Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Amrit Srecko Sorli
sorli.bistra@gmail.com
Abstract
The idea of physics without time as a fundamental physical reality is based on the fact that with clocks one measures duration, speed and numerical order of material change, and not time. With eyes one can perceive in the universe only material change that runs into physical space. One cannot perceive time as a physical reality into which material change run. Material change runs into physical space only, and not in time. Time is not a fundamental physical reality like matter, energy and physical space. Time exists only when we measure it; time is an “observer effect”.
Introduction
Human conviction that with clocks one measures time cannot be proved by an experiment, as time cannot be observed by senses (sight).
Human senses confirm that with clocks one measures duration, speed and numerical order of material changes that run into physical space. The smallest unit of duration and numerical order of material changes is Planck time, largest is light year. Material changes itself have no duration, they only a have numerical order. A scientist gives material changes duration by measuring them with clocks; time is an epiphenomenon of the measured duration of material change. Time does not run into universe on its own. Universe is an atemporal phenomenon (1,2,3).
One has to distinguish between motion and time. Motion of material objects happens in space only, and time is a scientific tool that allows us to experience motion in the linear sense “past-present-future”. One has to be aware that “past-present-future” are human inventions, that there is no time in the universe as we experience it. With our senses we can observe only motion in space. This motion we are experiencing in time is a mind model.
Albert Einstein was right by saying: »Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live«. Time -- the time that we know through clocks and calendars -- was invented http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html
Special of Relativity enriched with the time as an observer effect
The concept of Atemporality is upgrading Theory of Relativity in a sense that space-time is merely mathematical model used in science to describe material change running into physical space that itself is atemporal. Time does not run into space on its own. Material change runs into atemporal space.
In the Theory of Relativity the forth coordinate X4 = c x i x t is called the “time coordinate”, whereas c is light speed, i is an imaginary number and t is the number representing duration of material change. The time coordinate allows us to experience irreversible stream if material changes that runs into atemporal pace in a linear perspective, namely into “space-time” that is a mathematical model only and, it does not exist as a physical reality.
In the Theory of Relativity it is not time that is relative but the speed of material change; in a faster inertial system the speed of material change is lower than in a slower inertial system. In physical space with stronger gravity the speed of material change is lower than in physical space with a weaker gravity field.
This new understanding of time resolves the problem of twins: a brother in a high-speed spaceship is getting older slower than his brother on Earth, but both are getting older in an atemporal physical space. The brother living on the Moon is getting older faster than his brother on Earth because gravity is stronger on Earth.
Contradictory, hypothetical travel into past is possible according to the Theory of Relativity but out of question according to the theory of atemporal space. No one can travel through space-time, as space-time is merely a mathematical model. One can travel into atemporal physical space only.
Atemporal space and the General Theory of Relativity
In General Theory of Relativity 3-dimensional objects exist into a 4-dimensional space. Gravity force is the result of a curvature of 4-dimensional space. As space is atemporal, one can see the gravity force as a non-propagating force working directly into space and indirectly between material objects.
According to the Loop Quantum Gravity, space has a granular structure; it is made out of quanta of space. A curvature of atemporal space is the result of its quantum structure. Gravity force as the result of a curvature of space is a non-propagating force; it works directly between quanta of space in a 4-dimensional atemporal space and indirectly between 3-dimensional material objects. 3-dimensional material objects are somehow captured inside a 4-dimensional atemporal space.
Claus Kiefer discusses that in quantum gravity there is no time as a fundamental physical reality (4).
Carlo Rovelli discusses that science has to develop a model of the world where time will not be a fundamental physical reality (5).
Atemporal Space and the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiment
The Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiment confirms the idea of atemporal space according to which material change runs into space only and not into time. Into the EPR experiment atemporal space is the direct information medium between elementary particles. There is no information signal traveling into time between particles. Atemporal space is the “immediate information medium” between elementary particles (6).
Zeno Arrow Paradox
Zeno argued that the flight of an arrow is an example of motion. At any moment in time, the arrow either is where it is or it is where it is not. If it moves where it is, then it must be standing still, and if it moves where it is not, then it can't be there; thus, it cannot move.
According to atemporal space, the answer for ZENO paradox is: The arrow does not move in time, it moves in space only, which is atemporal. In space there is always NOW, while past, present and future are products the human mind. Time is an observer effect.
Conclusions
The concept of time as an observer effect is based on elementary perception: time cannot be observed in the universe. With clocks one measures numerical order of the stream of irreversible material change that run into atemporal universe. Material change X transforms into material change x+1, X+1 transforms into X+2 and so on. Smallest unit for measuring numerical order of material change is “Planck time”. Numerical order of material change that one measures with clocks is a physical quantity independent of measurement.
Stream of material change has no duration on its own; one gives it a sense of duration by measuring them with clocks. Duration of material change is a “man made” physical quantity.
