Jump to content

They got it all wrong!


Time02112
 Share

Recommended Posts

The following is an excerpt form the website:]http://realityphysics.com/

 

-------COPYRIGHT 1998 by JEFF LEE------------

 

The real reason many of these questions still remain totally unanswered is because Physicists today, as

 

Scientists and Natural Philosophers have done for the past 2500 years, still incorrectly assume that "still

 

position" within the universe is a "Static Condition", simply existing from one moment to the next in time.

 

By our now understanding that the speed of light and the SPEED OF TIME are ONE AND THE SAME THING,

 

we find we are now able to mathematically define the actual "Rate Of Occurrence" of the "State Of Being"

 

within the universe, thus revealing the fact that still position in the universe is a: "DYNAMIC OCCURRENCE,

 

continually being formed by the: "(ACTIVE), Two-Dimensional, Omnipositional, Omnidirectional, Displacement

 

of Time with Space", where the "NOW POINT" in "Absolute" Time passes OMNIDIRECTIONALLY out into

 

"Absolute" Space at "c", or: 3x10^8 meters per second.

 

This now allows us to expose the actual physical relationship of motion to Space and Time, enabling us to

 

evolve a system of Kinematics and Dynamics making it possible to answer many of these fundamental

 

questions which have eluded us for so long such as: 1. Why does Time "slow down", or "dilate", for objects

 

in motion with respect to a "still" frame of reference? 2. Why is "c" the "limiting velocity"?, and 3. What is the

 

"actual mechanism" responsible for creating gravitational force?

 

By employing this new description of the relationship of motion to Space and Time (describing still position

 

within the universe as: "ACTIVE"), we find we can, not only correctly answer many currently unanswerable

 

questions within Theoretical Physics and Cosmology today, but also establish ABSOLUTE PROOF as the

 

validity of this new: "TIME SQUARED", i.e.: "(ACTIVE) NONLINEAR ABSOLUTE SPACETIME; thus illustrating

 

how Relativity, or any other proposed theory describing the background reference of the universe (with

 

respect to which all motion is measured) as a "Static Condition", is totally incorrect.

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The following is an excerpt form the website:]http://realityphysics.com/

 

-------COPYRIGHT 1998 by JEFF LEE------------

 

The real reason many of these questions still remain totally unanswered is because Physicists today, as

 

Scientists and Natural Philosophers have done for the past 2500 years, still incorrectly assume that "still

 

position" within the universe is a "Static Condition", simply existing from one moment to the next in time.

 

By our now understanding that the speed of light and the SPEED OF TIME are ONE AND THE SAME THING,

 

we find we are now able to mathematically define the actual "Rate Of Occurrence" of the "State Of Being"

 

within the universe, thus revealing the fact that still position in the universe is a: "DYNAMIC OCCURRENCE,

 

continually being formed by the: "(ACTIVE), Two-Dimensional, Omnipositional, Omnidirectional, Displacement

 

of Time with Space", where the "NOW POINT" in "Absolute" Time passes OMNIDIRECTIONALLY out into

 

"Absolute" Space at "c", or: 3x10^8 meters per second.

 

This now allows us to expose the actual physical relationship of motion to Space and Time, enabling us to

 

evolve a system of Kinematics and Dynamics making it possible to answer many of these fundamental

 

questions which have eluded us for so long such as: 1. Why does Time "slow down", or "dilate", for objects

 

in motion with respect to a "still" frame of reference? 2. Why is "c" the "limiting velocity"?, and 3. What is the

 

"actual mechanism" responsible for creating gravitational force?

 

By employing this new description of the relationship of motion to Space and Time (describing still position

 

within the universe as: "ACTIVE"), we find we can, not only correctly answer many currently unanswerable

 

questions within Theoretical Physics and Cosmology today, but also establish ABSOLUTE PROOF as the

 

validity of this new: "TIME SQUARED", i.e.: "(ACTIVE) NONLINEAR ABSOLUTE SPACETIME; thus illustrating

 

how Relativity, or any other proposed theory describing the background reference of the universe (with

 

respect to which all motion is measured) as a "Static Condition", is totally incorrect.

