God and Pre-universe

[`mud]

hey Ger,
A little truth surrounded by encapsulated circles of speed to nowhere.
Time can't be contained in 'movement', it is the result of same.
Nor can it be contained in distance, it is also the product of same.
Don't you think ?
~
'mud

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

hey Ger,
A little truth surrounded by encapsulated circles of speed to nowhere.
Time can't be contained in 'movement', it is the result of same.
Nor can it be contained in distance, it is also the product of same.
Don't you think ?
~
'mud

Not to appear disingenuous in any way but movement can be contained in Time but Time can't be reduced to movement. If you ask today's dummies ' what is time ?' they will answer that rulers measure a quantity known as distance and clocks measure a quantity known as time. Any Google search will generally give that answer as a product of centuries of a clockwork solar system and its proponents.

I guess because I have a Christian spiritual connection to the celestial arena and motions of our planet via the experiences of my body I concentrate on the natural rhythms and the pace of things at different levels such as over the course of a day as the planet turns or the greater cycle of the seasons as the Earth plows through space. On the other hand I see the journey through life within the more encompassing Eternal Life/Time where birth and death are bound by a greater existence and dissolve into the same.

 

[Thief]

Let me know what you think.

I did take a look at the offered link.

I might go as far as to say.....your movement will have an effect on other items around you.
Every choice and the rendered action influence other action.

Not necessarily a reaction for a force played....

If you choose to turn left instead of right....a change in traffic flow will happen.
You change your vote, and the tally will be different.

Every choice you make will influence the 'flow'.

Time however, should not be considered a fabric.....not a substance.
It is not a force and cannot be generated, stored, or depleted.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I did take a look at the offered link.

I might go as far as to say.....your movement will have an effect on other items around you.
Every choice and the rendered action influence other action.

Not necessarily a reaction for a force played....

If you choose to turn left instead of right....a change in traffic flow will happen.
You change your vote, and the tally will be different.

Every choice you make will influence the 'flow'.

Time however, should not be considered a fabric.....not a substance.
It is not a force and cannot be generated, stored, or depleted.

Look, what the 20th century relativists imagined was time is really timekeeping so when they say 'time is relative' or some variation on that theme they were simply oblivious to the original meaning of 'absolute/relative time' as Newton stated it

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton

In the late 17th century they made a mistake like no other in lunging at a conclusion using a watch and stellar circumpolar motion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed to Moore 1677

This is the reason why people could never make sense of timekeeping and how it refers to the original references based on the daily and annual motion of the Earth or Newton's idiosyncratic take on the Equation Of Time.

To discuss Time in any meaningful way in the 21st century means getting the timekeeping error out of the way and its links to movement.

 

[Thief]

Look, what the 20th century relativists imagined was time is really timekeeping so when they say 'time is relative' or some variation on that theme they were simply oblivious to the original meaning of 'absolute/relative time' as Newton stated it

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton

In the late 17th century they made a mistake like no other in lunging at a conclusion using a watch and stellar circumpolar motion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed to Moore 1677

This is the reason why people could never make sense of timekeeping and how it refers to the original references based on the daily and annual motion of the Earth or Newton's idiosyncratic take on the Equation Of Time.

To discuss Time in any meaningful way in the 21st century means getting the timekeeping error out of the way and its links to movement.

I would concede that all motion is relative.
It's the calculation to specify that relationship that deals the difficulty.

But how then to speak of time?.....when it's very form is measure.

I suspect...
Albert E. held his famous equation on the shelf as he was not sure the technique would work.
To say simply, a given quantity of mass has an equal quantity of energy in it.....
all the while using a measure having a non-entity within it!!!!!!!!!!

A BOLD postulation!

 

[`mud]

And the universe is filled with photons.
~
'mo

 

[Thief]

And the universe is filled with photons.
~
'mo

And the volume of darkness is even greater!

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I would concede that all motion is relative.
It's the calculation to specify that relationship that deals the difficulty.

But how then to speak of time?.....when it's very form is measure.

I suspect...
Albert E. held his famous equation on the shelf as he was not sure the technique would work.
To say simply, a given quantity of mass has an equal quantity of energy in it.....
all the while using a measure having a non-entity within it!!!!!!!!!!