An increase of the entropy in the universe runs into atemporal space. We experience an increase of the entropy a temporal phenomenon because we experience it inside the mathematical concept of space-time. There is no past and future in the universe, both exist only in the human mind. Time is an observer effect. Time exists only when we measures it. Humanity does not exist in time, time exists in humanity. Universe is an atemporal phenomenon.
References:
1. Sorli A., Sorli K. (2005) From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Vol. 14, Num. 1. http://www.temple.edu/cfs/articles.html
2. Fiscaletti D., Sorli A. (2005). Toward an a-temporal interpretation of quantum potential. Frontier Perspectives, Vol. 14, Num. 2. http://www.temple.edu/cfs/articles.html
3. Fiscaletti D., Sorli A. (2006). Toward a new interpretation of subatomic particles and their motion inside a-temporal physical space. Frontier Perspectives, Volume 15, Num 2 http://www.temple.edu/cfs/articles.html
4. Claus Kiefer (2008), Does Time Exist in Quantum Gravity? http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Kiefer_fqx.pdf
5. Carlo Rovelli (2008) Forget Time http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-file ... i_Time.pdf
6. Fiscaletti D. Sorli A.S. (2008) NON-LOCALITY AND THE SYMMETRYZED QUANTUM POTENTIAL , Physics Essays, December 2008, Vol. 21, No. 4 http://www.physicsessays.com/
Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Joj ne ze spet, kot da ni dovolj carovnikov na svetu.
Poleg tega je to le izbira enot - fizikalni zakoni niso odvisni od izbire enot.
No, pa imamo prostorske in casovne enote primerjane med sabo. S tem si ze izgubil polovico obcinstvaThe smallest unit of duration and numerical order of material changes is Planck time, largest is light year.
Poleg tega je to le izbira enot - fizikalni zakoni niso odvisni od izbire enot.
???At any moment in time, the arrow either is where it is or it is where it is not.
Premikanje implicira casovno spremembo ze samo po sebi. In ce definiras "numerical order" (x,x+1,x+2,...,x+n) potem je n cas.it moves in space only, which is atemporal
Potem pa po relativnostni teoriji pretvarjas cas v prostor in obratno, kako je lahko eden fizicen in drugi fiktiven?Time is not a fundamental physical reality like matter, energy and physical space.
Isto velja za vse ostalo - saj vse pojave sodimo le po tem, kako jih zaznamo. Cas ni v tem nic drugacen.Time is an observer effect.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Zakaj že???amrit napisal/-a:The smallest unit of duration and numerical order of material changes is Planck time, largest is light year. Material changes itself have no duration, they only a have numerical order.
Čas je dimenzija.
Če dimenzije časa ne bi bilo, bi bil svet statičen.
In ker upam, da veš da to ni res je vsakršno nadaljno razglabljanje brez smiselne podlage.
Energija se lahko nahaja v večih oblikah in to je njena osnovna lastnost.
Da energija spremeni svoje stanje potrebuje čas.
Čas je torej enako abstrakten kot prostor. Nobeden od niju pa ne more nastopati v realnem svetu brez energije.
Čisto brez osnove..amrit napisal/-a:One has to distinguish between motion and time. Motion of material objects happens in space only, and time is a scientific tool that allows us to experience motion in the linear sense “past-present-future”.
Kot sem že dejal je prostor enako abstrakten kot čas..
Torej je njuna relacija vedno v soodvisnosti od energije, ki določa ta isti prostor.
Čisto nakladanje..amrit napisal/-a: This motion we are experiencing in time is a mind model.
In kaj na tem svetu ni miselni model?
Še huje.. Vsak delec v vesolju ima svoj absolutni čas. In to teorija relativnosti tudi uči.amrit napisal/-a:Time does not run into space on its own. Material change runs into atemporal space.
No si končno dojel, da je to le dober matematični model!amrit napisal/-a:The time coordinate allows us to experience irreversible stream if material changes that runs into atemporal pace in a linear perspective, namely into “space-time” that is a mathematical model only and, it does not exist as a physical reality.
In sedaj si tako razburjen, da...
Čisti nesmisel..amrit napisal/-a:In the Theory of Relativity it is not time that is relative but the speed of material change; in a faster inertial system the speed of material change is lower than in a slower inertial system.
Pridevnik 'faster' je vendar pogojen s časom..
Drugače pa je hitrost nič drugega kot prostor-čas! Le da v tem primeru prostor nastopa kot eno-dimenzionalen. Konstanta c pa je tista, ki določa limito, ampak to je vendar jasno vsakemu osnovnošolcu.
...
Morda le še ena osnovnošolska..
Enačbo lahko gledaš z leve ali pa z desne strani, v vsakem primeru mora enako veljati. Ti pa nisi naredil nič drugega kot to, da si pogledal enačbo iz desne strani in ugotovil da se ujema z levo. Je pa res da Evropejci beremo z leve, vzhodnjaki pa z desne..