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even need to list the problems with this one. Any physical theory like this one, needs to go through countless revisions and peer reviews before it gets accepted by anyone. The Internet is a horrible place to get believeable scientific information. Anyone can claim anything, with little or no error-checking. Internet 'nature of the universe' theories are a dime a dozen.

 

This one's especially bad, as it uses colourful diagrams to 'proove' its theories, without actually creating logical arguments for them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even need to list the problems with this one. Any physical theory like this one, needs to go through countless revisions and peer reviews before it gets accepted by anyone. The Internet is a horrible place to get believeable scientific information. Anyone can claim anything, with little or no error-checking. Internet 'nature of the universe' theories are a dime a dozen.

 

This one's especially bad, as it uses colourful diagrams to 'proove' its theories, without actually creating logical arguments for them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

whatever,..........

 

you know, they said the same thing about buiding an airplane, then it was a rocket, then the space shuttle blew up, and the rest of the left wingers said "See, we told ya so!

 

So again I fail to understand why you continue to want to pose an "Argument" for all of the greatest discussions that are geared for the improvement of our evolution, and then to add that the internet is the worst format to have it out with? then why are you even here having this discussion in the first place if you are so much opposed to using this platform?

 

I disagree, I think that the internet is one of the best achievements to contribute to global communication in which we can share & exchange ideas since the invention of the telephone, moreover one of the best places to learn from these interexchanges of thoughts & ideas. The internet advances communication to whole new dimmension, and as yet we have no idea as to where, or what end (if any) this may lead.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

whatever,..........

 

you know, they said the same thing about buiding an airplane, then it was a rocket, then the space shuttle blew up, and the rest of the left wingers said "See, we told ya so!

 

So again I fail to understand why you continue to want to pose an "Argument" for all of the greatest discussions that are geared for the improvement of our evolution, and then to add that the internet is the worst format to have it out with? then why are you even here having this discussion in the first place if you are so much opposed to using this platform?

 

I disagree, I think that the internet is one of the best achievements to contribute to global communication in which we can share & exchange ideas since the invention of the telephone, moreover one of the best places to learn from these interexchanges of thoughts & ideas. The internet advances communication to whole new dimmension, and as yet we have no idea as to where, or what end (if any) this may lead.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comparing the development of a new physical theory to building a mechanical device? Let me see if I can extend the metaphor...

 

The Wright brothers started off with a basic idea of how an aircraft would work. They proceeded by building one, and seeing if it would fly. It didn't, so they went back and tried again. Eventually, their designs improved, until the device finally took of and flew.

 

Publishing a theory without peer review is like building a plane, then saying it can fly without testing it. I guarantee that every accepted theory out there had many errors when first developed. But they were caught by the seive of peer review, and the kinks got worked out. No-one's perfect, and no-one can properly develop a physical theory without checks and double-checks. The problem with the 'Net is that anyone can post stuff, and make it look official, without any reality checks.

 

What I did not say was that the Internet is a bad place for discussion. On the contrary, it's great. That's why I post to this board, to discuss ideas. But not all the ideas are true, nor are they presented as such. My issue with the website you mentioned is that it purports itself to be true. It's dangerous to accept ideas just because they're presented in a certain format, or appear to have been worked on a lot. Some of them may be true, but definetly not all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comparing the development of a new physical theory to building a mechanical device? Let me see if I can extend the metaphor...

 

The Wright brothers started off with a basic idea of how an aircraft would work. They proceeded by building one, and seeing if it would fly. It didn't, so they went back and tried again. Eventually, their designs improved, until the device finally took of and flew.

