Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 18:02 +0200
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 16:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 17:55 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-10 07:16 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:04 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:25 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 10:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 17:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:12 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:08 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:42 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:07 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:29 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 22:48 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 07:03 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:37 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 22:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-16 22:17 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:47 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 07:09 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 06:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 15:27 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-16 15:31 +1000
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-16 12:15 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-18 15:01 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> - 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> - 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 13:05 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 09:21 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-27 07:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-23 11:21 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 09:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:02 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 16:23 +0200
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:44 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:22 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 13:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:32 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:19 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:35 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:56 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 13:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 16:09 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 15:03 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 16:05 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 12:30 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 13:36 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-17 14:42 -0700
Re: QM and GR. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-17 17:55 -0400
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:40 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 08:27 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 14:17 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 18:01 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 08:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:40 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-06 14:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-10 10:52 -0700
Re: QM and GR. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 10:30 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:03 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 10:09 -0500
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 13:38 -0700
Re: QM and GR. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 14:34 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 15:43 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-20 11:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-19 08:35 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:16 -0700
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:17 -0400
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 17:51 -0400
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:41 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:27 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-05 05:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:07 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:57 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:49 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <geOdnWcUmrurdgXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388447 |
On 7/26/16 7/26/16 - 5:11 AM, wugi wrote: > Another example is that SRT can be obtained from a set of (intuitive) > "relativity" axioms, yielding constant speed of light as a theorem instead of > taking in as a (non-intuitive) axiom. Yes. I have pointed this out many times around here. But I would characterize the postulate as "invariance" or "symmetry" rather than "relativity", even though Einstein did call it the "principle of relativity". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e00hv8F6396U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388521 |
Am 27.07.2016 19:11, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Another example is that SRT can be obtained from a set of (intuitive) >> "relativity" axioms, yielding constant speed of light as a theorem >> instead of >> taking in as a (non-intuitive) axiom. > > Yes. I have pointed this out many times around here. But I would > characterize the postulate as "invariance" or "symmetry" rather than > "relativity", even though Einstein did call it the "principle of > relativity". > The principle of relativity includes variance of length of material objects (length contraction) and time intervals (time dilation). To call this a 'postulate of invariance' is a little twisted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity Quote "The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion. — Henri Poincaré, 1904" So the laws of nature do not change (are invariant). Since some parts of nature do in fact change (e.g. length of material objects) it is the question, which laws are not subject to a change of velocity in uniform motion. Especially the 'speed of time' seems to be variable. This is not measurable, hence get 'normalised' away. In a spacetime diagram the axis of time is put into vertical and the hyperplane of the present in horizontal direction - irrespective of 'real' movement. This is actually possible, but makes time a local unit and linked to the co-moving hyperplane of the present. So time is 'movement with no space' and present means 'movement with no time'. What we call 'space' is therefore 'relative', too, since it is a combination of both 'movements' in space and time (the past light cone). So with every possible axis of time we also have an associated 'universe', but only one in every single case. What is not an invariant upon such changes of the length of time intervals, that is the content of such a 'universe' - whether they are material or not. So one ray of light is a ray of light only in respect to the universe it passes through. Also material objects would vanish if time is altered. So we have variance of items, which we usually regard as invariant. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfh99$1alu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
On 7/29/2016 3:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > So the laws of nature do not change (are invariant). > > Since some parts of nature do in fact change (e.g. length of material > objects) it is the question, which laws are not subject to a change of > velocity in uniform motion. And so it's useful to learn the difference between laws (which are invariant) and the values of properties which appear in those laws (which are variant). -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <no7kh212cnu@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Relativity can be used to model: > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > relative to the spatial dimensions. > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a supreme dunce! Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z) within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz transformation. All dimensions are on an equal footing. The same for energy-momentum 4-vectors. Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely no appropriate meaning. Get back to your Microsoft Windows. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <359a43fc-8b9e-4e30-b27b-bd1e7b0e5b4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389390 |
W dniu niedziela, 7 sierpnia 2016 17:36:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks napisał: > On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > Relativity can be used to model: > > > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > > relative to the spatial dimensions. > > > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > What a supreme dunce! > > Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z) > within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz > transformation. > > All dimensions are on an equal footing. The same for > energy-momentum 4-vectors. So, this is a fantasy only, because no 4D space exists in reality. In the math you can use: the complex pairs, quaternions, pentagons, octets, etc. stupid abstraction only... like the numbers: you never seen any number in the reality yet, stupid man! > Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that > uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely > no appropriate meaning. However You are still more stupid...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <5694c53e-2782-484c-9064-883cd12e5ef8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389395 |
On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 11:16:57 AM UTC-7, astro...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 7 sierpnia 2016 17:36:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks napisał: > > On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > > > Relativity can be used to model: > > > > > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > > > relative to the spatial dimensions. > > > > > > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > > > What a supreme dunce! > > > > Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z) > > within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz > > transformation. > > > > All dimensions are on an equal footing. The same for > > energy-momentum 4-vectors. > > So, this is a fantasy only, because no 4D space exists in reality. This is irrelevant: all physics consists of models which don't exist in reality. So this is a non-sequitur "objection". > In the math you can use: the complex pairs, > quaternions, pentagons, octets, etc. Pentagons? Dunce hats? > stupid abstraction only... like the numbers: > you never seen any number in the reality yet, stupid man! In other words, you have no point to make except asserting a general philosophical triviality. > > Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that > > uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely > > no appropriate meaning. > > However You are still more stupid... Yes, even an ignoramus can say that. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <881685a4-e714-4699-afe8-e2cc70fc5806@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389508 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2016 22:22:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > Pentagons? Try this: pentoquantipiramidonosolononsense. Good enough? > > stupid abstraction only... like the numbers: > > you never seen any number in the reality yet, stupid man! > > In other words, you have no point to make except asserting a general > philosophical triviality. 'Philosophical triviality'. bahahaha! Another uneducated... mass of a fresh meat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <beednVspjt797TrKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
On 8/7/16 8/7/16 9:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Thomas_Heger wrote: >> the 'speed of time' seems to be variable. > > Relativity can be used to model: > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > relative to the spatial dimensions. No. You REALLY need to learn something about relativity before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <7ssgqbt3625q980qhd48rmbjcukjtp1n06@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #389393 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >On 8/7/16 8/7/16 9:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <e0qj1uFf62dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
Am 07.08.2016 16:21, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me: > Thomas_Heger wrote: >> the'speed of time' seems to be variable. > > Relativity can be used to model: > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > relative to the spatial dimensions. Usually I go the opposite way: (local) time is put into vertical direction. 'Space' as a concept is based on light, So we want to express with something remote in space (say a star), that intervals in space are measured in light-years. This is not really the same thing as we denote with 'distance' in our close vicinity, which we usually measure with rigid devices. But distant objects are far away also in time (and in space). If we add timelike and spacelike intervals equally, we get what is called the 'past-light-cone'. So what we see in space is actually restricted to our own past light cone. This light-cone is always centred around the axis of time. The inverse to the axis time is called spacelike and that denotes the 'hyper-plane' of the present. That hyperplane is perpendicular to the axis of time. Now we move along our local axis of time by some sort of force, which tends to 'push' us into the future. The light-cone and the hyperplane of the present we take with us (into the future). Now we could watch other objects and think about their local axis of time. Then we find, their time seems to run at slightly different rates, compared with ours. Usually their time runs slower by a very small amount. That means: their local axis of time has an angle toward our own local axis of time, since the other objects are at other places. We could also define the set of all places, where the time-rate is equal to ours, while the vertical at an angle. This is apparently the surface of planet Earth, where all clocks tick at the same rate. (The set of places with such a feature I call 'time-domain'.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. |
| Message-ID | <fa89bed4-e154-46e8-83a7-e361706735cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389427 |
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:12:42 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will". > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. Baloney! This kind of nonsense makes you a victim of time, a whining weasel. I am not a victim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. |
| Message-ID | <57A8C933.47F3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #389427 |
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > TakuyaSaitoh wrote: > > I need to go back to the past some 30 years > > to warn myself of some disastrous events coming. > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will". > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. you can easily change the past if the information of the past is wrong... from example if you discover late that your mother is not your mother..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. |
| Message-ID | <kvihqb9fiivlljkp9hh4r16bq6q3b4dugv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #389486 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. |
| Message-ID | <e0s9o0Fse3rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389427 |
Am 08.08.2016 17:12, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me: > TakuyaSaitoh wrote: >> I need to go back to the past some 30 years >> to warn myself of some disastrous events coming. > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > the more you (erroneously) believe in"free will". > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. Actually I don't think so. IOW: you must not think in therms like '4d-space'. It's actually a little tricky. I would say, that spacetime has a topology of 3d-time. 'Space', as we use that term, is based on a certain, but arbitrary direction of time. Since I call matter 'timelike stable structures' and since the observer is a material object, the observer choses the timeline, which enables him to stay together in one piece as material object. This is the obvious choice for the local axis of time. In 'relativity lingo' the axis called 'timelike' is vertical and has the angle zero. The light-cone has the angle 45 °, what stands for c in vacuum. And the inverse to timelike is called 'spacelike' and in right angle to the axis of time. Now: the angle 45° is always 'relative' to the timeline of the observer, hence space is 'relative', too. That is slightly counter-intuitive, since matter is then also observer dependent. Anyhow... If you would like to leave your particular axis of stability, you simply need to accelerate from zero (velocity) to something different (then your tv). This is in fact possible (in most cases), since you have the choice to move. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Nature decides _everything_. |
| Message-ID | <e0tcb5F5cdtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389514 |
Am 09.08.2016 01:23, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me: >> > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; >> > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, >> > the more you (erroneously) believe in"free will". >> > >> > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. >> >> [ ... ] you have the choice to move. > > Nature decides _everything_; > including your SoCalled"choices" and what you want. 'Predetermination' is actually an old concept and was believed to be true for a long time. But this is most likely not, how nature actually functions. So you may actually change things, especially those in your vicinity. E.g. you could repair your shoes, for instance, or you could decide to do not (and watch tv instead). The difference: in one case you have a functioning pair of shoes, you do not have in the other case. If instead you are watching more tv, you will have additional information about the life and experiences of a family, where the father sells shoes. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 07:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Nature decides _everything_. |
| Message-ID | <89a475d0-fcb1-4235-9d44-1dd5ad9c5e38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389559 |
Thomas Heger wrote: 'Predetermination' is actually an old concept and was believed to be true for a long time. But this is most likely not, how nature actually functions. So you may actually change things, especially those in your vicinity. E.g. you could repair your shoes, for instance, or you could decide to do not (and watch tv instead). The difference: in one case you have a functioning pair of shoes, you do not have in the other case. If instead you are watching more tv, you will have additional information about the life and experiences of a family, where the father sells shoes. TH It is pretty well accepted that the information that makes up every object that reaches the event horizon of a black hole is stored on the surface of that black hole. For us, it appears we are "inside a black hole" as we will never be able to accelerate spatially to the edge to leave our universe. Predestination would be possible if we & our actions are the information stored on the surface of the black hole replaying a stored 4D copy of our Last existence. It would feel like we have free will to make random choices but we simply do not have the ability to see we are making the same choices as last time. If we are inside a decaying black hole that has an evaporative lifetime of 10 billion years, we would have 10 billion years to make as many random choices and actions as we wanted but when the black hole finished evaporating, the whole universe would "temporally reset to the Begining" and all our previous random choices & actions would be erased. And the universe would restart from the exact beginning "Template" is always restarts from. We would have free choice & free will but the record of our choices is erased each time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Nature decides _everything_. |
| Message-ID | <fd839c31-4121-40cd-9dec-c5f224633a6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389577 |
QM & GR won't reconcile because there is a Gap Energy of em radiation is energy (( The quantity of Matter ) mass) is an ( Energy Debt ) not energy E = (-m) * c^2 Tau/4 =/= 1 90 =/= (180/pi)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. |
| Message-ID | <57AA2A56.3397@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #389559 |
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Just because something is too complex to fully understand, > like tomorrow's weather, doesn't mean that it's truly random. > > "Predetermination" is a bad word because it implies knowledge. > Randomess is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. > > You ( Thomas_Heger ) wrote: > > You could repair your shoes, for instance, > > or you could decide to do not (and watch tv instead). > > Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will". > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. Who is programming Nature?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. |
| Message-ID | <57AA3EA1.340C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #389601 |
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > > > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > > > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will". > > > > > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. > > > > Who is programming Nature? > > No one; intrinsically, the (4d) TimeScape is static. > > Virtually, however, everything is spontaneously consuming > "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ); > the Sun does it, we do it, as does the entire cosmos. Okay, then what type of computer is nature using to program us to breathe, drink, etc.? Or which version of Windows is nature using??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. |
| Message-ID | <e0v1m7Fi9erU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389611 |
Am 09.08.2016 22:35, schrieb The Starmaker: Or which version of Windows is nature using?? 3.1 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web