"Mathew Orman" wrote in message ...
[snip]


Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.

I agree with this.

There is all the evidence that space exist.
There is no connection between space and time that means that one has no
physical influence on the other.

This is at least how it appears.

The definition of space does not exist if there are no objects of
matter.
The definition of time does not exist if there is no motion of matter in
space.
Space has no shape or dimension only the object of matter in space have
dimensions and shapes.
Bending is a process describing the change of geometrical shape of a
material object.

All seems reasonable on the face of things.

Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no
shape or
dimension.

Of course, here is were you diverge from GR.

All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.

I would say that all statements above would appear to be true to the
average layman, but if they were actually proven true in physical
experiments, then why do mainline scientists disagree with you?


My definition of time states that time is only a ration of motion of
objects
of matter.

That's how it appears to me.

My definition of time is based on physical evidence and only defines the
practical scientific aspect of it that can be measured with physical
instruments and can be proven in a physical experiment.
The geometric time definition only exists if the geometry of the matter
is
changing and does not state that
time is a ratio of motion.
Feather more there is the only one way of measuring what is called the
time
and that is the way of measuring the ratio of motion.
All clocking devices which represent the reference motion are based on
periodic motion of matter (particles or waves).

The property of matter that cannot be measured or detected has only a
philosophical or metaphysical application.

I do not tolerate fallacy!
Physics are about properties of reality!
If you say that there exist a property of space that you call space-time
than if you do not provide physical evidence of that property.
Than I will immediately call you theory FALSE or Sci-Fi.

But then there is that annoying physical evidence that seems to
confirm the predictions made by GR and its concept of space-time?
What do you do with that?

Sincerely,
ps.

My theory of relativity:
Everything in the universe is relative!


My definition of time:
Time is a ratio of motions and is always measured as such,
ratio between measured and reference motions.
The reference motions are periodic (pendulums clocks) or linear
(predictable
displacements).
Example:
I walk 5m while clocks pendulum swings 3 times(periodic reference).
I walk 3m while 1kg weight falls down from the height of 1m at see level
at
20deg centigrade etc.(predictable displacement reference)
Time is a method of measuring or synchronizing motions.
Anything else is Sci-Fi!

The has not been a single experiment proving that static fields of any
know
kind can propagate.
Propagation of any static field can only be done by moving its source.

Didn't you just contradict yourself? The question is, if you move the
source, does the change in gravity occur everywhere instananeously, or
at the speed of light?

The source of gravity always contains matter in forms of atoms it exits
with
the matter and it can be controlled by changing the densities of the
matter.
Changes in gravity detected on the earth are the results of planetary
motions in the universe not by
propagation of the gravity field.

When the planets move, what causes the change gravitational pull on
the Earth if not by propagation of the gravity field?

The precision clocks (reference periodic motion counters) are based on
counting periodic motion of the electrons in specially chosen
atoms. Which means that they are affected by gravity and gravity forces
differ with the altitude change above the earth.
Saying that time goes slower is correct since in my definition time is a
ratio of motions not a constant derive from c.
The space and matter in its various form exists, but the definition of
time
only exists if there is matter in motion.
Every atom in the universe has it own gravity field.

Well, if you build your theory on definition used in existing theories,
than that means that you are attempting to modify an or improve the
existing ones.
The existing theories your are creating your vocabulary based up on,
have
faults and lack of experimental
prove, so your modified theories will carry on the unreliable and
unproven
elements.
The new theories should be based on prime definition and proven in
physical
experiments.
Your asking to agree with your statements may result in endless waste of
time.

So let's present new and solid theories instead and have discussions
about
them!

Any theory is fine, so long as you can get experimental and
observational evidence to back it up.

When you try to measure time than you will notice
that all you are doing is measuring a ratio of motions!
No motion, no time can be measured.

Assumption of nonexistent property.
Clocks do not keep time.
They count repetitive motion.
There is no definition of "proper time".

Simple, it is repetitive motion.
And time is a ratio of motion,
so to measure the repetitive motion of the first clock we use the count
of
more grainer
motion.
The same applies to distance between the marks on given rule,
one uses the more grainer ruler and so on.
And this metrology logic is several thousand years old.

Now since we know what clock do, maybe now you can define the "proper
time"?

There is a hierahical existance of definitions and that is:
Definition of space exists only if there are objects of matter.
Definition of time exists if there is motion of matter.
Definition of space distance exists if there is a ratio of size of
objects
of matter.
Ans so on...

No,
motion passes in ratio of time.
Time is a method and not a property of space.
We measure time by comparing reference motion to measured motion.
Examples:
I walk 3m (measured motion) while clock swings his pendulum 2 times
(reference motion).
I walk 1.2m (measured motion) while weight of 1kg drops down from
height
of 1m at sea level and 20deg centigrade temperature (reference motion)..
For practical reasons humans agreed to use period motion as a reference
motion.
We use planetary periodic motion and its subdivisions (day, hour,sec
etc..)
as the reference motion
for measuring and or synchronizing motions.


As an engineer I describe your time in the following way:

Are you an engineer?

Time is a reference count for synchronizing the human motion.
Clocks are the mechanisms of distributing the reference count.
Distributed reference count allow people and machines to move
synchronously.
Finally clocks do not measure time(time is the method) but count
periodic
motion.
"What time it is?" people and machines are asking when they choose to
find
if and when their motion is
out of phase.
Connecting time with the space has no useful practical porpoise.
Spacetime is a word invented by GTR inventers and
despite wishful thinking, it does not alter the motion of the matter.


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com


Did you write all this yourself, or are you quoting someone else?

Double-A

Cut and paste from my previous posts.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

You said you think clocks slow in the gravity near the Earth. What do
you think about clocks travelling at near c? Do they also slow?

Double-A