'Curved' space and geodesics brings us back to Aristotle and Greek gods who managed planetary motions. 'Space-time' was needed to resolve the error in Einstotle's maths.
Absolutely. Created from nothing as it were. Conjured to make equations balance and give Einstein a metaphysical link to action from a distance (for gravity only it should be said). Preached as a fact. A travesty and disaster really.
What do you think of Kozyrev's proposition about time? Sasha Latypova has recently posted something about it. There are also heretics like Paul Laviolette, Harold Aspden, Konstantin Meyl. I would like to know your thoughts about their work if you have any. Or maybe you know other unknown authors worth mentioning.
Thanks RPT. To be honest I am not that familiar with Kozyrev and the others you mentioned. Kozyrev appeared to believe that time was linked to energy and materiality. I am not sure much evidence supports that. Seems to me he is not far from Relativists in proposing some sort of 'merger' with 'space' or the material-aether. But those who know more would object to that.
It could also be said that given our limited understanding of electro-magnetism, there might be an impact on time from energy that we don't yet comprehend. As Tesla said, the Earth is a giant electro-magnet (Gilbert circa 1600 and his truly remarkable discoveries, will publish some posts on this and 'gravity' which will show we have not really advanced much beyond say 1680). Gravity does affect 'time' or its local calculation. This is why I believe that our Earth time is far different than cosmological time - an insight that Einstein developed but which is rarely discussed :) Maybe Kozyrev, about whom I am largely ignorant, had similar ideas if he related electro-magnetism with gravitational force.
Classical physics (not Relativity) views time as a calculation, not a distance (eg light 'years' is based on a distance merged with time, the calcs are quite likely completely wrong). Herbert Ives (American physicist) will be discussed in an upcoming post. Ives disproved Relativity and also had 'common sense' views of time. Time has taken on a philosophical twist in 'modern science' and has led to a lot of non-science. You can't go backward in time for eg. this is physically (mechanically) impossible. But in actuality what do we really know :)
What a relief, as I descended the ten floors (as recommend) in free-fall, (for ‘the science’) I wondered if perhaps I had erred. Fortunately however, I was asymptomatically spread all over the pavement. This confirmed what I had always understood, It was I that were weak, the gravitational force however was quite strong!
Trying to understand because I’m a physics amateur, but when you say time isn’t real, what you’re saying is the time is a human abstraction that we use to help approximate the movement of things correct? And this abstraction presupposes humans are rational animals that can make these abstractions, so change must be real. Because you’re not saying we are in a Heraclitean universe of no change, you’re just saying that all the nonsense from modern physics is confusing because it’s an abstraction?
Time is a calculation. It is not a distance. The calc can be wrong. The invariant speed of light is for eg incorrect (which is only one measurement relating time to distance). Time is not a spatial map. Time itself in the human conception is a human calculation. If my local clocks slow down for whatever reason that does not mean that simultaneity does not exist (which is what Relativity says). It does not mean that object mass will change. Nor can it mean that time is merged spatially with space. Space time was invented as a mathematical need, not as a derivative of an observation.
Space-Time has to be the greatest reification fallacy of the modern era.
Absolutely. Created from nothing as it were. Conjured to make equations balance and give Einstein a metaphysical link to action from a distance (for gravity only it should be said). Preached as a fact. A travesty and disaster really.
What do you think of Kozyrev's proposition about time? Sasha Latypova has recently posted something about it. There are also heretics like Paul Laviolette, Harold Aspden, Konstantin Meyl. I would like to know your thoughts about their work if you have any. Or maybe you know other unknown authors worth mentioning.
Thanks RPT. To be honest I am not that familiar with Kozyrev and the others you mentioned. Kozyrev appeared to believe that time was linked to energy and materiality. I am not sure much evidence supports that. Seems to me he is not far from Relativists in proposing some sort of 'merger' with 'space' or the material-aether. But those who know more would object to that.
It could also be said that given our limited understanding of electro-magnetism, there might be an impact on time from energy that we don't yet comprehend. As Tesla said, the Earth is a giant electro-magnet (Gilbert circa 1600 and his truly remarkable discoveries, will publish some posts on this and 'gravity' which will show we have not really advanced much beyond say 1680). Gravity does affect 'time' or its local calculation. This is why I believe that our Earth time is far different than cosmological time - an insight that Einstein developed but which is rarely discussed :) Maybe Kozyrev, about whom I am largely ignorant, had similar ideas if he related electro-magnetism with gravitational force.
Classical physics (not Relativity) views time as a calculation, not a distance (eg light 'years' is based on a distance merged with time, the calcs are quite likely completely wrong). Herbert Ives (American physicist) will be discussed in an upcoming post. Ives disproved Relativity and also had 'common sense' views of time. Time has taken on a philosophical twist in 'modern science' and has led to a lot of non-science. You can't go backward in time for eg. this is physically (mechanically) impossible. But in actuality what do we really know :)
No, I thank you. You put the effort into writing and still reply to (sometimes poor) comments. Anyway, looking forward to you next post.
What a relief, as I descended the ten floors (as recommend) in free-fall, (for ‘the science’) I wondered if perhaps I had erred. Fortunately however, I was asymptomatically spread all over the pavement. This confirmed what I had always understood, It was I that were weak, the gravitational force however was quite strong!
Yes or pace Einstein, the ground, the pavement, rushed up to meet you and slam into you on the 10th floor :)
Trying to understand because I’m a physics amateur, but when you say time isn’t real, what you’re saying is the time is a human abstraction that we use to help approximate the movement of things correct? And this abstraction presupposes humans are rational animals that can make these abstractions, so change must be real. Because you’re not saying we are in a Heraclitean universe of no change, you’re just saying that all the nonsense from modern physics is confusing because it’s an abstraction?
Time is a calculation. It is not a distance. The calc can be wrong. The invariant speed of light is for eg incorrect (which is only one measurement relating time to distance). Time is not a spatial map. Time itself in the human conception is a human calculation. If my local clocks slow down for whatever reason that does not mean that simultaneity does not exist (which is what Relativity says). It does not mean that object mass will change. Nor can it mean that time is merged spatially with space. Space time was invented as a mathematical need, not as a derivative of an observation.