A BOLD postulation!

There was nothing bold about it and it sure ain't a human advancement unless you believe that spawning a lot of bluffing and voodoo can be considered a human achievement. It may pay a lot of salaries and gain a lot of reputations in academic circles but the issue is how to get your bearings in a very long and tangled story that begins back with astronomy in antiquity.

Einstein was a shill - they couldn't stand the clockwork solar system of Newton which attempted to justify the relationship between orbital dynamics and experimental sciences so when the early 20th century jargon fest came along they took the obfuscating vocabulary of Newton and his absolute/relative definitions,without understanding what they actually stood for, and declared 'time is relative',space is relative and things like that. Relativity merely extended what Newton started by trying to remove the last vestiges of the methods and insights which made astronomy the most encompassing discipline of science.

Readers just got an education on absolute/relative time as the timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time, a human achievement which renders the natural inequalities in each natural noon cycle to a 24 hour average which in turn,by a remarkable trick , converts 'average' into 'constant' rotation via the Lat/Long system.

Absolute/relative space and motion is even more interesting as it was originally proposed but that requires an interested reader,at least one who is seeing a more familiar and common sense picture.

 

[Thief]

There was nothing bold about it and it sure ain't a human advancement unless you believe that spawning a lot of bluffing and voodoo can be considered a human achievement. It may pay a lot of salaries and gain a lot of reputations in academic circles but the issue is how to get your bearings in a very long and tangled story that begins back with astronomy in antiquity.

Einstein was a shill - they couldn't stand the clockwork solar system of Newton which attempted to justify the relationship between orbital dynamics and experimental sciences so when the early 20th century jargon fest came along they took the obfuscating vocabulary of Newton and his absolute/relative definitions,without understanding what they actually stood for, and declared 'time is relative',space is relative and things like that. Relativity merely extended what Newton started by trying to remove the last vestiges of the methods and insights which made astronomy the most encompassing discipline of science.

Readers just got an education on absolute/relative time as the timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time, a human achievement which renders the natural inequalities in each natural noon cycle to a 24 hour average which in turn,by a remarkable trick , converts 'average' into 'constant' rotation via the Lat/Long system.

Absolute/relative space and motion is even more interesting as it was originally proposed but that requires an interested reader,at least one who is seeing a more familiar and common sense picture.

Even Albert claimed anyone could figure this out.
But he was into numbers....big time.
(sorry for the pun)

I think Albert was being honest. He was looking for an equation to which all things held common ground.
The trick, so to speak, was to find an item that was 'constant' and use it to signify.

To say mass can be transformed to energy and then to go on to say....
that equivalent can be known be numbers....
was indeed bold.

I don't believe in time. It is not a force or a substance.
It is a quotient on a chalkboard and cannot be found elsewhere.
It is a non-entity.

The equation, by the biography I saw on tv, laid on the shelve for awhile.
He wasn't really sure......honest...but not sure.

Unfortunately, the translation into layman's terms has everyone talking as if time is a force.
It is not.
Space is tangible and can be warped......nay.

All motion is relative.
True.
Comprehending the large scale is a bit too much to stuff into the mind.

I do think we have to let go of the clock.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Unfortunately, the translation into layman's terms has everyone talking as if time is a force.
It is not.
Space is tangible and can be warped......nay.

All motion is relative.
True.
Comprehending the large scale is a bit too much to stuff into the mind.

I do think we have to let go of the clock.

Newton's absolute/relative space and motion relates to a specific observation but because they hadn't a clue what he was talking about when he wrote out these 'definitions' , they simply imposed their own meaning and viola ! - the early 20th century relativity concept.

Newton's space and motion refers to this observation -

APOD: 2001 December 20 - Jupiter and Saturn Pas de Deux

The ancient hypothesis was that the planets moved around a stationary Earth and periodically would do a loop-the-loop motion until Copernicus came along and accounted for the observation by using a normal perspective judgment that it is really the Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets in our common circuit around the central Sun.

