 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?
a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS" 1. According to rules for Time Paradox and Relativity, time had no meaning for the "RAYS" wrt to each other (same speed but angled away from each other like rays of star light which is similar to say two twins moving the same speed but at different directions(angles) wrt to each other) but these "RAYS" had meaning wrt to their origin (the singularity)? 2. We still have in common the singularity as the yard stick (distance) to measure the travel time of these RAYS since we are still propulsing wrt to the singularity and therefore 300,000 years seems abnormally too small? Meaning the twins (RAYS) come back younger in age (even though they travelled at different directions/angles) but according to our time clock it took the twins (and RAYS) forever to go and come back? ------------------------------------------------------------ *****Even more important**** We couldn't still be moving at the speed of light wrt to the singularity...correct ....and since this energy substantially slowed down in only 300,000 when it had near zero mass therefore shouldn't the present massive bodies in space have already completely slowed down and/or have come to a reversed big crunch??? > a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into > gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? Your comprehension is appalling. That is not what the link I gave said. Consider kindergarten finger-painting. Bill > For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > present massive bodies in space have already completely slowed down > and/or have come to a reversed big crunch??? > > a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into > > gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill Hubba itz you again are you still over focusing using the Hubba(Hubble) Space Telescope? Why are you so fixated on only your link here's another an READ what it says but first put down that Telescope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang QUOTE: "As the Universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate that of radiation. After about 300,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background." > > > a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into > > > gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely > unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background." I called it radiation and energy....you went crazy and insisted that on ONLY the wording of "Specific energy" and not energy nor radiation, your own link ALSO calls it a dense FIREBALL (you're the one who can't read properly) just beside it. > > > > a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into > > > > gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > your own link ALSO calls it a dense FIREBALL (you're the one who can't > read properly) just beside it. Fireball is photons and photons are a radiation, look it up. I've made mistakes and been corrected politely otherwise I wouldn't be posting questions but your replies were incorrect, insulting and therefore have no merit. >> > > > a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into >> > > > gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> I called it radiation and energy You did not. >you went crazy and insisted that on >> ONLY the wording of "Specific energy" and not energy nor radiation, That is not what I did. >> your own link ALSO calls it a dense FIREBALL (you're the one who can't >> read properly) just beside it. > > Fireball is photons and photons are a radiation, look it up. Fireball - A brilliantly burning sphere, A highly luminous, intensely hot spherical cloud of dust, gas, and vapor generated by a nuclear explosion, A meteor that is as bright or brighter than the brightest planets. > I've made mistakes and been corrected politely I was polite initially. But your continued inability to understand plain English required a stronger response. > otherwise I wouldn't be > posting questions but your replies were incorrect, insulting and > therefore have no merit. If you do not wish to be 'insulted' spend a little time understanding what is written instead of posting obvious silliness such as 'Fireball is photons' - a fireball emits photons - it is not photons. If that is beyond you then take up finger painting - physics is not for you. However I suspect you are some well known crank/troll - quite possibly another incarnation of the dyslexic troll or Tom Gee. Bill From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> > a) The 0 to 300,000 year after the Bang for energy to form into > gluons/electrons/plasma "seems" abnormally small? To say "0" is to mean that the forming began instantly when the BB occurred. For that to be a valid assumption requires some support as to how that could possibly happen and why. Otherwise, we can assume that some time after the BB began, matter began to form. Unless someone can show why it started to form at "0", it is only an opinion. The reason this is relevant is because I think that the primeval soup of energy sent out initially by the BB was Dark Matter. DM has mass, but it is negative mass (Gamow) that exists motionless when no external force is acting upon it. Being negative mass, it has only "negative energy" as opposed to what we would call "positive energy". While it has no energy of motion of its own, it can be affected by external force, specifically the impetus produced upon it by the BB. In such a case, something had to occur that changed DM into +mass/energy after the BB. The 300k year figure is supported by the calculations of time passage according to our own time frames of reference, and as such, it is not all that relevant, but it does serve as a starting point for the basis of theory. The idea that soon after the BB, matter began to form from what we have traditionally called "pure energy" does not fit into what we call "physics facts". According to AE, we cannot have pure energy as it must have some matter in it in order for it to have energy. Perhaps at that time, pure energy could have existed, but then the formula E=mc^2 would have been invalid. Science seems to claim that scientific principles are such because there has never been found an exception to them. If there was an exception to the formula of mass/energy equivalence at sometime in the past, some explanation of it is required that show how, why, or when the exception vanished. My notion of the BB does not insist that there was an exception in the past, but rather that our idea of what came out of the BB is not correct. My model of the universe has DM coming out of the BB into the vacuum of absolute space (defined as space devoid of anything in it). Just like a gas rushes to fill a vacuum and is in fact "sucked" into it, the DM from the BB would have done the same. Suppose we have two containers separate from each other but having the same volume and connected by a valve that closes or opens entrance from one to the other. One is at ordinary atmospheric pressure at sea level, but the other has a very high vacuum within it. When we