 

Publishing a theory without peer review is like building a plane, then saying it can fly without testing it. I guarantee that every accepted theory out there had many errors when first developed. But they were caught by the seive of peer review, and the kinks got worked out. No-one's perfect, and no-one can properly develop a physical theory without checks and double-checks. The problem with the 'Net is that anyone can post stuff, and make it look official, without any reality checks.

 

What I did not say was that the Internet is a bad place for discussion. On the contrary, it's great. That's why I post to this board, to discuss ideas. But not all the ideas are true, nor are they presented as such. My issue with the website you mentioned is that it purports itself to be true. It's dangerous to accept ideas just because they're presented in a certain format, or appear to have been worked on a lot. Some of them may be true, but definetly not all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right!

 

and somtimes you are Wrong!

 

Janus:]"The problem with the 'Net is that anyone can post stuff, (Including Janus?)... and make it look official, without any reality checks.

 

Time:]"That which of course leaves you as no exception!

 

Janus:] Publishing a theory without peer review is like building a plane, then saying it can fly without testing it.

 

Time:] So you are telling me this because?...

 

What ever gave you the assumption that I never intend to "Test" my ideas? better yet, what makes you so sure that I have not already tested some of those ideas?

 

Janus:] it's dangerous to accept ideas just because they're presented in a certain format, or appear to have been worked on a lot. Some of them may be true, but definetly not all.

 

I sure would be interested to know of "Some" of those ideas presented on the web, pertaining to Time~Travel that you have found to be true!

 

During my observations, I have noticed that you have yet to agree with anyones ideas presented here for discussion without imposing another "argument" senario, rather than to complement, or contribute to their ideas with reasonable means of suggestive ideas coducive to the objective of this discussion.

 

We are not having a "Debate" with an objective to prevent one from probing into the idea if Time~Travel is possible, nor are we debating the potential for someones ideas related to the M.O. of Time~Travel to have potential to make it possible.

 

We will think objective,and with open minds, we realize the potential for theories to have flaws, untill proven by means of demonstration to test those theories, so we need to debate if some of them are worthy of merit, but I do not recall anyone here voting to elect Janus to be the judge if someones theory has no foundation to be worthy of discussion.

 

I hope I made my point clear.

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right!

 

and somtimes you are Wrong!

 

Janus:]"The problem with the 'Net is that anyone can post stuff, (Including Janus?)... and make it look official, without any reality checks.

 

Time:]"That which of course leaves you as no exception!

 

Janus:] Publishing a theory without peer review is like building a plane, then saying it can fly without testing it.

 

Time:] So you are telling me this because?...

 

What ever gave you the assumption that I never intend to "Test" my ideas? better yet, what makes you so sure that I have not already tested some of those ideas?

 

Janus:] it's dangerous to accept ideas just because they're presented in a certain format, or appear to have been worked on a lot. Some of them may be true, but definetly not all.

 

I sure would be interested to know of "Some" of those ideas presented on the web, pertaining to Time~Travel that you have found to be true!

 

During my observations, I have noticed that you have yet to agree with anyones ideas presented here for discussion without imposing another "argument" senario, rather than to complement, or contribute to their ideas with reasonable means of suggestive ideas coducive to the objective of this discussion.

 

We are not having a "Debate" with an objective to prevent one from probing into the idea if Time~Travel is possible, nor are we debating the potential for someones ideas related to the M.O. of Time~Travel to have potential to make it possible.

 

We will think objective,and with open minds, we realize the potential for theories to have flaws, untill proven by means of demonstration to test those theories, so we need to debate if some of them are worthy of merit, but I do not recall anyone here voting to elect Janus to be the judge if someones theory has no foundation to be worthy of discussion.

 

I hope I made my point clear.

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, the plane thing was an analogy. One of my habits is to draw analogies as far as they can go; it really annoys my friends. Please, don't use that as a basis of an argument against me.

 

Of course I'm no exception to the rule of "Don't believe everything you see on the 'Net". But all my basic ideas hinge on my knowledge of physics. So (most of) my statements are checkable, and have been by mainstream physics. So if you doubt something I say, at least there's some recourse by which you could prove I made an error.