You must remember that he and his contemporaries didn't have the imaging tools we have today which makes it a cinch to understand by condensing long term observations into a more manageable form so the closest people like Kepler came was to represent planetary retrograde motion as they saw it from a moving Earth .

This is how we see the Earth overtaking Mars using the background stars as a gauge -

APOD: 2012 August 9 - Mars in the Loop

This is how Kepler drew out the same observation -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

If you follow this so far then you are half way there to getting a fair notion of absolute/relative space and motion in easier terms of the true/apparent motion and eventually discover where Sir Isaac jumped the tracks when he encountered this side of astronomy. The discovery of Copernicus ,after all, is one of the greatest achievements in figuring out what is moving and why it does so.

It is common to try and make sense of the early 20th century concept but the only way to get a good overview is to look at what the original heliocentric astronomers did and the way they work and compare it with what Newton tried to do.

 

[Thief]

Newton's absolute/relative space and motion relates to a specific observation but because they hadn't a clue what he was talking about when he wrote out these 'definitions' , they simply imposed their own meaning and viola ! - the early 20th century relativity concept.

Newton's space and motion refers to this observation -

APOD: 2001 December 20 - Jupiter and Saturn Pas de Deux

The ancient hypothesis was that the planets moved around a stationary Earth and periodically would do a loop-the-loop motion until Copernicus came along and accounted for the observation by using a normal perspective judgment that it is really the Earth overtaking the slower moving outer planets in our common circuit around the central Sun.

You must remember that he and his contemporaries didn't have the imaging tools we have today which makes it a cinch to understand by condensing long term observations into a more manageable form so the closest people like Kepler came was to represent planetary retrograde motion as they saw it from a moving Earth .

This is how we see the Earth overtaking Mars using the background stars as a gauge -

APOD: 2012 August 9 - Mars in the Loop

This is how Kepler drew out the same observation -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

If you follow this so far then you are half way there to getting a fair notion of absolute/relative space and motion in easier terms of the true/apparent motion and eventually discover where Sir Isaac jumped the tracks when he encountered this side of astronomy. The discovery of Copernicus ,after all, is one of the greatest achievements in figuring out what is moving and why it does so.

It is common to try and make sense of the early 20th century concept but the only way to get a good overview is to look at what the original heliocentric astronomers did and the way they work and compare it with what Newton tried to do.

Interesting...though I grew up thinking the laws had been decided upon .....by serious contemplation
in regard to observations notable at ground level.

Would you then suppose?....given the circumstance of a unique situation....
What we call the 'big bang'......should be no more than a hollow sphere of energy.
ever expanding as a single shock wave....and NO rotation.

That's not we see when we look up.
I say the rotation had to be in play BEFORE the 'bang'.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Interesting...though I grew up thinking the laws had been decided upon .....by serious contemplation
in regard to observations notable at ground level.

There were no laws, there was always a search for proper arguments which could prove the Earth moves in order to account for observations of planets,the Sun and circumpolar motion of the stars around Polaris. Some came pretty close such as Plutarch's comments on Aristogoras -

"as Cleanthes thought it right that the Greeks collectively should impeach Aristagoras the Stoic, of impiety, for overthrowing the altar of earth, because the fellow attempted to account for visible phenomena by supposing that the sky remains fixed, and that the earth rolls round down an oblique circle, turning at the same time upon its own axis." Plutarch

Plutarch, On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon

He was referring to the seasonal declination of the Sun while accounting for the daily cycle by another motion. The issue here is that the idea of apparent motions and true motions surfaced throughout history and readers are unfamiliar with Newton's attempt to define these true and apparent differences in an idiosyncratic language of absolute/relative -

"I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common."
Newton

Definitions

This post would be somewhat of a necessary digression before returning to the astronomical process of discerning the Earth's motions and solar system structure from the observed or apparent motions of external celestial objects such as the Sun,moon,planets and stars.

