• [deleted]

In 1949, Gödel postulated a theorem that stated: "In any universe described by the theory of relativity, time cannot exist".

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_8_167/ai_n13595656

Strange still in physics prevail idea of space-time being physical reality.

Why are we so intellectually not-flexible ?

Because until observer is not waken he/she is fixed with old ideas.

yours amritAttachment #1: Experimental_Proof_for_Godel_Theorem_on_Time.doc

  • [deleted]

my article is now online

http://vixra.org/abs/0910.0041

  • [deleted]

Maybe for the next year we could write and discuss here on

"BRIDGING OBSERVER AND OBSERVED".

I see this subject extremly interesting as it connects physics,

neurofisiology and phenomenology.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

Hi Amrit ,

Yes indeed ,a very interesting and vague subject .The perception depends of our referential indeed .

The neuro dynamic and its polarities is very relevant about the informations too and the captors.

Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

RESUME

Barbour refuses existence of time, Elliot propoeses 4-th coordinate as a "coordinate of motion".

Physics is based on clock mechanisms and will remain so for ever. With clocks we measure motion. I believe that the most correct and adequate solution for time, clocks and motion is:

""Time is run of clock that measures motion in timeless quantum space.""

This solution is not mine. I "got it" from somwhere.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

Taday I had discussion with one of the members here. He is convinced that "time dilatation" as slower velocity of clocks is a result of 4th coordinate of space-time shrinking.

Even if space-time would exists as a physical reality would not be possible to explainj how shrinking of space is related with slower speed of clocks.

It is quite amazing how we are attached to some fix ideas in physics that have no correspondence to physical reality.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

PS Searching on relation "observer-observed" observer discovers that he has ability to consciously distinguish between his mind's models of the world and world itself. With self-observation observer becomes aware that the finest level of energy in the universe is consciousness as the basic vibration of timeless quantum space. A model of timeless quantum space corresponds in Indian Vedas to the concept of "sunyata". Self-realization of the observer in physics is the scientific basis for a peaceful dialog between all religions of the world which all have the same goal. Self-realization has its verification in the experience itself.

Hi Amrit:

You are correct that: "One of the ultimate goals of physics is bridging observer and observed." The interactive nature of being, experience, space, and thought is undeniable. I will clearly demonstrate this in this post.

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." -- Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell - "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows:

This physical and "general" law is the known unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis of this law (and unification) is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

To think that the unification of General Relativity and Maxwell's Theory of Light -- that is already mathematically PROVEN by the addition of a spatial dimension to Einstein's theory -- is not readily and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest oversights or blunders of common sense that has ever occurred. I have definitively proven and demonstrated that this unification occurs in/as dream experience.

Do you agree? -- Yes or no? -- If not, then why? If I am correct (and I am), I am entitled to/deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Also, do you agree with the following?:

In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these observations possible), is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider this in conjunction with objects near Earth (in the invisible/transparent space/sky). Isn't the redshift consistent with/indicative of the increased transparency/invisibility of space that makes such astronomical/telescopic observations possible? Is all of this not true as well? -- Yes or no please? If not, then why, specifically please? Thanks Amrit.

Can you rate and leave comments and questions under my essay please? It is the fourth one from the top. It is important to also read (and closely consider) all of my posts under my essay as well.

  • [deleted]

Dear Franck

Yes we expeience universe through the mind and so we can experience what we believe in. Because of that physics has invented experiment. Experiment proves relevance of the model with the world.

I can not give expert opinion about your theory of unification of GR and electromagnetism, because I'm not trained for that. My fields are phenomoenology, mind and consciousness.

Maybe some experts here will tell you more. I see gravity motion related to the change of density of quantum space and electromagnetism as a vibration of quanta of space. Because of that in any inertial sistem speed of light is constant. You take light as a phenomena A in a medium B as quantum space. If A has same speed for diffrent moving sistems in medium B this means that A is vibration of medium B.

