"Jim Black" <ghytrfvbnmju7654@mail.com> wrote in message news:cb623e6.0401141611.fe3e32c@posting.google.com...

Hi, Jim. Thank you for making a positive start.

A few opening points:
First to you about my "writing poorly": It is imporatant to presume
that I am saying what I want to say - the concept is difficult enough,
even and to be open to it. (Note: when I did not understand your
math., I did not presume the problem lay with you). However, I accept
the point about number of dimensions - I thought about posting an
edit, and decided it could wait.

To readers generally: I am not prepared to sacrifice purity of the
concepts of the original philosophy to reader friendliness. In this
way, when you eventually have a close understanding of it, you will
have better quality resources for further development.

I am not inclined to get into philosophy as philosophy here. The
booklet- -pamphlet is available, and if read with a very, very open
mind it should be understood. If not so read, it does not matter where
it is presented. Details here:
http://www.effectuationism.com/
However, I am skimping on philosophy here, which necessarily means
that the detail of the philosophy is absent.

I'll touch on the philosophy just to the minimun necessary to get the
point about "time" to catch interest - if there is such a point.

Upgrading 'the world':

http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499

* The Effectuationism Physics Model

The Effectuationism Physics Model, informed by the principles of the
philosophy system "Effectuationism", is a model for a four dimensional
(three dimensional, dynamic) Universe.

Four dimensional or three dimensional?

I mean "Dynamic Three Dimensional" (D3D). Whether this is three or
four probably depends on one's understanding of the system. Can you
comfortably run with this for now?

Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces.

That's not a complete sentence, so no one can tell what it means.
It's hard enough to communicate an idea without writing poorly.

Within the philosophy system, it is quite correct. Let's try this: if
it was in single quotes it would 'mean' "chaos". As it is not, there
'is some form'.

With further
development: Indefinite and dynamic Man- -Ground in tension with
moving animal/object - Time- -Being.

Ditto.

Somewhat recurring relationship of forces effects value - in effect,
Time- -Being. Such relationship of forces am, for example, 'a' FOR in
relationship with a moving animal/object. However, FOR am indefinite
and dynamic.

To establish, within tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, value
through a definite and static frame of reference (FOR), establish an
inertial field, perhaps galactic in dimensions, through co-ordinates.

So, to establish a definite FOR, establish an inertial field, perhaps
galactic in dimensions, through co-ordinates.

Ditto. Also, what is an "indefinite" force? That's kind of
indefinite. Same with "to establish value" and "an inertial field."

"[A]n "indefinite" force": push gravity - may be the best answer.

Establish an inertial field: I mean take a sufficiently remote, point,
perhaps such as the center of the sun, if necessary as it was 00.00 am
Jan 1st 2004, shoot an arrow through it in direction of the sun's
movement in relation to the center of the galaxy. This is the X-axis.
The Y-axis can be from that point to the center of the galaxy (as
was). And I presume you physicists- -mathematicians can manage height-
-depth. Also, you people know more about how remote the co-ordinates
you want. I'm just suggesting a principle.

So, that, I am presuming, is an inertial field and FOR, and, if so, it
seems easy to establish there-in more local FORs - a kind of grid.
Thereby, one would have, for example, DX.

So, this, or such, FOR is Man/Person- -Ground, in effect, observer.

That field is frame of reference (Man- -Ground), and expressing more
local FORs, perhaps, for example, distance from A to B.

Ditto.

Call it DX.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FOR-DX is an event.

You just said DX was a distance. In what way, precisely, is it a
frame of reference?

If you are not yet clear about it, get back to me.

The duration of that particular movement- -event shall be SMS
(Standard
Movement Speed).

How is a duration a speed?

It is an event. That, or such an, event can be used as an SMS.

Different movement speeds- -values can be determined through
relationship
with that SMS.

* I expect that people are not used to using, perhaps even thinking
of, a
clock as an SMS.

The time along a specific worldline from one event to another is an
invariant, absolute quantity. It can be expressed in units derived
from nature, such as "periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium-133 atom." It doesn't matter whether there's anything around
to compare the time to.

That seems to be another model. Here, we are discussing "The
Effectuationism Physics Model". I am presuming, and initing reaction
as to whether, this is a somewhat different concept of time to that of
I. Newton and A. Einstein?

Again, thank you, and I hope to hear from you again.

* I expect that people are not used to using, perhaps even thinking
of, a
clock as an SMS.