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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407726 > unrolled thread

Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow.

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

Contents

  Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-04 06:20 +1100
    Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:33 -0600
      Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 03:44 +1100
        Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-04 12:51 -0600
          Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 11:30 -0800
            Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-04 22:37 +0000
              Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 14:57 -0800
                Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-05 02:17 +0000
                  Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-05 01:11 -0800
          Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-05 08:09 +1100
          Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-05 06:05 -0800
        Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:26 -0600
          Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-06 00:48 +1100
            Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:33 -0600
              Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-06 08:53 +1100
                Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 14:48 -0800
                  Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-06 10:28 +1100
                    Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 19:50 -0800
                    Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0600
                    Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:29 -0600
                      Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-07 09:15 +1100
                Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:27 -0600
                  Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-07 09:24 +1100
                    Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 16:01 -0800
                      Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-07 19:53 +1100
                        Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-07 13:30 +0000
    Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 04:23 +1100
      Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 04:43 +1100
        Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-04 22:31 +0000
          Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-06 00:35 +1100
            Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-05 14:23 +0000
              Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-06 09:00 +1100
                Re: Time Instant, Time Interval, Time Flow. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-06 04:11 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#408147

On 07/02/17 00:29, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 5:28 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>> That is wrong. Pure numbers or differences between them have no
>> dimensions. The difference between two marks on ruler is used to define
>> a length, which DOES have dimensions and units. A point is NOT a length.
>
> Alright, so you say the points on the ruler have a mark on each one but
> not a unit, because points have no units. Then you say the difference
> between two things that have no units will also have no units. Then you
> say that the difference between two marks on a ruler DOES have
> dimensions and units.

That isn't what I said....
'124724646-12342348' has no unit
Get it now?

> Hmmmm.....
>
>
> Dance, monkey, dance.

Silly fellow....
Hey Bodkin, I have a CD here that plays a different tune in my car 
whenever I change speed. Is that caused by Einstein?

-- 

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

#408075

On 2/5/2017 3:53 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 06/02/17 02:33, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/5/2017 7:48 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think they recognize the difference. Different units, though.... Why?
>>>>
>>>> Do voltage and voltage difference require different units?
>>>
>>> ...a very poor attempt at an analogy....no surprise, really...
>>>
>>> The difference between the three aspects of time does have a spatial
>>> equivalent. 1) the 10cm mark on a ruler (instant). 2) The length of
>>> ruler between zero and the 10cm mark (an interval) and 3) a bug crawling
>>> along the marks on the ruler (flow of marks).
>>>
>>> .....get it now, Bodkin?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And do 1) and 2) on your own analogy have different units?
>
> Well, not exactly. They are different concepts altogether. One is a mark
> (a point), the other a length. A point doesn't have units at all.

So a location (x,y,z) has no units? You're saying that a location of 
(5.2 m, 2.7 m, -3.9 m) makes no physical sense.

> They can both be given a name with the term '10cms' in it but a '10cm
> mark' is not the same concept as a '10cm length'.

I didn't say it was the same concept. I asked if the two concepts had 
different units or not. First you say that a point has no units, then 
you say that a point and a distance interval can both have the same units.

Dance, monkey, dance.

>
> Similarly, an instant in TIME has no units and is not the same as an
> INTERVAL of TIME... which does.

So a moment in time has no units? Seriously??? What planet did you wake 
up on this morning?

>
> Get it now?
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#408149

On 07/02/17 00:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 3:53 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:

>>>
>>> And do 1) and 2) on your own analogy have different units?
>>
>> Well, not exactly. They are different concepts altogether. One is a mark
>> (a point), the other a length. A point doesn't have units at all.
>
> So a location (x,y,z) has no units? You're saying that a location of
> (5.2 m, 2.7 m, -3.9 m) makes no physical sense.
>
>> They can both be given a name with the term '10cms' in it but a '10cm
>> mark' is not the same concept as a '10cm length'.
>
> I didn't say it was the same concept. I asked if the two concepts had
> different units or not. First you say that a point has no units, then
> you say that a point and a distance interval can both have the same units.