open the valve slightly, the air in the one moves into the other at very high speeds, sucked into the vacuum of the container. Soon, there is as about as much air in one as there is in the other, but now there is also about as much vacuum in both containers because the vacuum also equalized between them. This is analoguous to my concept of the BB occurrence, except with a major difference to it. It has been posited that an Inflationary Period must have occurred soon after the BB as an explanation of the homogeneity of elements in the known universe. For such homogeneity to have occurred, there had to have either been much more time passing than the current known age of the universe, or there had to have been a time soon after the BB during which the universe suddenly expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light and for great distances in order to explain the homogeneity of the elements of the universe. Physicists chose to work with the latter explanation, even though it meant that matter violated its speed limit principles and that space "dilated" to the greatest extend possible within our universe. The IP was not all that readily accepted at first, but with no other explanation in sight, research turned to the IP concept as a viable theory. And yet, note the large number of contradictions inherent in the theory of a "pure energy" BB and that of the IP theory. It is indeed surprising that men of science have not turned away from them in view of the unsupported overthrow of well-accepted scientific principles. It is time, I believe (pun intended), for men to think of better ways to explain our universe. I have explained how the BB could be better described where it is consistent with scienctific principle, and now I'll explain a better way to show how the homogeneity of the elements occurred than the fanciful notion of the IP. Suppose we have the same two containers above except that now the one with air in it is compressed to as much as the container can bear without bursting. Recall now that the other container has a very high vacuum in it. Imagine the one with the air in it is the singularity of the BB, and that the one with the vacuum in it is absolute space. Opening the valve between the two containers is analoguous to the singularity exploding. The compressed air is forcing the air out of that container at great pressure, analoguous to the force of the BB pushing out the highly compressed DM from its innards. But wait - there's more. As the pressure forces the air out of one container, it is being sucked out by the other one that has a very high vacuum analoguous to the vacuum of absolute space. Now, the time it took for the air to move out of one container having ordinary atmospheric pressure into the other one having a high vacuum would have been quite an ordinary event compared to the time it would take for the DM to be pushed out of the singularity and sucked out by the vacuum of space. Note that there are no contradictions here with known theory and principle. No FTL travel for mass/energy (consistent with E=mc^2, since DM has only negative mass/energy - meaning it can travel at any speed imposed upon it by external forces). No unreasonable and unexplained sudden explosion of space (consistent with my theory that time is a property of visible matter and DM is not visible to us and thus exists external to the time dimension). > For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > each other) but these "RAYS" had meaning wrt to their origin (the > singularity)? Why should they have been "RAYS" instead of the way light propagates, spherically? Explain what process would cause that. > From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname > To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > occurred. For that to be a valid assumption requires some support as > to how that could possibly happen and why. And inflation does precisely that. Rest of silliness snipped. Bill > > From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname > > To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And inflation does precisely that. Now that's really stupid even coming from you, Hobbit. You are arguing that the theory of inflation explains how and why the forming began at the same instant when the BB occurred, i.e., at "0" time after the BB began. Gzusk has an excuse, that he's obviously a newbie to physics, but you have none, so how stupid is that? > Rest of silliness snipped. > > Bill > From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname > To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > To say "0" is to mean that the forming began instantly when the BB > occurred. The explosion began at 0, the forming they say began 300,000 wrt our relation which still exist with singularity although deceleration (which of course disrupts our time clock measures) due to thermodynamics is involved. > For that to be a valid assumption requires some support as > to how that could possibly happen and why. Otherwise, we can assume > that some time after the BB began, matter began to form. Unless > someone can show why it started to form at "0", it is only an opinion. The explosion only at 0. > The reason this is relevant is because I think that the primeval soup > of energy sent out initially by the BB was Dark Matter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only "negative energy" as opposed to what we would call "positive > energy". Some theories suggest the needs of a negative Universe (as opposed to dark matter). Either way Newton's LAW demands a reaction to every action, that action is the explosion and the reaction is either negative dark matter or a negative universe (the sum total = ZERO). >While it has no energy of motion of its own, it can be > affected by external force, specifically the impetus produced upon it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "physics facts". According to AE, we cannot have pure energy as it > must have some matter in it in order for it to have energy. It's possible the very inital equation for E=mc^2 must submit to the TENSOR laws (still theory) and for does in the very same equation the intial mass is replaceable by what physics calls a MOMENT (someway similar to Plancks constant (smallest multiple dimensional unit) but in this case it's a MOMENT of time (smallest multiple time unit....it's multiple is what we call mass ....same as the multiple of density (x volume = multiple) is mass therefore the initial density (smallest unit of density) is perhaps both a unit of Planck and MOMENT of time ...or both are one in the same (Panck and Moment that is and are simply the inverse of each other ...same as wavelength (dimension) versus frequency(time) w = 1/f ). The rest below is tooo longgg to read sorryyyyy. > Perhaps at > that time, pure energy could have existed, but then the formula E=mc^2 [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Why should they have been "RAYS" instead of the way light propagates, > spherically? Explain what process would cause that. Interesting....PERHAPS: "Mathematically speaking the more space (volume) created the more the density must weaken (energy = inverse of density) thus we cannot CREATE more ENERGY than what the BIG BANG PRODUCED (the logic is the ENERGY is "instantaneous and NOT continuous) thus the more the RAYS disperse from the singularity the more by mathematical laws the individual ENERGY must reduced in order to disperse the larger volume it needs to occupy???? ) " An Explosion produces photons and photons are considered RAYS of light (sunlight) and according to our rules of dimensional spaces the further you move from a central location (singularity or sun) the more space accumates between the RAYS....if you wish to accumulate these VOID spaces with more light then you would be suggesting the CREATION (out of nowhere) of MORE photons into this space ORRRR perhaps the thermal density (Thermodynamics) is reduced per incident RAY to form a continuous SPHERICAL propagation as you call it thus the thermal density of individual photons weakens with distance from the singularity but the total thermal density remains the same (meaning simply disperses itself to fill the void to form a spherical propagation instead of rays). > > From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname > > To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The explosion only at 0. Yes, that was my point. > > The reason this is relevant is because I think that the primeval soup > > of energy sent out initially by the BB was Dark Matter. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Some theories suggest the needs of a negative Universe (as opposed to > dark matter). Never heard of that. What are those theories based upon? Are their arguments based on logic or empirical evidence, or are they just based on the opinion that anything is possible? > Either way Newton's LAW demands a reaction to every action, that action > is the explosion and the reaction is either negative dark matter or a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > The rest below is tooo longgg to read sorryyyyy. SNIP > > > > > > For the sake of simplicity we'll call the Big Bang's energy: "RAYS" [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > An Explosion produces photons and photons are considered RAYS of light > (sunlight) Light rays consist of great quantities of photons, thus a single photon cannot be considered to be a "ray" of light. Light rays do not exist naturally because light always propagates in a spherical fashion from its source. They are caused by interferences by objects that form light into rays. However, you have touched upon one of my arguments about modern science's contradictions about photon theory. Physicists claim light is created from a source as spherical em waves and as particles. Light is both wave and particle, then, in all cases. That is called the paradox of the dual nature of light. There are no real explanations for it - that's why it is a paradox, a self-contradictory statement. I have explained away the paradox, however, in my proposal that light propagates as em energy through the media of DM in space, where it collides through DM particles that are converted into real matter (RM) at the point of contact into visible light. It is not possible to explain the dual nature of light in any other way than that which resolves the contradiction in it, as my idea does. > and according to our rules of dimensional spaces the further > you move from a central location (singularity or sun) the more space > accumates between the RAYS....if you wish to accumulate these VOID > spaces with more light then you would be suggesting the CREATION (out > of nowhere) of MORE photons into this space I have posted that argument several times in these ngs previous to today in asking where do the additional photons needed to fill in the gaps between other photons that are created as the em wave expands? The only answer received was that a theory of probability is applicable as a viable explanation for that. Of course, they gave no explanation as to how it can be applied to this particular case, so they lost on that issue. My idea won out, but no one wants to admit that, so they have remained silent and gone on with their lives as if the paradox still exists. > ORRRR perhaps the thermal > density (Thermodynamics) is reduced per incident RAY to form a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > simply disperses itself to fill the void to form a spherical > propagation instead of rays). > > > From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname > > > To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > arguments based on logic or empirical evidence, or are they just based > on the opinion that anything is possible? It's plastered all over the web. Some believe there is an exacte Universe to our Universe but negative. Other suggest a Negative Universe from inside Black Holes. As well Steven Hawkings had suggested that Black Holes may lead to other Universes (branches/tunnels) but he doesn't suggest a Negative Universe to ours. Recently he has also stated that he changed his mind and now believes all information (matter/structure) is preserved after in enters into a Black Hole (perhaps he believes it may explode back later on in the same way/structure???) but I think everything returns to its master and is destroyed and crunched into a singularity of pure energy. > > Either way Newton's LAW demands a reaction to every action, that action > > is the explosion and the reaction is either negative dark matter or a [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > its source. They are caused by interferences by objects that form > light into rays. I didn't know that. So your saying sun rays don't exist in space and are formed through interference with Earth's atmosphere? > However, you have touched upon one of my arguments about modern > science's contradictions about photon theory. Physicists claim light [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > simply disperses itself to fill the void to form a spherical > > propagation instead of rays). > > > > From: tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> - change nickname > > > > To: "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> SNIP > > > Some theories suggest the needs of a negative Universe (as opposed to > > > dark matter). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's plastered all over the web. Where exactly, for example? > Some believe there is an exacte > Universe to our Universe but negative. How do they mean, negative? Do they believe our universe is a "positive" universe? If so, by what standard(s), and why do we have both negative and positive in this one and not just one or the other? What do you mean by the term "negative universe". > Other suggest a Negative Universe from inside Black Holes. Who suggests that, specifically? No one I know of suggests other than a biiig crunch inside a BH. > As well Steven Hawkings had suggested that Black Holes may lead to > other Universes (branches/tunnels) but he doesn't suggest a Negative > Universe to ours. Suggestions are just that - possibilities. They are not theories or beliefs. > Recently he has also stated that he changed his mind > and now believes all information (matter/structure) is preserved after > in enters into a Black Hole (perhaps he believes it may explode back > later on in the same way/structure???) but I think everything returns > to its master and is destroyed and crunched into a singularity of pure > energy. I would not discount the possibility that our universe may have been born from a BH as a "singularity", but I don't see how it could become pure energy. In fact, I said the BB spewed out not pure energy but pure Dark Matter. If the DM was formed out of what goes into BHs, we might could possibly say we came out of a BH. I tend to think that the singularity could have formed out of something other than a BH, but I'm not betting on that as yet. > > > Either way Newton's LAW demands a reaction to every action, that action > > > is the explosion and the reaction is either negative dark matter or a > > > negative universe (the sum total = ZERO). I gave you my opinions why I opt for "negative dark matter"; why do you think the sum total of the universe = ZERO? SNIP > > > An Explosion produces photons and photons are considered RAYS of light > > > (sunlight) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I didn't know that. So your saying sun rays don't exist in space and > are formed through interference with Earth's atmosphere? No. I'm saying that light moves omnidirectionally naturally but is diverted, absorbed, re-emitted, realigned into coherent light, and otherwise impeded by almost anything. > > However, you have touched upon one of my arguments about modern > > science's contradictions about photon theory. Physicists claim light [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > simply disperses itself to fill the void to form a spherical > > > propagation instead of rays). And so according to tomgee, time not only exists as a physical property of matter, but his evidence for this assertion is that time for any discreet object is the inverse of the object's state of motion. IOW (and this is all verifiable right here in this NG), tomgee's theory is that even though he fully admits that a state of motion is the same thing as being in motion, he also claims that a state of motion is a variable quantity, AND the it's inversely proportional to time for an given object. Of course, he refuses to tell us how a singular condition (state) can also be variably quantified, but he also can't seem to give the formula by which this inverse calculation could be made, or the units he'd express the inverse of a second, or even how he'd take the inverse of a fundamental unit in the first place. But then again, tomgee believes that theories can be proven, and that to say that a vacuum sucks air from one container to another is scientifically valid, so what else are we to expect? > And so according to tomgee, time not only exists as a physical property > of matter, but his evidence for this assertion is that time for any > discreet object is the inverse of the object's state of motion. Will you never get anything right? your inability to understand plain English is appalling but obviously caused by your poor reading abilitity. That causes you to post lies about what you read, as in the above example. I do not claim that the evidence for the existence of time as a property of matter has anything to do with my assertion that time "is the inverse of the object's state of motion." I claim that the evidence that time exists and is a property of time is based on the fact that all visible matter exists in the time dimension and thus ages. My second claim, which is distinct from the first one above, is that time pass at rates inversely proportional to an object's state of motion. Your low level of comprehension has caused you to combine my first and second claims into one claim where you leave out distinguishing characteristics of the two claims. Your low capacity for understanding causes you to do that and the result is that you essentially lie about what I have said, even though your lies are based on your misunderstanding of what you read. > IOW > (and this is all verifiable right here in this NG), tomgee's theory is > that even though he fully admits that a state of motion is the same > thing as being in motion, he also claims that a state of motion is a > variable quantity, What makes you call that a theory? If you knew what a theory is, you would know your stupid claim above is just that -stupid. Even more idiotic, you disagree that states of motion are variable quantities, thus you claim evidently that everything moving in the universe moves at the same state of motion! How stupid is that? > AND the it's inversely proportional to time for an > given object. You will never get anything right, will you? How dumb are you to always get everything wrong? For you to believe that I said "...it's inversely proportional to time for an given object" when what I really said was, "time passes at rates inversely proportional to the state of motion of a given object," indicates how little you understand what you read. > Of course, he refuses to tell us how a singular condition (state) can > also be variably quantified, but he also can't seem to give the formula [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > say that a vacuum sucks air from one container to another is > scientifically valid, so what else are we to expect? Do you really and truly believe that your two paragraphs above make any sense to anyone except you? You wish to debate your fallacious belief that time does not exist even though it has been shown not just by me but by many others that yours is not an argument about physics but about metaphysics where existential and religious fantasies abound and where anything is possible, even the notion that time does not exist in spite of the empirical evidence that you will age until you die and then age some more until your bones become one with the Earth again. >> And so according to tomgee, time not only exists as a physical >> property >> of matter, but his evidence for this assertion is that time for any >> discreet object is the inverse of the object's state of motion. >> > Will you never get anything right? I got everything right. > your inability to understand plain > English is appalling but obviously caused by your poor reading [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time as a property of matter has anything to do with my assertion that > time "is the inverse of the object's state of motion." This is like the last time you called me a liar for quoting you, and I finally had to post multiple paragraphs of what you said to prove it. You need to be much more careful before calling someone a liar, especially when it's you who continually lies. In the thread entitled Arrow Of Time, you said exactly what I said you said. > I claim that > the evidence that time exists and is a property of time is based on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that time pass at rates inversely proportional to an object's state of > motion. How can time be the same as the passage of time? You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, etc.......so are those the same units for the passage of time? If so, then what's the inverse of a second? You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion? > Your low level of comprehension has caused you to combine my first and > second claims into one claim where you leave out distinguishing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what I have said, even though your lies are based on your > misunderstanding of what you read. Even if all those things about me were true, at least I'm not being so silly as to assert that time and the passage of time are the same thing, that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and there's such a thing as the inverse of a second. The issue here isn't me, it's those assertions of your's. >> IOW >> (and this is all verifiable right here in this NG), tomgee's theory [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > thus you claim evidently that everything moving in the universe moves > at the same state of motion! How stupid is that? If you stick by your claim that the condition of being in motion is a variable quantity? >> AND the it's inversely proportional to time for an >> given object. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you > read. Remember when I kept asking you for units for the passage of time, and after trying your best to dodge me with personal attacks such as those above, you finally admitted that units for the passage of time were seconds, minutes, hours, etc.......? Well those are units of time, not the passage of time. So unless you're claiming that they're the same (time & its passage), then what I want are units for time, and units by which you'd quantify its passage. Can you do that? >> Of course, he refuses to tell us how a singular condition (state) can >> also be variably quantified, but he also can't seem to give the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > any > sense to anyone except you? Yes. Why? What part of them shall I explain to you in greater detail? > You wish to debate your fallacious belief that time does not exist > even > though it has been shown not just by me <snicker> > but by many others that yours > is not an argument about physics but about metaphysics where > existential and religious fantasies abound and where anything is > possible, even the notion that time does not exist in spite of the > empirical evidence that you will age until you die and then age some > more until your bones become one with the Earth again. Units for *state of motion*? Can you supply those? A second is inversely proportional to _______ > >> And so according to tomgee, time not only exists as a physical > >> property [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I got everything right. Your got nothing right; you got everything wrong. > > your inability to understand plain > > English is appalling but obviously caused by your poor reading [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is like the last time you called me a liar for quoting you, and I > finally had to post multiple paragraphs of what you said to prove it. You posted multiple paragraphs that showed you lied about what I said, and so you proved you lied. > You need to be much more careful before calling someone a liar, > especially when it's you who continually lies. In the thread entitled > Arrow Of Time, you said exactly what I said you said. No, you had the same problem there as you have here - total miscomprehension. > > I claim that the evidence that time exists and is a property of time is based on > > the fact that all visible matter exists in the time dimension and thus > > ages. My second claim, which is distinct from the first one above, is > > that time pass at rates inversely proportional to an object's state of motion. > > How can time be the same as the passage of time? The same way that the term Daytime incorporates certain units of the way we measure time. When we say, "What time is it?", we are really asking, "what units of time (hour and minute and second) of the day (or night) is it?" Do you deny the logic and common use of that statement? Assuming you believe that time and the passage of time are not the same, how can that be? Give a single example that shows time is not the same as the passage of time, like the ones I gave you above to show that the two are used as meaning the same thing. > You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, etc.......so > are those the same units for the passage of time? > If so, then what's the inverse of a second? I said those are our units - the same we use to show the passage of time. > You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were > synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion? The same units for both. But apparently you disagree as to their synonymity, and if so, state your argument(s) why you think they are not synonymous. > > Your low level of comprehension has caused you to combine my first and > > second claims into one claim where you leave out distinguishing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even if all those things about me were true, at least I'm not being so > silly as to assert that time and the passage of time are the same thing, Then give your statement as to how they are not the same thing. > that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and > there's such a thing as the inverse of a second. These are two of the lies you made up in your own mind based on your very low level of comprehension. > The issue here isn't > me, it's those assertions of your's. No, not so. The issue is indeed you and your lies about what I've said. My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to understand for any normal person. Those like you with such a low level of reading comprehendsion have little chance of ever learning what I'm getting at. > >> IOW > >> (and this is all verifiable right here in this NG), tomgee's theory [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you stick by your claim that the condition of being in motion is a > variable quantity? Answer the question. >> You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, >> etc.......so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I said those are our units - the same we use to show the passage of > time. So what is the inverse of a second? >> You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were >> synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion? >> > The same units for both. But apparently you disagree as to their > synonymity, and if so, state your argument(s) why you think they are > not synonymous. So what units would you use? I know you'd use the same for both, but what are they? >> that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and >> there's such a thing as the inverse of a second. >> > These are two of the lies you made up in your own mind based on your > very low level of comprehension. A state is a singular condition of existence, yet you claim that it has have a variable quantity. You claim that a *state* of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of time. Well, the passage of time is a variable quantity, so therefore you must believe that a *state* of motion is variable too. Yet a *state* is a singular condition of existence. Where is any of that incorrect? > My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to > understand for any normal person. <snicker> > >> You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, > >> etc.......so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what is the inverse of a second? Why do you claim there is such a thing? > >> You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were > >> synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So what units would you use? I know you'd use the same for both, but > what are they? The same units we use to measure motion. > >> that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and > >> there's such a thing as the inverse of a second. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A state is a singular condition of existence, yet you claim that it has > have a variable quantity. In what way does the latter conflict with the former? Are you claiming that a state cannot have a variable quantity? If so, why not? > You claim that a *state* of motion is > inversely proportional to the passage of time. Not so. That's your own mental state playing tricks on you. I never claimed that. > Well, the passage of > time is a variable quantity, so therefore you must believe that a > *state* of motion is variable too. Yet a *state* is a singular > condition of existence. Where is any of that incorrect? Your use of the term, "yet", indicates you believe that a state cannot be variable and if so, you need to show why as I think states are variable in that they can change from one state to another. Thus, when you say, "state", that is a singular condition at the time of measurement, but when said in the plural, the reference is not to a singular condition but a variety of them. > > My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to > > understand for any normal person. > > <snicker> Snicker all you want, but it doesn't hide the fact of your very low comprehension level. >> >> You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, >> >> etc.......so [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Why do you claim there is such a thing? I don't, but you did. "Time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects." So if the passage of time can be expressed in seconds, what's the inverse of a second? >> >> You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were >> >> synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > The same units we use to measure motion. I know we measure velocity, and I know we measure speed, but I'm not aware of any units for motion. Are you claiming that speed and motion are also synonymous? Well, they're not, but if you think that motion can be expressed in terms of mph, then are you saying that time can be expressed as hpm? >> >> that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and >> >> there's such a thing as the inverse of a second. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > claiming > that a state cannot have a variable quantity? If so, why not? Because a state is defined as a singular condition of existence. "Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water. " You really do need to gain a much better understanding of scientific terms. You're making a fool of yourself. To say that an object is in a state of motion is simply to say that it's in motion, and not that it's moving with any given quantity. The speed at which something is moving is the quantifiable property, but not the motion itself. "Nope, that road stays right there" >> You claim that a *state* of motion is >> inversely proportional to the passage of time. >> > Not so. That's your own mental state playing tricks on you. I never > claimed that. Did you not say that for a given object, the passage of time is inversely proportional to the state of motion? If so, then it follows that the state of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of time, correct? If y/x is inversely proportional to x/y, then isn't x/y inversely proportional to y/x? >> Well, the passage of >> time is a variable quantity, so therefore you must believe that a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be variable and if so, you need to show why as I think states are > variable in that they can change from one state to another. You're horribly confused. This is precisely where your imprecision with words and terms leads. The word *variable* implies more than just true ~ false or on ~ off. Variable means a quantity capable of assuming any of a set of values whereas a state means one condition of existence. By definition, a state is simply not something which is quantifiable. Something is either in a particular state of existence, or it is not. As you yourself have admitted, to say that something is in a state of motion is the same as saying that it's in motion. However, if you want to quantify something about it's state of motion, you can quantify its speed, but not the fact that it's in motion. That's either true, or it's not. > Thus, when > you say, "state", that is a singular condition at the time of > measurement, States are not measured at all. Please try to grasp that concept. > but when said in the plural, the reference is not to a > singular condition but a variety of them. Well, whereas the preimise of your statement was wrong, this part is gibbereish. >> > My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to >> > understand for any normal person. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Snicker all you want, but it doesn't hide the fact of your very low > comprehension level. :-) > >> >> You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, > >> >> etc.......so [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > if the passage of time can be expressed in seconds, what's the inverse > of a second? There is nothing in the quote above that talks about "the inverse of a second". If you think it refers to time units, you're sadly mistaken. It simply refers to the time rate in which an object exists. My posit is that,based on the experiments of time dilation, it should have been obvious to you that the results show the faster the state of motion of objects, the slower their time rates. > >> >> You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were > >> >> synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > can be expressed in terms of mph, then are you saying that time can be > expressed as hpm? Not until you admit to the synonymity of the two statements above or state better arguments for your position about that than you already have (which I demolished forthwith). > >> >> that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and > >> >> there's such a thing as the inverse of a second. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Because a state is defined as a singular condition of existence. Therefore, there is only ONE state of motion and no other in the universe? > "Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, > composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water. " [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is the quantifiable property, but not the motion itself. "Nope, that > road stays right there" Why do you put that in quotation marks? You're the one making a fool of yourself with your own definition of what states are. Here are two that clearly show how your own pirated definition applies to the term "state": "condition: the condition that something or somebody is in at a particular time". "physics form or energy level: any of the various forms such as solid or liquid or quantifiable conditions such as energy levels that a physical substance can be in depending on its temperature and other circumstances". (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved). > >> You claim that a *state* of motion is > >> inversely proportional to the passage of time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did you not say that for a given object, the passage of time is > inversely proportional to the state of motion? Yes, for discrete visible objects. > If so, then it follows > that the state of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of > time, correct? If y/x is inversely proportional to x/y, then isn't x/y > inversely proportional to y/x? Seems like it would be. Let's see: say 24/12=2 and thus 12/24=1/2? If 24=the state of motion, and 12=the time rate, then at a faster state of motion, say, 36, the time rate would have to be less than 12, like: 36/6, in order to maintain the inverse proportionality. Conversely (heh heh), if we put the time rate on top, 6/36=0.17, the inverse proportionality is maintained. However, I did not say that a state of motion is inversely proportional to its own time rate. You're making that assumption from what I did say. > >> Well, the passage of > >> time is a variable quantity, so therefore you must believe that a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You're horribly confused. No, you're the one who's so horribly confused. > This is precisely where your imprecision with > words and terms leads. The word *variable* implies more than just true > ~ false or on ~ off. My imprecision? Just how precise do you imagine the term "implies" is? Implications are a dime a dozen and worth about as much. The term variable does not mean true or false and on and off unless you specify it those conditions. The term "variable" as a noun refers to something capable of changing or varying. Any more specificity than that falls to the user of the term. > Variable means a quantity capable of assuming any > of a set of values When used as an adjective, yes, but when used as a noun, it simply means something that can vary, period. > whereas a state means one condition of existence. Yes, but states are variable and there are many of them. Note that in English, the plural indicates more than one. You are basing you argument on the use of the singular or plural reference, and mine was to the plural, yet you argue the singular. > By definition, a state is simply not something which is quantifiable. And yet you demand that I quantify it. > Something is either in a particular state of existence, or it is not. But that state can vary, can it not? > As you yourself have admitted, to say that something is in a state of > motion is the same as saying that it's in motion. However, if you want > to quantify something about it's state of motion, you can quantify its > speed, but not the fact that it's in motion. That's either true, or > it's not. I agree, so what's your point? > > Thus, when > > you say, "state", that is a singular condition at the time of > > measurement, > > States are not measured at all. Please try to grasp that concept. Well, okay, change that to "at the time of observation." Or better yet, just change it to "at the time." > > but when said in the plural, the reference is not to a > > singular condition but a variety of them. > > Well, whereas the preimise of your statement was wrong, this part is > gibbereish. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but in your retreat to unsupported opinion, you lose your argument. > >> > My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to > >> > understand for any normal person. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > :-) > > >> >> You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours, > > >> >> etc.......so [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > obvious to you that the results show the faster the state of motion of > objects, the slower their time rates. My mistake may very well be that I assumed that you were speaking in scientifically and mathematically valid terms. This is a science NG after all. Anyway, to continue with that assumption, you speak of time as though it can be quantified, and in previous posts to me, you even said units such as seconds, minutes, hours, etc could be used. Also, the term inversely proportional is a pretty specific mathematical term which is defined as the comparison of two rates. So when you say "Time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects.", unless you're simply abandoning any pretext of saying anything of any scientific validity, you must therefore be saying that the passage of time is a rate, and that a state of motion is a rate, and that both can be expressed in terms of units. So was I mistaken that you have anything of any scientific validity to say, or were you just spouting off like someone who has the scientific training to a 2nd grader? > > >> >> You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* > > >> >> were [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > state better arguments for your position about that than you already > have (which I demolished forthwith). Speed and motion are most certainly not synonymous. The former is a rate, and the latter is a singular condition of existence. But if you're claiming that they are, then please answer my question. > > >> >> that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, > > >> >> and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Therefore, there is only ONE state of motion and no other in the > universe? Exactly. Somthing is either in a state of motion, or it is not. The speed at which it's in motion can vary, but "being in motion" is either true or false. > > "Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, > > form, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "condition: the condition that something or somebody is in at a > particular time". That proves my point, not your's. You do understand the English language, don't you? > "physics form or energy level: any of the various forms such as solid > or liquid or quantifiable conditions such as energy levels that a > physical substance can be in depending on its temperature and other > circumstances". (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © > 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved). Well, I looked at the on-line Encarta, and didn't see any such definition. But I did see the following: "condition: the condition that something or somebody is in" Are you lying about that definition? Anyway, if you belive that being in motion can be quatified, then you should have no trouble telling me the units you'd use. Why have you never been able to do so? > > >> You claim that a *state* of motion is > > >> inversely proportional to the passage of time. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > Seems like it would be. Then if the passage of time is expressed in seconds, what's the inverse of a second? > Let's see: say 24/12=2 and thus 12/24=1/2? Yes, those are two ratios, and their relationship is inversely proportional. > If 24=the state of motion, and 12=the time rate, Neither of which are rates, and therefore, do not lend themselves to any comparison of proportionality whatsoever. A rate is a ratio. That's all there is to it. > then at a faster state of motion, What is *a faster state of motion* if not a speed? Are you saying that if an object is in motion, that not only does it have a rate of speed, but that there's some other rate involved? If so, then what? > say, 36, So something which has a rate of 36 doesn't have any units? If it were 36 mph, then that would be a vaid rate. But you're not using any units, so what you're expressing simply isn't valid. > the time rate would have to be less than 12, like: > 36/6, in order to maintain the inverse proportionality. It would, as long as 6/36 was that from which the inverse proportionality was derived. But you didn't say 36/6 or 36/anything. You said 36. And if an object has a time rate of 12, is that 12 seconds, or minutes, or hours? Just give me an example. > Conversely > (heh heh), if we put the time rate on top, 6/36=0.17, the inverse > proportionality is maintained. However, I did not say that a state of > motion is inversely proportional to its own time rate. You're making > that assumption from what I did say. I didn't say that you said that. What I've said is that you said "Time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects." From that, if you want to maintain any mathamatical validity, you must also be saying that *the state of motion of discrete objects is inversely proportional to the passage of time.* Are you at all interested in validity? > > >> Well, the passage of > > >> time is a variable quantity, so therefore you must believe that a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > No, you're the one who's so horribly confused. No, you're the one who's so horribly confused. > > This is precisely where your imprecision with > > words and terms leads. The word *variable* implies more than just > > true > > ~ false or on ~ off. > > > My imprecision? Yes. > Just how precise do you imagine the term "implies" is? Very. > Implications are a dime a dozen and worth about as much. The term > variable does not mean true or false and on and off unless you specify > it those conditions. That's exactly my point. Variable implies so much more, but the term *state* is just a condition with no variability whatsoever. > The term "variable" as a noun refers to something > capable of changing or varying. Any more specificity than that falls > to the user of the term. And yet a *state* is a singular condition of existence with no variability. Being in motion is either true, or it isn't. If it were more then that, you'd be able to express it in units, which to date, you've been unable to do. Like I said, you're horrible confused. > > Variable means a quantity capable of assuming any > > of a set of values > > > When used as an adjective, yes, but when used as a noun, it simply > means something that can vary, period. You don't even know when you agree with me. ;-) > > whereas a state means one condition of existence. > > > Yes, but states are variable and there are many of them. So you agree that it means one......ONE......1.......condition of existence, but you also claim that it's variable? If a fluid is in a liquid state, to what degree is it a liquid? > Note that in > English, the plural indicates more than one. You are basing you > argument on the use of the singular or plural reference, and mine was > to the plural, yet you argue the singular. There is no plurality to a singular condition. > > By definition, a state is simply not something which is > > quantifiable. > > > And yet you demand that I quantify it. Only because, as you've once again argued, that it is quantifiable. If you're right and it is, then give me units. But if I'm right, then you won't be able to do so, and so far, you haven't. > > Something is either in a particular state of existence, or it is > > not. > > > But that state can vary, can it not? NO! To what extend is a fluid a gas? To what extent is a fluis a liquid? to what extent is a light bulb on? To what extent is it off? Those are all states of existance. > > As you yourself have admitted, to say that something is in a state > > of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > I agree, so what's your point? My point is that you keep insisting that a state of motion is quantifiable. What's quantifiable about motion is the speed at which that which is in motion is traveling. Therefore, to say that anything has any proportional relationship to anything which is simple either true or false is invalid. > > > Thus, when > > > you say, "state", that is a singular condition at the time of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, okay, change that to "at the time of observation." Or better > yet, just change it to "at the time." OK, now we're getting somewhere. So, when you say "Time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects.", you now mean "Time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to the time of observation of motion of discrete objects." So now please explain how time can be inversely proportional to time. > > > but when said in the plural, the reference is not to a > > > singular condition but a variety of them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but in your retreat to > unsupported opinion, you lose your argument. LOL! Just look above. You've totally caved on the notion that a state can be quantified and have finally accepted that it's a singular condition of existence. So now you've got to explain how time can be inversely proportional to time. And MT argument is lost? ;-) > > >> > My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to > > >> > understand for any normal person. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > :-) Regards........ So tell me, tomgee, was it the part wherein I proved that I was telling the truth when you called me a liar and so you simply don't want to apologize, or was it the part where I asked you to substantiate your claim that there's such a thing as the inverse of a second? > My model of the universe has DM coming out of the BB into the vacuum > of > absolute space (defined as space devoid of anything in it). Just like > a gas rushes to fill a vacuum and is in fact "sucked" into it, the DM > from the BB would have done the same. Is this the same model that claims that *states* are not conditions of existence, but rather, variably measurable, and where being in motion is quantifiable as the inverse of time? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.