# Stephen Hawking's Dog

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

And yet it all contradicts absolute quantum-time; which I take to be

a fundamentally necessary construct without which we end up in

Zeno's paradox. (At least).

There are countless contradictions in the concept of the 'rate of time'.

Consider this:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm#relativeposition

(...if you have the time!)

a fundamentally necessary construct without which we end up in

Zeno's paradox. (At least).

There are countless contradictions in the concept of the 'rate of time'.

Consider this:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm#relativeposition

(...if you have the time!)

_________________

www.flight-light-and-spin.com

**Jonathan Ainsley Bain**- forum physicist
- Posts : 185

Join date : 2015-05-24

Age : 47

Location : Africa

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

Although we approach physics from quite different conceptual angles we are actually on the same page, Jon. You'll NEVER succeed in modelling gravitational motion to a 100% level of precision because this is utterly impossible for the reasons you give. Real time is real time and it makes perfect logical sense to say that real time is COMING INTO EXISTENCE at the speed of light, which means the moment NOW remains always beyond our observation. It also means that time comes into existence at a snail's pace in a black hole and therefore EVERYTHING slows down accordingly. The speed of time and the rate of change become entirely synonymous constructs in a fractal time dimension and the easiest way to think through this is to define reality as a non-linear computation being executed at the speed of light, where the speed of light is determined by gravity. This makes particle physics very easy to understand because it means that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is nothing more than a simple statement of the bloody obvious. We cannot specify both the momentum and location of a particle at the same time for the simple reason that it can't have both at the same time. This is precisely the same uncertainty which you're up against with your real-time modelling of gravity in planetary motion because it is gravity and time alone which determine the behaviour of matter and energy at all scales. The strong and weak nuclear forces, as well as electro-magnetism, are simply observer-derived explanations for the emergent behaviour which is actually caused by gravity at the sub-atomic scale. It's far too simple not to be true because it means that all of physical reality is determined by only a single law, the universal doctrine of causality.

**Obvious Leo**- Forum philosopher
- Posts : 48

Join date : 2015-05-27

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

Yes,

The problem with my real-time data-models is that in order for them

to be perfectly exact, I would need a computer that did its calculations at faster

than Planck-time. Something which itself seems impossible.

But for now I am content with using my slow processes purely to demonstrate

the principles in general, and thus philosophical terms.

Like the infamous problem of rotation curves of galaxies.

Which is solved by realizing that spiral galaxies have 2 centers of gravity:

They are twin systems.

I have been able to replicate the shape of the spiral galaxy with mostly

just Newtonian gravity and quantum time:

Can you see in this photo of a galaxy where the two main bodies are located?

The two bodies spew out stars at their respective equators.

As the main body moves away from the body that it exited from,

the force of gravity diminishes, and it reaches escape velocity.

This is why there is virtually no velocity at the center of the spiral galaxy.

The gravity from the twins cancel each other out.

This link is the summary of this solution:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/summary%20of%20rotation%20curves%20of%20galaxies.htm

The problem with my real-time data-models is that in order for them

to be perfectly exact, I would need a computer that did its calculations at faster

than Planck-time. Something which itself seems impossible.

But for now I am content with using my slow processes purely to demonstrate

the principles in general, and thus philosophical terms.

Like the infamous problem of rotation curves of galaxies.

Which is solved by realizing that spiral galaxies have 2 centers of gravity:

They are twin systems.

I have been able to replicate the shape of the spiral galaxy with mostly

just Newtonian gravity and quantum time:

Can you see in this photo of a galaxy where the two main bodies are located?

The two bodies spew out stars at their respective equators.

As the main body moves away from the body that it exited from,

the force of gravity diminishes, and it reaches escape velocity.

This is why there is virtually no velocity at the center of the spiral galaxy.

The gravity from the twins cancel each other out.

