Time Theory

[anomalous29]

The three dimensions of space are: longitude, latitude, and altitude. But, what about time? What if Einstein was partially correct about time? What if time isn't just lineal? What if we're calculating time without the other variables?

 

Length/Longitude - The specific month/date/year (past/present/future)

 

Height/Altitude - The specific time of day (ex. military time 00:00 - 24:00)

 

Width/Latitude - Vibrational frequency (the higher the vibrational frequency = ascention to the higher planes of existence and vice versa with lower vibrational frequencies.)

 

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[sanctus]

Length/Longitude and Height/Altitude for a thing you can put in one? I mean why is ther a diff between 12/31/2014 23:24 and just the date without time of the day? It represents either a range of 1 day or a range of 1 second on the same timeline.

Width/Latitude- Vibrational frequency: any scientific backup on what that is supposed to be?

[anomalous29]

Of course there is no scientific data to support astral traveling. That's why it's a theory. I would have to manufacture the scientific data since time has never been perceived this way. As far the military time, it was used as an example. As far the longitude vs latitude goes, you're not seeing the it correctly. The length of a day on Mars is 25hrs, Earth 24hrs. Meaning on the same day its 12:00:00am on Mars and on Earth is 1:02:30am. If both times exist simultaneously, then the length of the can be measured differently then a specific date in history.

[CraigD]

Of course there is no scientific data to support astral traveling. That's why it's a theory.

You appear to misunderstand that the term “theory” has a different meaning in science than it does in general use. In general use, it often means “a speculation, a guess, a wild idea not supported by any or much evidence”. In scientific use, it means almost the opposite: “a well-supported explanation that can explain a wide range of phenomena”.

 

Also, anomalous, in this and other threads, you are breaking this forum’s most important rule: Back up your claims by using links or references. Many internet forums encourage people to make entertaining, unsupported claims, but this is not one of them. Please read the rules, and follow them. If you don’t, you won’t be allowed to continue to post here.

[anomalous29]

Wild speculation? Isn't science the exploration of wild speculation? Wasn't the world flat according to science? Galileo had a wild speculation, didn't he? You have the ability to test these wild speculations. Instead, you're afraid to challenge science and advance it. You will never make any major breakthroughs or new discoveries. You're in the wrong profession. You should have been a high school biology teacher.

[anomalous29]

As far as data goes, the government declassified over 23 years of the remote viewing programs such as Star Gate. You can obtain that information yourself through the Freedom of Information Act. So there is actual scientific data on traveling but, it's within the same realm of existence. More scientific evidence is humans vibrate at 528Hz. Molecules vibrational frequency is in a range of -10.12th to 10.14Hz. You could then hypothesize that molecules exist on a different plane in reality and test my wild speculation. Societal simpletons won't understand or appreciate my genius in this lifetime.

[exchemist]

Wild speculation? Isn't science the exploration of wild speculation? Wasn't the world flat according to science? Galileo had a wild speculation, didn't he? You have the ability to test these wild speculations. Instead, you're afraid to challenge science and advance it. You will never make any major breakthroughs or new discoveries. You're in the wrong profession. You should have been a high school biology teacher.

No, that is not what science is. Science is the study of nature through observation, in order to make predictive models that account for how it behaves.

 

The world was never flat according to science. You have to go back to before the time of Eratosthenes (i.e. to before about 250BC) to find belief in a flat earth. At that point in antiquity there was not really anything resembling science.

 

Galileo did not have a wild speculation. He was a supporter of Copernicus, who based his heliocentric model on observation, not wild speculation.

 

The rest seems to be a personal rant against the moderator of this forum, who I find to be a model of civility and patience. 

 

You, on the other hand, seem remarkably badly informed on a large range of topics (see above and elsewhere) and not to be able to back up your assertions.  

Edited December 18, 2016 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

Wild speculation? Isn't science the exploration of wild speculation? Wasn't the world flat according to science? Galileo had a wild speculation, didn't he? You have the ability to test these wild speculations. Instead, you're afraid to challenge science and advance it. You will never make any major breakthroughs or new discoveries. You're in the wrong profession. You should have been a high school biology teacher.

 

 It is true that inquiries into the nature of things often begin as pure speculation, or sometimes just an instinctive idea, or even an accidental blunder. To be considered a scientific inquiry, a testable, falsifiable hypothesis must be proposed. The basic idea is to try and show that your hypothesis is false by testing it in various ways. If it survives various means of testing it may be accepted as being consistent with evidence and potentially a true hypothesis which may be useful in making predictions about something. A scientific hypothesis is never proven to be true, it can only be proven to be false, or shown to be consistent with the evidence at the present time.

 

What you have written isn’t really a hypothesis, let alone a theory, about the nature of time because you have not offered any way to test your ideas. Without any possible way to test and refute your idea, it is scientifically useless.

That doesn’t mean it is entirely without value to you, or even to other people as a philosophical way of looking at the nature of time, and If you had presented your idea in that context, I doubt if anyone would have objected. This is after all, an Internet discussion forum and not an academy of science. There is a place here for strange ideas; just not in the science section!

 

Getting back to the subject matter, although we do know a lot about time, and it does play an important role in the vast majority of physics equations, we really do not know what time is. Even the great mind of Einstein was troubled by the nature of time. So, in that regard, some speculation about the nature of time is warranted and there is no harm in that. The harm comes from the way you present your ideas, for example: “Societal simpletons won't understand or appreciate my genius in this lifetime.” Remarks like that place you in the crackpot category and test the patience of even a fair-minded moderator as CraigD.

 

Staying on topic, just a few months ago, a very interesting e-paper was published on arXiv with the title “Now, and the Flow of Time”, by Richard A. Muller and Shaun Maguire. Since you are interested in the subject, you may find that paper an enjoyable read; I certainly did.

 

The difference between their hypothesis and your speculation, is they do offer a way to test and falsify their ideas using LIGO, plus they have offered some mathematical support. Their paper is scientific even though it has not yet been through a thorough peer review, it has at least been vetted by the moderators at arXiv. Perhaps a true genius as yourself will appreciate their humble efforts to reach your superior level of understanding?

[Brownsfan77]

Your post popped an thought into my head about 3d. They say we see in 3d but you can take a picture of what we see and will appear as it does through our eyes. But the picture is flat, so our vision is really 2d if you think about it. They have artwork they call 3d but it's on a flat piece of paper which is really 2d.

[CraigD]

Your post popped an thought into my head about 3d. They say we see in 3d but you can take a picture of what we see and will appear as it does through our eyes. But the picture is flat, so our vision is really 2d if you think about it. They have artwork they call 3d but it's on a flat piece of paper which is really 2d.

Because the light-sensitive part of your eye – the retina – is flat, what you see with a single eye (ie one eye closed) really is flat, 2D.

 

Your brain does an amazing trick when you look at nearby objects with both eyes, transforming the slightly different image formed on the retina of each eye into a deep, 3D image. This same trick is used by a VR headset, which shows a slightly different image to each eye. This trick is called stereopsis, or the stereoscopic effect. Gadgets that do it using pre-made printed pictures have been around since about 1840.

 

The light reflecting off an ordinary picture into your eye isn’t the same as that coming from the actual object it’s a picture of, which is why when you look at it, either with one or both eyes open, it looks flat. It’s possible to make a picture that, when illuminated with special light, sends light nearly identical to that coming from the actual object, so that the image looks 3D. Such an image is called a hologram.

[Brownsfan77]

Makes sense, so to really see 3d we would have to see through it? Like if it were transparent we could see all 3 dimensions.

[sanctus]

Admin note: topic was in 2 places merged it all to here

[anomalous29]

I'm a CPA, not a scientist. But theory is defined as wild speculation. According to Aristotle, theory involves no acting/testing. Theoretical vs Practical? Trying to understand as opposed to curing/solving/fixing.

 

I simply proposed a theory/wild speculation (Merriam-Webster's dictionary.) I asked for insight from scientists, the ones who are advancing mankind. But human nature dictates we become comfortable, assume answers, or scoff what's not understood or defies the societal norm. But wild ideas can create a third or fourth perspective. Shouldn't that be what science is about?

 

The wilder the speculation, the wider the testing range. If you're testing across different sciences, using different applications, then you have a much greater understanding of the test subject. It's that understanding that advances mankind. Even if my theory is completely ill informed, it forced you to think differently. You're welcome.