Bodkin, you will never win an argument by lying.

> Dance, monkey, dance.
>
>>
>> Similarly, an instant in TIME has no units and is not the same as an
>> INTERVAL of TIME... which does.
>
> So a moment in time has no units? Seriously??? What planet did you wake
> up on this morning?

A moment in time can be given a label, like '9am, Dec22,2010'. That is 
not a unit. Julian day 23456, is also a label.
Units have dimensions. TIME with dimension T, is always a time INTERVAL

In the statement, "an event occurred at time t1", t' is a label, not a unit.

>>
>> Get it now?

If I were you Bodkin, I would leave physics to the experts.

-- 

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

#408165

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 2:24:34 PM UTC-8, HGW... DSc. wrote:

> Units have dimensions.

Well, Ralph, a kilogram is a unit. What is the dimension of a kilogram? A quart is also a unit. What is the dimension of a quart?

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

#408201

On 07/02/17 11:01, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 2:24:34 PM UTC-8, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>
>> Units have dimensions.
>
> Well, Henry, a kilogram is a unit. What is the dimension of a kilogram? A quart is also a unit. What is the dimension of a quart?

If you were a physicist you would know the answers. This is first year 
stuff... Why don't you enrol and learn something about the subject 
instead of whining like a typical Einstein worshipper?



-- 

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

#408220

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 07/02/17 11:01, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 2:24:34 PM UTC-8, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>>
>>> Units have dimensions.
>>
>> Well, Henry, a kilogram is a unit. What is the dimension of a 
>> kilogram? A quart is also a unit. What is the dimension of a quart?

>If you were a physicist you would know the answers. This is first year 
>stuff... Why don't you enrol and learn something about the subject 
>instead of whining like a typical Einstein worshipper?

So here we see that Ralph cannot answer pnalsing's question. As expected,
rather than admit that he cannot answer the question, Ralph instead
blusters and pretends the question was non-rhetorical.

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

#407839

On 04/02/17 06:20, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> What TIME is it?
> How much TIME does it take to walk a mile?
> TIME seems to move more quickly when one is busy.
>
> Physics is so primitive that it still refers to all three aspects of
> TIME with the same word.

Let's elaborate.

All scientific units of 'time' refer to time INTERVALS....eg., minutes, 
days, years. The 'second' is the defined scientific standard of time 
interval. Time 'instants' are usually indicated as pure numbers. When we 
ask, "what time is it?" we really means "what instant is it?"

The period of a stable oscillator can be used as a reference for time 
interval. That period is measured and expressed in standard seconds. A 
clock counts periods of a calibrated oscillator and converts the count 
into seconds to indicate a time instant, that being a number defining 
one end of a time interval. The other end is arbitrarily set at zero by 
the instant defined by midnight. Since n-0 always equals n, an 
instantaneous clock reading can be converted into a time interval by a 
trained person. Children are trained at an early age to convert clock 
readings into time intervals and the process soon becomes more or less 
automatic.

A digital wristwatch has a resolution of 1 second. A sundial indicates 
instants that are fractions of the earth's period. An egg timer defines 
an approximate interval of three minutes. A calender, is a clock that 
has a resolution of 24 hours.  Its arbitrary zero was set by an event in 
Roman times. Other cultures use different zeros.

Currently, there is no way to define or measure what is commonly 
referred to as 'time flow'.

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

#407842

On 05/02/17 04:23, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 04/02/17 06:20, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>> What TIME is it?
>> How much TIME does it take to walk a mile?
>> TIME seems to move more quickly when one is busy.
>>
>> Physics is so primitive that it still refers to all three aspects of
>> TIME with the same word.
>
> Let's elaborate.

Lesson 2.

Consider that there exists a previously unknown dimension that will be 
assigned the axis, W (after Wilson).

....__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__...W

Let the coordinates of the W axis be expressed in units of 'Tab'.
Next, assume the universe is moving along W at constant speed, just as a 
car moves along a road.
Physics can express that 'speed' in units of 'Tabs per second'.
This avoids the circularity that currently appears when humans try to 
define time flow as 'seconds per second'. The fact is, TIME moves 
relative to ANOTHER dimension and not to itself. It is traveling along 
the Wilson axis at a rate of n Tabs/sec, where the value of n is yet to 
be decided.

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

#407889

"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes:

>Lesson 2.

>Consider that there exists a previously unknown dimension that will be 
>assigned the axis, R (after Rabbidge).

>....__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__...R

>Let the coordinates of the R axis be expressed in units of 'Tab'.
>Next, assume the universe is moving along R at constant speed, just as a 
>car moves along a road.
>Physics can express that 'speed' in units of 'Tabs per second'.
>This avoids the circularity that currently appears when humans try to 
>define time flow as 'seconds per second'. The fact is, TIME moves 
>relative to ANOTHER dimension and not to itself. It is traveling along 
>the Rabbidge axis at a rate of n Tabs/sec, where the value of n is yet to 
>be decided.

Ralph, how is that any different than "speed" as defined by moving along
the X axis, at a certain amount of x per unit time?  Are you trying to
define time in terms of speed? The speed of what? Light? Hey Ralph, that 
is a great idea, since light moves at a constant speed everywhere!

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

#407939

On 05/02/17 09:31, Michael Moron-y admitted that physics is too hard for 
him.

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

#407947

"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes:

>"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes:

>>Lesson 2.

>>Consider that there exists a previously unknown dimension that will be
>>assigned the axis, R (after Rabbidge).

>>....__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__...R

>>Let the coordinates of the R axis be expressed in units of 'Tab'.
>>Next, assume the universe is moving along R at constant speed, just as a
>>car moves along a road.
>>Physics can express that 'speed' in units of 'Tabs per second'.
>>This avoids the circularity that currently appears when humans try to
>>define time flow as 'seconds per second'. The fact is, TIME moves
>>relative to ANOTHER dimension and not to itself. It is traveling along
>>the Rabbidge axis at a rate of n Tabs/sec, where the value of n is yet to
>>be decided.


>On 05/02/17 09:31, Michael Moron-y admitted that physics is too hard for 
>him.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I thought that you had plonked me! Ralph, I see
that you are still desperate for attention, even bad attention, just like
a troublesome youth, Ralph.  I see, Ralph, to feed your attention that you
read every word I post, Ralph, to feed your craving for attention, Mr.
Rabbidge.  Ralph, I am sorry that you feel that physics is too hard for
you, Ralph, but that's OK, it's not for everyone. Ralph, could you explain
your "Rabbidge" dimension, Ralph, and how it is different from some
combination of the spacial x, y, z dimensions, Ralph?

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

#408020

On 06/02/17 01:23, Michael Moroney wrote:"I accept that I am a hopeless 
fool".

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

#408050

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>"I accept that I am a hopeless fool".

You admit you're a hopeless fool, Ralph?  For writing this, Ralph?

>>Lesson 2.

>>Consider that there exists a previously unknown dimension that will be
>>assigned the axis, R (after Rabbidge).

>>....__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__...R

>>Let the coordinates of the R axis be expressed in units of 'Tab'.
>>Next, assume the universe is moving along R at constant speed, just as a
>>car moves along a road.
>>Physics can express that 'speed' in units of 'Tabs per second'.
>>This avoids the circularity that currently appears when humans try to
>>define time flow as 'seconds per second'. The fact is, TIME moves
>>relative to ANOTHER dimension and not to itself. It is traveling along
>>the Rabbidge axis at a rate of n Tabs/sec, where the value of n is yet to
>>be decided.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web