This link is the summary of this solution:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/summary%20of%20rotation%20curves%20of%20galaxies.htm

_________________

www.flight-light-and-spin.com

**Jonathan Ainsley Bain**- forum physicist
- Posts : 185

Join date : 2015-05-24

Age : 47

Location : Africa

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

I think you're onto something quite significant, Jon, which ties in closely with what I'm saying about the 3D space being purely an observer effect. All planetary orbits must precess in the way you illustrate if the observed motion is in the time dimension only, just as a pendulum can never swing through the same arc twice. Furthermore the exact orbit of any planet cannot possibly be calculated beyond a finite order of probability because the relative gravitational motions of all the other bodies in the system cannot be precisely specified. This is what Poincare was working on at the time of his untimely death but in all the SR excitement the significance of his work was overshadowed by the spacetime bullshit. In the three-body problem he managed to show that precise orbits cannot be calculated for any gravitationally bound system, even in principle. He showed that such a system could only be modelled probabilistically and that this could never be done by using Newton's classical mathematics, which coincidentally is the same conclusion that Einstein reached almost 50 years later. Poincare never got very far with the three-body problem because he died young and the mathematical tools to solve it simply didn't exist. However he could see that since every physical entity in the universe was gravitationally bound to every other then his three-body problem was actually an n-body problem with an infinite set of solutions. It was he who laid the groundwork for the future development of fractal geometry, which nowadays used to model every naturally occurring system in nature. Every science except physics knows perfectly well that the real world in non-Newtonian and must therefore be modelled in a real time dimension.

I strongly urge you to study Poincare's approach to gravitational motion, Jon, because it was exactly real-time algorithms he was inventing. I'm not fluent with the tools of mathematics but I'm well schooled in the metaphysical implications of mathematics and what Poincare was describing was unambiguously a non- Newtonian universe existing in a fractal time dimension and beholden to only a single meta-law of non-linear cause and effect. In other words Poincare was defining a universe sufficient to its own existence.

I strongly urge you to study Poincare's approach to gravitational motion, Jon, because it was exactly real-time algorithms he was inventing. I'm not fluent with the tools of mathematics but I'm well schooled in the metaphysical implications of mathematics and what Poincare was describing was unambiguously a non- Newtonian universe existing in a fractal time dimension and beholden to only a single meta-law of non-linear cause and effect. In other words Poincare was defining a universe sufficient to its own existence.

**Obvious Leo**- Forum philosopher
- Posts : 48

Join date : 2015-05-27

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

So when the spacecraft accelerates just before point 'B',

the quantum jump is increased, and the pull back from

the star or planet's gravity is decreased.

This acceleration accumulates for all the jumps afterwards.

I first encountered this playing the excellent computer game

'star control', where one can increase the velocity of the slowest

spaceships by accelerating just before point 'B'. Death to the Urquan!

the quantum jump is increased, and the pull back from

the star or planet's gravity is decreased.

This acceleration accumulates for all the jumps afterwards.

I first encountered this playing the excellent computer game

'star control', where one can increase the velocity of the slowest

spaceships by accelerating just before point 'B'. Death to the Urquan!

_________________

www.flight-light-and-spin.com

**Jonathan Ainsley Bain**- forum physicist
- Posts : 185

Join date : 2015-05-24

Age : 47

Location : Africa

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

Yes, time cannot be a spatial dimension.

Travelling back in time would lead to obvious contradictions.

Its interesting that Ohanian showed that relativity concludes that an object

can move backwards in time: That it started to move before it started to move.

There are so many contradictions in relativity that I have actually lost count,

as each time I reevaluate it, I encounter more.

I don't think that my real-time algorithms are fractal.

As we zoom into an orbit we start to see that quantum time

results in orbits being not-quite-ellipses.

They are, by necessity, polygons, not perfect curves:

There are fewer quantum jumps to the right of the midpoint

in this diagram. This explains how the 'gravity assist' works.

Travelling back in time would lead to obvious contradictions.

Its interesting that Ohanian showed that relativity concludes that an object

can move backwards in time: That it started to move before it started to move.

There are so many contradictions in relativity that I have actually lost count,

as each time I reevaluate it, I encounter more.

I don't think that my real-time algorithms are fractal.

As we zoom into an orbit we start to see that quantum time

results in orbits being not-quite-ellipses.