Sure this is only my vision. My expertize is on time and process of "perception-processing in the mind-experience-observer". Here I'm sure.

You are expert for dreams. Maybe you keep this field as main, and about other you just comment. Physics is mature science, some big revolution is out of question. We can only make small improvments. FQXI is a right place for that.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

Hi Amrit ,Frank ,

It's beautiful what you say ,

we think thus we are in fact and we perceive our Universe ,like a beautiful contemplation of the physicality and its creations .

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

Hi Steve

We all agree universe exists.

We all agree observer exists.

Some of us agree between observer and the universe is the scientific mind creating pictures of the universe.

Only few we agree conscious observer is aware of how much scientific mind pictures correspondes to the world itself. He distinquish clearly betwen physical world and mind pictures of it.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

Dear Amrit,

Some of your opinions were appealing to me. For instance I agree, real observers must be considered part of the processes under consideration, not outside reality.

The senses of an animal can only perceive influences from past events. In so far I agree: The usual assumption of a spacetime that extends from minus eternity to plus eternity is unfounded. However, I do not understand how velocity could replace temporal distance, i.e., distance from the actual moment. Why not distinguishing between measurable time-span on one hand, and abstracted and extrapolated ordinary time on the other hand?

Let me say it quite boldly: I cannot expect a fair rating from those who do not share my firmly substantiated insight that time reversal is just a simple mathematical artifact resulting from overlooking or deliberately ignoring the binding of the observer to reality.

Regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

Eckart

Time is not a fundament of motion, time is derived from motion. Velocity of an object v = d/t where t is "thick" of clocks. Clocks thick in timeless space, motion happens in timeless space.

Sure going back in time is possible only in a mathematical way.

I publish about that recently an article in Indian Journal of physics,

. Amrit S. Sorli, Time is Derived from Motion, The Icfai University Press, Journal of Physics, Vol.2, Num.4 http://www.iupindia.org/Physics.asp (2009)

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

PS Abstract "Time is Derived from Motion"

Today in physics, there are two fundamental approaches to time. The first and the most common approach says that we use clocks to measure the time component of space-time, space and time being cofounded as the basis of physical reality. However, this approach has no experimental support. There is no evidence whatsoever that clocks measure one aspect of space-time, and in reality we cannot observe space-time at all. The second approach says time is cofounded with motion through space. This approach is supported by experiment and observation. We employ clocks to accumulate local internal motion, and then use the result to calibrate duration. This is then employed in the measurement of external motion or material change, and the comparative rate of such change. Our evidence tells us that this rate of change varies with gravity, being commonly known as gravitational time dilation. However, we can only measure space and motion, not time, and thus we must assert that the true basis of fundamental reality is space and motion rather than space-time. This means that space itself is in some respect timeless. Motion runs in timeless space.

  • [deleted]

Amrit, i just had a thought that space always existed but the universe birth triggered the time clock. Thus, there is non-parrallel aspect of space w.r.t. time. Time is related to the manifestation of energy into matter. On the other side, space stands unrelated to both energy and time.Homogeneity of space is however is matter for worry for me. Can space and time show inhomogeneity and then what are the respective consequences of the two happening independently. Can these result in the generation of mass and enrgy independently?

  • [deleted]

Narendra I see subject of time in a pragmatic way.

Osho says: "Real is what works". "Time as run of clocks" works.

Barbour think to develop physics without clocks and time what I mean is not possible.Clocks and time are essential instruments of physics.

What I point out is that time is a measuring device for material change.

Time is not primary physical reality. Consequences are immense.

Space is timeless, as already Gödel proposed. Universe is timeleess, universe is NOW.

This is where physics meet Buddhism.

Yours amrit

  • [deleted]

A few days has remained to the end of essays votation.

Thank you all here which vote vision of a conscious observer which is aware of his/her inner linear neuronal time and aware that with clocks we measure motion running in timeless space.

yours amrit