| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Researcher" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2006 04:04:04 AM |
| Object: |
Let us be positive and find solutions |
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can ever be negative.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations we [humans] stand
to find real solutions and reach understanding in all that is boggling us so
far.
Researcher
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
02 Oct 2006 11:18:21 PM |
|
|
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among other
things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are based on negative
numbers.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
02 Oct 2006 11:36:59 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among other
things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are based on negative
numbers.
David A. Smith
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic methods
should be adhered to and we'd avoid the Spiellberg-level Fairyland
that physics has become, encouraging endless debate.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PHYSCONS.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
03 Oct 2006 09:18:33 AM |
|
|
Dear donstockbauer:
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among
other things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are
based on negative numbers.
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic
methods should be adhered to and we'd avoid the
Spiellberg-level Fairyland that physics has become,
encouraging endless debate.
Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
to measure. It still works.
As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
sail.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Researcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 02:22:27 AM |
|
|
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and ideas and goes towards
proving them.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything which tries to
physically bound an Euclidean straight line has [if it is real] to fall in
the space which otherwise could be the extension of the same 'straight line'
it is trying to limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike mortal beings.
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and imaginary numbers, but they
all play with respect to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or dimensions are to be
considered only in a relative way [for calculation and recasting] but never
amount to any substance.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or negative number] grams ,
second or meters some mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious about
it unless your statement is in relation to some true existence.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a non-positive mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into believing about 'Time
Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except in one's imagination.
Researcher
"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1159885113.637120.12390@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear donstockbauer:
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among
other things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are
based on negative numbers.
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic
methods should be adhered to and we'd avoid the
Spiellberg-level Fairyland that physics has become,
encouraging endless debate.
Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
to measure. It still works.
As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
sail.
David A. Smith
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 08:09:21 AM |
|
|
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:45235344$0$19706$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and
ideas and goes towards proving them.
It is better to look to Nature and see what are reasonable
beliefs and ideas, when applying them to Nature.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything
which tries to physically bound an Euclidean straight
line has [if it is real]
"Euclidean" is clearly is not real, in Nature.
to fall in the space which otherwise could be the
extension of the same 'straight line' it is trying to
limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike
mortal beings.
The Universe had an origin, and that which forms its history
shows that it is decaying down, just as any flesh does. One set
of laws...
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and
imaginary numbers, but they all play with respect
to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
They are exercises in self-consistent logic. If the Universe is
knowable, mathematics will be part of that understanding...
negative and imaginary numbers to boot.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or
dimensions are to be considered only in a relative way
[for calculation and recasting] but never amount to
any substance.
The substance is quantitative prediction, and then see what
Nature *really* does.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or
negative number] grams , second or meters some
mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious
about it unless your statement is in relation to some
true existence.
OK. Nature rules all descriptions of Nature.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a
non-positive mass.
I know of "mass deficit" also known as "binding energy".
Otherwise I know of no negative mass. Even anti-matter has
positive mass. And photons have zero mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into
believing about 'Time Travel'.
My guess is, because the ego would very much like to be able to
go back and erase "mistakes". Do you have a citation where
Einstein said time travel (other than continuously forward) was
possible?
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except
in one's imagination.
I hope you didn't pay too much for that patent. ;>)
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 06:30:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:52:27 +0530, "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
wrote:
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and ideas and goes towards
proving them.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything which tries to
physically bound an Euclidean straight line has [if it is real] to fall in
the space which otherwise could be the extension of the same 'straight line'
it is trying to limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike mortal beings.
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and imaginary numbers, but they
all play with respect to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or dimensions are to be
considered only in a relative way [for calculation and recasting] but never
amount to any substance.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or negative number] grams ,
second or meters some mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious about
it unless your statement is in relation to some true existence.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a non-positive mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into believing about 'Time
Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except in one's imagination.
Researcher
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a series of new
moments of now. Negative time is history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons, but they do not
observably measure "time."
Discuss that, if you will.
"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1159885113.637120.12390@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear donstockbauer:
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among
other things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are
based on negative numbers.
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic
methods should be adhered to and we'd avoid the
Spiellberg-level Fairyland that physics has become,
encouraging endless debate.
Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
to measure. It still works.
