Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372563 > unrolled thread

Where Time Is It?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-22 14:08 -0800
    Re: Where Time Is It? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 16:17 -0600
    Re: Where Time Is It? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-22 23:39 +0100
    Re: Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-22 22:27 -0800
      Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:09 +0100
        Re: Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-22 23:36 -0800
          Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:43 +0100
          Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:50 +0100
          Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:57 +0100
            Re: Where Time Is It? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 05:24 -0500
              Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 12:31 +0100
                Re: Where Time Is It? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 07:00 -0500
                  Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 13:11 +0100
              Re: Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-25 12:19 -0800
          Re: Where Time Is It? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-23 12:21 +0100
        Re: Where Time Is It? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-23 12:16 +0100
      Re: Where Time Is It? David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-25 08:28 -0800
    Re: Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-22 22:54 -0800
      Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:14 +0100
      Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:25 +0100
        Re: Where Time Is It? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-23 12:17 +0100
        Re: Where Time Is It? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-24 15:48 +0000
          Re: Where Time Is It? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-24 22:33 +0100
          Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 17:50 +0100
            Re: Where Time Is It? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 19:05 +0000
              Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 23:50 +0100
            Re: Where Time Is It? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-27 20:54 +0100
        Re: Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-24 12:32 -0800
          Re: Where Time Is It? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-24 22:48 -0800
          Re: Where Time Is It? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 17:51 +0100
    Re: Where Time Is It? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-23 19:24 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#372563 — Where Time Is It?

I still cannot get over how people say
space time are both spacetime
but then they claim time is
in some other dimension..like a 4th.


Time exist
in the 3rd dimension..
not some imaginary
4th, 5th, etc.

There is no 4th dimension.

It's not Science...it's science fiction.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372565

On 12/22/15 4:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I still cannot get over how people say
> space time are both spacetime
> but then they claim time is
> in some other dimension..like a 4th.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372567

Użytkownik "The Starmaker"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:5679C9C8.605E@ix.netcom.com...

|I still cannot get over how people say
|space time are both spacetime
|but then they claim time is
|in some other dimension..like a 4th.

What is here to get over?
A bunch of idiots cheerfully mumbles.
That's all. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372581

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> I still cannot get over how people say
> space time are both spacetime
> but then they claim time is
> in some other dimension..like a 4th.
> 
> Time exist
> in the 3rd dimension..
> not some imaginary
> 4th, 5th, etc.
> 
> There is no 4th dimension.
> 
> It's not Science...it's science fiction.


For example if there was a 4th dimension, a inverse-square law could not
exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372586

Dne 23/12/2015 v 07:27 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> I still cannot get over how people say
>> space time are both spacetime
>> but then they claim time is
>> in some other dimension..like a 4th.
>>
>> Time exist
>> in the 3rd dimension..
>> not some imaginary
>> 4th, 5th, etc.
>>
>> There is no 4th dimension.
>>
>> It's not Science...it's science fiction.
> 
> 
> For example if there was a 4th dimension, a inverse-square law could not
> exist.
> 
Anything, nonsense or not,
looks like nonsense before you understand it.

So saying something is nonsense
before you understand it is - nonsense.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372590

Poutnik wrote:
> 
> Dne 23/12/2015 v 07:27 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> I still cannot get over how people say
> >> space time are both spacetime
> >> but then they claim time is
> >> in some other dimension..like a 4th.
> >>
> >> Time exist
> >> in the 3rd dimension..
> >> not some imaginary
> >> 4th, 5th, etc.
> >>
> >> There is no 4th dimension.
> >>
> >> It's not Science...it's science fiction.
> >
> >
> > For example if there was a 4th dimension, a inverse-square law could not
> > exist.
> >
> Anything, nonsense or not,
> looks like nonsense before you understand it.
> 
> So saying something is nonsense
> before you understand it is - nonsense.


How many dimensions does a square have? 2

How many dimensions does a cube have? 3




 Where Time Is It?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372593

Dne 23/12/2015 v 08:36 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> Dne 23/12/2015 v 07:27 The Starmaker napsal(a):
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I still cannot get over how people say
>>>> space time are both spacetime
>>>> but then they claim time is
>>>> in some other dimension..like a 4th.
>>>>
>>>> Time exist
>>>> in the 3rd dimension..
>>>> not some imaginary
>>>> 4th, 5th, etc.
>>>>
>>>> There is no 4th dimension.
>>>>
>>>> It's not Science...it's science fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>> For example if there was a 4th dimension, a inverse-square law could not
>>> exist.
>>>
>> Anything, nonsense or not,
>> looks like nonsense before you understand it.
>>
>> So saying something is nonsense
>> before you understand it is - nonsense.
> 
> 
> How many dimensions does a square have? 2
> 
> How many dimensions does a cube have? 3
> 
Dimension values of both depend on time,
respectively your speed wrt them,
and time is contained in speed.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372594

Dne 23/12/2015 v 08:36 The Starmaker napsal(a):

> 
> How many dimensions does a square have? 2
> How many dimensions does a cube have? 3
>  Where Time Is It?

You need to start think about dimensions
as number of independent values
needed to describe the point position.

3 dimensions are not enough anymore,
pointing to different points
for mutually moving observers.

Points determined by 4 coordinates of space-time
always points to the same point.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372595

Dne 23/12/2015 v 08:36 The Starmaker napsal(a):

> 
> How many dimensions does a square have? 2
> How many dimensions does a cube have? 3
> 

2/3 dimensions describe a square/cube
as a square cube only at a special circumstance
from many other possibilities.

Generally 4 dimensions are needed
for their proper shapes and placements.

Similarly 2 dimensions describe a point position in 3D space
only if it by chance stays at supposed z coordinate.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372597

In article <n5djvp$h18$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says...
> 
> Dne 23/12/2015 v 08:36 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > How many dimensions does a square have? 2
> > How many dimensions does a cube have? 3
> > 
> 
> 2/3 dimensions describe a square/cube
> as a square cube only at a special circumstance
> from many other possibilities.
> 
> Generally 4 dimensions are needed
> for their proper shapes and placements.
> 
> Similarly 2 dimensions describe a point position in 3D space
> only if it by chance stays at supposed z coordinate.

Are you Starmaker's girlfriend or something?  You reply to every single 
one of his lunatic posts.  I don't want to killfile you because unlike 
Starmaker you are not an idiot, but by replying to every post the idiot 
makes you clutter up the newsgroup with _crap_.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372602

Dne 23/12/2015 v 11:24 J. Clarke napsal(a):
> 
> Are you Starmaker's girlfriend or something?  You reply to every single 
> one of his lunatic posts.  I don't want to killfile you because unlike 
> Starmaker you are not an idiot, but by replying to every post the idiot 
> makes you clutter up the newsgroup with _crap_.
>

Keep personal offenses at the bay. Your counting
is not good, as I definitely answer just to some of them.

There is much worse junks in the sci.physics* groups.

Why not to kill the thread or the subthread ?

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372604

In article <n5e0im$ppm$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says...
> 
> Dne 23/12/2015 v 11:24 J. Clarke napsal(a):
> > 
> > Are you Starmaker's girlfriend or something?  You reply to every single 
> > one of his lunatic posts.  I don't want to killfile you because unlike 
> > Starmaker you are not an idiot, but by replying to every post the idiot 
> > makes you clutter up the newsgroup with _crap_.
> >
> 
> Keep personal offenses at the bay. Your counting
> is not good, as I definitely answer just to some of them.

Why do you answer any of them?
 
> There is much worse junks in the sci.physics* groups.

So what?  
 
> Why not to kill the thread or the subthread ?

Because pretty soon there's going to be another huge stack of posts from 
you replying to the idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372607

Dne 23/12/2015 v 13:00 J. Clarke napsal(a):
> In article <n5e0im$ppm$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Dne 23/12/2015 v 11:24 J. Clarke napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Are you Starmaker's girlfriend or something?  You reply to every single 
>>> one of his lunatic posts.  I don't want to killfile you because unlike 
>>> Starmaker you are not an idiot, but by replying to every post the idiot 
>>> makes you clutter up the newsgroup with _crap_.
>>>
>>
>> Keep personal offenses at the bay. Your counting
>> is not good, as I definitely answer just to some of them.
> 
> Why do you answer any of them?