 

And finally, I've said it again and again, I am *not* trying to stop people on this board from developing their ideas about time travel. Not once (you can check my previous posts) have I tried to "prevent one from probing into the idea if Time~Travel is possible", or acted as a "judge if someones theory has no foundation to be worthy of discussion". What I have consistently done (although sometimes with an argumentative tone; this I regret) is to point out the conflictions which a proposed idea has with accepted, mainstream science. Not once have I said (as you imply) that an idea was completely bogus and has no potential of ever being fruitful.

 

Plus, it seems to me that this board has no other resident realist who might inject some knowledge of non-fringe science into the mix.

 

<This message has been edited by Janus (edited 08 June 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, the plane thing was an analogy. One of my habits is to draw analogies as far as they can go; it really annoys my friends. Please, don't use that as a basis of an argument against me.

 

Of course I'm no exception to the rule of "Don't believe everything you see on the 'Net". But all my basic ideas hinge on my knowledge of physics. So (most of) my statements are checkable, and have been by mainstream physics. So if you doubt something I say, at least there's some recourse by which you could prove I made an error.

 

And finally, I've said it again and again, I am *not* trying to stop people on this board from developing their ideas about time travel. Not once (you can check my previous posts) have I tried to "prevent one from probing into the idea if Time~Travel is possible", or acted as a "judge if someones theory has no foundation to be worthy of discussion". What I have consistently done (although sometimes with an argumentative tone; this I regret) is to point out the conflictions which a proposed idea has with accepted, mainstream science. Not once have I said (as you imply) that an idea was completely bogus and has no potential of ever being fruitful.

 

Plus, it seems to me that this board has no other resident realist who might inject some knowledge of non-fringe science into the mix.

 

<This message has been edited by Janus (edited 08 June 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"NOT" you are perhaps too conditioned within your own mindset to accept anything which exists outside of that which is common to mainstream science, but as much as I may appear to hinge on *fringe, I too have reason to speak of those things I express here without being harshly judged as acting out on fictional fantasy & going too far out on a limb, I am not inherently without intimidation from your undertones of insulting attacks of my personal character, or judgment.

 

I just don't sit here, and dream this up you know, most of my theories, are based on that which I read from books based on real physics, from real pysicist & scientists.

 

Here is just an example of my personal Library:] *"Relativity" Great mysteries/Opposing viewpoints

 

by: Clarice Swisher

 

*"Inside Relativity"

 

By: Delo E. Mook and Thomas Vargish

 

*"QED"

 

The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter

 

by: Richard P. Feynman

 

*"Particles"

 

An Introduction To Particle Physics

 

by: Michael Chester

 

..........Just to name a few.

 

Perhaps you should Question Dr. David Anderson from the "Time Travel Research Center" www.time-travel.com ...He has a much higher degree of credentials to prove to you that Time~Travel is not only possible, but he has already proven it!

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 10 June 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"NOT" you are perhaps too conditioned within your own mindset to accept anything which exists outside of that which is common to mainstream science, but as much as I may appear to hinge on *fringe, I too have reason to speak of those things I express here without being harshly judged as acting out on fictional fantasy & going too far out on a limb, I am not inherently without intimidation from your undertones of insulting attacks of my personal character, or judgment.

 

I just don't sit here, and dream this up you know, most of my theories, are based on that which I read from books based on real physics, from real pysicist & scientists.

 

Here is just an example of my personal Library:] *"Relativity" Great mysteries/Opposing viewpoints

 

by: Clarice Swisher

 

*"Inside Relativity"

 

By: Delo E. Mook and Thomas Vargish

 

*"QED"

 

The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter

 

by: Richard P. Feynman

 

*"Particles"

 

An Introduction To Particle Physics

 

by: Michael Chester

 

..........Just to name a few.

