 God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Step By Step Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on March 4, 2002 02:47:00 UTC

Does this seem reasonable then:

Can you give any example of "time" that does not involve "distance"?

Whenever people talk of time, they refer to a distance. Example: the distance the hand of a clock moves. The distance the Earth rotates about its axis. The distance a caesium atom vibrates.
Do you agree with this (step 1)?

Now, how do you measure a distance? You compare it with another distance, right? Do you agree with step 2?

But how do you compare one distance that could be anything, with another distance that could be anything? You can only say a ratio between the two. Agree with step 3?

If I place a biro along the edge of a sheet of paper; to find out how many biro-lengths the paper-edge is long, requires me to move the biro in a series of jumps along the paper (or rotate the biro end over end). Agree with step 4?

And to measure a new piece of paper; I could use, as a ruler, my old piece of paper that is now subdivided as so-many biro-lengths. Agree with step 5?

Haven't time to explain what I said about fields just now, but is this O.K.:

Is it O.K. to substitute "reference distance" for all uses of "time" in equations (based on Step 1)? If not, why not?

Example of substitution:

In "The Force Of Symmetry", by Vincent Icke it says that the dimension of Planck's constant is angular momentum: h-bar = mass x speed x length = energy x time. So based on step 1, I say = energy x reference length.

The book says that the dimensions of speed of light c = speed = length x time. So I say = length x reference length.

The book says that Coulomb's law (electromagnetism) is force = charge squared / length squared.

It says that force x displacement = energy.

It say that then Coulomb's law is: charge squared = energy x length.

e is charge and the book says that only one dimensionless number can be constructed from h-bar, c, and e namely alpha = e squared / h-bar sq.

alpha = 1/137.036 is "fine structure constant" according to the book.

But if I substitute "reference length" for "time" I get: they said charge squared is energy x length. They said h-bar is energy x time.
I say (step 1) time is just reference length; so

charge squared =
energy x length
(now taking 'length' as 'reference length) =
energy x time =
h-bar

To keep note of the fact that I called something "reference" I will refer to that aspect as a "1 jump" in perspective

They say fine structure constant alpha = charge squared / h-bar x c
so since I found charge squared = h-bar (via a change in perspective by calling 'length' as 'reference length')
then we have alpha = (reference) h-bar / h-bar x c
so since h-bar/h-bar = 1 (but keeping note of the 'jump' in changing perspective)
we have alpha = 1 jump x c
and since c has dimensions speed or distance / time
which I call distance/ reference distance
then alpha = 1 jump x 1 jump
(as distance/ reference distance is just 1 x 1 jump in perspective.)

If the two jumps are not just cancelling back and forth; then there must be a third jump between then that is the result of them (like adding two vectors gives a third).

So I have "fine structure constant" is 3 jumps as in a triangle. Which tallies with my "3-way-jump" theory though I only figured out this Coulomb-related stuff here now.

Is there any error in the logic?

Anything against going through physics this way? That is; replacing "time" with "reference distance" and acknowledging the "reference" by the concept of "1 jump (in perspective)"?

-dolphin  