--- In Theorists_physics@yahoogroups.com, Allen Francom
<light_rock@...> wrote:
>
>
> Some thoughts below...
>
> --- sidereus123 <johnholzman@...> wrote:
>
> QUANTUM TIME
>
> Since time is motion and motion is gravitation
> (principle of equivalence) and if gravity is caused by
> particle interactions then time is caused by particle
> interactions. Lets call these particles, chronitons.
> Since time = gravity it turns out that chronitons =
> gravitons.
>
> This is why it has been so hard to determine a cause
> for time. Time isn't outside of things, it is a
> internal quality, the rate at which things vibrate and
> gravitons in what makes them vibrate.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Imho, this concept of time is a very big problem
> for what you are attempting to latch on to with
> "particles".
>
> Essentially, particles have to interact in order
> for time to ellapse.
>
> OR particles have to move in relation to each
> other in order for time to ellapse.
>
> Particles themselves, you see, of some form,
> must be fabric of "space/distance" because
> nothing cannot exist there can be no space
> in and of itself. Space is a something.
> ( suggestion )
>
> Therefore "particles" "living in space" can
> move in relation to each other if the particles
> and or the space "know" the other, space or particle.
>
> The important INESCAPABLE archetype is instead
> "TIME" and "RELATION".
>
> Attempted argument, trying to shoot holes
> in your idea, to see if anything sticks:
>
> There is no distance, there are no particles.
>
> There is time, and there are rules.
>
> What we think as "real particle" is "effect of
> a rule".
>
> A line of code ran and changed a variable.
>
> The Matrix.
>
> Time and Rules vs. Particles and some undefined
> concept of how "distance" works which allows
> time to work as you are attempting to define it.
>
> You must describe how distance works, and how
> it is possible for particles to collide "in space",
> how they "know" each other in order to continue.
>
> How can particle A hit B, if space is "nothing"
> what then connects the information such that
> A can know it is about to, is, or just has hit B,
> where is that information stored ?
>
> Why is there a distance between any two particles
> anywhere ? Without distance, and without collision,
> how can "time ellapse" ?

----------------------------------------------------------------
<johnholzman@...> Reply:

Allen,
A nice thread of reasoning. Yes this is perhaps the most difficult
relation about deniing space. If there is no space where are things
at when there not "here"? Very troubling. I suppose I could
advance the notion that since quantums are waves that what we think
of as motion through space is actually a medifor for how and why
particles are absorbed. This is also been troubling me., exactly
what goes on when particles interact? I mean we really dont know.
What do they do exactlly and how do they do it? I mean we have no
experiment knowledge of there behavior, do we? I think we will find
out when we get our minds out of this biological paradime. Affter
all many theroies have been advanced with inadiqiute explaining.
Such as Copernicus's theory of revolutions of the heavenly spheres,
he could not explain why if we are spinning (the earth) why dont
people and everything else fly of the planet? Even with all my
physical training and knowedge I find it hard to believe although I
understand the theory , relitive motion and all, but come on 24,000
miles a hour, BING! Seems like it should have some sort of sensation
but I accept it , one because its sound doctrine but two Ive seen it
and seeing is believing. But isnt that just the contradition of my
theory, I say seeing is not believing, or see with your mind, stop
relying on your sences because they can decieve YOU!
JOHN



>