...
Ne bom več komentiral..
Lahko noč..
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
P.S. Predlagam, da moderator tole preseli v 'Dosjeje X'.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Z urami merimo numerični red materialnih sprememb, ki potekajo v prostoru.
Tege dejstva ni mogoče spodbijati, ker temelji na elementarni precepciji.
Da pa mi potem toku materialnih sprememb pripišemo trajanje, je rezultat meritve.
Vesolje je atemporalno, vesoljni prostor je atemporalen,
čas je rezultat merjenja
in ni fundamentalna fizikalna količina.
Če ima kdo dokaze, da temu ni tako, naj jih tukaj opiše.
lep dan amrit
Tege dejstva ni mogoče spodbijati, ker temelji na elementarni precepciji.
Da pa mi potem toku materialnih sprememb pripišemo trajanje, je rezultat meritve.
Vesolje je atemporalno, vesoljni prostor je atemporalen,
čas je rezultat merjenja
in ni fundamentalna fizikalna količina.
Če ima kdo dokaze, da temu ni tako, naj jih tukaj opiše.
lep dan amrit
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
shrink preden bo tole prestavljeno v dosje boste vi morali dokazati, da čas obstaja kot fundamentalna fizikalna količinashrink napisal/-a:P.S. Predlagam, da moderator tole preseli v 'Dosjeje X'.
zame je jasno, da z urami merimo trajanje sprememb, ki potekajo atemporalnem prostoru,
jaz ne povezujem in enačim časa z gibanjem
pomikajte Vašo roko od leve prosti desni, premika se le v prostoru, čas pa je model uma v katerm Vi doživljate to gibanje.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
absolutno ne...........Aniviller napisal/-a:Joj ne ze spet, kot da ni dovolj carovnikov na svetu.
No, pa imamo prostorske in casovne enote primerjane med sabo. S tem si ze izgubil polovico obcinstvaThe smallest unit of duration and numerical order of material changes is Planck time, largest is light year.???At any moment in time, the arrow either is where it is or it is where it is not.Premikanje implicira casovno spremembo ze samo po sebi. In ce definiras "numerical order" (x,x+1,x+2,...,x+n) potem je n cas.it moves in space only, which is atemporalPotem pa po relativnostni teoriji pretvarjas cas v prostor in obratno, kako je lahko eden fizicen in drugi fiktiven?Time is not a fundamental physical reality like matter, energy and physical space.Isto velja za vse ostalo - saj vse pojave sodimo le po tem, kako jih zaznamo. Cas ni v tem nic drugacen.Time is an observer effect.
materijo zaznamo z očmi, časa pa z očmi ne zaznamo
o materiji kot fundamentalni fizikalni količini ni dvoma, ča pa vi mislite, da je čas fundamentalna fizikalna količina, boste morali to dokazati
vi pravite: premikanje implicira časovno spremembo že samo po sebi..........ja je res samo da je ta časovna sprememba le in edino numerični red premikanja objekta od točke A proti B in naprej. Objekt se ne giblje v času, giblje se le v prostoru. Čas je "znanstven pripomoček" za opisovanje gibanja objekta v atemporalnem prostoru.
dajte si prebrat:
1. Claus Kiefer (2008), Does Time Exist in Quantum Gravity? http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Kiefer_fqx.pdf
2. Carlo Rovelli (2008) Forget Time http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-file ... i_Time.pdf
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Objekt se spreminja skupaj z prostorom. Prostor-čas. Energija-materija.amrit je napisal:
Objekt se ne giblje v času, giblje se le v prostoru.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Seveda zaznas cas, in ne samo z ocmi. Vsaka sprememba, ki se zgodi, meri cas - doloceni procesi imajo tocno dolocen casovni interval v katerem se zgodijo, kar tocno definira tok casa. Prostor ni glede tega nic drugacen, ker tudi tam zaznavas razdalje samo ce jih meris z merilnimi instrumenti z znano dolzino. In enako velja za vse fizikalne kolicine, meritev je vedno posredna, preko nekega drugega pojava. Zanima me, kaj bos rekel za magnetno polje, za katerega res nimamo cutila: ali potem to pomeni da je navidezno?
Zdaj, cemu reces realno cemu pa navidezno je itak irelavantno ker je matematicni opis itak vedno abstraktna reprezentacija realnega dogajanja, kar pa seveda ne pomeni da je zato kaj manj resnicno. Evklidski prostor, s katerim klasicno opisujemo fizikalni prostor je tipicni primer idealiziranega matematicnega modela. Na kakrsen koli nacin bos opisal resnicnost, vedno bos uporabil orodja iz abstraktnega sveta, pa naj bodo to enacbe ali pa tebi ljubsi - jezik (tudi razumevanje samo ni nic drugega kot opis s pomocjo kodiranih signalov v mozganih, kar je spet abstrakcija). S tvojimi besedami, "pripomocek" je vedno opis necesa, kar je tudi del resnicnosti, drugace tega pripomocka ne bi potrebovali.
