| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Tapper" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2003 11:32:26 AM |
| Object: |
Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
.
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
18 Sep 2003 01:26:19 PM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com...
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.
There is all the evidence that space exist.
There is no connection between space and time that means that one has no
physical influence on the other.
The definition of space does not exist if there are no objects of matter.
The definition of time does not exist if there is no motion of matter in
space.
Space has no shape or dimension only the object of matter in space have
dimensions and shapes.
Bending is a process describing the change of geometrical shape of a
material object.
Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no shape or
dimension.
All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.
My definition of time states that time is only a ration of motion of objects
of matter.
My definition of time is based on physical evidence and only defines the
practical scientific aspect of it that can be measured with physical
instruments and can be proven in a physical experiment.
The geometric time definition only exists if the geometry of the matter is
changing and does not state that
time is a ratio of motion.
Feather more there is the only one way of measuring what is called the time
and that is the way of measuring the ratio of motion.
All clocking devices which represent the reference motion are based on
periodic motion of matter (particles or waves).
The property of matter that cannot be measured or detected has only a
philosophical or metaphysical application.
I do not tolerate fallacy!
Physics are about properties of reality!
If you say that there exist a property of space that you call space-time
than if you do not provide physical evidence of that property.
Than I will immediately call you theory FALSE or Sci-Fi.
Sincerely,
ps.
My theory of relativity:
Everything in the universe is relative!
My definition of time:
Time is a ratio of motions and is always measured as such,
ratio between measured and reference motions.
The reference motions are periodic (pendulums clocks) or linear (predictable
displacements).
Example:
I walk 5m while clocks pendulum swings 3 times(periodic reference).
I walk 3m while 1kg weight falls down from the height of 1m at see level at
20deg centigrade etc.(predictable displacement reference)
Time is a method of measuring or synchronizing motions.
Anything else is Sci-Fi!
The has not been a single experiment proving that static fields of any know
kind can propagate.
Propagation of any static field can only be done by moving its source.
The source of gravity always contains matter in forms of atoms it exits with
the matter and it can be controlled by changing the densities of the matter.
Changes in gravity detected on the earth are the results of planetary
motions in the universe not by
propagation of the gravity field.
The precision clocks (reference periodic motion counters) are based on
counting periodic motion of the electrons in specially chosen
atoms. Which means that they are affected by gravity and gravity forces
differ with the altitude change above the earth.
Saying that time goes slower is correct since in my definition time is a
ratio of motions not a constant derive from c.
The space and matter in its various form exists, but the definition of time
only exists if there is matter in motion.
Every atom in the universe has it own gravity field.
Well, if you build your theory on definition used in existing theories,
than that means that you are attempting to modify an or improve the
existing ones.
The existing theories your are creating your vocabulary based up on, have
faults and lack of experimental
prove, so your modified theories will carry on the unreliable and unproven
elements.
The new theories should be based on prime definition and proven in physical
experiments.
Your asking to agree with your statements may result in endless waste of
time.
So let's present new and solid theories instead and have discussions about
them!
When you try to measure time than you will notice
that all you are doing is measuring a ratio of motions!
No motion, no time can be measured.
Assumption of nonexistent property.
Clocks do not keep time.
They count repetitive motion.
There is no definition of "proper time".
Simple, it is repetitive motion.
And time is a ratio of motion,
so to measure the repetitive motion of the first clock we use the count of
more grainer
motion.
The same applies to distance between the marks on given rule,
one uses the more grainer ruler and so on.
And this metrology logic is several thousand years old.
Now since we know what clock do, maybe now you can define the "proper
time"?
There is a hierahical existance of definitions and that is:
Definition of space exists only if there are objects of matter.
Definition of time exists if there is motion of matter.
Definition of space distance exists if there is a ratio of size of objects
of matter.
Ans so on...
No,
motion passes in ratio of time.
Time is a method and not a property of space.
We measure time by comparing reference motion to measured motion.
Examples:
I walk 3m (measured motion) while clock swings his pendulum 2 times
(reference motion).
I walk 1.2m (measured motion) while weight of 1kg drops down from height
of 1m at sea level and 20deg centigrade temperature (reference motion)..