As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
sail.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Researcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 11:57:06 AM |
|
|
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:52:27 +0530, "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
wrote:
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and ideas and goes
towards
proving them.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything which tries to
physically bound an Euclidean straight line has [if it is real] to fall
in
the space which otherwise could be the extension of the same 'straight
line'
it is trying to limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike mortal beings.
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and imaginary numbers, but
they
all play with respect to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or dimensions are to be
considered only in a relative way [for calculation and recasting] but
never
amount to any substance.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or negative number]
grams ,
second or meters some mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious
about
it unless your statement is in relation to some true existence.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a non-positive mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into believing about 'Time
Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except in one's imagination.
Researcher
-------------------------------------------
Dear *****,
We can't say time is not going forward.
Time does progress in a steady rate. No relativity involved in case of an
Universal clock.
Now, is just a line between a past full or dead records [which might just be
viewed like a movie if captured by travelling faster than light but never
again physically relived] and the future of continually incrementing changes
and there fore is a cursor on the time scale or dimension as we understand.
There is nothing wrong in that.
Researcher
----------------------------------------------------
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a series of new
moments of now. Negative time is history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons, but they do not
observably measure "time."
Discuss that, if you will.
"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1159885113.637120.12390@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear donstockbauer:
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among
other things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are
based on negative numbers.
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic
methods should be adhered to and we'd avoid the
Spiellberg-level Fairyland that physics has become,
encouraging endless debate.
Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
to measure. It still works.
As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
sail.
David A. Smith
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 06:14:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:27:06 +0530, "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
wrote:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:52:27 +0530, "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
wrote:
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and ideas and goes
towards
proving them.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything which tries to
physically bound an Euclidean straight line has [if it is real] to fall
in
the space which otherwise could be the extension of the same 'straight
line'
it is trying to limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike mortal beings.
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and imaginary numbers, but
they
all play with respect to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or dimensions are to be
considered only in a relative way [for calculation and recasting] but
never
amount to any substance.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or negative number]
grams ,
second or meters some mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious
about
it unless your statement is in relation to some true existence.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a non-positive mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into believing about 'Time
Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except in one's imagination.
Researcher
-------------------------------------------
Dear *****,
We can't say time is not going forward.
Time does progress in a steady rate. No relativity involved in case of an
Universal clock.
How can you even discuss time progressing until you know what time is.
I do know my perception of change varies widely. If I am reading an
interesting book, time flies, if I am bore time drags. At least my
perception of time changes.
Now, is just a line between a past full or dead records [which might just be
viewed like a movie if captured by travelling faster than light but never
again physically relived] and the future of continually incrementing changes
and there fore is a cursor on the time scale or dimension as we understand.
There is nothing wrong in that.
You claim a "time scale," the scale we have is based on standardized
units of energy. Every clock has some form of energy which is metered
and adjusted to International Standards. The "clock" compares how
many standard units are generated by the energy source while 2 or more
changes take place, such as, 2 horses running same distance on 2
tracks. The horse moving across the standard length in the fewest
energy units is called the fastest.
It seems to me what we call time is only relative movement in space
and energy. This is predicated on there only being one "now" at a
time. Movement is a change between historical now positions which the
current position.
Researcher
----------------------------------------------------
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a series of new
moments of now. Negative time is history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons, but they do not
observably measure "time."
Discuss that, if you will.
"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1159885113.637120.12390@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear donstockbauer:
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among
other things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are
based on negative numbers.
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic
methods should be adhered to and we'd avoid the
Spiellberg-level Fairyland that physics has become,
encouraging endless debate.
Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
to measure. It still works.
As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
sail.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 08:19:17 PM |
|
|
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4ff8i2dk7a5geehgcvhj9ng7lagmogre8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:27:06 +0530, "Researcher"
<notmy@email.com>
wrote:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:52:27 +0530, "Researcher"
<notmy@email.com>
wrote:
....
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into
believing about 'Time Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except
in one's imagination.
Researcher
-------------------------------------------
Dear *****,
We can't say time is not going forward.
Time does progress in a steady rate. No relativity
involved in case of an Universal clock.
How can you even discuss time progressing until you
know what time is.
How can you discuss objects moving without knowing what space is?
I do know my perception of change varies widely.
That is why we use instruments in Science.
If I am reading an interesting book, time flies, if I am
bore time drags. At least my perception of time
changes.
