| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"BURT" |
| Date: |
25 Dec 2007 03:42:19 PM |
| Object: |
Time doesn't belong to geometry |
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
| User: "foolsrushin." |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
25 Dec 2007 06:22:08 PM |
|
|
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
26 Dec 2007 02:25:39 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 4:22=A0pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
26 Dec 2007 07:37:19 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 2:25 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:22 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?
Mitch Raemsch
The same direction my penis curves in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
26 Dec 2007 07:52:04 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 5:37=A0pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:25 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:22 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve ther=
e
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us=
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?
Mitch Raemsch
The same direction my penis curves in.
That must be the END to time.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
27 Dec 2007 06:26:25 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 5:52=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:37=A0pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:25 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:22 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve th=
ere
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about =
us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?
Mitch Raemsch
The same direction my penis curves in.
That must be the END to time.
Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Einstein imagined time as geometry. I believe that it occupies curved
space but it is not geometry itself.
The only substance time has is that it slows down in timeshells or
Riemann spheres.
That is time. It is flat.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang©" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 01:14:39 AM |
|
|
"BURT" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bee23ecd-cd42-4f3a-b9a3-0b4aa6b00b33@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 5:52 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:37 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:25 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:22 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve
there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about
us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?
Mitch Raemsch
The same direction my penis curves in.
That must be the END to time.
Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Einstein imagined time as geometry. I believe that it occupies curved
space but it is not geometry itself.
The only substance time has is that it slows down in timeshells or
Riemann spheres.
TJ: Time goes one way - as does the cosmic expansion and entropy. Past
time, less entropy, less expansion. Future time, more entropy, more
expansion. I don't th ink time is geometrical either. Space - sure is.
That is time. It is flat.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
26 Dec 2007 07:15:49 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 3:25 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:22 pm, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
If time were a curved dimension what direction would it curve in?
Mitch Raemsch
Towards tomorrow.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 02:03:21 AM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 2:22=A0am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
--------------
time* does* belong to geometry
because
time is comparison of motions!
and if so
motion does belong to geomerty!!
yet i agree that nothing ofit belong to 'curved space time '
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 03:21:54 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 12:03=A0am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:22=A0am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
--------------
time* does* belong to geometry
because
time is comparison of motions!
But You don't need clocks or their motion for there to be time. There
is empty time.
Mitch Raemsch
and if so
motion does belong to geomerty!!
yet i agree that nothing ofit belong to 'curved space time '
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 07:33:37 AM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 11:21=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:03=A0am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:22=A0am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve ther=
e
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us=
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
--------------
time* does* belong to geometry
because
time is comparison of motions!
But You don't need clocks or their motion for there to be time. There
is empty time.
i ddint say clockes
i saied motion and relative motion!!
if there is no motion there is no time !!
just isnt ! no empthy and no not empthy
if there is motion in any point at any point of the universe
or even in molecules of your brain
times goes on
but if al that does not exist there is no time
i will tell you a thought experiement that i did while i was about 16
years:
supose that at a certian point of our existance **all motion of all
universes -- stops for one billion years
and than symoltaniously starts its movement again
my question is and was then as i wass 16 years is:
will you notice the elaps time' of that billin years
that i described above ???
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Mitch Raemsch
and if so
motion does belong to geomerty!!
yet i agree that nothing ofit belong to 'curved space time '
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 03:26:43 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 1:21=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:03=A0am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:22=A0am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve ther=
e
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about us=
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
--------------
time* does* belong to geometry
because
time is comparison of motions!
But You don't need clocks or their motion for there to be time. There
is empty time.
Mitch Raemsch
and if so
motion does belong to geomerty!!
yet i agree that nothing ofit belong to 'curved space time '
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A sure sign of the failing of Einstein's Relativity Theory is when
Einstein started to consider the idea that time doesn't exist. It
slows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 04:23:12 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 1:26=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:21=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:03=A0am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:22=A0am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve th=
ere
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing about =
us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
--------------
time* does* belong to geometry
because
time is comparison of motions!
But You don't need clocks or their motion for there to be time. There
is empty time.
Mitch Raemsch
and if so
motion does belong to geomerty!!
yet i agree that nothing ofit belong to 'curved space time '
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A sure sign of the failing of Einstein's Relativity Theory is when
Einstein started to consider the idea that time doesn't exist. It
slows.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Time gets its geometry from space. There are not two seperate
geometries
Time is not a geomtry. There can be a total of only one geometry and
that is curved space.
