Primal

Yes, causality is basically what we call how an object moves, this is part of the object's nature. Like color and existence, color is an aspect of existence and itself an existent. How an object moves, its causality in paticular is itself part of what that object is.

All motion is motion in a given direction so I draw no distinction in reality.

Waning Moon Conrad

deleted due to redundancy

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Bob K

Mr. Sammi

Mr. Sammi: If there is no first cause there should be no problem expecting humans to be able to describe and predict the universe.

Mr. Sammi: What evidence do you have that supports this speculation?

Mr. Sammi: Physicists never presented a coherent operational definition and therefore understanding of time, which requires an understanding that the key element/idea/concept/principle for understanding time is the time-interval, which is the unit of measurement of time.

Without an a coherent operational definition and therefore understanding of time, the separation of space and time could not be understood even though described by Isaac Newton. Time could be linked to geography and therefore, theoretically, space, by variable time-intervals, VTIs, but, to my knowledge, no one before me has realized that the key element of time is the time-interval, of which there are two types, the variable time-interval, the VTI, and the invariable time-interval, the ITI. With the VTI a variable rate of measurement of time, a VTIT, occurred when people believed that a clock, a VTIC, which was affected by changes of velocity, which involves geography, and gravity, which increased its rate of operation when it was decelerated and/or passing out of a dense gravitational field or decreased its rate of operation/measurement of time-intervals when it was accelerated and/or passing into a denser gravitational field a steady measurement of time was not possible, was the standard and definition of time, and, therefore, we suffered from the illusion that time and space were interrelated. But with the concept of the ITI a steady, nonvarying rate of measurement of time occurs regardless of changes of velocity and/or gravity, we now have the observation that time, ITI time, ITIT, is, in fact, independent of space, of geography, and, therefore, the measurement of time can now be accomplished in a steady rate, a steady flow of Nows, either backwards into the past, so we can measure the occurrences of events in the past, or forwards into the future, so we can measure the occurrences of events in the future, and, thereby, we can establish simultaneity, before and after, for each and every event, and how much before or after for each and every event, with respect to an Absolute Rest Reference Frame, the ARRF, and, in addition, we can gain a thorough understanding of what is the infinity of time, the infinite, endless, unlimited measurement of time intervals, backwards or forwards, and the arrow of time, forwards only, which is independent of physical events, and independent of mathematical descriptions of the occurrences of events, and motion, which appear to be accurate descriptions regardless of the direction of motion, as appear the mathematical formulas describing the motions of astronomical objects, suns, planets, moons, etc., as well as other physical phenomena:

Infinity &lt;- Backwards &lt;- T-2 &lt;- T-1 &lt;- T0 -&gt; T+1 -&gt; T+2 -&gt; Forwards -&gt; Infinity

With the understanding of time, the infinity of time, the infinite, never-ending measurement of time intervals, at a steady, uniform, rate, with invariable time-intervals, along with the understanding of space as an infinite pure vacuum except for the areas of space in which matter and/or energy, the people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, are present, and the understanding of the infinite duration in space and time of matter/energy, along with the finite quantity of matter/energy in space, we have a description of, and therefore understanding of, the universe, which is that it is comprised of three realities, at least three realities, of space, the spatial reality, time, the temporal reality, and physics, matter/energy, the people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, the physical reality.

Mr. Sammi: An ITI and therefore the ITIT used for an ITIC always remains an ITI; it never, even changes to a VTI, because the ITIC, regardless of changes of velocity, acceleration/deceleration, or gravity, cannot and does not affect ITICs and therefore ITIs, and, as a result, time is always measured as ITIT, thus every instant in which an observer observes a ITIC, disregarding delay problems of the transmission of information via lightwaves/lightrays, assuming that the observer is close enough to an ITIC that the time delays of lightwaves/lightrays are negligible, then the observer will always observe the face reading of the ITIC and, therefore, will be observing ITIT.