Yet instruments indicate the correct amount of time passage.
Time is not limited to what we perceive it to be. Space is
neither as "discrete" as our eyes have it be (based on various
artifacts of human vision), nor as continuous as our intruments
show it to be (based on QM).
Now, is just a line between a past full or dead records
[which might just be viewed like a movie if captured by
travelling faster than light but never again physically
relived] and the future of continually incrementing
changes and there fore is a cursor on the time scale or
dimension as we understand. There is nothing wrong
in that.
You claim a "time scale," the scale we have is based
on standardized units of energy. Every clock has
some form of energy which is metered and adjusted
to International Standards.
The bromate clock is not. The meter is also "metered and
adjusted to International Standards".
The "clock" compares how many standard units are
generated by the energy source while 2 or more
changes take place, such as, 2 horses running same
distance on 2 tracks.
Nuclear decay, chemical change, orbtial motion... all vary with
time, and not all require "units of energy" to move.
The horse moving across the standard length in the
fewest energy units is called the fastest.
Yet it may expend the most energy of all the horses doing so.
It seems to me what we call time is only relative
movement in space and energy. This is predicated on
there only being one "now" at a time. Movement is a
change between historical now positions which the
current position.
You are still defining a timeline. Is "time" a problem for you
because of how the English language defines it?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
05 Oct 2006 07:57:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:19:17 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4ff8i2dk7a5geehgcvhj9ng7lagmogre8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:27:06 +0530, "Researcher"
<notmy@email.com>
wrote:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:52:27 +0530, "Researcher"
<notmy@email.com>
wrote:
...
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into
believing about 'Time Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except
in one's imagination.
Researcher
-------------------------------------------
Dear *****,
We can't say time is not going forward.
Time does progress in a steady rate. No relativity
involved in case of an Universal clock.
How can you even discuss time progressing until you
know what time is.
How can you discuss objects moving without knowing what space is?
I do know my perception of change varies widely.
That is why we use instruments in Science.
If I am reading an interesting book, time flies, if I am
bore time drags. At least my perception of time
changes.
Yet instruments indicate the correct amount of time passage.
Time is not limited to what we perceive it to be. Space is
neither as "discrete" as our eyes have it be (based on various
artifacts of human vision), nor as continuous as our intruments
show it to be (based on QM).
Now, is just a line between a past full or dead records
[which might just be viewed like a movie if captured by
travelling faster than light but never again physically
relived] and the future of continually incrementing
changes and there fore is a cursor on the time scale or
dimension as we understand. There is nothing wrong
in that.
You claim a "time scale," the scale we have is based
on standardized units of energy. Every clock has
some form of energy which is metered and adjusted
to International Standards.
The bromate clock is not. The meter is also "metered and
adjusted to International Standards".
The "clock" compares how many standard units are
generated by the energy source while 2 or more
changes take place, such as, 2 horses running same
distance on 2 tracks.
Nuclear decay, chemical change, orbtial motion... all vary with
time, and not all require "units of energy" to move.
The horse moving across the standard length in the
fewest energy units is called the fastest.
Yet it may expend the most energy of all the horses doing so.
It seems to me what we call time is only relative
movement in space and energy. This is predicated on
there only being one "now" at a time. Movement is a
change between historical now positions which the
current position.
You are still defining a timeline. Is "time" a problem for you
because of how the English language defines it?
David A. Smith
David, you and I will never be able to discuss "time." I accept time
as a convenience. You see it as an independent dimension.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
05 Oct 2006 10:10:00 AM |
|
|
Dear *****:
***** wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:19:17 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
....
It seems to me what we call time is only relative
movement in space and energy. This is predicated on
there only being one "now" at a time. Movement is a
change between historical now positions which the
current position.
You are still defining a timeline. Is "time" a problem for you
because of how the English language defines it?
David, you and I will never be able to discuss "time."
I accept time as a convenience. You see it as an
independent dimension.
You asked that it be debated. I am attempting to hold up my end of the
debate.
You place some special significance on "now", not noticing that you
also place a special significance on "here" (wherever that may be).
You and I do not have the same "now", any more than we share the same
"here". We may be able to "synchronize" our nows, just as we may be
able to establish a distance between us (which when you think about
it... says exactly the same thing).