They are, by necessity, polygons, not perfect curves:

There are fewer quantum jumps to the right of the midpoint

in this diagram. This explains how the 'gravity assist' works.

This is a schematic representation of two calculations of orbit under quantum gravity

due to time being the constant measured unit (Quantum Time).

The celestial voyager (moving A-B-C) gathers more velocity at point B than at point A.

This is due to a higher force of gravity acting on point B, because point B is closer to the star.

So, for velocity: v2 must be faster than v1. There is no other way to compute this in real time.

If the orbit is perfectly elliptical then v2 would be equal to v1, which would result in the

incorrect notion that the voyager would have an equal velocity at point A and point B.

But! Because point B is much closer to the star, the stronger gravity accelerates it to a

higher velocity than at point A. So v2 must be faster than v1.

The only way v1 can be equal to v2 would be if points A, B and C are all the same distance from the star.

If B is closest then v2 is fastest. Think about it. ABC can never be isosceles.

_________________

www.flight-light-and-spin.com

**Jonathan Ainsley Bain**- forum physicist
- Posts : 185

Join date : 2015-05-24

Age : 47

Location : Africa

## Re: Stephen Hawking's Dog

Your real-time algorithms look far too much like fractal geometry to be a coincidence, Jon, so you and Poincare are travelling the same road with respect to the mechanics of gravitational motion. All you need to do is arrive at the same conclusion as Poincare did and declare Minkowski a false prophet because a real-time algorithm simply cannot be a valid methodology in a 4D manifold where time is represented as a spatial dimension.

Over the years I've had lots of fun with the weak anthropic principle in philosophy forums because I regard it as the most philosophically bogus piece of reasoning imaginable. In fact it embarrasses me to admit that the moron who dreamed it up was actually one of my countrymen, but I guess it shows that even Australia can produce its fair quota of dickheads. The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is often also referred to as the Weak As Piss Anthropic Principle (WAPAP) but I personally prefer to call it the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). Essentially the CRAP simply states that if your auntie had balls then she'd be your uncle and it illustrates the utter absurdity of attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event. However the simplest way to understand how deeply flawed the logic of the CRAP actually is by using an analogy posed as a question.

Do you regard it as miraculous that your mother and father should have conceived you in their long-ago act of love rather than some other bloke? Was this an outcome of such astonishing unlikelihood that all the human beings who you are not must also exist somewhere?

The CRAP puts des Cartes before des horse but this is actually unavoidable in spacetime physics because the nonsensical block universe paradigm demands that the future already exists.

Over the years I've had lots of fun with the weak anthropic principle in philosophy forums because I regard it as the most philosophically bogus piece of reasoning imaginable. In fact it embarrasses me to admit that the moron who dreamed it up was actually one of my countrymen, but I guess it shows that even Australia can produce its fair quota of dickheads. The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is often also referred to as the Weak As Piss Anthropic Principle (WAPAP) but I personally prefer to call it the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). Essentially the CRAP simply states that if your auntie had balls then she'd be your uncle and it illustrates the utter absurdity of attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event. However the simplest way to understand how deeply flawed the logic of the CRAP actually is by using an analogy posed as a question.

Do you regard it as miraculous that your mother and father should have conceived you in their long-ago act of love rather than some other bloke? Was this an outcome of such astonishing unlikelihood that all the human beings who you are not must also exist somewhere?

The CRAP puts des Cartes before des horse but this is actually unavoidable in spacetime physics because the nonsensical block universe paradigm demands that the future already exists.

**Obvious Leo**- Forum philosopher
- Posts : 48

Join date : 2015-05-27

## Stephen Hawking's Dog

Hawking makes an assumption which I have to question. He explains the Universe, in what can only be termed circular reasoning,

which he calls the anthropic principle. Basically, we are in a Universe that is just right for our survival because if we were not

we would not survive. He cannot bring himself to Aquinas’ notion that it is just right for us to survive in because it was designed to be.

Well, a two dimensional digestive tract could work quite nicely if it had gates that worked like canals that simply opened and closed

when needed. I have added the closed orange gates to hold the dog together, showing that as the bone passed through its

digestive tract the gate could temporarily open (cyan) and then close again behind it.