 

[Thief]

There were no laws, there was always a search for proper arguments which could prove the Earth moves in order to account for observations of planets,the Sun and circumpolar motion of the stars around Polaris. Some came pretty close such as Plutarch's comments on Aristogoras -

"as Cleanthes thought it right that the Greeks collectively should impeach Aristagoras the Stoic, of impiety, for overthrowing the altar of earth, because the fellow attempted to account for visible phenomena by supposing that the sky remains fixed, and that the earth rolls round down an oblique circle, turning at the same time upon its own axis." Plutarch

Plutarch, On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon

He was referring to the seasonal declination of the Sun while accounting for the daily cycle by another motion. The issue here is that the idea of apparent motions and true motions surfaced throughout history and readers are unfamiliar with Newton's attempt to define these true and apparent differences in an idiosyncratic language of absolute/relative -

"I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common."
Newton

Definitions

This post would be somewhat of a necessary digression before returning to the astronomical process of discerning the Earth's motions and solar system structure from the observed or apparent motions of external celestial objects such as the Sun,moon,planets and stars.

Your offer of definitions will take some time....

For now....could we focus? on that point....in the beginning.

This one item is elusive for most and detailed definition seems to complicate the discussion without need.

Shall we begin?.....in the beginning?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Your offer of definitions will take some time....

For now....could we focus? on that point....in the beginning.

This one item is elusive for most and detailed definition seems to complicate the discussion without need.

Shall we begin?.....in the beginning?

There were no definitions offered - nobody needs time,space and motion defined for them hence you are at a disadvantage when it comes the the early 20th century notions which have a feedback loop to Newton's absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion.With everyone running around with statements like time is relative,motion is relative or something like that they are hardly aware of the intentions Newton had for those 'definitions' hence the groundwork contained in this thread.

Your writing style is hard to deal with but it is yours and no complaints.

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
"......in the beginning?".......after the 'void'.....before nothingness.....before gods ?
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

There were no definitions offered - nobody needs time,space and motion defined for them hence you are at a disadvantage when it comes the the early 20th century notions which have a feedback loop to Newton's absolute/relative definitions of time,space and motion.With everyone running around with statements like time is relative,motion is relative or something like that they are hardly aware of the intentions Newton had for those 'definitions' hence the groundwork contained in this thread.

Your writing style is hard to deal with but it is yours and no complaints.

And perhaps the notions I believe are difficult....I don't get many returns....

Picture yourself at that 'point' of singularity.
Science 'points' the way but cannot actually go there.

Equations fail, as the singularity must be solitary...to be singular.
No secondary point is allowed.
Therefore, no number system.....no equations.

No light, no shadow....no observation to be made.

So....are you moving?
Newton would claim any item at rest will remain stationary.

there is list of questions to follow...they lead to my 'point'.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

And perhaps the notions I believe are difficult....I don't get many returns....

Picture yourself at that 'point' of singularity.
Science 'points' the way but cannot actually go there.

Equations fail, as the singularity must be solitary...to be singular.
No secondary point is allowed.
Therefore, no number system.....no equations.
.

Grown men and nobody gets the joke that infinite density/ zero volume = infinite volume/zero density.

Great way to describe 'nothing' and give it a meaningful existence as a 'singularity' but really amounts to a linguistic trick making it a 'sinvulgarity'.

People are bought fairly cheaply while there are genuine things to discuss.

Good luck to you.

 

[Thief]

Grown men and nobody gets the joke that infinite density/ zero volume = infinite volume/zero density.

Great way to describe 'nothing' and give it a meaningful existence as a 'singularity' but really amounts to a linguistic trick making it a 'sinvulgarity'.

People are bought fairly cheaply while there are genuine things to discuss.

Good luck to you.

aww...you give up so easily!

So you really can't ....or won't .....take the discussion back to the beginning?

and the title remains....

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

aww...you give up so easily!

So you really can't ....or won't .....take the discussion back to the beginning?

and the title remains....

Put it this way - when you can find a distinction between infinite density/zero volume on one side and infinite volume/zero density on the other then let me know. You have to allow me the courtesy of getting the 'nothing' joke even if you don't.

 

[Thief]

Put it this way - when you can find a distinction between infinite density/zero volume on one side and infinite volume/zero density on the other then let me know. You have to allow me the courtesy of getting the joke even if you don't.

Let's see.....Something infinitely dense....and no volume.....

Spirit.