For practical reasons humans agreed to use period motion as a reference
motion.
We use planetary periodic motion and its subdivisions (day, hour,sec etc..)
as the reference motion
for measuring and or synchronizing motions.
As an engineer I describe your time in the following way:
Time is a reference count for synchronizing the human motion.
Clocks are the mechanisms of distributing the reference count.
Distributed reference count allow people and machines to move synchronously.
Finally clocks do not measure time(time is the method) but count periodic
motion.
"What time it is?" people and machines are asking when they choose to find
if and when their motion is
out of phase.
Connecting time with the space has no useful practical porpoise.
Spacetime is a word invented by GTR inventers and
despite wishful thinking, it does not alter the motion of the matter.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
18 Sep 2003 11:40:20 AM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com...
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
and they use it to predict when and whether a bullet
will hit a target.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred Einstead" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
08 Oct 2003 10:42:10 PM |
|
|
(John Tapper) wrote:
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward?
But time doesn't move. Movement is something that takes place in time.
There isn't yet another time that time moves in. It's just there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Powers" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
02 Nov 2003 06:06:07 AM |
|
|
(Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0310081942.3095d139@posting.google.com>...
xixj_0@yahoo.com (John Tapper) wrote:
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward?
But time doesn't move. Movement is something that takes place in time.
There isn't yet another time that time moves in. It's just there.
In John's Universe not only can you not measure time or even
demonstrate that it exists at all, it is also a useless concept. So
in physics it is excluded.
In response to those who stated that using radioactive decay as a
clock somehow contradicts what John has to say: Clearly there is
motion during radioactive decay. I would say that for any change
whatsoever to occur there must be motion of particles.
Now consider this thought experiment: suppose we have a universe in
which Newton's (or Einstein's) laws of motion do not apply. A body
moving in empty space with no forces acting upon does NOT move in a
straight line at a constant speed. The earth does not rotate with
constant velocity, so a day does not have constant length. I claim
that the concept of time falls apart. So the concept of time is a
consequence of the laws of motion.
The point of this is: time is an abstraction convenient for
calculations concerning motion in this Universe, nothing more. So why
is this definition useful? Once this is realized then questions about
"time moving" or not moving, traveling in time, time going backwards,
etc. are revealed as having no meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 07:59:58 PM |
|
|
How long has it (time) not moved for, if it is not moving at all?
Time is an abstract,
It has no base in reality.
even if all clocks stop,
time still counts how long they stop for
at one second per second always
unless you need a sci-fi novel or movie.
:)
--
Spaceman
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com...
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
20 Sep 2003 12:33:11 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
How long has it (time) not moved for, if it is not moving at all?
Time is an abstract,
It has no base in reality.
even if all clocks stop,
time still counts how long they stop for
at one second per second always
unless you need a sci-fi novel or movie.
:)
How long has it been since you posted?
That's a lot of (time). ;)
Or I missed it.
HowUbin?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
21 Sep 2003 08:58:17 PM |
|
|
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:lgpnmvsrmk5oe54i1b6jl7u2l25ufos0e5@4ax.com...
How long has it been since you posted?
That's a lot of (time). ;)
Or I missed it.
HowUbin?
Hi Jim,
It is has been a few revs of Earth and such since I posted.
I still can't believe how brainwashed and time illiterate these
physics dupes still are.
It's too bad,
I guess they are all lost in the land of time,
without a proper clock still.
and without the actual smarts about what clocks do
in the most basic of thier function.
In short terms,
It is sad these physics dupes forgot how to count
periodically.
:)
It's TIME for new teachers.
:)
Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
21 Sep 2003 11:21:42 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:lgpnmvsrmk5oe54i1b6jl7u2l25ufos0e5@4ax.com...
How long has it been since you posted?
That's a lot of (time). ;)
Or I missed it.
HowUbin?
Hi Jim,
It is has been a few revs of Earth and such since I posted.
I still can't believe how brainwashed and time illiterate these
physics dupes still are.
