First of all let us set up the stipulations
- Time moves faster on a satellite than on earth.
- Time moves slower on a flying aircraft than on earth.
- Time moves slower closer to a massive object like the earth.
- Time moves faster on the top of a mountain than at its base.
The above stipulations cause a lot of confusion among scientists. And it should. Some scientists say that time moves slower on a satellite than on earth and some say the opposite. Time moves faster on the satellite than on earth, period. A satellite has a velocity of about 25,000 km per hour. An aircraft more close to earth travels at a speed of a mere 800 km per hour at about mountain top altitude, but the aircraft is aging relatively slower. At the top of a mountain, time moves faster than down in the lowlands. Scientists says that this is due to the longer distance from the center of the earth. That is true. But they also say that this is why the satellite age faster and not slower than an idle viewer down on the earth. Sure, it probably affects the total aging to a degree, but at the same time the satellite has a relatively fast velocity, it’s not stuck on a pole in the ground. So the satellite should, according to Einstein’s original theory of relativity, actually age relatively slower than on earth, just like the flying aircraft does. If time moves faster on top of a mountain, why doesn’t time move faster onboard an aircraft flying at mountain top level? Especially since the aircraft has got considerably lower speed than the satellite in space, which do age faster. I can explain why it doesn’t, in a way that dispels all the confusion.
- Is compliant with fact
- Explains connections between facts (incl. anomalies)
- Is contradiction-free
- Is bold (according to Popper)
- Is testable (verifiable or falsifiable)
- Is not ad hoc
- Is simple (”beautiful”)
Something that can be conveyed from one person’s mind to another person’s consciousness is information, if the person receiving the information perceives it as the transmitter intended. That the receiver syncs the information that the transmitter has in the head is a confirmation that the information is logic. But for this to be possible, it requires that the receiver is at least as intelligent as the transmitter alt. that the transmitted information is simple enough for the receiver to perceive the information as the transmitter had intended for the receiver to perceive it. A proviso must be included. Emotions can also be conveyed between a transmitter and one or more receivers. But emotions are more likely to have a socially logical function rather than that emotions are purely irrational. E.g. in mating and child caring or in the forming of communities and nations. It’s just that you can’t build houses with emotional expressions. Although you may want to build a house with emotional expressions. From this follows that emotions can be logical from an evolutionary perspective. Everything indicates that emotions and logical thinking are mixed to varying degrees in solving problems, music production, and in grief, revenge, happiness, envy, curiosity, etc.
Teaser for my total rebuttal of Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem.
So we have two statements:
- A means that A is unprovable
- False formulas are unprovable
One can easily replace (1) with either “False A is unprovable” or “True A is unprovable”.
(- +) = (-) (imaginary)
(+ +) = (+) (true)
(- -) = (+) (true)
(+ -) = (-) (imaginary)
The following is an explanation of what I am claiming here:
- We would get (- +) = (-) (imaginary) if A could be false and provable, which it cannot. False propositions cannot be proved true.
- We get the formula (+ +) = (+) (true) if it is true and provable.
- We get (- -) = (+) (true) if it is false and unprovable.
- Thus we get the formula (+ -) = (-) (imaginary) for the true and unprovable.