[exchemist]

I'm a CPA, not a scientist. But theory is defined as wild speculation. According to Aristotle, theory involves no acting/testing. Theoretical vs Practical? Trying to understand as opposed to curing/solving/fixing.

 

I simply proposed a theory/wild speculation (Merriam-Webster's dictionary.) I asked for insight from scientists, the ones who are advancing mankind. But human nature dictates we become comfortable, assume answers, or scoff what's not understood or defies the societal norm. But wild ideas can create a third or fourth perspective. Shouldn't that be what science is about?

 

The wilder the speculation, the wider the testing range. If you're testing across different sciences, using different applications, then you have a much greater understanding of the test subject. It's that understanding that advances mankind. Even if my theory is completely ill informed, it forced you to think differently. You're welcome.

No. In science you can't just make sh1t up. 

 

It is remarkable the number of people I have come across on the internet who seem unaware of this inconvenient fact. 

 

In science, you can start either with a hypothesis about the natural world, or with observations of it, but you only start to have something scientific when you put the two together and they agree.

 

 

Half-baked silly ideas deserve no more respect in science than they do in any other discipline -  except Trumpian politics, perhaps :)  

Edited March 10, 2017 by exchemist

[anomalous29]

I guess we can all agree, you're not a theorist. What did I make up? I specifically stated, I had a theory. I would've thought after knowing my professional background, you would've overlooked the initial usage of theory. Us common folk, non-scientists, generally expect a word, in which it is defined by one of the most known, well respected, universally received reference publishers, to not have issue when using their definitions to communicate. My bad. But, nothing I said was made up. It was wild speculation based on a few simple truths.

1. The length of a day is measured differently on Earth as it is on Mars. Therefore, the length of a day can be measured differently then,

2. Specific time of the day. 24hr (Earth) vs 24hr+40min (Mars) days.

3. Frequency. Undisputed fact, atoms vibrational frequency ranges from impossible to negative impossible (I didn't quote specific numbers because I didn't want to go back and find my reference. (Since you refuse to accept anything other than what you know/think you know. I'm sure I'm going to have to.)

Here's where the wild speculation brings it all together. What if that formula could bend spacetime? Gasp. I also have a 'theory' on blackholes but, you would probably try and burn me at the stake. HAHAHHA!

FYI, the 2D vs 3D comment was very interesting. If no one has disproven time travel. Time travel has only been further proven to exist. Obviously, the exchemist hasn't cracked that code. From what we know, science hasn't cracked that code.

 

Common folk define crazy as repeating the same actions but, expecting different results. Does that mean any scientist afraid to a yield different result is crazy? At least my wild speculation would only further prove/disprove my 'theory'.

[exchemist]

I guess we can all agree, you're not a theorist. What did I make up? I specifically stated, I had a theory. I would've thought after knowing my professional background, you would've overlooked the initial usage of theory. Us common folk, non-scientists, generally expect a word, in which it is defined by one of the most known, well respected, universally received reference publishers, to not have issue when using their definitions to communicate. My bad. But, nothing I said was made up. It was wild speculation based on a few simple truths.

1. The length of a day is measured differently on Earth as it is on Mars. Therefore, the length of a day can be measured differently then,

2. Specific time of the day. 24hr (Earth) vs 24hr+40min (Mars) days.

3. Frequency. Undisputed fact, atoms vibrational frequency ranges from impossible to negative impossible (I didn't quote specific numbers because I didn't want to go back and find my reference. (Since you refuse to accept anything other than what you know/think you know. I'm sure I'm going to have to.)

Here's where the wild speculation brings it all together. What if that formula could bend spacetime? Gasp. I also have a 'theory' on blackholes but, you would probably try and burn me at the stake. HAHAHHA!

FYI, the 2D vs 3D comment was very interesting. If no one has disproven time travel. Time travel has only been further proven to exist. Obviously, the exchemist hasn't cracked that code. From what we know, science hasn't cracked that code.

 

Common folk define crazy as repeating the same actions but, expecting different results. Does that mean any scientist afraid to a yield different result is crazy? At least my wild speculation would only further prove/disprove my 'theory'.

Pfft.