X17

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Michael 345, Nov 10, 2022.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2022
    C C likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,300
    Last I heard there was considerable skepticism around the claims, plus, isn't it inconsistent with the Standard Model? Should be fun times ahead if it is verified, therefore.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But I'm not betting on that happening.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I'm disappointed it did not turn out to be FUNDAMENTAL TIME

    It would have proven the physicist who claim TIME does not exist wrong (along with myself)

    So the search for FUNDAMENTAL TIME continues

    All posters in SciForum claiming FUNDAMENTAL TIME exist have not put forward a skerrick of proof

    Strange

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,248
    Hmm. Certainly not a new designation, but OTOH quite a novel turn when it comes to naming fundamental 'forces of nature".

    Lockheed X-17
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-17

    Bell X-16
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-16

    North American X-15
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15

    _
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,370
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
  10. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,546
    When I was a kid I had a model of the X15. It probably cost about 3 dollars back then, and now they are selling for around 200 dollars on Ebay.

    (Notice that I spelled out the word dollars instead of using the symbol, which breaks Sciforums for some reason. )
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,892
    I don't know how "fundamental" time is different from regular time; it sounds like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

    Here is a proposed definition for time and how it must exist (without going into how exactly it operates):

    Time is measured by a vector - having both direction and magnitude - that connects cause and effect. Its magnitude is always greater than zero, and it always points from cause to effect.

    Without this property, effects could occur simultaneously with - or even precede - their causes. Since this does not happen, we label that property 'time'.
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I would say those who propose TIME has existed since The Big Bang would consider that to be FUNDAMENTAL

    What we call time is an agreed upon measurement system

    Good because I am sure you have no idea and the reason you have no idea is because there is no such thing as time to have a idea about

    Ummmm I think physics would vigorously oppose - effects could occur simultaneously ...... or even precede - their causes

    Really? as per vector definition below?

    DEFINITION
    vector
    TechTarget Contributor
    A vector is a quantity or phenomenon that has two independent properties: magnitude and direction

    https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/vector

    Currently I have a fairly large distraction occupying my life

    Please just provide a certified photo of TIME

    Or machine which is able to detect time

    Really you have sunk this low

    Here is a proposed definition for time and how it must exist (I'm all in and 100% got this nailed down) (without going into how exactly it operates): ( don't you worry your pretty head about it)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,892
    Ah. Oh well. I thought I might inspire you to some fresh thought on the subject, but you're still just trolling this same old nonsense. I am beginning to wonder if you've been hacked and your identity stolen by a bot.

    Anyway, never mind. I won't engage you about this again.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    So no photo of something claimed to exist

    Got it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,892
    Yup. Just like music, tingling, gravity, wind, radio signals, cosmic rays, the sweetness of chocolate, beauty, and the smell of copper.

    All things that don't exist. Because the definition of existing is 'can you take a photo of it'.

    I'm done with this foolishness.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,824
    That could be neaerly akin to asking a religious person for proof of God, and the religious person pointing at a tree.

    Time is a manner of differentiation. Your effect is to ask why the Universe exists, at all.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,792
    Just put the $ in italics and that won't happen.
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Sound waves of music, noted and recorded ✅ Exist ✅ How about that?
    Is it your contention you cannot provide a photo of TIME but you can provide a recording of TIME? Perfectly acceptable. Thank you

    Felt as an experience. Exist ✅ Another gem TIME can be felt as a tingling. Never knew that. Are the tingles like pins and needles?

    Really? who said that? Not my position in the least

    Please Google exist
    You get exist meaning and the guff below

    exist
    /ɪɡˈzɪst,ɛɡˈzɪst/
    verb
    1. 1.
      have objective reality or being.
      "dossiers existed on almost everyone of prominence"
    ......gravity, wind, radio signals, cosmic rays, the sweetness of chocolate, beauty, and the smell of copper.

    And I am sure you do not believe any of the items on / in your list above are not above having objective reality or being.


    Heard that from another poster. Didn't last but as I said earlier I have been a little distracted (50cc motorscooter (me) / small car bingle the result of which needed me having a left hip replacement)

    Quick glance over post did not see engagement so hopefully........ such continues

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2022
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Could be
    Isn't
    Distraction certainly
    Nothing to do with Does TIME exist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Is it?

    Your (MY effect?) effect - well there are a number of physicist who have a greater claim to whatever effect is / should be present than this Minion

    Why would I ask anyway?

    Universe exist because physics allows its existence

    Physics didn't - no Universe

    /ˈfɪzɪsɪst/
    noun
    an expert in or student of physics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    DaveC:
    That doesn't work as a useful definition of time, which is a scalar. The closest analogue to your idea I can think of is a spacetime 4-vector called the spacetime interval in relativity.

    The problem is that a vector in physics has spatial components. 4-vectors in relativistic physics have both spatial and time components. Trying to important notions of space into a definition of time is fraught with problems.
     
    Asexperia likes this.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Moderator note: This thread was originally posted in the Physics and Math subforum. I have moved it because (a) this idea doesn't seem to have progressed beyond the initial paper and (b) this thread is clearly an excuse for michael to play Write4U, inventing excuses to discuss a bad pet theory for the n-th time.
     

Share This Page