If you only feel that you are arguing, and you cannot hear what I say,
then we can be done. I do listen to you, I know it doesn't feel like
it. Agreement isn't necessary for debate, nor is aquiesence. Nobody
has to "win".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
05 Oct 2006 04:15:42 PM |
|
|
In article <p60ai21hgl5t54k18p39dk6q49lkj59172@4ax.com>,
***** <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
David, you and I will never be able to discuss "time." I accept time
as a convenience. You see it as an independent dimension.
*****
There are times which are damnably inconvenient.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
05 Oct 2006 06:34:51 PM |
|
|
Vigil If time is nothing,and space is nothing than spacetime is
nothing. Reality is events take place in space,and time adds much more
meaning to this area of space where the event(action occurred) Virgil if
you need help understanding this I can give you good examples Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 08:11:46 AM |
|
|
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
....
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
"Comparisons" of what?
Discuss that, if you will.
Two way street. It cannot be "my way, or the highway".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 06:02:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is a yardstick, but
I can see what the yardstick measures. What does the clock measure?
Take a clock apart and show me the "time."
"Comparisons" of what?
Discuss that, if you will.
Two way street. It cannot be "my way, or the highway".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 08:06:50 PM |
|
|
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:38f8i2dhfmc1tishu6fd646atagad3ra8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is
a yardstick, but I can see what the yardstick measures.
You cannot see space. What you see is what light brings you from
objects.
What does the clock measure? Take a clock apart and
show me the "time."
Take a ruler apart and show me space.
So you agree that either space or time is independent, and the
other (time or space) is dependent?
You are of course aware that NIST and the international community
chose time as being independent, and allow time and c to
establish space... Whether or not you agree with that particular
choice.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
05 Oct 2006 07:54:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:06:50 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:38f8i2dhfmc1tishu6fd646atagad3ra8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is
a yardstick, but I can see what the yardstick measures.
You cannot see space. What you see is what light brings you from
objects.
Space is as real as it gets, which may be limited. However, I do more
than see light from objects, I can touch them.
What does the clock measure? Take a clock apart and
show me the "time."
Take a ruler apart and show me space.
The ruler is tangible and complete as is. It does the same thing a
clock does, it provides standardized, uniform units for comparison.
The difference, I can see and touch what the ruler measures.
I can neither see nor touch "time." My experience of "now" time finds
it not uniform.
So you agree that either space or time is independent, and the
other (time or space) is dependent?
I must have missed something, I don't recall saying anything such, I
don't even know what you are saying.
You are of course aware that NIST and the international community
chose time as being independent, and allow time and c to
establish space... Whether or not you agree with that particular
choice.
Your word, not mine "chose time as being independent."
CNN reported, this morning, scientists have managed to "teleport" a
bunch of molecules. Interesting to see where this leads.
"The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic
object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported
the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be
extended further."
Science News also carried the article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000E9691-0261-1524-826183414B7F0000
What happens to your "time" if light and matter can be teleported?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Researcher" |
|
| Title: Time and its need. Also, why at all must the light travel? |
06 Oct 2006 12:38:37 AM |
|
|
Dear *****,
I wonder how I can try and convince you of the need use and reality about
'Time' or 'Time Stamp'.
I am sure you must be following certain line of thinking on the subject and
proposing your ideas based on such findings. If you have any background
material on your ideology you may share with me.
As of this instance, I have this to state about what 'Time' means to me.
It is of course a dimension and a steady scale measuring the aging Process ;
of everything Universe, you and me.
If I may say so, you seem to discount the relevance of 'Time' and view
Universe as a 'System' like 'Automata' in Computer Science where the
'System' remains as it is unless some external input is received. Between
such instances equivalence prevails and 'Time' is static.
Well,then even the best design of computer is based on a real-time clock for
controlling every step.
In a real world[our universe] a lot of things happen in a steady rate.
The sun blowing out its rays,carbon decay,light traveling etc and etc which
requires us to measure and 'time stamp' every occurrence for correlation.
Why should you have an objection to it?
Because the Universe taken as a whole can never remain same between instants
however minutely interspaced.
I really wonder what is the 'compelling reason' for light to 'travel' or
'propogate'.
Why at all it is starting - where it is headed to from its origin.
But I don't object to it. We just have to understand.
If we can find this reason and the cycle of 'cause and effect' we may reach
somewhere. That is, what exactly is the cause of 'emission of light', 'where
it is headed to' and 'what is its aim'?
Maybe it is just obeying the command "Let there be light".
Researcher
------------------------------------------------------------------
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2qu9i217c6ec1pi79f5aec3ldfq9ivtngl@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:06:50 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:38f8i2dhfmc1tishu6fd646atagad3ra8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is
a yardstick, but I can see what the yardstick measures.
You cannot see space. What you see is what light brings you from
objects.
Space is as real as it gets, which may be limited. However, I do more
than see light from objects, I can touch them.
What does the clock measure? Take a clock apart and
show me the "time."
Take a ruler apart and show me space.
The ruler is tangible and complete as is. It does the same thing a
clock does, it provides standardized, uniform units for comparison.
The difference, I can see and touch what the ruler measures.
I can neither see nor touch "time." My experience of "now" time finds
it not uniform.
So you agree that either space or time is independent, and the
other (time or space) is dependent?
I must have missed something, I don't recall saying anything such, I
don't even know what you are saying.
You are of course aware that NIST and the international community
chose time as being independent, and allow time and c to
establish space... Whether or not you agree with that particular
choice.
Your word, not mine "chose time as being independent."
CNN reported, this morning, scientists have managed to "teleport" a
bunch of molecules. Interesting to see where this leads.
"The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic
object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported
the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be
extended further."
Science News also carried the article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000E9691-0261-1524-826183414B7F0000
What happens to your "time" if light and matter can be teleported?
David A. Smith
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Time and its need. Also, why at all must the light travel? |
06 Oct 2006 08:25:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:37 +0530, "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
wrote:
Dear *****,
I wonder how I can try and convince you of the need use and reality about
'Time' or 'Time Stamp'.
I have often said "time" is a convenient convention.
I am sure you must be following certain line of thinking on the subject and
proposing your ideas based on such findings. If you have any background
material on your ideology you may share with me.
I have no ideological script.
As of this instance, I have this to state about what 'Time' means to me.
It is of course a dimension and a steady scale measuring the aging Process ;
of everything Universe, you and me.
The basic question I raise, "Is time a dimension"?
"Scales" measure, "put in balance." I equate your "aging Process"
with "entropy." I think entropy is what clocks measure. If you are
equating time with entropy, fine. Entropy of me balanced against
entropy of you. Not very insightful, but more to the point.
Man is the measure of all things. Early efforts to organize hunting
trips undoubtedly relied on the position of the sun to coordinate
large hunts. "It is time to hunt," probably was a start of the
concept. There is a very practical reason for devising means to
coordinate man's activities. "Practical reasons" do not a dimension
make.
"Now" is the only quasi time we know. Movement through space and
energy dissipation we know.
If I may say so, you seem to discount the relevance of 'Time' and view
Universe as a 'System' like 'Automata' in Computer Science where the
'System' remains as it is unless some external input is received. Between
such instances equivalence prevails and 'Time' is static.
Now is the only space we know. Things move in space, one frame after
another. Sequences of now frames. As "now" new arrives, motion can
be detected against "now" past. "Now" and space. Memory or history
of now past, provides our minds with a means of detecting motion.
Motion is relative to whatever we want to relate to. I want to shoot
a deer with my arrow. The deer exerts energy, I exert energy. Using
mind created vectors including measures of mass and relative energy my
mind can calculate an intersection point. Long before man had
"clocks" he made such vital calculations. One might say an ability to
make such calculation made him more fit to survive.
Well,then even the best design of computer is based on a real-time clock for
controlling every step.
I guess you are not familiar with asynchronous control.
Our hearts beat, but not uniformly. Their beat varies with the
environment. The heart beat is asynchronous, but functions well.
I do agree we do rely on uniform units of increment for "bus"
computer systems, but it is a choice. The "clock" merely a metronome
making a beat. Slaves rowed boats to the metronome of a drum beat.
Any uniform increment can be used to coordinate human behavior.
In a real world[our universe] a lot of things happen in a steady rate.
The sun blowing out its rays,carbon decay,light traveling etc and etc which
requires us to measure and 'time stamp' every occurrence for correlation.
I really question your belief the sun "acts in a steady rate."
However, that is not important. Uniform or random, man has found
clocks useful tools.
What do clocks measure? An inch is an inch due to international
standards have been accepted. However, my bow is still about the same
length from the ground as is my forehead. Inches allow comparison of
distance. I can touch my bow, bend an arrow to it, feel the energy as
I draw the string. Clocks measure what? The flow of energy from a
battery, the pull of gravity on a pendulum, the movement of the sun
across the sky.
Your "time" is not even uniform if modern "teleportation" experiments
mean anything. Where is your time keeper when distance can be crossed
in "now"?
Why should you have an objection to it?
Only because I don't think it is a valid dimensions. As a tool,
useful to man, of course I have no objection.
Because the Universe taken as a whole can never remain same between instants
however minutely interspaced.
I should hope not, that would surely be "death."
I have never said there was no motion, a change of space between now
present (awareness) and now past (memory) is the currency with which
the mind can form the "idea" of motion. Consider a motion picture
film made of frames. Look at any one frame and show me "motion." Run
the frames in sequence and your mind "sees" motion. Now put two
sequential frames side by side on a viewer. What do you see different
between the two frames? Image shifts against a set of coordinates.
Change of images in space.
I really wonder what is the 'compelling reason' for light to 'travel' or
'propogate'.
Because that is the way of the universe. We do not create the laws
governing the universe, we discover them.
Why at all it is starting - where it is headed to from its origin.
Why does man question his existence? It seems to be part of living.
But I don't object to it. We just have to understand.
I think you and I, engaging in this discussion, are unique. Most
people are satisfied to "live" their lives, never questioning "why"
except when asking "why did I drink so much?" the morning after.
Perhaps you and I are cursed, but I find pleasure in questioning the
world around me. I hope you to find pleasure in our "romp" in the
field of ideas.
If we can find this reason and the cycle of 'cause and effect' we may reach
somewhere. That is, what exactly is the cause of 'emission of light', 'where
it is headed to' and 'what is its aim'?
I drove my new Pontiac convertible over the side of a cliff in the
mountains. As the hood pointed towards the tops of some trees, I had
one thought: "Well, this is it! I wonder what's next?"
I am not convinced there will be a "next," but I hope there is. I
have a lot of questions I would like to ask.
Maybe it is just obeying the command "Let there be light".
You didn't mention my mention of "teleportation." What made this
week's experiment unique was it moved mass and light. It moved
information instantaneously. Light and matter are the ingredients for
transferring information. Now, that is something to ponder.
Thanks Researcher for an interesting discussion.
*****
Researcher
------------------------------------------------------------------
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2qu9i217c6ec1pi79f5aec3ldfq9ivtngl@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:06:50 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:38f8i2dhfmc1tishu6fd646atagad3ra8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is
a yardstick, but I can see what the yardstick measures.
You cannot see space. What you see is what light brings you from
objects.
Space is as real as it gets, which may be limited. However, I do more
than see light from objects, I can touch them.
What does the clock measure? Take a clock apart and
show me the "time."
Take a ruler apart and show me space.
The ruler is tangible and complete as is. It does the same thing a
clock does, it provides standardized, uniform units for comparison.
The difference, I can see and touch what the ruler measures.
I can neither see nor touch "time." My experience of "now" time finds
it not uniform.
So you agree that either space or time is independent, and the
other (time or space) is dependent?
I must have missed something, I don't recall saying anything such, I
don't even know what you are saying.
You are of course aware that NIST and the international community
chose time as being independent, and allow time and c to
establish space... Whether or not you agree with that particular
choice.
Your word, not mine "chose time as being independent."
CNN reported, this morning, scientists have managed to "teleport" a
bunch of molecules. Interesting to see where this leads.
"The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic
object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported
the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be
extended further."
Science News also carried the article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000E9691-0261-1524-826183414B7F0000
What happens to your "time" if light and matter can be teleported?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
05 Oct 2006 08:07:59 AM |
|
|
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2qu9i217c6ec1pi79f5aec3ldfq9ivtngl@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:06:50 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:38f8i2dhfmc1tishu6fd646atagad3ra8s@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is
a yardstick, but I can see what the yardstick measures.
You cannot see space. What you see is what light
brings you from objects.
Space is as real as it gets, which may be limited.
However, I do more than see light from objects, I can
touch them.