Torej: edino kar si uvedel je preimenovanje besede "cas" v numericni red. Stvar ima popolnoma isto funkcijo in ker si s tem sam opazil da za opis gibanja potrebujes dodatno spremenljivko (prostostno stopnjo), pomeni da vesolje res vsebuje to prostostno stopnjo, pa kakorkoli ji ze reces. Pa res predlagam da razmislis o ze omenjenem argumentu: ce gledas na dogajanje iz razlicno gibajocih se tock, vidis da cas in prostor prehajata en v drugega. Torej sta lahko le oba "pripomocek" ali oba "realna", drugace prides do protislovja.
Pomisli se s te strani: recimo, da imamo na trdem disku racunalnika shranjen film. Mirno lahko reces, da je to stanje v "atemporalni" obliki. Vendar naletis na dve tezavi: prvic, stvar je tudi v neprostorski obliki, ker je v obliki niza digitalne informacije. Drugic, stvar je OCITNO reprezentacija prostorskega in casovnega dogajanja. Ker lahko stvar kadarkoli predvajas v realni prostor in cas, sta opisa ekvivalentna. Celotna tvoja razprava se torej vrti samo okrog tega, ali lahko enacis opis v abstraktnem jeziku z dejanskim stanjem ali ne. Ker ne glede na zavzeto stalisce prides do identicnih zakljuckov je tvoja lastna filozofska ali celo religiozna odlocitev kaj ti je bolj vsec, razprava pa zato brezpredmetna.
Glede navedenih clankov me pa zelo zanima ce imas zadostno izobrazbo da bi se ti vsaj priblizno sanjalo o cem govorijo, kvantna gravitacija ni hec, tudi ce beres samo esejske razprave na to temo (sprejemljive fizikalne teorije itak se nismo nasli). Jaz namrec nisem v clankih nasel veliko podobnosti s tistim, kar ti trdis.
Zdaj, cemu reces realno cemu pa navidezno je itak irelavantno ker je matematicni opis itak vedno abstraktna reprezentacija realnega dogajanja, kar pa seveda ne pomeni da je zato kaj manj resnicno. Evklidski prostor, s katerim klasicno opisujemo fizikalni prostor je tipicni primer idealiziranega matematicnega modela. Na kakrsen koli nacin bos opisal resnicnost, vedno bos uporabil orodja iz abstraktnega sveta, pa naj bodo to enacbe ali pa tebi ljubsi - jezik (tudi razumevanje samo ni nic drugega kot opis s pomocjo kodiranih signalov v mozganih, kar je spet abstrakcija). S tvojimi besedami, "pripomocek" je vedno opis necesa, kar je tudi del resnicnosti, drugace tega pripomocka ne bi potrebovali.
Torej: edino kar si uvedel je preimenovanje besede "cas" v numericni red. Stvar ima popolnoma isto funkcijo in ker si s tem sam opazil da za opis gibanja potrebujes dodatno spremenljivko (prostostno stopnjo), pomeni da vesolje res vsebuje to prostostno stopnjo, pa kakorkoli ji ze reces. Pa res predlagam da razmislis o ze omenjenem argumentu: ce gledas na dogajanje iz razlicno gibajocih se tock, vidis da cas in prostor prehajata en v drugega. Torej sta lahko le oba "pripomocek" ali oba "realna", drugace prides do protislovja.
Pomisli se s te strani: recimo, da imamo na trdem disku racunalnika shranjen film. Mirno lahko reces, da je to stanje v "atemporalni" obliki. Vendar naletis na dve tezavi: prvic, stvar je tudi v neprostorski obliki, ker je v obliki niza digitalne informacije. Drugic, stvar je OCITNO reprezentacija prostorskega in casovnega dogajanja. Ker lahko stvar kadarkoli predvajas v realni prostor in cas, sta opisa ekvivalentna. Celotna tvoja razprava se torej vrti samo okrog tega, ali lahko enacis opis v abstraktnem jeziku z dejanskim stanjem ali ne. Ker ne glede na zavzeto stalisce prides do identicnih zakljuckov je tvoja lastna filozofska ali celo religiozna odlocitev kaj ti je bolj vsec, razprava pa zato brezpredmetna.
Glede navedenih clankov me pa zelo zanima ce imas zadostno izobrazbo da bi se ti vsaj priblizno sanjalo o cem govorijo, kvantna gravitacija ni hec, tudi ce beres samo esejske razprave na to temo (sprejemljive fizikalne teorije itak se nismo nasli). Jaz namrec nisem v clankih nasel veliko podobnosti s tistim, kar ti trdis.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
amrit napisal/-a:shrink preden bo tole prestavljeno v dosje boste vi morali dokazati, da čas obstaja kot fundamentalna fizikalna količinashrink napisal/-a:P.S. Predlagam, da moderator tole preseli v 'Dosjeje X'.
zame je jasno, da z urami merimo trajanje sprememb, ki potekajo atemporalnem prostoru,
jaz ne povezujem in enačim časa z gibanjem
pomikajte Vašo roko od leve prosti desni, premika se le v prostoru, čas pa je model uma v katerm Vi doživljate to gibanje.