It's too bad,
I guess they are all lost in the land of time,
without a proper clock still.
and without the actual smarts about what clocks do
in the most basic of thier function.
In short terms,
It is sad these physics dupes forgot how to count
periodically.
I'm sure they understand the periodicity of time measuring mechanisms,
but time, as a concept, can be useful in real-world applications.
And it's nice, to *not* be late for work in the morning. :)
:)
It's TIME for new teachers.
:)
I think science/scientists inertia, is its/their bane *and* savior.
It just takes time to sort out reality.
Spaceman
Were you lurking, or just gone?
Lots of the "same old" while you were out, and also
lots of new cool stuff, and new silliness too. :)
Enjoy your visit.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
22 Sep 2003 06:30:22 PM |
|
|
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:l7tsmvs7vqd0p9qan57vlkfoume0rfngcg@4ax.com...
I'm sure they understand the periodicity of time measuring mechanisms,
I can tell they do not each and every time they state time changes rate,
instead of stat5ing a clock malfunctioned in it's proper function.
Were you lurking, or just gone?
I would not waste "time" only lurking here.
:)
I still can not believe people think clocks that goof up,
are not goofing up
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
22 Sep 2003 09:52:04 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:l7tsmvs7vqd0p9qan57vlkfoume0rfngcg@4ax.com...
I'm sure they understand the periodicity of time measuring mechanisms,
I can tell they do not each and every time they state time changes rate,
instead of stat5ing a clock malfunctioned in it's proper function.
I seem to remember you believing, there was no such thing as time.
So If the time, others believe in, changes rate, what's the big deal?
It's their time, not yours. It can have any properties they wish it to
have.
I think time can change. I'm not sure we have evidence of it.
Experiments seem to suggest it can happen.
None, done by myself, personally. :)
Were you lurking, or just gone?
I would not waste "time" only lurking here.
:)
So you took off for awhile. Cool. Hope you had a nice vacation.
Welcome back, enjoy your stay.
I still can not believe people think clocks that goof up,
are not goofing up
:)
Oh well, watayagonnado? :)
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
23 Sep 2003 06:45:47 PM |
|
|
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:tscvmvc23n9qpi22oldja22n9f4q25qguj@4ax.com...
I seem to remember you believing, there was no such thing as time.
There is no phyisical object that is time.
Time is an abstract.
So If the time, others believe in, changes rate, what's the big deal?
IT's not "time" changing rate,
It is a clock that is malfunctioning in keeping it's periodic motion counts.
It's their time, not yours. It can have any properties they wish it to
have.
It's SciFi when used in those crap "time changing rate" meanings.
I think time can change. I'm not sure we have evidence of it.
Experiments seem to suggest it can happen.
No,
All experiments only prove not one "perfect clock"
has been created yet and only the duped and ignorant /or scam artists,
keep thinking a clock actually measures a physical thing known as time at all.
Oh well, watayagonnado? :)
Laugh Out Loudk, as usual, at the ignorant and stupid "bags of mostly water".
<LOL>
:)
Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
22 Sep 2003 03:00:09 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Spaceman@realspaceman.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:58:17 GMT
<ZGsbb.121495$mp.62301@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>:
"Jim" <lose30lbs@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:lgpnmvsrmk5oe54i1b6jl7u2l25ufos0e5@4ax.com...
How long has it been since you posted?
That's a lot of (time). ;)
Or I missed it.
HowUbin?
Hi Jim,
It is has been a few revs of Earth and such since I posted.
I still can't believe how brainwashed and time illiterate these
physics dupes still are.
It's too bad,
I guess they are all lost in the land of time,
without a proper clock still.
I for one hope your absence proved fruitful in constructing such. :-)
and without the actual smarts about what clocks do
in the most basic of thier function.
What do clocks do?
They tick.
What do they tick?
Well, we call it "time". But time does funny things. If there's
a different definition of "time" that I'm missing, by all means
enlighten me. It's fairly obvious in Haefele-Keating that they
had to contend with a cesium-beam ion clock doing slightly
weird stuff, for example; it complicated their conclusions.
In short terms,
It is sad these physics dupes forgot how to count
periodically.
