Watsisname wrote:Source of the post How are you making an observational connection if does not come from performing an observation? How can one be justified in saying "X looks like what would be expected from Y", if the expectation from Y did not arise from experiment or by math?
It went a little like this: "Hey that looks odd, but familiar, like this:" I rather created a connection that I would later have to do the math to check, as in I need to see if the math still checks out, this is by far no where near a full blown alternative model. What I am seeing so far is like at a "proto-conjecture" stage. I don't think the Schrodinger equation is wrong at all. On my own time I am just going to be trying to work out the math for matter over time, I wan't to see if I can express a system over an infinite amount of time by just inputting the system, direction of causality, orientation, local time rate, and so on... Thats how I got myself into the whole relativity mess, I wanted to find the local time rate. I started with time dilation and accidentally got escape velocity and rapidity and minkowski space, I would say the problem evolved. Then I tried to express a particle changing states in a multi-dimensional timeline (to express all possibilities) and accidentally got a section of the Schrodinger equation embedded in a pensrose diagram... So excuse me if I am a little over my head in my questions and responses, because I am XD, but this certainly has been a learning experience!
2nd thing (added later so I don't double post): What is time rate in relation to time? Is it the "wavelength" of systems in time or is it the "phase" of a system in time? Is there a difference? One being objects experience time at different speeds, and the other objects actually progress through time at different speeds (settings its "phase" farther back thus creating an effect like that of a light cone)?