Je že prestavljeno.Sicer pa so že dovolj zgovorni komentarji na drugih forumih, npr.:
Sorry, I do not read crackpot physics.
I barely have enough time to read mainstream physics published in mainstream peer reviewed journals.
Kar se mene (in očitno tudi ostalih) tiče, si CENZURA, katerega umotvori so skregani z eksperimentalnimi opažanji in zato popolnoma nič vredni. Vsakršen dodaten komentar je popolnoma odveč.You are wrong on all accounts. There are numerous experiments that prove that gravity propagates at finite speed , contrary to your claims.
No one cares about the theory that you keep trying to push. Because it is immediately disproven by experiment. See here:
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2001). "Testing Relativistic Effect of Propagation of Gravity by Very-Long Baseline Interferometry". Astrophys. J. 556: L1-L6. arXiv:gr-qc/0105060.
* Asada, Hidecki (2002). "The Light-cone Effect on the Shapiro Time Delay". Astrophys. J. 574: L69. arXiv:astro-ph/0206266.
* Will, Clifford M. (2003). "Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay". Astrophys. J. 590: 683-690. arXiv:astro-ph/0301145.
* Fomalont, E. B.; and Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results". Astrophys. J. 598: 704-711. arXiv:astro-ph/0302294.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation." Feb 21, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Post-Newtonian Treatment of the VLBI Experiment on September 8, 2002". Phys. Lett. A 312: 147-157. arXiv:gr-qc/0212121.
* Faber, Joshua A. (2003). "The speed of gravity has not been measured from time delays." Mar 14, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2004). "The Speed of Gravity in General Relativity and Theoretical Interpretation of the Jovian Deflection Experiment". Classical and Quantum Gravity 21: 3251-3286. arXiv:gr-qc/0310059.
* Samuel, Stuart (2003). "On the Speed of Gravity and the v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90: 231101. arXiv:astro-ph/0304006.
* Kopeikin, Sergei and Fomalont, Edward (2006). "On the Speed of Gravity and Relativistic v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay". Phys. Lett. A: in press. arXiv:gr-qc/0310065.
* Asada, Hideki (2003). "Comments on "Measuring the Gravity Speed by VLBI"." Aug 20, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei and Fomalont, Edward (2003). "Aberration and the Fundamental Speed of Gravity in the Jovian Deflection Experiment." Feb 16, 2006.
* Carlip, S. (2004). "Model-Dependence of Shapiro Time Delay and the "Speed of Gravity/Speed of Light" Controversy". Class. Quant. Grav. 21: 3803-3812. arXiv:gr-qc/0403060.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2005). "Comment on 'Model-dependence of Shapiro time delay and the "speed of gravity/speed of light" controversy". Class. Quant. Grav. 22: 5181-5186. arXiv:gr-qc/0510048.
* Pascual-Sánchez, J.-F. (2004). "Speed of gravity and gravitomagnetism". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13: 2345-2350. arXiv:gr-qc/0405123.
* Kopeikin, Sergei (2006). "Gravitomagnetism and the speed of gravity". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D: in press. arXiv:gr-qc/0507001.
* Samuel, Stuart (2004). "On the Speed of Gravity and the Jupiter/Quasar Measurement". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13: 1753-1770. arXiv:astro-ph/0412401.
* Kopeikin, Sergei (2005). "Comments on the paper by S. Samuel "On the speed of gravity and the Jupiter/Quasar measurement"." Jan 4, 2005.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
[quote="Aniviller"]Seveda zaznas cas, in ne samo z ocmi. Vsaka sprememba, ki se zgodi, meri cas - doloceni procesi imajo tocno dolocen casovni interval v katerem se zgodijo, kar tocno definira tok casa. Prostor ni glede tega nic drugacen, ker tudi tam zaznavas razdalje samo ce jih meris z merilnimi instrumenti z znano dolzino. In enako velja za vse fizikalne kolicine, meritev je vedno posredna, preko nekega drugega pojava. Zanima me, kaj bos rekel za magnetno polje, za katerega res nimamo cutila: ali potem to pomeni da je navidezno?