:)
It's TIME for new teachers.
:)
So teach us, then, O Spaceman, Man Of Knowledge Regarding All Clocks. :-)
Spaceman
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
22 Sep 2003 06:28:22 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:7gj241-7ov.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Well, we call it "time". But time does funny things. If there's
a different definition of "time" that I'm missing, by all means
enlighten me.
I have tried,
You do not understand the simple word, "periodic" if you say
time does funny things.
periodic is not variable.
clocks that are non periodic at all times are at fault,
not time itself.
Try waking up some "Earth rev"
Do miles stop passing by when a speedometer is broken
in your car, but you are traveling with others cars doing 55 mph?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
22 Sep 2003 11:00:20 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Spaceman@realspaceman.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:28:22 GMT
<qALbb.315446$2x.93001@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:7gj241-7ov.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Well, we call it "time". But time does funny things. If there's
a different definition of "time" that I'm missing, by all means
enlighten me.
I have tried,
You do not understand the simple word, "periodic" if you say
time does funny things.
Time *does* do funny things. Here's a simple one for you.
It's not a perfect analogy, admittedly, but it might
illustrate some of the difficulties of measuring time.
First, allow that a train whistle is a sort of clock, yes?
It has periodic vibrations, that can be heard by the ear.
(While not normally thought of in this fashion, it is clear
that one could use a mike an frequency counter, if one so
chooses. Of course a frequency counter is a local clock in
its own right.)
Ride along with the train whistle. It goes toot toot.
The pitch is constant.
Now stand near the tracks (not too near). Watch the train
pass by. The toots vary in pitch.
Now in this case the pitch change is because of travel
through the medium (air). But even with a light clock
things get interesting -- and even more interesting because
of various issues with contraction, which I won't go into
here at the moment.
periodic is not variable.
clocks that are non periodic at all times are at fault,
not time itself.
Exactly. So why do all clocks (or at least the ones sent
up so far) break in exactly the same fashion when orbiting Earth?
Found your "perfect clock" yet?
Try waking up some "Earth rev"
Do miles stop passing by when a speedometer is broken
in your car, but you are traveling with others cars doing 55 mph?
Depends on how one looks at it. If a tree falls in
the forest, does it produce a sound? Does it produce a
noise? Does it release energy? Miles are a human
artifact, a fixed length (to a nonmoving observer, anyway).
Clock ticks are also an artifact which we call "time".
To change that definition requires a number of formulaic
modifications -- and may require an absolute Basic Universal
Reference Point (BURP) or perhaps a Beginning Energy Emission
Reference (BEER) -- the location of the Big Bang, essentially.
Does the tick of a vibrating cesium atom vary according to
the velocity of an observer relative to the BURP or the BEER?
Or is it the same in all reference frames?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
23 Sep 2003 06:47:23 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:tto441-jj3.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Time *does* do funny things.
Wrong.
Clocks do funny and "predictable" things.
time is not a "thing" that can do anything at all.
It is an abstract.
Do lengths do funny things too?
<LOL>
Ghost,
I see you still have no clue what periodic means?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
24 Sep 2003 01:00:05 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Spaceman@realspaceman.com>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:47:23 GMT
<fY4cb.418421$Oz4.209073@rwcrnsc54>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote in message
news:tto441-jj3.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Time *does* do funny things.
Wrong.
Clocks do funny and "predictable" things.
time is not a "thing" that can do anything at all.
It is an abstract.
Define it, then, in such a way as it does not do
funny things.
(I've suggested a SPLAT -- oh, sorry, Spaceman Perfectly
Located Absolute Time, or some such (damn, now I have
to go through my own posts!) for your clock basis.
This defines an absolute point. Of course, one could
move the SPLAT and define another absolute point, but
the idea is that everyone knows where the SPLAT is.
Clocks away from the SPLAT will get their time from the
SPLAT, and compensate for lightspeed -- as the SPLAT
broadcasts its reference signals at the speed of light.)
Do lengths do funny things too?
<LOL>
As it turns out, they do. Admittedly, it's a little
hard to measure when the particle is whizzing
by you at .99c but it is, from all computations,
squished.
Ghost,
I see you still have no clue what periodic means?
Periodic: of or relating to regular motion.
There's a difference between FM and random noise, but that's
probably way too oblique for you. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
24 Sep 2003 06:51:53 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:i7j741-336.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Define it, then, in such a way as it does not do
funny things.
Periodic.
Try looking up the word.
Here is a simple english translation.
"a counting rate that never changes rate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
25 Sep 2003 08:16:47 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Spaceman@realspaceman.com>
wrote
on Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:51:53 GMT
<t6qcb.333876$2x.98445@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote in message
news:i7j741-336.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Define it, then, in such a way as it does not do
funny things.
Periodic.
Try looking up the word.
Here is a simple english translation.
"a counting rate that never changes rate".
Therefore, FM carrier waves are not periodic, I take it?
Also, define "never". That's a very long time.
In order to ascertain that a certain signal vibrating at 1 Hz
is periodic to within 1/p of a second, assuming one has a
perfectly periodic signal of 1 Hz handy, one has to measure
it to a certain fraction of p seconds, as the idea is the
errors would accumulate after awhile, making them detectable.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
25 Sep 2003 06:15:21 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:977a41-en8.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Spaceman@realspaceman.com>
wrote
on Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:51:53 GMT
<t6qcb.333876$2x.98445@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote in message
news:i7j741-336.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Define it, then, in such a way as it does not do
funny things.
Periodic.
Try looking up the word.
Here is a simple english translation.
"a counting rate that never changes rate".
Therefore, FM carrier waves are not periodic, I take it?
If the Frequency changes (Modulates)
It is not periodic and unchanging.
Also, define "never".
No need,
I already know you will "never" get it since you do
not think on your own, and have been brainwashed by the mighty
atomic clock, and time changing crap you worship.
Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 09:02:07 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
How long has it (time) not moved for, if it is not moving at all?
Time is an abstract,
It has no base in reality.
even if all clocks stop,
time still counts how long they stop for
at one second per second always
unless you need a sci-fi novel or movie.
:)
--
Spaceman
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com...
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?
1) Where is the clock in the Mossbauer effect, Spaceshit?
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
2) Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped):
(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Clock for Spaceshit
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman
Spaceshit emulator
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
Chew on it
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 10:53:18 PM |
|
|
Tell us about gravity uncle idiot.
Wellcome back spaceman ..
how was sturges ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 08:49:28 PM |
|
|
Spaceshit wrote:
How long has it (time) not moved for, if it is not moving at all?
Time is an abstract,
It has no base in reality.
even if all clocks stop,
time still counts how long they stop for
at one second per second always
unless you need a sci-fi novel or movie.
:)
ту
`
Time Dilation
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = E |
19 Sep 2003 10:51:26 PM |
|
|
the rate energy will react with energy C.
Its the universal gage idnentical to conservation.
It take phd plus 2000 books plus yourdeapest darkest self to understand
the simplicity of the universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nine Stones" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
20 Sep 2003 08:19:20 AM |
|
|
In message <c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com>, John
Tapper <xixj_0@yahoo.com> writes
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
When you have the Existence of Particles in a Universe, the world line
of the Universe produces the manifestation of this thing we know as
Time.
It will be worth your while to consider radioactive decay in relation to
Time.
--
The Universe
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
18 Sep 2003 03:28:20 PM |
|
|
John Tapper <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com...
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
No. Two reasons.
1. Something has to stop them.
2. They will radiate when it does (There are non-mass particles in the *this
Universe*).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
18 Sep 2003 03:56:49 PM |
|
|
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message
news:3f6a1622$0$51873$38cece19@news.newshosting.com...
John Tapper <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0309180832.59169c26@posting.google.com...
What is this "t" in all these Physics equations? They call it "time"
but that does not exlain what it is. It seems all measurements of time
-- rising sun, moving hands in clock -- all of these relate to motion.
Suppose all particles in the Universe suddenly stopped moving (each
point-mass has velocity=0 relative to other particles) and there were
no non-mass particles -- then would time move forward? Or say consider
this same space-time Universe but with only two particles existing,
both having mass. Does time stop when they stop? Why not?
No. Two reasons.
1. Something has to stop them.
2. They will radiate when it does (There are non-mass particles in the
*this
Universe*).
The mutual gravity will make the combine and they will radiate all
the energy and freeze and stop.
Since time is a ratio of motions, than time will not be define any more.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tapper" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 11:11:02 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bkd65e$e9a$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message
news:3f6a1622$0$51873$38cece19@news.newshosting.com...
No. Two reasons.
1. Something has to stop them.
2. They will radiate when it does (There are non-mass particles in the
*this
Universe*).
The mutual gravity will make the combine and they will radiate all
the energy and freeze and stop.
Since time is a ratio of motions, than time will not be define any more.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Very interesting. But how can you so confidently proclaim that "time
is a ratio of motions." Further, what do you mean by "than time will
not be define[d] any more." What does "define" mean? If it is a ratio
of motions what is the ratio for two non-moving objects?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 01:34:47 PM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0309190811.8a6deeb@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bkd65e$e9a$1@news.onet.pl>...
"Ed Keane III" <keane@westelcom.com> wrote in message
news:3f6a1622$0$51873$38cece19@news.newshosting.com...
No. Two reasons.
1. Something has to stop them.
2. They will radiate when it does (There are non-mass particles in the
*this
Universe*).
The mutual gravity will make the combine and they will radiate all
the energy and freeze and stop.
Since time is a ratio of motions, than time will not be define any
more.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Very interesting. But how can you so confidently proclaim that "time
is a ratio of motions." Further, what do you mean by "than time will
not be define[d] any more." What does "define" mean? If it is a ratio
of motions what is the ratio for two non-moving objects?
Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.
There is all the evidence that space exist.
There is no connection between space and time that means that one has no
physical influence on the other.
The definition of space does not exist if there are no objects of matter.
The definition of time does not exist if there is no motion of matter in
space.
Space has no shape or dimension only the object of matter in space have
dimensions and shapes.
Bending is a process describing the change of geometrical shape of a
material object.
Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no shape or
dimension.
All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.
My definition of time states that time is only a ration of motion of objects
of matter.
My definition of time is based on physical evidence and only defines the
practical scientific aspect of it that can be measured with physical
instruments and can be proven in a physical experiment.
The geometric time definition only exists if the geometry of the matter is
changing and does not state that
time is a ratio of motion.
Feather more there is the only one way of measuring what is called the time
and that is the way of measuring the ratio of motion.
All clocking devices which represent the reference motion are based on
periodic motion of matter (particles or waves).
The property of matter that cannot be measured or detected has only a
philosophical or metaphysical application.
I do not tolerate fallacy!
Physics are about properties of reality!
If you say that there exist a property of space that you call space-time
than if you do not provide physical evidence of that property.
Than I will immediately call you theory FALSE or Sci-Fi.
Sincerely,
ps.
My theory of relativity:
Everything in the universe is relative!
My definition of time:
Time is a ratio of motions and is always measured as such,
ratio between measured and reference motions.
The reference motions are periodic (pendulums clocks) or linear (predictable
displacements).
Example:
I walk 5m while clocks pendulum swings 3 times(periodic reference).
I walk 3m while 1kg weight falls down from the height of 1m at see level at
20deg centigrade etc.(predictable displacement reference)
Time is a method of measuring or synchronizing motions.
Anything else is Sci-Fi!
The has not been a single experiment proving that static fields of any know
kind can propagate.
Propagation of any static field can only be done by moving its source.
The source of gravity always contains matter in forms of atoms it exits with
the matter and it can be controlled by changing the densities of the matter.
Changes in gravity detected on the earth are the results of planetary
motions in the universe not by
propagation of the gravity field.
The precision clocks (reference periodic motion counters) are based on
counting periodic motion of the electrons in specially chosen
atoms. Which means that they are affected by gravity and gravity forces
differ with the altitude change above the earth.
Saying that time goes slower is correct since in my definition time is a
ratio of motions not a constant derive from c.
The space and matter in its various form exists, but the definition of time
only exists if there is matter in motion.
