Einstein's Theory of Relativity depends on the concept of 'expansion of time' observed due to relative motion or due to the effect of gravity. Consider an observer 'O' observes something 'S' in a frame of reference in a specific motion relative to 'O'. Then 'O' will observe that time at 'S' is going slowly compared to the time at 'O'. 'O' can observe the same effect due to gravitical force at 'S'.
Now if time is cyclic of 5,000 years as BKs, PBKs & some exBKs consider, then this goes against Einstein's theory. Consider a hypothetical experiment in which the observer 'O' can observe complete time cycle which takes place at his own location & also at the location of 'S'. Then 'O' will measure the period of one time cycle, at his own location, which will be equal to 5,000 years. But he will found that the period of one time cycle is greater than 5,000 years at the location of 'S' due to the effect of relative motion or gravity.
Thus if Einstein's theory is considered correct, then the BK concept of '5,000 years of one time cycle' may be wrong. As period of one time cycle which takes place at 'S' will depend on motion relative to the observer 'O', or it will depend on gravitical force at 'S'. Thus the period of one time cycle may be different for different frames of reference & not 5,000 years for all frames of reference.
But if we consider BK concept of '5,000 years time cycle' as a real fact & if we consider period of one time cycle as 5,000 years for all frames of reference, irrespective of relative motion or gravity, then Einstein's theory of relativity collapses.
Thus either Einstein's Theory of Relativity or BK concept of '5,000 years time cycle' is correct. Which, both of them, is correct?  That's the matter of your own choice. For me the BK concept is correct. What do you think? Please reply.
Cyclic nature of time & Einstein's Theory of Relativity
Re: Cyclic nature of time & Einstein's theory of relativ
I think Einstein Relativistic model is a good mathematical approximation of some real phenomena. But it has its own shortcomings and so it cannot exactly hold true in all events. I don't think the speed of light is constant.new_world wrote:Thus either Einstein's Theory of Relativity or BK concept of '5,000 years time cycle' is correct. Which, both of them, is correct?  That's the matter of your own choice. For me the BK concept is correct. What do you think? Please reply.
There are some scientists out there who still venerate Newtonian Physics and extended its principles to include phenomena attributable to relativity. Extended Newtonian Physics can be fit pretty well to a lot of data observed and explained by relativity.
The truth is we don't know and we may never know the absolute (exact to the the last decimal digit) mathematical relation concerning the interaction of all known forces in the universe. We can only derive and formulate very accurate models. Another point is, all physical phenomenon seems to follow a probablistic relation (i.e. wave equation) and so there is always the element of uncertainty.
With regards to 5000 years cycle (God, that is an absolute number!), which I am kinda sick and tired of listening to, my thought is, it threw out the element of uncertainty, i.e., they factored out the wave function, a very real representation of all physical phenomena.
Merge threads
Dear administrators, what's problem to merge this thread into the thread 'The mathematics of Gyan'? Both these threads discuss on the same topic 'cyclic nature of time'.
But for me your decission is final. OK.
But for me your decission is final. OK.

 Academic
 Posts: 463
 Joined: 05 Aug 2007
 Affinity to the BKWSU: exBK
 Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: questioning bkpbk knowledge
Re: Cyclic nature of time & Einstein's Theory of Relativity
This thread is created by me under the nickname 'new world'. How can 'BK Cyclic Time Model' be interpreted by Einstein's theory of Relativity? According to this 'Cyclic Time' concept, each & every observer (soul) & each & every frame of reference is bound to Cyclic Time Repeatation, i.e, there exists not a single observer or frame of reference which does not undergo Cyclic Time Repeatation. Then, how is it possible to observe & come to the conclusion that time is cyclic, in the absence of at least one frame of reference which does not undergo Cyclic Time Repeatation, with respect to which it would be possible to observe & conclude that time is cyclic?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests