How did Einstein arrive at Time in SRT ?

[socratus]

There are many pretty solid theories.
How can be known which theory is wrong and which theory is true ?
The answer depends on which reference frame the theory is based.
The conception of reference frame is the key to know if the theory is true one.
#
We know many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 11D, . . . MD . . . . )

Existence cannot begin from a complex system.
In the beginning must be a simple model.
Therefore, I will take a two dimensions space as the simplest model.
But there are two kinds of two dimensions: the Euclidean ( 2D) space
and Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D space.
What is possible to say about these systems ?
Which reference frame can be taken as a basis of Existence ?
#
Euclidean ( 2D) reference frame belongs to a gravity space
where space and time are two different substances.
Minkowski negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D has no gravity
and space and time are one and the same unite continuum.
#
Later Descartes changed Euclidean two dimensions into three
dimensions . Living in this Descartes system of coordinate
we try to understand : where did our existence come from ?
Then, in my opinion, it is logically to take Minkowski negative
Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D ( without gravity ) as the simplest model
to have the searching answer.
============….

 

[socratus]

more about negative time
Negative time
#
Werner Heisenberg, . . . , wrote to Wolfgang Pauli:
“I regard the backward in time solution ...
as learned trash which no one can take seriously.”
http://www.sintropia.it/EdgeScience.pdf

==

 

[eh1eh]

We need more monkeys and typewriters in this thread.

 

[Locutus]

We need more monkeys and typewriters in this thread.

Having evolved from Werners' work, the Heisenberg compensator is a component of the transporter system. The compensator works around the problems caused by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, allowing the transporter sensors to compensate for their inability to determine both the position and momentum of the target particles to the same degree of accuracy. By utilizing a Dirac jump, it ensures the matter stream remains coherent during transport, and no data is lost.

How'd I do man?

 

[eh1eh]

24th century monkey.

 

[socratus]

Having evolved from Werners' work, the Heisenberg
compensator is a component of the transporter system.
The compensator works around the problems caused by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
allowing the transporter sensors to compensate for their inability to determine
both the position and momentum of the target particles to the same degree of accuracy.
By utilizing a Dirac jump, it ensures the matter stream remains coherent during transport, and no data is lost.

How'd I do man?

It is today’s magic play in the physics known as “ Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”
If it is hard or impossible to explain some physical problem then physicists say:
‘ according to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ”. . . . . it is possible.
( for example Dirac’s jumping / transportation particle from a virtual to the real state. . . . etc )
===…

heisenberg uncertainty principle joke
Heisenberg Humor | Inside NOVA | PBS
. . . . .etc . . .
==..

 

[Cliffy]

heisenberg uncertainty principle joke
Heisenberg Humor | Inside NOVA | PBS
. . . . .etc . . .
==..

Humans are the joke. They invented time and then try to use physics to prove its existence. Time does not exist to any other species but us. It doesn't exist outside third dimensional reality. Time only exists as a result of inaccurate human memories. Time is not linear.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Socratus, I suspect you have not quite grasped the idea of what a reference frame is, or you would not be writing things like "In SRT we have two different frames." As for negative time, try thinking of it this way: science is possible because nature exhibits patterns. That means there must be rules that govern what can and cannot happen, some things must be impossible because the alternative is formless chaos. Mathematics is the study of all possible patterns, and thus is generally considered to be infinite and inexhaustible, nature is not, mathematics is a bigger subject than physics. Not all the patterns of mathematics will be expressed in nature, so just because the equations allow something does not mean it necessarily has any physical reality.

 

[socratus]

Humans are the joke.
They invented time and then try to use physics to prove its existence.
Time does not exist to any other species but us.
It doesn't exist outside third dimensional reality.
Time only exists as a result of inaccurate human memories.
Time is not linear.

Physicists invented negative time and then try to understand its existence.
Time exists only in the third dimensional gravity reality ( like planets )
Time exists only as a result of the process which was explained in SRT and GRT .
Time doesn't exist outside third dimensional gravity reality.
============...

Socratus, I suspect you have not quite grasped the idea of what a reference frame is,
or you would not be writing things like "In SRT we have two different frames."
As for negative time, try thinking of it this way: science is possible because nature exhibits patterns.
That means there must be rules that govern what can and cannot happen,
some things must be impossible because the alternative is formless chaos.

Science try to understand how chaos / disorder can create order.

Mathematics is the study of all possible patterns, and thus is generally considered to be infinite and inexhaustible,
nature is not, mathematics is a bigger subject than physics.
Not all the patterns of mathematics will be expressed in nature,
so just because the equations allow something does not mean it necessarily has any physical reality.

Agree , mathematics is the queen of science.
But without his king–physics she can be a mad woman.
==.

 

[socratus]

As for negative time, try thinking of it this way:
science is possible because nature exhibits patterns.
That means there must be rules that govern what can and cannot happen,
some things must be impossible because the alternative is formless chaos.

That means there must be rules that govern can and cannot happen
For example :
time can be - an absolute eternity cannot exist,
space can be – an absolute emptiness cannot be,
mass and massless , “energy and its shadow entropy”,
acceleration and inertia, disorder and order , possible and impossible.
. . . etc . . . .
/ As for negative time, try thinking of it this way there must be rules -
- . . quantum rules which explain how negative time can be positive time
(without using abstract math Minkowski 4D ) and how impossible can be possible. /
==..

 

[55Mercury]

Mathematics and all its laws are eternal... 2 + 2 equaled 4 long before man came along to ponder it... and thus mathematics are a property of God.

 

[socratus]

Mathematics and all its laws are eternal... 2 + 2 equaled 4 long before
man came along to ponder it... and thus mathematics are a property of God.

I don't think you can arrive a theory by using mathematics alone.
This is not from a lack of respect for mathematics.
The problem with math is that it is too powerful and it can describe
realities that don’t exist.
One example of a theory that is purely mathematical is the string theory.
Although it claims to explain observations such as the graviton,
it does so only post hoc.
The theory, itself, was developed on purely mathematical grounds.
/ from an email /

And i think that God as a practical man used math
with physics together to create Existence.
====…

 

[socratus]

Scientific heresy.
Matt Ridley lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ... eresy.html
=
Comment by Annonymous
In the nineteenth century many eminent physicists such as Maxwell and Lord Kelvin
believed in the ether theory.

Was the ether theory pseudoscientific?

If you think that the ether theory was pseudoscientific then it begins to seem that almost
all past scientists were pseudoscientists.

If you don't thnk that the ether theory was pseudoscientific but that the phlogiston theory
was could you explain what distinguishes the one as pseudoscientific but not the other?

Another question -

Maxwell spent an enormous amount of intellectual effort attempting to develop a mechanical
model of the electromagnetic field. Long ago virtually all physicists have abandoned this idea
and today it is almost totally forgotten.

Were Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to develop a mechanical model of the electromagnetic
field an example of pseudoscience?

If so it seems that one of the greatest scientific minds of all time was a pseudoscientist.

You seem to use the term "pseudoscience" to include any scientific theory that is eventually
replaced or modified by a later theory.

Since modern physics consists of a number of mutually inconsistent theories e.g. general
relativity and QED, most physicists today hope that in the future more general theories will
be developed which will replace them.

If this happens does that mean that present day physics is a pseudoscience?

/ Annonymous /
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ...

===

 

[L Gilbert]

Seems Soc has a distinct lack of understanding of science as a tool. Mixing gods n gnomes into the issues just muddles things up.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If you don't think that the ether theory was pseudoscientific but that the phlogiston theory was could you explain what distinguishes the one as pseudoscientific but not the other?

Neither was pseudoscience, they were just postulates put forward as explanations for things that were otherwise inexplicable at the time. The difference between them and pseudoscience is that they were abandoned when we learned more about electromagnetism and combustion. Pseudoscience never goes away like that.

Since modern physics consists of a number of mutually inconsistent theories e.g. general
relativity and QED, most physicists today hope that in the future more general theories will
be developed which will replace them.

If this happens does that mean that present day physics is a pseudoscience?

No, it just means we don't know everything. That anonymous character you're quoting lacks a basic grasp of what science is and how it works. If/when those more general theories come along, it doesn't mean our current theories cease to be applicable, they'll continue to work and be useful just as they are now, just as Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations are still useful. No engineers would use general relativity or QED to design a bridge or a power station, they'd use classical physics, it's accurate enough a description of reality for their purposes. As Isaac Asimov once remarked, people once thought the earth was flat, then they thought it was a sphere, but if you think the latter idea is just as wrong as the former, then you're more wrong than both of them.

 

[Blackleaf]

I bet Einstein couldn't understand football's offside rule, though.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That's because it doesn't make sense, but it's pretty straightforward in the Canadian and American games of that name, he'd have understood it easily, if he cared to. Which he probably didn't. He probably couldn't make sense of cricket either though.

 

[socratus]

Since modern physics consists of a number of mutually inconsistent theories
e.g. general relativity and QED, most physicists today hope that in the future
more general theories will be developed which will replace them.

If this happens does that mean that present day physics is a pseudoscience?

/ Annonymous /
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ...

==
Does it mean that string particle is a pseudoscience if:
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea? ’
/ Book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin. Page 308. /

Does it mean that QED is a pseudoscience if:
Feynman described QED as ' The Strange Theory of Light and Matter '
.
Does it mean that SRT is a pseudoscience if:
On September 21, 1908 Hermann Minkowski began his talk at
the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians
with the now famous introduction:
" The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Since then the question of the ontological status of this union of space and time
has become the subject of a continued debate.
.........
. . . . . . etc
==....