The sense of touch, and the solid surface that you touch are all
EM-based. Charge, that which makes a surface solid, is derived
from virtual photons.
What does the clock measure? Take a clock apart and
show me the "time."
Take a ruler apart and show me space.
The ruler is tangible and complete as is.
As is a clock.
It does the same thing a clock does, it provides
standardized, uniform units for comparison.
The difference, I can see and touch what the
ruler measures.
You can neither see nor touch space. You see delayed events in
space.
I can neither see nor touch "time." My
experience of "now" time finds it not uniform.
Space is asymmetrically filled with objects. I perceive space to
be not uniform.
So you agree that either space or time is independent,
and the other (time or space) is dependent?
I must have missed something, I don't recall saying
anything such, I don't even know what you are saying.
You accept that space is "real", and time is some sort of running
illusion.
You are of course aware that NIST and the
international community chose time as being
independent, and allow time and c to establish
space... Whether or not you agree with that
particular choice.
Your word, not mine "chose time as being independent."
CNN reported, this morning, scientists have managed
to "teleport" a bunch of molecules. Interesting to see
where this leads.
"The experiment involved for the first time a
macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of
billions of atoms. They also teleported the information
a distance of half a meter but believe it can be
extended further."
Science News also carried the article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000E9691-0261-1524-826183414B7F0000
What happens to your "time" if light and matter can
be teleported?
Neither space nor time exist at the quantum level. Bose Einstein
condensates are (essentially) continuous distributions of matter,
with no particular location for any particular bit of matter.
I'll get excited when they teleport a virus, and find it to be
viable.
Time is the result of the second law of thermodynamics. Space is
the result of conservation of momentum. Both laws require a
closed system to apply. "System" is the key word...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boris Mohar" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 07:05:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:02:45 -0500, ***** <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear *****:
"*****" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
...
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
series of new moments of now. Negative time is
history, future time propositions.
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
but they do not observably measure "time."
Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is a yardstick, but
I can see what the yardstick measures. What does the clock measure?
Take a clock apart and show me the "time."
I'd be wasting my time.
--
Boris Mohar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boris Mohar" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 06:41:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:30:40 -0500, ***** <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a series of new
moments of now. Negative time is history, future time propositions.
What defines the separation between the moments? How does one moment end new
one begin?
Clocks are very useful for making comparisons, but they do not
observably measure "time."
Comparisons of what?
--
Boris Mohar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fishfry" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
02 Oct 2006 11:05:22 PM |
|
|
In article <4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can ever be negative.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations we [humans] stand
to find real solutions and reach understanding in all that is boggling us so
far.
You starting a campaign to abolish negative numbers?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
02 Oct 2006 10:56:09 PM |
|
|
Researcher wrote:
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go back in Time.
Time can certainly be negative, as can be length, etc. Every study
Feynman diagrams?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagrams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "guenther vonKnakspot" |
|
| Title: Re: Let us be positive and find solutions |
04 Oct 2006 08:18:51 AM |
|
|
Researcher wrote:
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can ever be negative.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations we [humans] stand
to find real solutions and reach understanding in all that is boggling us so
far.
Researcher
Apart of wishing to make a concession to your apparently extensive
shortcommings, can you provide any serious reason to make this
consideration? Can you, under your assumption, show us a single real
solution to something "that has been boggling us so far"? Or are you
just making an apology for ignorance and sloth?
Regards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Researcher" |
|
| Title: What we need to solve |
15 Oct 2006 12:18:43 AM |
|
|
Well, What's boggling us :
[1] We don't fully understand the cosmos as to its
size,design,composition,behaviour in future or its nature.
Reason : I cannot feel,touch or see and observe everything I want or
travel to wherever I want or be alive as much as I need.
[2] We don't fully understand physical phenomena though we claim to or feel
so.
Like :
We don't know how to measure space or time accurately while being part of
the same system we are observing and get carried away by relativistic
effects.
Imagine for a moment, I am able to observe and measure the Universe without
being part of it [from outside the entire space-boundary]. Then I can
observe it from Newtonian standards and perhaps understand fully.
Having said these I must admit I am asking for more than any moon and it
won't be possible. So, only what as mere mortals we can do should be
explored.
What exactly is the structure of matter pervading the universe?
Can I say it only exists in Solid, Liquid , gaseous and energy form?
