathological hatred for the theory, even though by your own admission you haven't read the book. If McCutcheon is correct, you've spent a lot of time trying to get a handle on the world and what you think you know is simply wrong. Sorry about that.

 

The subject here is time. Not Einstein's time or Newton's time, just time.

 

I happen to think that our understanding of time is confused because we treat it like an entity that exists in our universe. Even though we can only see and experience 'now', we nevertheless talk about 'time' and treat it as an entity that exists. But you can't reach out and touch it. You cannot reach back to yesterday and change it or affect it as you cannot reach forward to 'tomorrow'. We can try to predict what will happen or exist tomorrow and we do that by using the mental construct we call time.

 

But there are big assumptions in our understanding of time. We know it's related to change and we attach constancy to that change. Are you willing to state with any manner of certainty that the rate of change relative to some standard of change will remain constant for the next million years or that it has always been so? Big friggin assumptions pal. You have the certainty of blindness.

 

You had trouble understanding how a bowling ball and a marble could maintain the same relative sizes with expansion theory and if you ever resolved it, you never admitted it. Are you still confused about that too?

[Boerseun]

No, Steve, I don't have an 'almost pathological hatred' for McCutcheon's theory. I do, however, have very little time for baloney that is served up to the public as 'The Final Theory' in a not-very-well camouflaged attempt at making money. He's better at marketing than theorizing.

 

And, no - I still haven't read the book. If the rest of the book is as badly written and presumptious as the first chapter that he so very graciously gave us for free, then I can't really see the point. All he did in the first chapter was to denounce all current knowledge, and in the process grandly illustrated his basic ignorance and misunderstanding of current theories. I am not going to blow 30-odd bucks to learn that the guy's a fool.

 

And for once, stop telling me that it's me who can't see the truth but many others can, EXPLAIN to me how McCutcheon can ever describe an orbit.

 

We are drifting enormously off-topic now, but seeing as you dragged McCutcheon into this, I suppose it had to be said. This thread is about time. McCutcheon's view of the universe is critically dependent on the forward flow of time. It doesn't add anything to this conversation, be it true or not, pal.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beorseun:

No, Steve, I don't have an 'almost pathological hatred' for McCutcheon's theory. I do, however, have very little time for baloney that is served up to the public as 'The Final Theory' in a not-very-well camouflaged attempt at making money. He's better at marketing than theorizing.

Ah, but you do Beorseun. McCutcheon shakes up your nice ordered view of the universe and I'm sorry about that. You haven't seriously attempted to understand orbits and how they can actually be explained by expansion as a simple geometric affect. Bottom line Beorseun, if you can see orbits working with an attractive force, you should be able to see it as a result of expansion. There is NO difference. Work at it.

And, no - I still haven't read the book. If the rest of the book is as badly written and presumptious as the first chapter that he so very graciously gave us for free, then I can't really see the point. All he did in the first chapter was to denounce all current knowledge, and in the process grandly illustrated his basic ignorance and misunderstanding of current theories. I am not going to blow 30-odd bucks to learn that the guy's a fool.

well, you are consistent. And, kindly look at the way you wrote what you just wrote and step back and describe it to me. Pretend it came from someone else. Tell me Beorseun, is the person who wrote that rude, nasty and pompous?

His theory is based upon a concept that demands that all current kinowledge be looked at again. BY DEFINITION he has to declare Einstein and Newton wrong. They overlooked the possibility that he did not. Unlike you, Beorseun, he never says they were fools. Quite the contrary, but you never got that far in the book did you.

You also claim, incorrectly that he doesn't understand current theory. Uh, look at his credentials Beorseun:

Mark McCutcheon holds a combined Electrical Engineering / Physics degree with advanced elective courses in Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, and has worked with various

research and development teams in the telecommunications industry and in several university physics research labs.

that is from his website. I suppose it doesn't have to be true and could be made up, although if it was, I'm sure your brethren would have ferreted that out by now.

 

I don't want you to 'believe' McCutcheon, Beorseun. Quite frankly, I don't care. I'm not impressed with your thought processes or the way you attempt to show McCutcheon is wrong. Your agenda is as incomprehensible to me as it appears geometric effects are to you.

[IDMclean]

Mark McCutcheon is just a hack of ThatRascalPuff, and only a quarter (or less) as genius (though extreamely crazed). Should check out TRP's theory sometime, if you have the mental strength to read Stream of Consciousness.

 

Just type into search (here or on Google.) that name, and you should find some stuff regarding him.

 

Note: Puff came up with the theorm that McCutcheon is butching back in the 1950's.

 

I would like Puff's Dissertation, if not for the expansion part. Though, like McCutcheon, he came close to a proper theorm.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

KickAssClown:

Mark McCutcheon is just a hack of ThatRascalPuff, and only a quarter (or less) as genius (though extreamely crazed). Should check out TRP's theory sometime, if you have the mental strength to read Stream of Consciousness.

Never heard of it KAC. But isn't that how this stuff works? If language hadn't been invented we wouldn't have this conversation. I am not required to know who invented it before I can use it. And if I or someone else comes up with an idea without knowing about the work others did in the same area, we are not required to research the entire history of a subject before we can claim knowledge or pass along a thought about it.

You're as bad as Beorseun and as rude. You have no knowledge that McCutcheon was even aware of TRP's stuff and I suspect don't even know if they are apples and apples. You attack like a kid in a schoolyard who stands with the other thugs and quite frankly, that is a behavior that isn't exactly new here, is it? Is that part of the New Age scientific method?

You guys are like choirboys protecting the church of Einstein and Newton and you actually denegrate both of those guys, as I suspect they would both be very interested in what McCutcheon has to say as well as be disgusted with the way you are treating the subject.

[Boerseun]

Steve - I'm not going to get involved with you in a discussion regarding McCutcheon in this thread. This thread is about time. McCutcheon's theory is crticially dependent on the flow of time, as I've said. It cannot explain time, even if McCutcheon is right. It adds nothing to this thread. If you want to elaborate further on either McCutcheon's virtues or my vices, please do so in PM or at the "The Final Theory" thread.

[Tormod]

Your agenda is as incomprehensible to me as it appears geometric effects are to you.

 

Well, your agenda shines through, Steve. Ease up a bit, okay? It's summer. :eek: