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

Groups > sci.physics > #617903 > unrolled thread

Time is not a dimension

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Time is not a dimension alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 06:36 -0800
    Re: Time is not a dimension Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-10 08:54 -0600
      corelations noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 09:17 -0800
    Re: Time is not a dimension Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-02-10 14:32 -0800
      Re: Time is not a dimension noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 19:50 -0800
        Re: Time is not a dimension Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-02-12 13:32 -0800
    Re: Time is not a dimension "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 15:28 -0800
      Re: Time is not a dimension "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-02-10 16:35 -0800
    Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-11 16:39 +0000
      Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-02-11 12:02 -0500
        Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-11 17:31 +0000
          time is not a dimension (counting is mensuration; measuring is measurement) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:15 -0800
            Re: time is not a dimension (counting is mensuration; measuring is measurement) "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 13:33 -0800
              Re: time is not a dimension (counting is mensuration; measuring is measurement) "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-02-11 16:27 -0800
          Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:14 +0100
          Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-02-11 18:27 -0500
            Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-11 23:59 +0000
              Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-02-12 13:32 -0500
                Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-12 19:24 +0000
                  Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 13:40 -0700
                  Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-02-12 18:55 -0500
                Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. " %" <persent@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 13:39 -0700
                  Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-02-12 19:01 -0500
      Re: People _spin it; i.e. they lie, lie, lie. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-11 19:39 +0000
    Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-11 17:22 +0000
      Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 19:13 +0100
        Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:19 -0800
        Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-02-11 19:04 +0000
          Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 11:17 -0800
          Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:53 +0100
          Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:17 +0100
            time is not a dimesnsionality per se noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:02 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#617903 — Time is not a dimension

I was reading that if time is a dimension, it implies that the future, present, and past coexist.  This implies that the universe is deterministic.  I am afraid that I do not believe the universe is deterministic, nor do I believe in time travel.  What implications does the fact that time is not a dimension have on physics?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617904

On 2/10/2017 8:36 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> I was reading that if time is a dimension, it implies that the
> future, present, and past coexist.

if you were really reading you were using time.
using Present time.
that was then, not now.

implication is very weak, as nothing can fully define or capture the 
past, nor the future.  We have now, the present.


> This implies that the universe is
> deterministic.

not at all, it is one huge random place, with a few general rules that 
weakly apply when you look closely.


> I am afraid that I do not believe the universe is
> deterministic, nor do I believe in time travel.

agree, there is that twin para ducks though

> What implications
> does the fact that time is not a dimension have on physics?

if time => 0,   then physics =>0

>
> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
>

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

#617911 — corelations

corellated pairs of dice e.g
> if time => 0,   then physics =>0
> 
> >
> > Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
> >

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

#617979

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:36:22 AM UTC-8, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was reading that if time is a dimension, it implies that the future, present, and past coexist.  This implies that the universe is deterministic.  I am afraid that I do not believe the universe is deterministic, nor do I believe in time travel.  What implications does the fact that time is not a dimension have on physics?
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor


The implications would be staggering!

Double-A

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

#618031

time is not a dimension at all; or,
it cerainly not is in any way spatial,
other then displaying it ... on hypergeometrical clockworks

> The implications would be staggering!
> 
> Double-A

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

#618359

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:50:53 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> time is not a dimension at all; or,
> it cerainly not is in any way spatial,
> other then displaying it ... on hypergeometrical clockworks


You are of course right on the money, professor.

Double-A

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

#617992

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:36:22 AM UTC-8, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was reading that if time is a dimension, it implies that the future, present, and past coexist.  This implies that the universe is deterministic.  I am afraid that I do not believe the universe is deterministic, nor do I believe in time travel.  What implications does the fact that time is not a dimension have on physics?
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor

There are 5 TIMES  TreBer

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

#618001

the <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017 > aka
 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
There are 5 TIMES a day when TreBer shits into his bucket.
There are 50 TIMES a day when TreBer posts Glazierola.
There are 500 TIMES a day when TreBer loud-mouthes.
There are 5000 TIMES a day when TreBer lies.

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

#618084 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:28:29 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> 
> Randomness is always ( subjective ) ignorance, never intrinsic.
> 

Total bullshit.

Even ignoring the quantum realm, where randomness is fundamental,
totally deterministic processes can produce random effects.  This
is the phenomenon of chaos, and even quite simple non-linear classical
systems can produce it.

You are WAY out of your league, Jeff-Ass.

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

#618090 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On 11 Feb 2017 16:39:26 GMT, F. Russell wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:28:29 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>> 
>> Randomness is always ( subjective ) ignorance, never intrinsic.
>> 
>
>Total bullshit.
>
>Even ignoring the quantum realm, where randomness is fundamental,
>totally deterministic processes can produce random effects.

The results may not be knowable if the process is deterministic, but
that doesn't make the results "random."

Unlike quantum mechanics, where there is a nonzero probability that a
baseball thrown in New York will arrive on Mars, there is zero
probability that the motion of a double pendulum will unexpectedly
trace a portion of its path through the atmosphere of Mars.

>  This
>is the phenomenon of chaos, and even quite simple non-linear classical
>systems can produce it.
>
>You are WAY out of your league, Jeff-Ass.

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

#618094 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:02:58 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

> 
> The results may not be knowable if the process is deterministic, but
> that doesn't make the results "random."
> 

Yes, it does.  The results are indistinguishable from what we define
as randomness.


>
> Unlike quantum mechanics, where there is a nonzero probability that a
> baseball thrown in New York will arrive on Mars,
>

You are an idiot that doesn't understand mathematics.

The probability decay in QM is exponential.  The value of the
wave amplitude on Mars would be on the order of 1E-1000000000000000
(i.e. 10^-10000000000000000) which to all beings except an idiot
is equal to ZERO.


>
> there is zero
> probability that the motion of a double pendulum will unexpectedly
> trace a portion of its path through the atmosphere of Mars.
> 

Again, the muttering of a total idiot.

If we sample the phase space trajectory of a double (or triple, or ...)
at uniform intervals we will obtain perfectly "random" results.

You are WAY out of your league, idiot.

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

#618098 — time is not a dimension (counting is mensuration; measuring is measurement)

cha0s, the m0ther 0f chr0n0s

> If we sample the phase space trajectory of a double (or triple, or ...)
> at uniform intervals we will obtain perfectly "random" results.

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

#618158 — Re: time is not a dimension (counting is mensuration; measuring is measurement)

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:15:27 AM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:
> cha0s, the m0ther 0f chr0n0s
> 
> > If we sample the phase space trajectory of a double (or triple, or ...)
> > at uniform intervals we will obtain perfectly "random" results.

Einstein had time #1 and space #2.Time relates to meeting.Getting there,and how long to stay.It pin points space in every dimension .Don't leave home without you time piece. Trebert

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

#618237 — Re: time is not a dimension (counting is mensuration; measuring is measurement)

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't leave home without you time piece the link for the
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> [1]
Trebert

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

#618155 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

Dne 11/02/2017 v 18:31 F. Russell napsal(a):
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:02:58 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
> 
>>
>> Unlike quantum mechanics, where there is a nonzero probability that a
>> baseball thrown in New York will arrive on Mars,
>>

> You are an idiot that doesn't understand mathematics.

Understanding manners is said to be even easier.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#618208 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On 11 Feb 2017 17:31:30 GMT, F. Russell wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:02:58 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> 
>> The results may not be knowable if the process is deterministic, but
>> that doesn't make the results "random."
>> 
>
>Yes, it does.  The results are indistinguishable from what we define
>as randomness.
>
>
>>
>> Unlike quantum mechanics, where there is a nonzero probability that a
>> baseball thrown in New York will arrive on Mars,
>>
>
>You are an idiot that doesn't understand mathematics.
>
>The probability decay in QM is exponential.  The value of the
>wave amplitude on Mars would be on the order of 1E-1000000000000000
>(i.e. 10^-10000000000000000) which to all beings except an idiot
>is equal to ZERO.
>
>
>>
>> there is zero
>> probability that the motion of a double pendulum will unexpectedly
>> trace a portion of its path through the atmosphere of Mars.
>> 
>
>Again, the muttering of a total idiot.
>
>If we sample the phase space trajectory of a double (or triple, or ...)
>at uniform intervals we will obtain perfectly "random" results.

Cite?

Given a known condition location and velocity for a point on the
double pendulum, its location and velocity an instant later are
constrained by conservation of energy, etc.

Not so for a system with actual randomness.


>You are WAY out of your league, idiot.

Someone sounds like they have the (im)maturity level of (at most) high
school.

http://fouriestseries.tumblr.com/post/86253333743/chaos-and-the-double-pendulum
There’s an important distinction to make between a chaotic system and
a random system. Given the starting conditions, a chaotic system is
entirely deterministic. A random system, on the other hand, is
entirely non-deterministic, even when the starting conditions are
known.

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

#618223 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:27:51 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

>>
>>If we sample the phase space trajectory of a double (or triple, or ...)
>>at uniform intervals we will obtain perfectly "random" results.
> 
> Cite?
> 

No citation is necessary for such an elementary fact.  It would be
like giving a reference for the sun rising in the east.

But just to bury a total idiot like you, have a view of this:

http://engineeringvideolectures.com/video/1002

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  Watch and weep, you disgusting, shit-brained,
total fucking idiot.

Deterministic processes can create randomness.  Case closed.  Fuck you.

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

#618334 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On 11 Feb 2017 23:59:22 GMT, F. Russell wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:27:51 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>
>>>
>>>If we sample the phase space trajectory of a double (or triple, or ...)
>>>at uniform intervals we will obtain perfectly "random" results.
>> 
>> Cite?
>> 
>
>No citation is necessary for such an elementary fact.  It would be
>like giving a reference for the sun rising in the east.
>
>But just to bury a total idiot like you, have a view of this:
>
>http://engineeringvideolectures.com/video/1002
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  Watch and weep, you disgusting, shit-brained,
>total fucking idiot.
>
>Deterministic processes can create randomness.  Case closed.  Fuck you.

A clue: The world already has too many arrogant pricks who have a
complusion to "prove" others were "wrong."

You don't have the horsepower to sustain a spot in that class of
misfits. There are far better at the attempt in the queue than you.

Their dogs are still loyal to them. The few people who remain in their
lives (from pity or obligation) have learned better. Those who remain
due to mental illness are victims.

There is still time for you to become a person others *want* to be
around.

I suggest starting now.

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

#618343 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:19 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

> 
> A clue: The world already has too many arrogant pricks who have a
> complusion to "prove" others were "wrong."
> 

You are talking only to yourself, arrogant idiot.

Examine this thread and you will discover that it was YOU that
attempted to overturn my statement that a deterministic process
can exhibit unquestionable randomness.

It was YOU that compulsively jumped in to the discussion bringing
your bullshit contrary "proof."

As I said, you are WAY out of your league.  So keep your stupid
mouth shut.

A completely deterministic process can exhibit pure randomness.
Case closed.  Fuck you.

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

#618354 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

F. Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:32:19 -0500, Wally W. 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> A clue: The world already has too many arrogant 
>> pricks who have a
>> complusion to "prove" others were "wrong."
>>
>
> You are talking only to yourself, arrogant 
> idiot.
>
> Examine this thread and you will discover that 
> it was YOU that
> attempted to overturn my statement that a 
> deterministic process
> can exhibit unquestionable randomness.
>
> It was YOU that compulsively jumped in to the 
> discussion bringing
> your bullshit contrary "proof."
>
> As I said, you are WAY out of your league.  So 
> keep your stupid
> mouth shut.
>
> A completely deterministic process can exhibit 
> pure randomness.
> Case closed.  Fuck you.

what a fetchin blow har har 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web