Why do you ever react ?
His post are at least to topic, even if he has no clue.
>  
>> There is much worse junks in the sci.physics* groups.
> 
> So what?  

So that. Focus on them.
>  
>> Why not to kill the thread or the subthread ?
> 
> Because pretty soon there's going to be another huge stack of posts from 
> you replying to the idiot.

Are you sure you are much better,
posting meta posts ?

It is like saying I am not salting my soup
because there is too little of salt.

For now, your posts approach trolling.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372762

J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> In article <n5djvp$h18$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says...
> >
> > Dne 23/12/2015 v 08:36 The Starmaker napsal(a):
> >
> > >
> > > How many dimensions does a square have? 2
> > > How many dimensions does a cube have? 3
> > >
> >
> > 2/3 dimensions describe a square/cube
> > as a square cube only at a special circumstance
> > from many other possibilities.
> >
> > Generally 4 dimensions are needed
> > for their proper shapes and placements.
> >
> > Similarly 2 dimensions describe a point position in 3D space
> > only if it by chance stays at supposed z coordinate.
> 
> Are you Starmaker's girlfriend or something?  You reply to every single
> one of his lunatic posts.  I don't want to killfile you because unlike
> Starmaker you are not an idiot, but by replying to every post the idiot
> makes you clutter up the newsgroup with _crap_.



The person with the complaint, is the person with the problem. - The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372601

Użytkownik "The Starmaker"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:567A4EE2.467D@ix.netcom.com...


|How many dimensions does a square have? 2
|How many dimensions does a cube have? 3

Squares and cubes are euclidean. According to
The Shit, there is no such things. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372599

Użytkownik "Poutnik"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:n5dh62$9hm$1@dont-email.me...


|Anything, nonsense or not,
|looks like nonsense before you understand it.

Does it really?
Have you heard about duck test, poor idiot? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372745

The Starmaker wrote: 
> 
> I still cannot get over how people say 
> space time are both spacetime 
> but then they claim time is 
> in some other dimension..like a 4th. 
> 
> Time exist 
> in the 3rd dimension.. 
> not some imaginary 
> 4th, 5th, etc. 
> 
> There is no 4th dimension. 
> 
> It's not Science...it's science fiction. 


For example if there was a 4th dimension, a inverse-square law could not 
exist. 

Time = 1/space
The Big Crunch is occurring, returning the singular state. 
The speed of the crunch is (limited / throttled) by mass ... force = mass x acceleration

1/10^-39 rate at which space is being replaced with mass 

1/r^2 = 1/((1/time)^2) = schwarzschild radius = mass 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372584

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> I still cannot get over how people say
> space time are both spacetime
> but then they claim time is
> in some other dimension..like a 4th.
> 
> Time exist
> in the 3rd dimension..
> not some imaginary
> 4th, 5th, etc.
> 
> There is no 4th dimension.
> 
> It's not Science...it's science fiction.


In other words,

if you cannot

observe or test

a 4th dimension...

then it's not science.


It's science fiction.


Now,
why do others
say
Time
is the 4th dimension...
i have no idea.

It's insanity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372587

Dne 23/12/2015 v 07:54 The Starmaker napsal(a):

> 
> In other words,
> if you cannot
> observe or test
> a 4th dimension...

You can.
Read any introduction to Special Relativity.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372589

Dne 23/12/2015 v 07:54 The Starmaker napsal(a):

> 
> 
> Now,
> why do others
> say
> Time
> is the 4th dimension...
> i have no idea.
> 
> It's insanity.

Imagine for now our world as a plane,
and time as the z axis.

Imagine our passing time like this plane flying
upward along the time axis.

This was our experience with space and time until SR.

But than it was realized that if you are moving
wrt some other objects, you and them do not live
at the same space plane anymore,
but your planes are mutually tilted wrt time axis.

This causes relativity of simultaneity,
time dilation and length contraction.

The space and the time are not independent anymore,
but mixed together, determining each other
in space-time,
where time is recalculated to length by c factor
as another dimension.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web