Quite a reasonable solution, methinks, Prof!

Yet, he makes quite a deeper misconception as regards the relationship between gravity and the number of spatial dimensions

in our Universe.

He points out in the text above that ‘the least disturbance from a circular orbit … would result in the earth spiraling away from

or into the sun’. He reiterates what I have previously proven in my Solar System model, that even a slight disturbance to a planet

in orbit, eventually multiplies and before long the earth should spiral away into the sun or be thrown out into the deep dark cosmos.

But the mathematically fragile nature of planetary orbits has nothing to do with the number of dimensions involved.

Orbits work regardless of the exponent in the formula: g=m/r^2

G=m/r^0.6 or even g=m/r^2.6 have the same possibility of almost circular orbits forming as any other number in the exponent.

This orbit was generated with gravity g=m/r

But if the starting position and momentum are aligned precisely, a near circular orbit can be generated.

The following are some orbits from a two dimensional Universe which would demand that gravity be g=m/r.

Some orbits are more circular than others. Yet circularity remains within a very narrow band of possible orbits;

regardless of dimensionality. In a two-dimensional Universe the chance of an orbit being almost circular purely

as a result of gravity and randomness are as dismal as they are in a three-dimensional Universe.

Even in Flatland, spin as a starting force for celestial objects would be a prerequisite to a Universe with nicely

designed life-sustaining round shapes to its movements.

Thus it is clearly demonstrated how a real-time algorithm is infinitely superior to pencil-and-paper-math.

which he calls the anthropic principle. Basically, we are in a Universe that is just right for our survival because if we were not

we would not survive. He cannot bring himself to Aquinas’ notion that it is just right for us to survive in because it was designed to be.

Well, a two dimensional digestive tract could work quite nicely if it had gates that worked like canals that simply opened and closed

when needed. I have added the closed orange gates to hold the dog together, showing that as the bone passed through its

digestive tract the gate could temporarily open (cyan) and then close again behind it.

Quite a reasonable solution, methinks, Prof!

Yet, he makes quite a deeper misconception as regards the relationship between gravity and the number of spatial dimensions

in our Universe.

He points out in the text above that ‘the least disturbance from a circular orbit … would result in the earth spiraling away from

or into the sun’. He reiterates what I have previously proven in my Solar System model, that even a slight disturbance to a planet

in orbit, eventually multiplies and before long the earth should spiral away into the sun or be thrown out into the deep dark cosmos.

But the mathematically fragile nature of planetary orbits has nothing to do with the number of dimensions involved.

Orbits work regardless of the exponent in the formula: g=m/r^2

G=m/r^0.6 or even g=m/r^2.6 have the same possibility of almost circular orbits forming as any other number in the exponent.

This orbit was generated with gravity g=m/r

But if the starting position and momentum are aligned precisely, a near circular orbit can be generated.

The following are some orbits from a two dimensional Universe which would demand that gravity be g=m/r.

Some orbits are more circular than others. Yet circularity remains within a very narrow band of possible orbits;

regardless of dimensionality. In a two-dimensional Universe the chance of an orbit being almost circular purely

as a result of gravity and randomness are as dismal as they are in a three-dimensional Universe.

Even in Flatland, spin as a starting force for celestial objects would be a prerequisite to a Universe with nicely

designed life-sustaining round shapes to its movements.

Thus it is clearly demonstrated how a real-time algorithm is infinitely superior to pencil-and-paper-math.

_________________

www.flight-light-and-spin.com

**Jonathan Ainsley Bain**- forum physicist
- Posts : 185

Join date : 2015-05-24

Age : 47

Location : Africa

Similar topics

» STEPHEN "TITCH" MORLEY

» Hermann The German Denkmal

» What is "Mara" supposed to be?

» 3 days onwards

» HI EVERYONE!!!

» Hermann The German Denkmal

» What is "Mara" supposed to be?

» 3 days onwards

» HI EVERYONE!!!

Page

**1**of**1****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum