TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by phoenixbyrd

Actually, it is immensly ridiculous Popular. I enjoyed your article on time, but please don't fall for what these two guys are saying. Nothing is made out of light except well ... light of course.

Honestly, I haven't got this from the other guys. Check out my other essays on ENERGY and MASS. This "made of light" business is rather subtle, but please do give it a fair crack of the whip because it seems to work, if you know what I mean. And IMHO nobody has come up with any reasoned rational argument why it doesn't, either here or on other forums.

http://hypography.com/forums/search.php?searchid=137736

All: we seem to be rather moving off topic here. And I see that the thread rating has gone from five yellow blocks down to three. Ho Hum.

[phoenixbyrd]

Light can be used to make matter yes, but matter is not made or a form of light per se. What interests me is why can light be converted into atomic matter, that's a real cliff hanger as we still don't know for sure what light itself even is. Anywho, out of this discussion now, I can't argue anymore that eleventeen is not a number with you guys. Your obviously dead set in your beliefs that things don't exist if you don't observe them ... soooooo, yea, you go ahead and enjoy your ill concieved thoughts and remember, fight the establishment and take every scientific theory you can out of context!

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by phoenixbyrd

Light can be used to make matter yes, but matter is not made or a form of light per se. What interests me is why can light be converted into atomic matter, that's a real cliff hanger as we still don't know for sure what light itself even is. Anywho, out of this discussion now, I can't argue anymore that eleventeen is not a number with you guys. Your obviously dead set in your beliefs that things don't exist if you don't observe them ... soooooo, yea, you go ahead and enjoy your ill concieved thoughts and remember, fight the establishment and take every scientific theory you can out of context!

I certainly don't think things don't exist if I don't observe them. See how I keep banging on being ontological.

Check out pair production and annihilation for matter creation out of light and vice versa.

IMHO the moot point here is that if there was no light because space didn't have its permeability and permittivity, there would be no charge, no electrons, no protons, and probably not much else.

Who's fighting the establishment? Not me. This is just a forum for talking about things. Don't be so hostile.

[hardkraft]

I guess the point I was trying to make is not whether things exist when people observe them but they exist when they are observable. It doesn't matter if it's by people or electrons. I suppose this idea can be generalized beyond existence of light. That's why I threw parallel universes in there for good measure.

[arkain101]

Your obviously dead set in your beliefs that things don't exist if you don't observe them

If anyone has taken things out of context, I think it would have been you, in the case of taking my posts out of context, pheonixbyrd

Things exist all over the place even if I can't observe them. I explained that thouroughly about 7 posts back.

However, regardless of what your mind tells you is out there, you are still restricted to your frame for observation.

Why are you missing the point? I am trying to show you that we are agreeing with eachother, but it seems you refuse to read the many sections I have said that. I AGREE WITH YOU, so what are you disagreeing with?

The context is about making scientific measurments. Throughout history scientists like einstein have formulated laws of observation, or principles of observation if you will. These were in forms of relativity.


I agree we should put this to rest and infact I feel a little inspired to write up a bit of an essay on the laws of observation.

[arkain101]

popular:And I see that the thread rating has gone from five yellow blocks down to three. Ho Hum.

Heh, I wonder if that is because at one time it had 1 vote at 5, and now its got 3 votes just kidding around.

[Farsight]

Thanks Arkain. Hur, I just voted!

[arkain101]

hoorah! voted.

[firecracker]

Popular,
Sorry I waited so long to join the forums! I just read your dissertation on Relativity+ and I must say that I am impressed! I have personally been working on the idea of 'time' and all its aspects for more than thirty years. I, too, have not laid back and accepted everything I have heard, read, or been taught and am always sceptical as to what I should believe.
What if there really existed a world of Gullivers where everything the Gullivers looked at was (by some factor) larger than we are? I am trying to imagine that they would have visible light whose feet, yards, miles, etc., and years, months, hours, seconds, etc. were proportionally larger than ours. Their 'c' would still measure 186,000mi/sec to all their observers to whom the light could affect. All their heat units would be different as well. By the same manner of analogy, there could exist Liliputians on smaller scales with different units for their physical constants, and so on. After all is said and done, there would be no actual difference between the large and the small.

[Farsight]

Many thanks firecracker. I'm honoured.

Yep, the world is painted in light. Space is "flat". But if the permittivity or permeability is difference, if the impedance is different, c is different. But you can't see it. If it changes gradually we'd say there was some kind of gradient. If the gradient kept increasing we'd say there was some kind of curve. We'd notice something, but we wouldn't see it for what it was. We could travel from Brobdignag to Lilliput and start as a giant and end as a midget. But we'd never know. All we'd see is gravity, and time dilation, and we'd always measure c as 300,000km/s.

What a wonderful world it is! And to cap it off sweetly, I live in Lilliput:

Lloyds Property Group - Sandbanks Property