What is the compelling reason or just reason for it to exist in a particular
form at a certain moment and not arbitrarily change to another form on its
own. If only physical laws of nature must bring about changes what are they?
Apart from this variation in form the very structure of formation in terms
of component particles,atoms,molecules is worthy of thorough understanding.
Such a rich variety and varying physical properties [difference between
sand,silver and gold just because of few changes in the assortment of
particles] occuring and Chemistry has to explain the genesis,tranformation
and conversion to total energy of this matter in different elemental forms
as to what process and application of energy brings about each
transformation.
This is only the general preview of what I have to say.
Though I wanted to go on and give a thorough exposition of my line of
thinking, I'll try and publish it in an authentic media
Researcher
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are the background correspondence already posted and received for
reference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and ideas and goes towards
proving them.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything which tries to
physically bound an Euclidean straight line has [if it is real] to fall in
the space which otherwise could be the extension of the same 'straight line'
it is trying to limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike mortal beings.
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and imaginary numbers, but they
all play with respect to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or dimensions are to be
considered only in a relative way [for calculation and recasting] but never
amount to any substance.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or negative number] grams ,
second or meters about some mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious
about
it unless your statement is in relation to some true existence.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a non-positive mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into believing about 'Time
Travel'.
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except in one's imagination.
Researcher
----------------------------------------------------
"guenther vonKnakspot" <apacur@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159967930.902977.281850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Researcher wrote:
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can ever be negative.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations we [humans] stand
to find real solutions and reach understanding in all that is boggling us
so
far.
Researcher
Apart of wishing to make a concession to your apparently extensive
shortcommings, can you provide any serious reason to make this
consideration? Can you, under your assumption, show us a single real
solution to something "that has been boggling us so far"? Or are you
just making an apology for ignorance and sloth?
Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tblUg.178269$FQ1.123330@attbi_s71...
Researcher wrote:
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go back in Time.
Time can certainly be negative, as can be length, etc. Every study
Feynman diagrams?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagrams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:bwlUg.1495$v43.382@fed1read02...
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Hi all,
Let me explain what I mean.
Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
ever be negative.
Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
described by any real number.
Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
length or be able to go back in Time.
Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among other
things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are based on negative
numbers.
David A. Smith
---------------------------------------------------------
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159850219.319713.143510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic methods
should be adhered to and we'd avoid the Spiellberg-level Fairyland
that physics has become, encouraging endless debate.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PHYSCONS.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear donstockbauer:
Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
to measure. It still works.
As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
sail.
David A. Smith
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Researcher:
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:45235344$0$19706$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Yes friends,
Thank you for the responses.
Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and
ideas and goes towards proving them.
It is better to look to Nature and see what are reasonable
beliefs and ideas, when applying them to Nature.
Universe could be endless and limitless as anything
which tries to physically bound an Euclidean straight
line has [if it is real]
"Euclidean" is clearly is not real, in Nature.
to fall in the space which otherwise could be the
extension of the same 'straight line' it is trying to
limit.
And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike
mortal beings.
The Universe had an origin, and that which forms its history
shows that it is decaying down, just as any flesh does. One set
of laws...
Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and
imaginary numbers, but they all play with respect
to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.
They are exercises in self-consistent logic. If the Universe is
knowable, mathematics will be part of that understanding...
negative and imaginary numbers to boot.
So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or
dimensions are to be considered only in a relative way
[for calculation and recasting] but never amount to
any substance.
The substance is quantitative prediction, and then see what
Nature *really* does.
You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or
negative number] grams , second or meters some
mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious
about it unless your statement is in relation to some
true existence.
OK. Nature rules all descriptions of Nature.
So, let us take the obvious case of mass.
Can you tell me what you understand by a
non-positive mass.
I know of "mass deficit" also known as "binding energy".
Otherwise I know of no negative mass. Even anti-matter has
positive mass. And photons have zero mass.
I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into
believing about 'Time Travel'.
My guess is, because the ego would very much like to be able to
go back and erase "mistakes". Do you have a citation where
Einstein said time travel (other than continuously forward) was
possible?
So, let me make my patented statement.
There is nothing called going back in time; except
in one's imagination.
I hope you didn't pay too much for that patent. ;>)
David A. Smith
------------------------------------------------------
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