Zdaj, cemu reces realno cemu pa navidezno je itak irelavantno ker je matematicni opis itak vedno abstraktna reprezentacija realnega dogajanja, kar pa seveda ne pomeni da je zato kaj manj resnicno. Evklidski prostor, s katerim klasicno opisujemo fizikalni prostor je tipicni primer idealiziranega matematicnega modela. Na kakrsen koli nacin bos opisal resnicnost, vedno bos uporabil orodja iz abstraktnega sveta, pa naj bodo to enacbe ali pa tebi ljubsi - jezik (tudi razumevanje samo ni nic drugega kot opis s pomocjo kodiranih signalov v mozganih, kar je spet abstrakcija). S tvojimi besedami, "pripomocek" je vedno opis necesa, kar je tudi del resnicnosti, drugace tega pripomocka ne bi potrebovali.
Torej: edino kar si uvedel je preimenovanje besede "cas" v numericni red. Stvar ima popolnoma isto funkcijo in ker si s tem sam opazil da za opis gibanja potrebujes dodatno spremenljivko (prostostno stopnjo), pomeni da vesolje res vsebuje to prostostno stopnjo, pa kakorkoli ji ze reces. Pa res predlagam da razmislis o ze omenjenem argumentu: ce gledas na dogajanje iz razlicno gibajocih se tock, vidis da cas in prostor prehajata en v drugega. Torej sta lahko le oba "pripomocek" ali oba "realna", drugace prides do protislovja.
čas in prostor prehajata eden v drugega ?
prosim pošji mi citate o tem iz objavljenih člankov v revijah ki imajo CITATION INDEX
nikoli nism slišal o tem, je to tvoja pogruntavščina ?
zame ja prostor realen fizičen
čas pa je miselni izum
in tu ni nobenega protislovja
o mojih publikacijah pa si poglej citation index od PHYSICS ESSAYS
glede tvojih navajanj publikacij: nikoli ni nihče meril časa, merimo le trajanje gibanj in materialnih sprememb v atemporalnem prostoru
vesolje se ne dogaja v času, čas je miselni model v katerem doživljamo ljudje dogajanja v vesolju ki je atemporalno
ti ne razlikoješ med gibanjem in časom, predmeti se gibljejo v atemporalnem prostoru, z urami merimo trajanje njihovega gibanja, predmeti se ne gibljejo v času
lepo nedeljo ti želim
Zdaj, cemu reces realno cemu pa navidezno je itak irelavantno ker je matematicni opis itak vedno abstraktna reprezentacija realnega dogajanja, kar pa seveda ne pomeni da je zato kaj manj resnicno. Evklidski prostor, s katerim klasicno opisujemo fizikalni prostor je tipicni primer idealiziranega matematicnega modela. Na kakrsen koli nacin bos opisal resnicnost, vedno bos uporabil orodja iz abstraktnega sveta, pa naj bodo to enacbe ali pa tebi ljubsi - jezik (tudi razumevanje samo ni nic drugega kot opis s pomocjo kodiranih signalov v mozganih, kar je spet abstrakcija). S tvojimi besedami, "pripomocek" je vedno opis necesa, kar je tudi del resnicnosti, drugace tega pripomocka ne bi potrebovali.
Torej: edino kar si uvedel je preimenovanje besede "cas" v numericni red. Stvar ima popolnoma isto funkcijo in ker si s tem sam opazil da za opis gibanja potrebujes dodatno spremenljivko (prostostno stopnjo), pomeni da vesolje res vsebuje to prostostno stopnjo, pa kakorkoli ji ze reces. Pa res predlagam da razmislis o ze omenjenem argumentu: ce gledas na dogajanje iz razlicno gibajocih se tock, vidis da cas in prostor prehajata en v drugega. Torej sta lahko le oba "pripomocek" ali oba "realna", drugace prides do protislovja.
čas in prostor prehajata eden v drugega ?
prosim pošji mi citate o tem iz objavljenih člankov v revijah ki imajo CITATION INDEX
nikoli nism slišal o tem, je to tvoja pogruntavščina ?
zame ja prostor realen fizičen
čas pa je miselni izum
in tu ni nobenega protislovja
o mojih publikacijah pa si poglej citation index od PHYSICS ESSAYS
glede tvojih navajanj publikacij: nikoli ni nihče meril časa, merimo le trajanje gibanj in materialnih sprememb v atemporalnem prostoru
vesolje se ne dogaja v času, čas je miselni model v katerem doživljamo ljudje dogajanja v vesolju ki je atemporalno
ti ne razlikoješ med gibanjem in časom, predmeti se gibljejo v atemporalnem prostoru, z urami merimo trajanje njihovega gibanja, predmeti se ne gibljejo v času
lepo nedeljo ti želim
Zadnjič spremenil amrit, dne 14.12.2008 13:23, skupaj popravljeno 4 krat.