Every atom in the universe has it own gravity field.
Well, if you build your theory on definition used in existing theories,
than that means that you are attempting to modify an or improve the
existing ones.
The existing theories your are creating your vocabulary based up on, have
faults and lack of experimental
prove, so your modified theories will carry on the unreliable and unproven
elements.
The new theories should be based on prime definition and proven in physical
experiments.
Your asking to agree with your statements may result in endless waste of
time.
So let's present new and solid theories instead and have discussions about
them!
When you try to measure time than you will notice
that all you are doing is measuring a ratio of motions!
No motion, no time can be measured.
Assumption of nonexistent property.
Clocks do not keep time.
They count repetitive motion.
There is no definition of "proper time".
Simple, it is repetitive motion.
And time is a ratio of motion,
so to measure the repetitive motion of the first clock we use the count of
more grainer
motion.
The same applies to distance between the marks on given rule,
one uses the more grainer ruler and so on.
And this metrology logic is several thousand years old.
Now since we know what clock do, maybe now you can define the "proper
time"?
There is a hierahical existance of definitions and that is:
Definition of space exists only if there are objects of matter.
Definition of time exists if there is motion of matter.
Definition of space distance exists if there is a ratio of size of objects
of matter.
Ans so on...
No,
motion passes in ratio of time.
Time is a method and not a property of space.
We measure time by comparing reference motion to measured motion.
Examples:
I walk 3m (measured motion) while clock swings his pendulum 2 times
(reference motion).
I walk 1.2m (measured motion) while weight of 1kg drops down from height
of 1m at sea level and 20deg centigrade temperature (reference motion)..
For practical reasons humans agreed to use period motion as a reference
motion.
We use planetary periodic motion and its subdivisions (day, hour,sec etc..)
as the reference motion
for measuring and or synchronizing motions.
As an engineer I describe your time in the following way:
Time is a reference count for synchronizing the human motion.
Clocks are the mechanisms of distributing the reference count.
Distributed reference count allow people and machines to move synchronously.
Finally clocks do not measure time(time is the method) but count periodic
motion.
"What time it is?" people and machines are asking when they choose to find
if and when their motion is
out of phase.
Connecting time with the space has no useful practical porpoise.
Spacetime is a word invented by GTR inventers and
despite wishful thinking, it does not alter the motion of the matter.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
19 Sep 2003 07:41:21 PM |
|
|
Mathew Orman wrote:
Connecting time with the space has no useful practical porpoise.
I'm not normally one to carp, but your fish puns are making me feel eel.
This is not the right plaice for them.
Oh, and you know Jack ***** about physics.
--
Pyriform
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Time = fallacious invention of Physics? |
20 Sep 2003 02:59:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:34:47 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:
Particle move in space and time is the ratio of motions between this
particle and the reference motion represented by
instruments like clocks.
There is all the evidence that space exist.
Strictly by definition...
There is no connection between space and time that means that one has no
physical influence on the other.
Quite obviously, you're unfamiliar with relativity of simultaneity,
which seems to disprove what you just said...
The definition of space does not exist if there are no objects of matter.
A relativist couldn't have said it any better...
Space has no shape or dimension only the object of matter in space have
dimensions and shapes.
Bending is a process describing the change of geometrical shape of a
material object.
Bending of space is impossible because ones again the space have no shape or
dimension.
You must be unfamiliar with concepts of differential geometry...
All statements above where proven true in physical experiments.
Yeah, like observations of the advancement of Mercury's perihelion and
the bending of light near the sun...
My definition of time states that time is only a ration of motion of objects
of matter.
A ration? I have no idea what you're saying...
My definition of time is based on physical evidence and only defines the
practical scientific aspect of it that can be measured with physical
instruments and can be proven in a physical experiment.
It's been shown repeatedly that clocks tick slower the faster they
move and when they are in a gravitational field...
The geometric time definition only exists if the geometry of the matter is
changing and does not state that
time is a ratio of motion.
???
Feather more there is the only one way of measuring what is called the time
and that is the way of measuring the ratio of motion.
Yeah, it's called a clock...