Time Occupies the geometry of curved space. TIme does curve in the
timeshells of curved space.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light fall --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 07:35:54 AM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 12:23=A0am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:26=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:21=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:03=A0am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2:22=A0am, "foolsrushin." <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Dec, 21:42, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve =
there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
Time stops everything happening together. If we and all thing abou=
t us
were getting younger, how could we tell?
--
'foolsrushin.'
--------------
time* does* belong to geometry
because
time is comparison of motions!
But You don't need clocks or their motion for there to be time. There
is empty time.
Mitch Raemsch
and if so
motion does belong to geomerty!!
yet i agree that nothing ofit belong to 'curved space time '
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A sure sign of the failing of Einstein's Relativity Theory is when
Einstein started to consider the idea that time doesn't exist. It
slows.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Time gets its geometry from space. There are not two seperate
geometries
Time is not a geomtry. There can be a total of only one geometry and
that is curved space.
Time Occupies the geometry of curved space. TIme does curve in the
timeshells of curved space.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light fall --- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------
time curves only if you beleive in curved sapxce time
ifyou dont beleive in it it does not curve
btw
look for my 'Circlon' idea
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 02:16:50 AM |
|
|
Time belongs to s/he who utilizes it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NoEinstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
30 Dec 2007 11:22:08 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 4:42 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
Mitch Raemsch
ATTENTION: Those of you who are interested in discussing the various
moot points of Einstein's theories, or the off-shoots of his
"reasoning", are invited to view the various posts of -- NoEinstein --
who has conclusively disproved Einstein both mathematically and
experimentally. Access may be gained via the following NoEinstein
post, and via the attached additional links following such. Those of
you wishing to reply to any point of science, are urged to do so in
the most recent post(s), because the earlier ones, though still quite
apt as to the science, are no longer being checked for comments. I
hope that you will find my links both interesting and educational! --
NoEinstein --
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein's Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
__________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 07:31:54 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 4:42=A0pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Time simply slows. That is its property. There is no time curve there
is only curved space.
The more pertinent question is idiot science is"
what does geometry belong to?
It's clearly not Euclid, Descartes, Gauss, or Einstein,
so who-what does it belong to?
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 10:19:47 AM |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch:
[text omitted]
The more pertinent question is idiot science is"
what does geometry belong to?
It's clearly not Euclid, Descartes, Gauss, or Einstein,
so who-what does it belong to?
Prior to Aristotle geometry was the main science. It encompassed
epistemology, logic, concept formation, concept verification,
demonstrations of geometric and mathematical concepts, and proof, for
example.
Aristotle created new sciences, especially natural science, and that
included biology and medicine.
He also developed the science of epistemology by his developments of
the sub-sciences of definitions, inductive and deductive reasoning, and
logic. Logic, the science of proper reasoning, was subsumed within the
class of ideas of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, and since most
of geometry was epistemological and mathematical as well as purely
geometrical geometry at that time that was one of the primary sciences
to became a subclass of epistemology. Then mathematical concepts were
being isolated, and the science of mathematics was in its infancy. The
geometry that had dealt with the more fundamental concepts lost its
sub-science of proofs to logic became part of mathematics. What we know
to be mathematics became part of epistemology.
The general study of geometry continued into use into the middle ages
after Archimedes invented symbolic mathematical methods for dealing with
physics. Then math could be a purely symbolic science without a primary
demonstration requirement on terms of highly particular geometry
concepts. The math concepts that were within geometry prior to
Aristotle, for example, the solution of triangles, trisection of angles,
duplication of the cube, identifying the ratios of circles, and the
application of areas < e.g., a^2 + 2ab + b^2 = c^2 > problems, became
the primary conceptual material of the new mathematics. Proof for
mathematics and geometry was borrowed from logic. Aristotle set the
course by identifying the classes and subclasses of these sciences, and
the mathematicians including and following Archimedes developed and
practiced a conceptual mathematics. Geometry after Aristotle was a part
of mathematics, and both mathematics and logic became subsumed within
epistemology.
The philosophy and methods of the physical sciences became part of the
branch of epistemology during the early Industrial Revolution while the
physical sciences of biology, mechanics, and physics were being developed.
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 10:31:56 AM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 11:19=A0am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch:
[text omitted]
=A0 =A0The more pertinent question is idiot science is"
=A0 =A0what does geometry belong to?
=A0 =A0It's clearly not Euclid, Descartes, Gauss, or Einstein,
=A0 =A0so who-what does it belong to?
Prior to Aristotle geometry was the main science. It encompassed
epistemology, logic, concept formation, concept verification,
demonstrations of geometric and mathematical concepts, and proof, for
example.
Aristotle created new sciences, especially natural science, and that
included biology and medicine.