Light has two properties which can help us understand what is the Absolute Rest Reference Frame, the ARRF, and the concept of the ITI, and the concept of the ITIT, and the concept of the ITIC, and the principle that when ITIs are used in ITICs, ITIT is produced: (A) the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source, which means that once light is emitted, it enters the ARRF and travels 186,000 mps, in a pure vacuum, past the center of mass of any object moving or at rest relative to the ARRF; and (B) the frequency of light IS affected by the motion of its source, due to the Doppler effect, increasing and therefore blue-shifting when approaching a target ahead of the moving lightsource, decreasing in frequency and therefore red-shifting when approaching a target behind the moving lightsource.

Observe the following gedankenexperiment, thought-experiment:

Lightsource LS: Lightray A -------------------------------------------&gt; Target T

Lightsource LS: Lightray B ------- Spaceship SS --------------------&gt; Target T
Lightsource SS: Lightray C -----&gt; Target T

NOTE: The symbol Lightsource SS is intended to be aligned in this diagram so it lies next to Spaceship SS; I do not know how to use the UBB Code to align Lightsource SS with Spaceship SS so Target T for Lightray C is aligned with, and therefore appearing to be the same as, Target T for Lightrays A and B. However, from the description, and this note, Lightsource SS is inside Spaceship SS and Target T is the identical Target for all Lightrays A, B and C, and Lightray C strikes Taget T simultaneously, at the same ITIT timepoint, as Lightrays A and B.

LS is the same lightsource for Lightrays A and B, Lightrays A and B, and C, are absolutely parallel to each other, SS is a SpaceShip traveling towards Target T, Target T is the same target for Lightrays A, B and C, Lightsource SS is a lightsource inside Spaceship SS for Lightray C.

If Lightsource LS is not moving, then it at rest in the ARRF, and Lightrays A and B, which are close enough together that the distance between them does not cause measurement differences, should hit Target T simultaneously, and their frequencies should be identical.

Lightray B passes through a window in the stern of Spaceship SS and is not affected by the gravity field generated by the mass of Spaceship SS, nor delays in traversing through the windows and atmosphere of Spaceship SS, travels past the center of mass of Spaceship SS at 186,000 mps, and exits through a window in the bow of Spaceship SS.

Lightray B must hit Target T at the same ITIT Timepoint and with the same frequency as Lightray A regardless of the speed/velocity/acceleration/deceleration/rotation of Spaceship SS.

This can only happen if, when emitted, Lightrays A and B enter the ARRF and thus travel together in the same reference frame.

The reference frame of Spaceship SS thus has no effect upon Lightray B, when the effects of the gravitational field of Spaceship SS and the composition of the glass in the windows of Spaceship SS are disregarded.

If Lightray B were by relativity to travel past the length of Spaceship SS at a speed of 186,000 mps relative to the length of Spaceship SS, disregarding dimensional contractions due to the velocity of Spaceship SS, then Lightray B would have to be accelerated by the velocity and the reference frame of Spaceship SS, the SSRF, and the Spaceship SS’s bow window at a point ahead of Lightray A and strike Target T at an ITIT Timepoint before the ITIT Timepoint Lightray A finally strikes Target T, and, thus there would be, relative to the ARRF, an increase in the velocity of Lightray B, but since Lightray B cannot travel at superluminal speeds, speeds faster than the speed of light, Lightray B exits Spaceship SS at the same ITIT Timepoint as Lightray A, and, together, they strike Target T at the same ITIT Timepoint.

Furthermore, when Lightsource SS aboard Spaceship SS produces Lightray C, Lightray C enters the ARRF and travels parallel to Lightrays A and B and at the same velocity as A and B and strikes Target T at the same ITIT Timepoint as A and B but with an increase in frequency due to the motion of Lightsource SS aboard Spaceship SS.

Observe that Lightrays A, B and C can only strike Target T simultaneously, meaning at the identical ITIT Timepoint, if they enter the ARRF and travel within it parallel to each other for the duration of their existence, until they strike Target T.

Note also that the frequency shift of Lightray C, caused by the motion/velocity of Spaceship SS, tells us that Spaceship SS was moving, was in motion, and the frequency shift can tell us the speed (but not velocity, which has direction) of Spaceship SS’s motion.

Thus, when not affected by gravity, by the gravitational field of objects, things, comprised of matter/energy, light enters the ARRF when emitted and travels therein at its greatest forward velocity/speed, 186,000 mps when the ARRF is a pure vacuum.