All clocking devices which represent the reference motion are based on
periodic motion of matter (particles or waves).
The property of matter that cannot be measured or detected has only a
philosophical or metaphysical application.
I do not tolerate fallacy!
Physics are about properties of reality!
If you say that there exist a property of space that you call space-time
than if you do not provide physical evidence of that property.
There's a whole heap of evidence for the existence of a unified
spacetime. Has been for nearly a hundred years. If you're going to
be deaf and blind to it, that's your problem...
Than I will immediately call you theory FALSE or Sci-Fi.
Sincerely,
ps.
My theory of relativity:
Everything in the universe is relative!
My definition of time:
Time is a ratio of motions and is always measured as such,
ratio between measured and reference motions.
The reference motions are periodic (pendulums clocks) or linear (predictable
displacements).
Example:
I walk 5m while clocks pendulum swings 3 times(periodic reference).
I walk 3m while 1kg weight falls down from the height of 1m at see level at
20deg centigrade etc.(predictable displacement reference)
Time is a method of measuring or synchronizing motions.
Anything else is Sci-Fi!
The has not been a single experiment proving that static fields of any know
kind can propagate.
Propagation of any static field can only be done by moving its source.
The source of gravity always contains matter in forms of atoms it exits with
the matter and it can be controlled by changing the densities of the matter.
Changes in gravity detected on the earth are the results of planetary
motions in the universe not by
propagation of the gravity field.
The precision clocks (reference periodic motion counters) are based on
counting periodic motion of the electrons in specially chosen
atoms. Which means that they are affected by gravity and gravity forces
differ with the altitude change above the earth.
Saying that time goes slower is correct since in my definition time is a
ratio of motions not a constant derive from c.
The space and matter in its various form exists, but the definition of time
only exists if there is matter in motion.
Every atom in the universe has it own gravity field.
Well, if you build your theory on definition used in existing theories,
than that means that you are attempting to modify an or improve the
existing ones.
The existing theories your are creating your vocabulary based up on, have
faults and lack of experimental
prove, so your modified theories will carry on the unreliable and unproven
elements.
The new theories should be based on prime definition and proven in physical
experiments.
Your asking to agree with your statements may result in endless waste of
time.
So let's present new and solid theories instead and have discussions about
them!
When you try to measure time than you will notice
that all you are doing is measuring a ratio of motions!
No motion, no time can be measured.
Assumption of nonexistent property.
Clocks do not keep time.
They count repetitive motion.
There is no definition of "proper time".
Simple, it is repetitive motion.
And time is a ratio of motion,
so to measure the repetitive motion of the first clock we use the count of
more grainer
motion.
The same applies to distance between the marks on given rule,
one uses the more grainer ruler and so on.
And this metrology logic is several thousand years old.
Now since we know what clock do, maybe now you can define the "proper
time"?
There is a hierahical existance of definitions and that is:
Definition of space exists only if there are objects of matter.
Definition of time exists if there is motion of matter.
Definition of space distance exists if there is a ratio of size of objects
of matter.
Ans so on...
No,
motion passes in ratio of time.
Time is a method and not a property of space.
We measure time by comparing reference motion to measured motion.
Examples:
I walk 3m (measured motion) while clock swings his pendulum 2 times
(reference motion).
I walk 1.2m (measured motion) while weight of 1kg drops down from height
of 1m at sea level and 20deg centigrade temperature (reference motion)..
For practical reasons humans agreed to use period motion as a reference
motion.
We use planetary periodic motion and its subdivisions (day, hour,sec etc..)
as the reference motion
for measuring and or synchronizing motions.
As an engineer I describe your time in the following way:
Time is a reference count for synchronizing the human motion.
Clocks are the mechanisms of distributing the reference count.
Distributed reference count allow people and machines to move synchronously.
Finally clocks do not measure time(time is the method) but count periodic
motion.
"What time it is?" people and machines are asking when they choose to find
if and when their motion is
out of phase.
Connecting time with the space has no useful practical porpoise.
Spacetime is a word invented by GTR inventers and
despite wishful thinking, it does not alter the motion of the matter.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|