X17

[Michael 345]

SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE DISCOVERED A FIFTH FUNDAMENTAL 'FORCE OF NATURE,' THEY’RE CALLING IT X17

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scie...-of-nature-theyre-calling-it-x17-7710261.html

I was hoping it would have been fundamental time

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but no

Still looking

 

[Sarkus]

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. But I'm not betting on that happening.

 

[Michael 345]

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. But I'm not betting on that happening.

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

 

[C C]

SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE DISCOVERED A FIFTH FUNDAMENTAL 'FORCE OF NATURE,' THEY’RE CALLING IT X17

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scie...-of-nature-theyre-calling-it-x17-7710261.html

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

_

 

[exchemist]

SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE DISCOVERED A FIFTH FUNDAMENTAL 'FORCE OF NATURE,' THEY’RE CALLING IT X17

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/scie...-of-nature-theyre-calling-it-x17-7710261.html

I was hoping it would have been fundamental time

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but no

Still looking

This very poorly explained article is 3 years old. If there were any substance to it, we would have heard more by now.

 

[Michael 345]

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

I'm waiting for the bouncy ball power generator lighting up Times Square and the bouncy ball Jumbo noon stop flight from Sydney to London

 

[Neddy Bate]

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

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. )

 

[DaveC426913]

So the search for FUNDAMENTAL TIME continues
All posters in SciForum claiming FUNDAMENTAL TIME exist have not put forward a skerrick of proof

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'.

 

[Michael 345]

fundamental

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

without going into how exactly it operates

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

Without this property, effects could occur simultaneously with - or even precede - their causes.

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

Time is measured by a vector - having both direction and magnitude

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)

 

[DaveC426913]

Please just provide a certified photo of TIME

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.

 

[Michael 345]

Ah. Oh well. I thought I might inspire

So no photo of something claimed to exist

Got it

 

[DaveC426913]

So no photo of something claimed to exist

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.

 

[Tiassa]

Please just provide a certified photo of TIME

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.

 

[Seattle]

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. )

Just put the $ in italics and that won't happen.

 

[Michael 345]

music

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

tingling

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

All things that don't exist.

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.

I won't engage you about this again.

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

 

[Michael 345]

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

Could be
Isn't
Distraction certainly
Nothing to do with Does TIME exist

 

[Michael 345]

Time is a manner of differentiation. Your effect is to ask why the Universe exists, at all.

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.

 

[James R]

DaveC:

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.

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.

 

[James R]

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.