 

Perhaps you should Question Dr. David Anderson from the "Time Travel Research Center" www.time-travel.com ...He has a much higher degree of credentials to prove to you that Time~Travel is not only possible, but he has already proven it!

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 10 June 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "great" Dr. Anderson got his Doctorate of Philosophy in philosophy not physics. At least that is what I found on his webpage.

 

My experience with philosophers is that they think they know everything and can prove it with sheer brain power alone but to truly prove something it must be experimentally verifiable. Something I believe almost everyone else would agree with.

 

I personally do not know the real deal with this Dr. Anderson but it seems to me that he likes to talk a lot of Star Trek "technobabble" from what I have read on his webpage. If the "work" he is doing had the true effects that he says, it would be the talk of the town in the scientific community. And would have found its way into the popular press.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "great" Dr. Anderson got his Doctorate of Philosophy in philosophy not physics. At least that is what I found on his webpage.

 

My experience with philosophers is that they think they know everything and can prove it with sheer brain power alone but to truly prove something it must be experimentally verifiable. Something I believe almost everyone else would agree with.

 

I personally do not know the real deal with this Dr. Anderson but it seems to me that he likes to talk a lot of Star Trek "technobabble" from what I have read on his webpage. If the "work" he is doing had the true effects that he says, it would be the talk of the town in the scientific community. And would have found its way into the popular press.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time,

 

We speak of the same Dr.Anderson. Like I said his only Ph.D. is in Philosophy and Metaphysics not physics. I would say someone is a physicist when they get a Ph.D. in physics. Even if his undergraduate degree was in physics that does not make him a physicist. Like I said in the previous post, I do not know really if I believe Dr. Anderson's claim because his work if it is what he says would be a major topic that would be all the talk of the scientific community.

 

P.S. I do not know who keeps registering my username, I am certain that not many people with the first name David and last name Trott visit this board.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time,

 

We speak of the same Dr.Anderson. Like I said his only Ph.D. is in Philosophy and Metaphysics not physics. I would say someone is a physicist when they get a Ph.D. in physics. Even if his undergraduate degree was in physics that does not make him a physicist. Like I said in the previous post, I do not know really if I believe Dr. Anderson's claim because his work if it is what he says would be a major topic that would be all the talk of the scientific community.

 

P.S. I do not know who keeps registering my username, I am certain that not many people with the first name David and last name Trott visit this board.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you people talking about? I go away from this message board for a few days, and I'm already being questioned. And I don't even know what your talking about. Is someone doing something to your names, registering them, what exactly? Why am I the suspect? Sounds like something a kid would do. Or the government.

 

Go question them... Not me.

 

Plus wasn't it also them who accused me of wanting to destroy Time it self? Everybody is accusing me of something these days. Geesh, Get some proof people.

 

It's not fair that just because I'm against Time Travel, that you accuse the only one in the message board who doesn't agree with you all. As being the culprit. Do I threatened you that much, do my Anti-Time Travel ideas bother you? Now who's being paranoid...?

 

-Javier C.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you people talking about? I go away from this message board for a few days, and I'm already being questioned. And I don't even know what your talking about. Is someone doing something to your names, registering them, what exactly? Why am I the suspect? Sounds like something a kid would do. Or the government.

 

Go question them... Not me.

 

Plus wasn't it also them who accused me of wanting to destroy Time it self? Everybody is accusing me of something these days. Geesh, Get some proof people.

 

It's not fair that just because I'm against Time Travel, that you accuse the only one in the message board who doesn't agree with you all. As being the culprit. Do I threatened you that much, do my Anti-Time Travel ideas bother you? Now who's being paranoid...?

 

-Javier C.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldnt falsely accuse people.

 

Those David Trott posts do not feel like Javier's signature. Ask the web master. All of your IP numbers are logged and find out for certain who it was.

 

David Trott-and Tyme Master(1A) -it would help if you registered. it would be hard for someone to use your name then because your profile would be attached to it,and your password.

 

<This message has been edited by pamela (edited 11 June 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...