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
shrink kot sem ti že povedal pred par meseci ti sploh ne dojemaš fenomeloške razsežnosti časa, in se smešiš z tvojimi izjavami tukajshrink napisal/-a:amrit napisal/-a:shrink preden bo tole prestavljeno v dosje boste vi morali dokazati, da čas obstaja kot fundamentalna fizikalna količinashrink napisal/-a:P.S. Predlagam, da moderator tole preseli v 'Dosjeje X'.
zame je jasno, da z urami merimo trajanje sprememb, ki potekajo atemporalnem prostoru,
jaz ne povezujem in enačim časa z gibanjem
pomikajte Vašo roko od leve prosti desni, premika se le v prostoru, čas pa je model uma v katerm Vi doživljate to gibanje.
Sicer pa so že dovolj zgovorni komentarji na drugih forumih, npr.:
Sorry, I do not read crackpot physics.
I barely have enough time to read mainstream physics published in mainstream peer reviewed journals.Kar se mene (in očitno tudi ostalih) tiče, si CENZURA, katerega umotvori so skregani z eksperimentalnimi opažanji in zato popolnoma nič vredni. Vsakršen dodaten komentar je popolnoma odveč.You are wrong on all accounts. There are numerous experiments that prove that gravity propagates at finite speed , contrary to your claims.
No one cares about the theory that you keep trying to push. Because it is immediately disproven by experiment. See here:
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2001). "Testing Relativistic Effect of Propagation of Gravity by Very-Long Baseline Interferometry". Astrophys. J. 556: L1-L6. arXiv:gr-qc/0105060.
* Asada, Hidecki (2002). "The Light-cone Effect on the Shapiro Time Delay". Astrophys. J. 574: L69. arXiv:astro-ph/0206266.
* Will, Clifford M. (2003). "Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay". Astrophys. J. 590: 683-690. arXiv:astro-ph/0301145.
* Fomalont, E. B.; and Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results". Astrophys. J. 598: 704-711. arXiv:astro-ph/0302294.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation." Feb 21, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Post-Newtonian Treatment of the VLBI Experiment on September 8, 2002". Phys. Lett. A 312: 147-157. arXiv:gr-qc/0212121.
* Faber, Joshua A. (2003). "The speed of gravity has not been measured from time delays." Mar 14, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2004). "The Speed of Gravity in General Relativity and Theoretical Interpretation of the Jovian Deflection Experiment". Classical and Quantum Gravity 21: 3251-3286. arXiv:gr-qc/0310059.
* Samuel, Stuart (2003). "On the Speed of Gravity and the v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90: 231101. arXiv:astro-ph/0304006.
* Kopeikin, Sergei and Fomalont, Edward (2006). "On the Speed of Gravity and Relativistic v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay". Phys. Lett. A: in press. arXiv:gr-qc/0310065.
* Asada, Hideki (2003). "Comments on "Measuring the Gravity Speed by VLBI"." Aug 20, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei and Fomalont, Edward (2003). "Aberration and the Fundamental Speed of Gravity in the Jovian Deflection Experiment." Feb 16, 2006.
* Carlip, S. (2004). "Model-Dependence of Shapiro Time Delay and the "Speed of Gravity/Speed of Light" Controversy". Class. Quant. Grav. 21: 3803-3812. arXiv:gr-qc/0403060.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2005). "Comment on 'Model-dependence of Shapiro time delay and the "speed of gravity/speed of light" controversy". Class. Quant. Grav. 22: 5181-5186. arXiv:gr-qc/0510048.
* Pascual-Sánchez, J.-F. (2004). "Speed of gravity and gravitomagnetism". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13: 2345-2350. arXiv:gr-qc/0405123.
* Kopeikin, Sergei (2006). "Gravitomagnetism and the speed of gravity". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D: in press. arXiv:gr-qc/0507001.
* Samuel, Stuart (2004). "On the Speed of Gravity and the Jupiter/Quasar Measurement". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13: 1753-1770. arXiv:astro-ph/0412401.
* Kopeikin, Sergei (2005). "Comments on the paper by S. Samuel "On the speed of gravity and the Jupiter/Quasar measurement"." Jan 4, 2005.
ti ne razlikuješ med miselnimi modeli in fizikalno realnostjo ki jo ti modeli opisujejo
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Najprej sam kaj objavi v kaki reviji indeksirani v bazi SCI. Skratka: najprej pometi pred svojim pragom.amrit napisal/-a:čas in prostor prehajata eden v drugega ?
prosim pošji mi citate o tem iz objavljenih člankov v revijah ki imajo CITATION INDEX
In kot sem ti sam povedal pred par meseci, je pri tebi možno dojeti samo eno: da si CENZURA.amrit napisal/-a:shrink kot sem ti že povedal pred par meseci ti sploh ne dojemaš fenomeloške razsežnosti časa, in se smešiš z tvojimi izjavami tukajshrink napisal/-a:amrit napisal/-a:shrink preden bo tole prestavljeno v dosje boste vi morali dokazati, da čas obstaja kot fundamentalna fizikalna količina
zame je jasno, da z urami merimo trajanje sprememb, ki potekajo atemporalnem prostoru,
jaz ne povezujem in enačim časa z gibanjem
pomikajte Vašo roko od leve prosti desni, premika se le v prostoru, čas pa je model uma v katerm Vi doživljate to gibanje.
