"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:

You misunderstand the issues. The question you should be asking, based
on http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm , is
how is it possible to avoid the existence of an absolute time order in
a closed and bounded universe.

The relativity of simulteneity is an observed fact. It just plain is.
That is the way the world is.

Ultimately all science must be based in irreducible rock bottom facts
that are because they are.

Bob Kolker

I assure you that you are completely in the dark about my theorem that
mandates an absolute order on a closed and bounded spacetime.

It seems that Tom Roberts is the only person who understands what I've
written. Apparently, my argument is so good that Tom Roberts says that
the assumed non-existence of an absolute time order (if space is a
circle, sphere or hypersphere), isn't provable; it isn't math or
physics; it's just semantics. Do you understand this admission made by
Tom Roberts regarding my astounding theory? See the thread, "What is
the Expert Opinion on Special Relativity Trivialities?"

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...g.goog le.com

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Perfectly innocent wrote:
'If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr Tom
Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute time order
on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math or physics; it's
just semantics. If that is true, then we could just as easily replace
non-order with order. What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the
new axiom?'

Thank heaven the knowledgeable people on this site are taking this person to
task.

Thanks
Bill

Who do you think are the knowledgeable persons that have more than
a pretense of understanding and are competent enough to rationally
refute my mathematical theorem?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I'm still not so sure about that, when it comes to transforming
electric and magnetic fields. All the terms in the Lorentz
transformations are involveed in that. If you take a term out, will
you still induce the right electrical current when you push a magnet
into a solenoid, and the identical current when you shove the solenoid
around the magnet?

But the nice field tensor probably just isn't valid with these other
transformations since it was derived in the first place by considering
the Lorentz transformations, and I don't have the gumption right now
to try to figure out new transformation rules.

His theory has no where near the elegance of SR and probably would not fit
easily into the same paradigm - since his transformations are defined
differently a tensor would be defined differently. You may have found a
problem with his theory (I hope you have) but I trust Toms view enough not
to waste my time trying. Good luck if you have.

Thanks
Bill

"Mathew Orman" wrote in message ...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think
that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.
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.
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.
Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no shape or
dimension.
All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.

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

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.
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.
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!

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:
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

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Mathew Orman" wrote in message
...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote in message
om...
I propose that all religious relativists should worship a new axiom of
general relativity.

Instead of the praise and adoration given the non-science of relative
simultaneity in a universe with a presumed (S^3)xR topology, I think
that scientists should start worshipping the more reasonable
possibility of an absolute time order, based on the trivial physics of
SxR.

If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr.
Tom Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute
time order on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math
or physics; it's just semantics. If that is true, then we could just
as easily replace non-order with order.

What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the new axiom?

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

Eugene Shubert

Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.
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.
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.
Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no
shape or
dimension.
All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.

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

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.
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.
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!

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:
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

"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

There is an ege to the universe.
Energy under pressure pushes the universe out. Energy reacts with
energy at C.
Space is atoms with out the mass.
Space is energy and mass is condenced energy at a lower rate than space.
The only reason idiots claim not to understand is to denie gods active
force.
Got it Matt ?

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Mathew Orman" wrote in message
...


//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?

What evidence?

//Didn't you just contradict yourself?
No, the field is instantaneous and moving the source is not propagating.


//When the planets move, what causes the change gravitational pull on
//the Earth if not by propagation of the gravity field?
The change of field intensity that does not change the fields shape around
the source is not called propagation or
wave propagation.
There are no electrical, magnetic or gravity waves.
The only known waves a electro-magnetic and mechanical.

//Any theory is fine, so long as you can get experimental and
//observational evidence to back it up.
Exactly means that false or misinterpreted evidence is not good enough.


//Are you an engineer?
Since 1978.

//You said you think clocks slow in the gravity near the Earth. What do
//you think about clocks traveling at near c? Do they also slow?
The motion is relative so clocks will only change periodic rate if the
ambient gravity
force changes. Objects cannot detect their own linear motion.
To accelerate clock to speed of c using non-destructive rate of ex. 10G
will take quite a while.
And than it would get destroyed in collision with space junk because
it cannot avoid collision at such relative velocity.
So forget the light speed travel!


//Double-A

Sincerely,

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

"tj Frazir" wrote in message
...
There is an ege to the universe.
Energy under pressure pushes the universe out. Energy reacts with
energy at C.
Space is atoms with out the mass.
Space is energy and mass is condenced energy at a lower rate than space.
The only reason idiots claim not to understand is to denie gods active
force.
Got it Matt ?


When you get anything practical made using your theory
than I will get it for shore!

Sincerely,

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

"Mathew Orman" wrote in message ...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Mathew Orman" wrote in message
...


//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?

What evidence?


The precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

The bending of light near the Sun.


//Didn't you just contradict yourself?
No, the field is instantaneous and moving the source is not propagating.


If the gravitational field is instantaneous, then it is way different
than anything we observe in the material world. That would mean it is
absolutely inflexible and rigid. The material bodies causing
gravitational fields certainly cannot move instantaneously. If
something like a "Hand of God" gave the earth a shove, the earth would
be crushed by its own inertia. A gravitational field must contain
energy, since it can cause objects to move. Since energy equals mass,
you would think it would have some inertia. If moving an object meant
instantaneously moving its gravitational field, which stretches out to
infinity, you would think it would take an infinite force. It's one
thing to cause water to move across a wading pool by splashing your
arm into it. It's quite another thing to move the whole wading pool
at once.

Perhaps my analogies are not perfect, but I hope you can see what I'm
getting at.


//When the planets move, what causes the change gravitational pull on
//the Earth if not by propagation of the gravity field?
The change of field intensity that does not change the fields shape around
the source is not called propagation or
wave propagation.
There are no electrical, magnetic or gravity waves.
The only known waves a electro-magnetic and mechanical.

//Any theory is fine, so long as you can get experimental and
//observational evidence to back it up.
Exactly means that false or misinterpreted evidence is not good enough.


//Are you an engineer?
Since 1978.

//You said you think clocks slow in the gravity near the Earth. What do
//you think about clocks traveling at near c? Do they also slow?
The motion is relative so clocks will only change periodic rate if the
ambient gravity
force changes. Objects cannot detect their own linear motion.
To accelerate clock to speed of c using non-destructive rate of ex. 10G
will take quite a while.
And than it would get destroyed in collision with space junk because
it cannot avoid collision at such relative velocity.
So forget the light speed travel!


You are evading the question.

Double-A