He also developed the science =A0of epistemology by his developments of
the sub-sciences of definitions, inductive and deductive reasoning, and
logic.
That's quite an exaggeration of Arisotle and reasoning.
People like Zeno, Pythagorus, and Archimedes,largely
developed the science of logic. And Plato and Aristolte formalized
it.
Logic, the science of proper reasoning, was subsumed within the
class of ideas of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, and since most
of geometry was epistemological and mathematical as well as purely
geometrical geometry at that time that was one of the primary sciences
to became a subclass of epistemology. Then mathematical concepts were
being isolated, and the science of mathematics was in its infancy. The
geometry that had dealt with the more fundamental concepts lost its
sub-science of proofs to logic became part of mathematics. What we know
to be mathematics became part of epistemology.
The general study of geometry continued into use into the middle ages
after Archimedes invented symbolic mathematical methods for dealing with
physics. Then math could be a purely symbolic science without a primary
demonstration requirement on terms of highly particular geometry
concepts. The math concepts that were within geometry prior to
Aristotle, for example, the solution of triangles, trisection of angles,
duplication of the cube, identifying the ratios of circles, and the
application of areas < e.g., =A0a^2 + 2ab + b^2 =3D c^2 > =A0problems, bec=
ame
the primary conceptual material of the new mathematics. Proof for
mathematics and geometry was borrowed from logic. Aristotle set the
course by identifying the classes and subclasses of these sciences, and
the mathematicians including and following Archimedes developed and
practiced a conceptual mathematics. Geometry after Aristotle was a part
of mathematics, and both mathematics and logic became subsumed within
epistemology.
The philosophy and methods of the physical sciences became part of the
branch of epistemology during the early Industrial Revolution while the
physical sciences of biology, mechanics, and physics were being developed.=
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 11:25:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Dec 28, 11:19 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
[text omitted]
Aristotle created new sciences, especially natural science, and that
included biology and medicine.
He also developed the science of epistemology by his developments of
the sub-sciences of definitions, inductive and deductive reasoning, and
logic.
That's quite an exaggeration of Arisotle and reasoning.
Not at all. Reason is spelled out quite clearly at length by Aristotle,
and his work is further developed by Ayn Rand.
People like Zeno, Pythagorus, and Archimedes,largely
developed the science of logic. And Plato and Aristolte formalized
it.
Of course, many individuals in early history identified and verified the
basic concepts of reasoning and logic.
Aristotle did some of the original thinking as well, and as you say, he
did develop and formalize it.
Plato had next to nothing to do with reasoning, and he largely wrote
nothing about reasoning or logic, and what little he wrote about
geometry was stolen from Pythagoras. Faith was Plato's primary method of
knowing existence, meaning only ideals and approximate reality, and to
Plato no human means of knowing reality was perfect or reliable.
The great clash in philosophic science was was between Aristotle, who
advocated the certainty of knowing the facts of particular objective
existence by means of reason and logic, and, Plato, who advocated only
knowing Ideals by means of the faith used by philosophers, and who said
that all knowledge of reality is imperfect.
In science today we have the theories of Paul Marmet [hydrogen-photon
interaction caused Red Shift], for example, vs the mostly Biblical
creationist-expansionists [BB caused Red Shift]; and Aristotle with
knowable verifiable facts of reality pitted against Heisenberg's
unknowability of the facts.
The basic premises of metaphysics and epistemology in philosophy are
still operative. In science as well as in philosophy you have to pick
which set of premises is actually in concert with reality.
Do facts exist qua Aristotle, and is reality knowable by means of reason
and logic? Or is everything a Platonic approximation?
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 12:45:33 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 12:25=A0pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote:
On Dec 28, 11:19 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
[text omitted]
Aristotle created new sciences, especially natural science, and that
included biology and medicine.
He also developed the science =A0of epistemology by his developments of=
the sub-sciences of definitions, inductive and deductive reasoning, and=
logic.
=A0 =A0That's quite an exaggeration of Arisotle and reasoning.
Not at all. Reason is spelled out quite clearly at length by Aristotle,
and his work is further developed by Ayn Rand.
=A0 =A0People like Zeno, Pythagorus, and Archimedes,largely
=A0 =A0developed the science of logic. And Plato and Aristolte formalize=
d
=A0 =A0it.
Of course, many individuals in early history identified and verified the
basic concepts of reasoning and logic.
Aristotle did some of the original thinking as well, and as you say, he
did develop and formalize it.
Plato had next to nothing to do with reasoning, and he largely wrote
nothing about reasoning or logic,
No? Then why do so many idiot Philosophers go around saying:
"I'm a Platonist".
and what little he wrote about
geometry was stolen from Pythagoras. Faith was Plato's primary method of
knowing existence, meaning only ideals and approximate reality, and to
Plato no human means of knowing reality was perfect or reliable.
The great clash in philosophic science was was between Aristotle, who
advocated the certainty of knowing the facts of particular objective
existence by means of reason and logic, and, Plato, who advocated only
knowing Ideals by means of the faith used by philosophers, and who said
that all knowledge of reality is imperfect.
In science today we have the theories of Paul Marmet [hydrogen-photon
interaction caused Red Shift], for example, vs the mostly Biblical
creationist-expansionists [BB caused Red Shift]; and Aristotle with
knowable verifiable facts of reality pitted against Heisenberg's
unknowability of the facts.
The basic premises of metaphysics and epistemology in philosophy are
still operative. In science as well as in philosophy you have to pick
which set of premises is actually in concert with reality.
Do facts exist qua Aristotle, and is reality knowable by means of reason
and logic? Or is everything a Platonic approximation?
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 04:38:20 PM |
|
|
zzbunker:
zzbunker@netscape.net wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:25 pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
Plato had next to nothing to do with reasoning, and he largely wrote
nothing about reasoning or logic,
No? Then why do so many idiot Philosophers go around saying:
"I'm a Platonist".
I don't know. If you did a comparison chart of the viewpoints of the
philosophers you may be speaking of, and also including Plato for each
category of ideas
and types of viewpoints, you would see that a surprising number of
philosophies and religions are similar if not formally based upon the
views of Plato.
Just a few that I can mention here and that are formally Platonic are
Positivism, Pragmatism, Subjectivism, Nazism, Catholicism, Communism,
and Surrealism. There are lots more. Basically the Platonic views tell all.
Here are just some of the classifications of ideas for Platonic
philosophies vs. those in the Aristotelean tradition:
* metaphysics [Ideals, other realms, God, heaven, and no Objective
reality],
* epistemology [mysticism, faith, direct apprehension of data vs.
physical sense perception]
* ethics [property not owned owned, owned in trust by god or for others
vs. privately owned real estate and personal property; government or
religious socialism, dictatorships, kingdoms, and oligarchies vs.
democracies; restricted markets and military distribution systems vs.
capitalism and free markets; that rights belong to the state, the church
or others, vs. rights being exclusively for the individual*; and
determinism vs. volition] [*in history many of the Aristotelean
tradition of philosophy, e.g., Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson believed in
slavery, however, their other views eventually won out in favor of
liberty and rights for the individual.]
* art [naturalism, realism, destruction, psychological realism,
surrealism, destruction and subjectivism vs. romantic realism,
idealistic realism, dramatic and heroic characterization and
stylizations moral portrayals, good vs. evil, good sense of life]
* love [subjectivism, power over women, procreation, destructiveness,
homosexuality, hedonism, vs. romanticism, valuation as the basis of
romantic emotions, planned families, valuation of women and children]
* view of life [social roles for individuals, often mandated by others
vs. a heroic, independent, and individualistic view of individuals]
* science [BB, creationism-expansionism, facts cannot be kn own,
nothing is something that has causes, a singular or unit universe, and
more, vs. objective reality, knowable facts, the universe is a plurality
of physical existents that have functioning properties and
relationships, and more].
There are some philosophies that have no views on given subjects, e.g.,
Pragmatism has no ethics [anything goes] or aesthetics [no morality in
art and no heroism, or, for example, some philosophies attempt to blend
or merge opposite viewpoints, especially the market oriented
proselytizing religions.
Some philosophers know what they are saying when they claim to be
Platonists, and others have some wrong views. For example, if you
thought that Plato was for reason, democracy and individual rights,
you'd be wrong. While the concepts of individual rights weren't that
well developed in the ancient world, Aristotle wasn't that clear.
Regarding reason, he was strongly on the side of volition and logic.
That's a rough sketch. You would need to read the originals for the
Platonic philosophers and Plato. I refer you to the writings, of
Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, and the Objectivists who even
though they don't proselytize or advance a polemics, probably have the
best and most factual and logical comparative opinions regarding
philosophies.
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "BURT" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
28 Dec 2007 06:30:36 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 2:38=A0pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
zzbunker:
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:25 pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
Plato had next to nothing to do with reasoning, and he largely wrote
nothing about reasoning or logic,
=A0 =A0 No? Then why do so many idiot Philosophers go around saying:
=A0 =A0"I'm a Platonist".
I don't know. If you did a comparison chart of the viewpoints of the
philosophers you may be speaking of, and also including Plato for each
category of ideas
and types of viewpoints, you would see that a surprising number of
philosophies and religions are similar if not formally based upon the
views of Plato.
Just a few that I can mention here and that are formally Platonic are
Positivism, Pragmatism, Subjectivism, Nazism, Catholicism, Communism,
and Surrealism. There are lots more. Basically the Platonic views tell all=
..
Here are just some of the classifications of ideas for Platonic
philosophies vs. those in the Aristotelean tradition:
* =A0metaphysics [Ideals, other realms, God, heaven, and no Objective
reality],
* =A0epistemology [mysticism, faith, direct apprehension of data vs.
physical sense perception]
* =A0ethics [property not owned owned, owned in trust by god or for others=
vs. privately owned real estate and personal property; government or
religious socialism, dictatorships, kingdoms, and oligarchies vs.
democracies; restricted markets and military distribution systems vs.
capitalism and free markets; that rights belong to the state, the church
or others, vs. rights being exclusively for the individual*; and
determinism vs. volition] =A0[*in history many of the Aristotelean
tradition of philosophy, e.g., Aristotle or Thomas Jefferson believed in
slavery, however, their other views eventually won out in favor of
liberty and rights for the individual.]
* =A0art [naturalism, realism, destruction, psychological realism,
surrealism, destruction and subjectivism vs. romantic realism,
idealistic realism, dramatic and heroic characterization and
stylizations moral portrayals, good vs. evil, good sense of life]
* =A0love [subjectivism, power over women, procreation, destructiveness,
homosexuality, hedonism, vs. romanticism, valuation as the basis of
romantic emotions, planned families, valuation of women and children]
* view of life [social roles for individuals, often mandated by others
vs. a heroic, independent, and individualistic view of individuals]
* =A0science =A0[BB, creationism-expansionism, facts cannot be kn own,
nothing is something that has causes, a singular or unit universe, and
more, vs. objective reality, knowable facts, the universe is a plurality
of physical existents that have functioning properties and
relationships, and more].
There are some philosophies that have no views on given subjects, e.g.,
Pragmatism has no ethics [anything goes] or aesthetics [no morality in
art and no heroism, or, for example, some philosophies attempt to blend
or merge opposite viewpoints, especially the market oriented
proselytizing religions.
Some philosophers know what they are saying when they claim to be
Platonists, and others have some wrong views. For example, if you
thought that Plato was for reason, democracy and individual rights,
you'd be wrong. While the concepts of individual rights weren't that
well developed in the ancient world, Aristotle wasn't that clear.
Regarding reason, he was strongly on the side of volition and logic.
That's a rough sketch. You would need to read the originals for the
Platonic philosophers and Plato. I refer you to the writings, of
Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, and the Objectivists who even
though they don't proselytize or advance a polemics, probably have the
best and most factual and logical comparative opinions regarding
philosophies.
Ralph Hertle
Time is spatial because it occpies curved space. Just as matter shares
geometry with the curved space it is extended in time occcupies
curved space. It is bent into timeshells from the spatial curvature it
extends in .
See time occupying space.
Time extends into more time. TIme goes from slow in gravity to faster
ouitside.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 04:04:13 AM |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch:
You wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:38 pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
[text omitted]
Ralph Hertle
What you wrote has zero to do with what I wrote, and your quotation of
my material was unnecessary.
Time is spatial because it occpies curved space. Just as matter shares
geometry with the curved space it is extended in time occcupies
curved space. It is bent into timeshells from the spatial curvature it
extends in .
See time occupying space.
Time extends into more time. TIme goes from slow in gravity to faster
ouitside.
Mitch Raemsch
What you have just said has nothing that is understandable to me. Your
definitions, if that's what they are mean nothing to me.
My definition of time is not from the Platonic or Post Modernist science
realm. It is just a plain identification of certain properties of
physical existents in the universe, and their relationships. The basic
concept of time as a ratio of numbers begins even earlier than the
Egyptian and Babylonian geometers and astronomers. It is prior to
Einstein or any of the other Post Modern physicists. All the terms used
in a definition should properly be placed on the same page immediately
above the statement and proof of the definition. An explanation of the
prior art of the definition and of the function and consequences of the
definition proved is also a good idea.
Time is a concept of the relationships of moving physical things in the
universe, and it is a measurement of dimensional motions. All
definitions are contextual, and for the sake of economy, I'll minimize
the context work. Time is a concept that is the mathematical measurement
of physical objects, and in extended contexts the measurements, or
studies of measurement relationships, may pertain to ideas, e.g., that a
certain graphic symbol can rotate a certain number of radians in the
distance traversed by a dot along a straight line. The type of
relationship is determined by the context of definitions first set forth.
A definition of time:
Time is a measurement of the dimensional motion of one existent in a
relationship to the measurement of the dimensional motion of a
second existent, and the relationship of the measurements is expressed
as a mathematical ratio of the particular number in the units of the
measurement.
An example is, a car went 150 kilometers in 1/24 the rotation of the
Earth. In that case a rotation measured by means of two occultations is
specified. The definition of an hour may be substituted, and one hour is
a 1/24 th. rotation of the Earth in angular measure. The car, therefore,
went 150 Km per one hour. That is a specific demonstration of the
principle of the ratio involved, and a particular measurement number is
the result. Time is always a ratio of measurements, and when
demonstrated, time is always expressed with a particular number.
What is the definition of one unit of time in the context of the photon
and the velocity of light? A light-year is the linear distance traveled
by a photon in one orbital revolution of the Earth around the Sun. A
light year is a dimensional length. A light year that is a unit of
distance could be called a light-distance year. The unit of time is the
year. A year unit is one revolution measured at the same place, for
practical purposes, with one occultation defining the start point and a
second occultation defining the second point. One complete revolution
from point one to point two is said to be one year. The occultations are
line of sight alignments of three physical objects that are in a
straight line.
Geometry, mathematics, and physical existents are essential to the
definition the relationships and units of time and specific measurements.
It may also be said that along with the basic concepts of physical
mechanics, say that were given by Archimedes, time measure is one of the
primary concepts of physics.
All measurements of time identify certain specific relationships of the
dimensional motions of physical existents.
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 04:31:00 AM |
|
|
"Ralph Hertle" <zxcvzxcv3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47761B9D.3070003@verizon.net...
Mitch Raemsch:
You wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:38 pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
[text omitted]
Ralph Hertle
What you wrote has zero to do with what I wrote, and your quotation of
my material was unnecessary.
Time is spatial because it occpies curved space. Just as matter shares
geometry with the curved space it is extended in time occcupies
curved space. It is bent into timeshells from the spatial curvature it
extends in .
See time occupying space.
Time extends into more time. TIme goes from slow in gravity to faster
ouitside.
Mitch Raemsch
What you have just said has nothing that is understandable to me. Your
definitions, if that's what they are mean nothing to me.
My definition of time is not from the Platonic or Post Modernist science
realm. It is just a plain identification of certain properties of
physical existents in the universe, and their relationships. The basic
concept of time as a ratio of numbers begins even earlier than the
Egyptian and Babylonian geometers and astronomers. It is prior to
Einstein or any of the other Post Modern physicists. All the terms used
in a definition should properly be placed on the same page immediately
above the statement and proof of the definition. An explanation of the
prior art of the definition and of the function and consequences of the
definition proved is also a good idea.
Time is a concept of the relationships of moving physical things in the
universe, and it is a measurement of dimensional motions. All
definitions are contextual, and for the sake of economy, I'll minimize
the context work. Time is a concept that is the mathematical measurement
of physical objects, and in extended contexts the measurements, or
studies of measurement relationships, may pertain to ideas, e.g., that a
certain graphic symbol can rotate a certain number of radians in the
distance traversed by a dot along a straight line. The type of
relationship is determined by the context of definitions first set forth.
A definition of time:
Time is a measurement of the dimensional motion of one existent in a
relationship to the measurement of the dimensional motion of a
second existent, and the relationship of the measurements is expressed
as a mathematical ratio of the particular number in the units of the
measurement.
An example is, a car went 150 kilometers in 1/24 the rotation of the
Earth. In that case a rotation measured by means of two occultations is
specified. The definition of an hour may be substituted, and one hour is
a 1/24 th. rotation of the Earth in angular measure. The car, therefore,
went 150 Km per one hour. That is a specific demonstration of the
principle of the ratio involved, and a particular measurement number is
the result. Time is always a ratio of measurements, and when
demonstrated, time is always expressed with a particular number.
What is the definition of one unit of time in the context of the photon
and the velocity of light? A light-year is the linear distance traveled
by a photon in one orbital revolution of the Earth around the Sun. A
light year is a dimensional length. A light year that is a unit of
distance could be called a light-distance year. The unit of time is the
year. A year unit is one revolution measured at the same place, for
practical purposes, with one occultation defining the start point and a
second occultation defining the second point. One complete revolution
from point one to point two is said to be one year. The occultations are
line of sight alignments of three physical objects that are in a
straight line.
Geometry, mathematics, and physical existents are essential to the
definition the relationships and units of time and specific measurements.
It may also be said that along with the basic concepts of physical
mechanics, say that were given by Archimedes, time measure is one of the
primary concepts of physics.
All measurements of time identify certain specific relationships of the
dimensional motions of physical existents.
I think you're talking in circles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 03:24:29 AM |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch:
You wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:38 pm, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
[text omitted]
Ralph Hertle
What you wrote has zero to do with what I wrote, and your quotation of
my material was unnecessary.
Time is spatial because it occpies curved space. Just as matter shares
geometry with the curved space it is extended in time occcupies
curved space. It is bent into timeshells from the spatial curvature it
extends in .
See time occupying space.
Time extends into more time. TIme goes from slow in gravity to faster
ouitside.
Mitch Raemsch
What you have just said has nothing that is understandable to me. Your
definitions, if that's what they are mean nothing to me.
My definition of time is not from the Platonic or Post Modernist science
realm. It is just a plain identification of certain properties of
physical existents in the universe, and their relationships. The basic
concept of time as a ratio of numbers begins even earlier than the
Egyptian and Babylonian geometers and astronomers. It is prior to
Einstein or any of the other Post Modern physicists. All the terms used
in a definition should properly be placed on the same page immediately
above the statement and proof of the definition. An explanation of the
prior art of the definition and of the function and consequences of the
definition proved is also a good idea.
Time is a concept of the relationships of moving physical things in the
universe, and it is a measurement of dimensional motions. All
definitions are contextual, and for the sake of economy, I'll minimize
the context work. Time is a concept that is the mathematical measurement
of physical objects, and in extended contexts the measurements, or
studies of measurement relationships, may pertain to ideas, e.g., that a
certain graphic symbol can rotate a certain number of radians in the
distance traversed by a dot along a straight line. The type of
relationship is determined by the context of definitions first set forth.
A definition of time:
Time is a measurement of the dimensional motion of one existent in a
relationship to the measurement of the dimensional motion motion of a
second existent, and the relationship of the measurements is expressed
as a mathematical ratio of the particular number in the units of the
measurement.
An example is, a car went 150 kilometers in 1/24 the rotation of the
Earth. In that case a rotation measured by means of two occultations is
specified. The definition of an hour may be substituted, and one hour is
a 1/24 th. rotation of the Earth in angular measure. The car, therefore,
went 150 Km per one hour. That is a specific demonstration of the
principle of the ratio involved, and a particular measurement number is
the result. Time is always a ratio of measurements, and when
demonstrated, time is always expressed with a particular number.
What is the definition of one unit of time in the context of the photon
and the velocity of light? A light-year is the linear distance traveled
by a photon in one orbital revolution of the Earth around the Sun. A
light year is a dimensional length. A light year that is a unit of
distance could be called a light-distance year. The unit of time is the
year. A year unit is one revolution measured at the same place, for
practical purposes, with one occultation defining the start point and a
second occultation defining the second point. One complete revolution
from point one to point two is said to be one year. The occultations are
line of sight alignments of three physical objects that are in a
straight line.
Geometry, mathematics, and physical existents are essential to the
definition the relationships and units of time and specific measurements.
It may also be said that along with the basic concepts of physical
mechanics, say that were given by Archimedes, time measure is one of the
primary concepts of physics.
All measurements of time identify certain specific relationships of the
dimensional motions of physical existents.
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 03:34:39 AM |
|
|
"Ralph Hertle" <zxcvzxcv3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4776124C.2070106@verizon.net...
A definition of time:
Time is a measurement of the dimensional motion of one existent in a
relationship to the measurement of the dimensional motion motion of a
second existent, and the relationship of the measurements is expressed as
a mathematical ratio of the particular number in the units of the
measurement.
What is "motion motion"?
And time is not a ratio. You examples don't show it expressed as a ration
... you only show speed expressed as a ratio.
BTW: What is the point of you defining of time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 04:03:05 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Ralph Hertle" <zxcvzxcv3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4776124C.2070106@verizon.net...
A definition of time:
Time is a measurement of the dimensional motion of one existent in a
relationship to the measurement of the dimensional motion motion of a
second existent, and the relationship of the measurements is expressed as
a mathematical ratio of the particular number in the units of the
measurement.
What is "motion motion"?
And time is not a ratio. You examples don't show it expressed as a ration
.. you only show speed expressed as a ratio.
BTW: What is the point of you defining of time?
My error. I meant "motion" and not, "motion motion". I'll change that
and resubmit the revised post.
Speed reduces to distance or angular measure. E.g., so many miles in a
ratio to so many rotations.
Why define time? I disagreed with the premise of the Subject of the
thread. Time is a concept that is based upon geometry as well as
mathematics relationships and certain properties of physical objects,
e.g., location and dimensional motion.
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 04:29:31 AM |
|
|
"Ralph Hertle" <zxcvzxcv3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47761B58.8050103@verizon.net...
Jeckyl:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Ralph Hertle" <zxcvzxcv3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4776124C.2070106@verizon.net...
A definition of time:
Time is a measurement of the dimensional motion of one existent in a
relationship to the measurement of the dimensional motion motion of a
second existent, and the relationship of the measurements is expressed
as a mathematical ratio of the particular number in the units of the
measurement.
What is "motion motion"?
And time is not a ratio. You examples don't show it expressed as a
ration .. you only show speed expressed as a ratio.
BTW: What is the point of you defining of time?
My error. I meant "motion" and not, "motion motion". I'll change that and
resubmit the revised post.
Speed reduces to distance or angular measure. E.g., so many miles in a
ratio to so many rotations.
That is speed .. you were talking about time. I don't see where time is
ratio of measurements.
Why define time? I disagreed with the premise of the Subject of the
thread. Time is a concept that is based upon geometry as well as
mathematics relationships and certain properties of physical objects,
e.g., location and dimensional motion.
I don't think one can define time independently of space and motion .. they
are all intricately linked. Eg you define time above in terms of motion, but
you need to have time defined in order to define motion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph Hertle" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 04:54:48 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl:
Jeckyl wrote:
I don't think one can define time independently of space and motion .. they
are all intricately linked. Eg you define time above in terms of motion, but
you need to have time defined in order to define motion.
That is a good question. Which term, time or motion, is the more
fundamental?
There, I think that Aristotle's discussions of several concepts of
motion, which are actually axioms and corollaries of axioms, may enable
a proof that motion is more fundamental than time. Dimensional motion
[or 'rectilinear motion'] according to Aristotle is a continuous
principle of functioning, e.g., the continuous inertial translation of
location of an object according to a certain principle. That can be
shown to be a more basic concept than time. Also, the existence of
things, and their properties, e.g., substance and locations, is more
basic than the measurements of the relationships of things.
Ralph Hertle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Time doesn't belong to geometry |
29 Dec 2007 09:09:15 AM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 5:54 am, Ralph Hertle <zxcvzx...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jeckyl:
Jeckyl wrote:
I don't think one can define time independently of space and motion .. they
are all intricately linked. Eg you define time above in terms of motion, but
you need to have time defined in order to define motion.
That is a good question. Which term, time or motion, is the more
fundamental?
There, I think that Aristotle's discussions of several concepts of
motion, which are actually axioms and corollaries of axioms, may enable
a proof that motion is more fundamental than time. Dimensional motion
[or 'rectilinear motion'] according to Aristotle is a continuous
principle of functioning, e.g., the continuous inertial translation of
location of an object according to a certain principle. That can be
shown to be a more basic concept than time. Also, the existence of
things, and their properties, e.g., substance and locations, is more
basic than the measurements of the relationships of things.
Ralph Hertle
Another ambiguity with regard to time is its unidirectional nature.
Some seem to deny this quality these days even while their references
run in one direction only. A principle of accumulation shows itself in
the integral of calculus and throughout existence.
Dimension is a discrete concept; we don't consider 2.543 dimensional
systems. It seems that the discrete quality of dimension is a part of
geometry, this property married to a continuum. The discrete/
continuous nature of existence has intuitive power. How one constructs
such a marriage determines the results achieved.
The unidirectional nature of time can be extended upward into
geometries of the ordinary sense. The progression of such forms is
P1 : 0D time
P2 : 1D real numbers
P3 : 2D complex numbers
P4 : 3D system with arithmetic product and sum semiconsistent with
field principles
P5 : 4D ...
...
The means of generating this progression is to generalize sign. Sign
is the discrete portion of the real number traditionally. Taking this
literally and allowing for systems of n signs yields this family of
number systems whose support for unidirectional time and spacetime as
well (there is a behavioral breakpoint in P4+) is exposed:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
This is a new means of generating geometry. The complex numbers are
built without the need for a Cartesian product or a square root of
minus one. There are numerous consequences to this construction some
of which do appear to be partially consistent with existing theory. We
need to consider spacetime as structured rather than isotropic. The
time element was enough to expose this idea (in hindsight) but also
the higher dimension (string) theories which arbitrarily impose the
extended spacetime dimensions are suspect and will require such a
structure to become clean theory. If one were to accept time as zero
dimensional then should we anticipate relativity's need of greater
dimensions consistent with string theoretic constructions? The
polysign construction builds a simplex arithmetic which leads one to
question the very definition of dimension while still yielding
geometry consistent with tradition.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