Sicer pa so že dovolj zgovorni komentarji na drugih forumih, npr.:
Sorry, I do not read crackpot physics.
I barely have enough time to read mainstream physics published in mainstream peer reviewed journals.Kar se mene (in očitno tudi ostalih) tiče, si CENZURA, katerega umotvori so skregani z eksperimentalnimi opažanji in zato popolnoma nič vredni. Vsakršen dodaten komentar je popolnoma odveč.You are wrong on all accounts. There are numerous experiments that prove that gravity propagates at finite speed , contrary to your claims.
No one cares about the theory that you keep trying to push. Because it is immediately disproven by experiment. See here:
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2001). "Testing Relativistic Effect of Propagation of Gravity by Very-Long Baseline Interferometry". Astrophys. J. 556: L1-L6. arXiv:gr-qc/0105060.
* Asada, Hidecki (2002). "The Light-cone Effect on the Shapiro Time Delay". Astrophys. J. 574: L69. arXiv:astro-ph/0206266.
* Will, Clifford M. (2003). "Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay". Astrophys. J. 590: 683-690. arXiv:astro-ph/0301145.
* Fomalont, E. B.; and Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results". Astrophys. J. 598: 704-711. arXiv:astro-ph/0302294.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation." Feb 21, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2003). "The Post-Newtonian Treatment of the VLBI Experiment on September 8, 2002". Phys. Lett. A 312: 147-157. arXiv:gr-qc/0212121.
* Faber, Joshua A. (2003). "The speed of gravity has not been measured from time delays." Mar 14, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2004). "The Speed of Gravity in General Relativity and Theoretical Interpretation of the Jovian Deflection Experiment". Classical and Quantum Gravity 21: 3251-3286. arXiv:gr-qc/0310059.
* Samuel, Stuart (2003). "On the Speed of Gravity and the v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay". Phys. Rev. Lett. 90: 231101. arXiv:astro-ph/0304006.
* Kopeikin, Sergei and Fomalont, Edward (2006). "On the Speed of Gravity and Relativistic v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay". Phys. Lett. A: in press. arXiv:gr-qc/0310065.
* Asada, Hideki (2003). "Comments on "Measuring the Gravity Speed by VLBI"." Aug 20, 2003.
* Kopeikin, Sergei and Fomalont, Edward (2003). "Aberration and the Fundamental Speed of Gravity in the Jovian Deflection Experiment." Feb 16, 2006.
* Carlip, S. (2004). "Model-Dependence of Shapiro Time Delay and the "Speed of Gravity/Speed of Light" Controversy". Class. Quant. Grav. 21: 3803-3812. arXiv:gr-qc/0403060.
* Kopeikin, Sergei M. (2005). "Comment on 'Model-dependence of Shapiro time delay and the "speed of gravity/speed of light" controversy". Class. Quant. Grav. 22: 5181-5186. arXiv:gr-qc/0510048.
* Pascual-Sánchez, J.-F. (2004). "Speed of gravity and gravitomagnetism". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13: 2345-2350. arXiv:gr-qc/0405123.
* Kopeikin, Sergei (2006). "Gravitomagnetism and the speed of gravity". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D: in press. arXiv:gr-qc/0507001.
* Samuel, Stuart (2004). "On the Speed of Gravity and the Jupiter/Quasar Measurement". Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13: 1753-1770. arXiv:astro-ph/0412401.
* Kopeikin, Sergei (2005). "Comments on the paper by S. Samuel "On the speed of gravity and the Jupiter/Quasar measurement"." Jan 4, 2005.
Kdo se tukaj in drugod smeši, pa je popolnoma jasno:
Amrit, just repeating yourself again and again with the same short posts which explain nothing and give absolutely no evidence for your point of view doesn't make your claims somehow more valid. It just makes you look stupid because you can't think up anything new or actually valid to say.
Aha, pred meseci sem ti tudi povedal, da se tvojemu nakladanju, da "teorija relativnosti implicira imaginarni čas", smejejo že študenti 1. letnika vsakega naravoslovnega faksa.amrit napisal/-a:ti ne razlikuješ med miselnimi modeli in fizikalno realnostjo ki jo ti modeli opisujejo
No, že dovolj sem se oglašal v zvezi s tabo, zato naj za konec ponovim tisto, kar sem ti tudi že povedal pred par meseci:
Ker ne vidim več razloga za komunikacijo s tabo, te na tej točki še naprej prepuščam svojemu šarlatanskemu početju (beri: posiljevanju z repetitivnimi komentarji).
Re: Physics Without Time As a Fundamental Physical Reality
Dej a je lahko en tok đek pa mau prevede tole..