Because organisms and most machines experience VTIs and therefore VTIT and slow down in their rates of operation/functioning when accelerated, they takes perceptual pictures at a slower rate of picture-taking, much like time-lapse photography, and, not being aware of decreases in their rates of operation/functioning, experience the passage of lightrays at 186,000 mps when in fact the speed of the lightrays has to be 186,000 minus the speed of their reference frame, meaning, in the above example, the speed of Lightray B traversing Spaceship SS is 186,000 mps minus the speed of Spaceship SS.

Thus, where Einstein was correct when he said that the speed of light is the same for all observers, the reason he was correct is the speed of light for all observers is a perceptual illusion caused by changes, increases or decreases, of perceptual ‘picture-taking’ or observations caused by changes of velocity and/or gravity.

Disregarding gravitational and medium effects, the speed of light is everywhere the same regardless of the motion of its lightsource because light, once emitted, enters the ARRF, and becomes independent of the motion of the lightsource, and thus travels at 186,000 mps when the ARRF has no gravitational field.

None of these observations are possible with VTIs and VTIT when VTICs are serving for the definition of time; instead, they are only possible with ITIs and ITIT when ITICs are measuring ITIs and therefore ITIT. ITICs do not serve for the definition of time, but only measure ITIT, Absolute Time, Universal Time, Time independent of Space and Physics, Matter/energy.

Mr. Sammi: I am not aware that there has ever been experimental disconfirmation of E = mc2 or m = E/c2, which would require the destruction of matter/energy, and, therefore, the disconfirmation of the laws of thermodynamics, and would mean that matter/energy is not infinite in duration in time and space, and that the sum total of matter/energy is not a constant but is in fact diminishing, meaning eventually either all matter/energy will be destroyed or will establish at some ITIT Timepoint in the future an indestructibility and thus a sum total constant, the final finite quantity of matter/energy.

But, as I have been careful to state, I am not aware of disconfirmations of the indestructibility of matter/energy, and, if such disconfirmations have so been observed, then I can be enlightened, but I would immediately have to wonder if or not some forms of matter/energy are involved which are not directly observed and which would therefore preserve the conservation of matter/energy and therefore the infinite duration of matter/energy and the sum total finite quantity of matter/energy.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Bob K, I can appreciate your efforts.

* * *

What I write is based on my understanding of light and relativity. The invariable time interval that you seek could be 1/c. This is the limiting rate or limiting interval in relation to motion and light. Any rate faster than 1/c implies a speed of light greater than c. The problem herein is anything which rates at 1/c would be light emittant.

You speak of changes to the frequency of light due to the speed of the source. I believe this is not quite physics. The speed of light seems to be independent of the speed of itz sourcing factor. What one observes is heavy gravitational forces affect the travel of light, affect the passage of light, thus the red shift.

* * *

In mathematics/physics there are certain forms of an equation which yields nonsensical results. I am not quite sure how m = E/c-squared holds up, but I think this form is slightly difficult for me to swallow/handle. What does c-squared actually mean in this context?

* * *

Concerning Time Intervals, I have been working on this for quite some time. I have a theory called 'The Time Equations'(1996), which I may share with others on this board some time in the future.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thomas Ash

Yep. So couldn't we just treat all time as finite but boundless, in the same way as the universe and physical space is finite but boundless. There wouldn't be a time before time or a 'boundary' of time in the same way as there isn't an 'edge' or 'boundary' of the universe as there's by definition nothing outside the universe. Anyone? Physicists?
As to infinite regress, I'm not in a position to say it's impossible and I don't think anyone is. But it does have a certain intuitive implausibilty, and I can see why Aquinas might have ruled it out (besides it posing a challenge to 3 of his 5 arguments for God's existence!) Can you imagine a set of links in a chain dangling down, but with nothing to hold them up no matter how far up you went? I find it unimaginable, though that doesn't mean it's necessarily impossible.

Bob K

Mr. Sammi:

Mr. Sammi: An invariable time-interval can be, and often is, arbitrarily chosen, but once chosen, becomes the unit of time measurement, and therefore establishes universal/absolute time, time independent of space, time in disregard of spacetime, and, therefore, the elimination of spacetime as a valid physical concept. Time does not slow down because a clock, set with a variable time-interval, slows down; nor does time speed up because a clock, set, again, with a variable time-interval, speeds up.

I’ll check out 1/c for a valid invariable time-interval.

Mr. Sammi: The changes of frequency of light due to the motion of its source is an established physical fact, the Doppler Effect applied to lightwaves instead of soundwaves.

The speed of light IS independent of the motion/speed of its source; but the frequency of light IS dependent upon the motion/speed of its source.

Light traveling forwards from/ahead of its source is blue-shifted; light traveling backwards from/behind and away from its source is red-shifted.

I agree that gravitational effects could red-shift the frequency of light, as well as the speed of light, and this is the basis for what is called the ‘tired light’ theory for the explanation of why it is that light coming from distant sources is red-shifted, a phenomenon which has been used to explain the possibility of a Big Bang.

Mr. Sammi: c2 in E = mc2 is the speed of light squared/multiplied by itself.

E = mc2 says, simply, that from a small quantity of matter, m, an large amount of energy, E can be released when matter is converted into energy.

The reciprocal, m = E/c2, Einstein’s original formulation, simply says that a tremendous amount of energy, E, is needed to convert energy into matter, m.

I smell a rat when E = mc2 functionally links a force, E, and matter/mass, m, to geography, which is required when the speed of any phenomena, including light, is used for a constant, as in E = mc2.

d = rt when d = distance, geography, r = speed, and t = time

r = d/t, but, again, geography, a distance, a specific distance, is present in d

The presence of geography in d and therefore in the concept of speed makes possible the linkage of time and space in spacetime.

But when the concept of geography is rejected, another concept must take its place and fulfill the constancy which is needed for E = m x (?), which would then simply say that, as before, a large amount of energy, E, is released when matter, m, is converted into energy.

The physical fact the energy, E, is released when matter, m, is converted into energy, and the fact that an amount of energy, E, is needed to convert energy into matter, m, both need a constant which does not involve geography.

Planck’s constant is an example of a physical constant that does not involve geography.

Perhaps also E = m x (?) needs a physical number that is not related to geography to avoid the mysticism in physics which ultimately leads to confusions concerning spacetime and the geography of space being claimed to be closed, and, therefore, limited, which is made obvious, and silly, by the simple question: What is beyond closed spacetime?

eh

This was covered in another thread, and again, it's just a matter of basic logic. If the universe (all that exists) is finite, there is NO outside. There is no reason the universe must be infinite.

Mr. Sammi

I am sure RF waves experience red & blue shifting when coupled with GPS technology.

What may cause red & blue shifting to correspond with the light of drifting galaxies, I have no idea,

I need to see more evidence & the equations of state which define these shifts due to wawelength exposure.

If the wavelengths are exposed and individual components of white light become apparent THEN the claim that this is an effect of compound velocity must be fully examined. Interference must also be taken into consideration. We seem to believe dense gravitational fields adversely affect the quality of white light.

The point of the doppler effect is between the source AND the observer, not as you stated.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Kantian

The infinite regress argument is the skeptic's most popular mode of argumentation.

~transcendentalist~

Mr. Sammi

The cosmological red shift was found in the spectrum analysis of the data which light transports.

The wavelengths of the elements were found to be shifted towards the longer wavelengths. Pinpointing the most common elements then shifting the spectroscopic data back to itz normal wavelengths allowed the scientists to determine the relative velocities at which the stars emitting the light were receeding. This was the famous Hubble.

The assumption made was the spectroscopic data embedded in the light had beem affected by the Dopplar effect.

I believe Bob K was confusing when he used frequency as the starting point of his explaination.

Things affect frequencies seperately from wavelengths. The contingent effect on a frequency modulation is a wavelength change. c = frequency * lambda. If we have a direct effect on wavelength, the contingent effect on frequency is observed due to the constancy of the speed of light between glaxies OR in vacuum. Thus cosmological red shift does not seem to have any direct bearing to frequenciy.

Contrast this to gravitational red shift where light bends away in the presence of excessive gravitational fields.


Perhaps Bob K would like to make a final comment?


Sammi Na Boodie (H-N-Y)