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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#618395 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On 12 Feb 2017 19:24:13 GMT, 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 more than attempt. Your failure to recognize it tells us
something about you.


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

And you have "replied" only with abuse and unsubstantiated claims.

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

You think conservation of energy is irrelevant to the next state of a
double pendulum ... from **every** point in phase space ... because
...?

>A completely deterministic process can exhibit pure randomness.

From **every** point in phase space to the next?

>Case closed.  

Not hardly.

>Fuck you.

Sounds like someone misbehaving on mommy's computer.

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

#618353 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

Wally W. wrote:
> 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.

who are you to say what he has time for 

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

#618397 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:39:31 -0700,  % wrote:

>Wally W. wrote:
>> 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.
>
>who are you to say what he has time for 

Agreed.

That is not my call.

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

#618140 — Re: People _spin it; i.e. they lie, lie, lie.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:02:52 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> 
> Quantum "Mechanics" should be called Quantum "Statistics"
> because it models mere correlations, not cause and effect.
> Sadly, correlations can be wrong and/or misleading.
> 

This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements imaginable.

It is quantum MECHANICS, Jeff-Ass.

In fact, the Schroedinger equation can be derived entirely from
the Hamiltonian equation of classical mechanics by substituting
the deBroglie particle wavelength and the Plank energy relation.

Thus, the progress from classical MECHANICS to quantum MECHANICS
is very smooth and natural.  They are both MECHANICS because they
both deal with particle trajectories.

Jeff-Ass does not lie.  He just spews the truth of an incorrigible
idiot.

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

#618092 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

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

> 
> The 4-Dimensional TimeScape ( past and future )
> is static, immutable, eternal, without beginning or end;
> However, that doesn't mean the past still exists -- it doesn't.
> 

You fail to understand the Minkowski manifold, Jeff-Ass.

In one frame, there is no time, i.e. simultaneity, but in another
frame time exists, i.e. separateness.  Yet the reality in both
frames is the same.

>
> We ( humanity ) can't predict the weather over your head, _exactly,
> 12:00 hours from now, to the second/meter;
>

Yes we CAN predict, Jeff-Ass.  But to do so, we require a fine grid,
with meter or centimeter spacing.  Currently, our grids are spaced in KILOMETERS
and this leads to a breakdown in prediction after short times.

So you are DEAD WRONG, Jeff-Ass.  We CAN predict, but we CANNOT establish
fine grids.

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

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

#618097 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

Dne 11/02/2017 v 18:22 F. Russell napsal(a):
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:28:29 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 
>>
>> The 4-Dimensional TimeScape ( past and future )
>> is static, immutable, eternal, without beginning or end;
>> However, that doesn't mean the past still exists -- it doesn't.
>>
> 
> You fail to understand the Minkowski manifold, Jeff-Ass.
> 
> In one frame, there is no time, i.e. simultaneity, but in another
> frame time exists, i.e. separateness.  Yet the reality in both
> frames is the same.

Simultaneity as zero time difference
does not mean there is no time.

You provided quite a strange illustration
of relativity of simultaneity.

-- 
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]

#618099 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

the mainstream is always messing with time,
as a spatial dimesnion, which is just an artifact
of nomography per se, and Minkowsi in particular -- and
that d00d did a whole lot of n-ary stuff of more interest,
than this sylliness of timennspacenn

> You provided quite a strange illustration
> of relativity of simultaneity.
> 
> -- 
> 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]

#618124 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:13:11 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> Simultaneity as zero time difference
> does not mean there is no time.
> 

Yes, it does.

Time, or space, is NOT an INTRINSIC property of the universe
but depends entirely on a reference frame.

Such dependence means that we cannot talk about an ABSOLUTE
THING known as time. 


>
> You provided quite a strange illustration
> of relativity of simultaneity.
>

It is strange only to you.

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

#618131 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:05:04 AM UTC-10, F. Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:13:11 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Simultaneity as zero time difference
> > does not mean there is no time.
> > 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> Time, or space, is NOT an INTRINSIC property of the universe
> but depends entirely on a reference frame.
> 
> Such dependence means that we cannot talk about an ABSOLUTE
> THING known as time. 
> 
> 
> >
> > You provided quite a strange illustration
> > of relativity of simultaneity.
> >
> 
> It is strange only to you.

Here is the best paper on Time:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1932/

From 2004, it is entitled

Passage of Time in a Planck Scale Rooted Local Inertial Structure 

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

#618142 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

Dne 11/02/2017 v 20:04 F. Russell napsal(a):
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:13:11 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>
>> Simultaneity as zero time difference
>> does not mean there is no time.
>>
> 
> Yes, it does.

Fine, than there is no time here on the Earth,
as it happens some events occur simultaneously.

But if there is no time, you cannot know
if they occur simultaneously or not,
and therefore cannot know
if there is time here or not.

:-D

You need to study SR little more.

-- 
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]

#618147 — Re: We ( humanity ) _invent dimensions to simplify things.

Dne 11/02/2017 v 20:04 F. Russell napsal(a):

> Time, or space, is NOT an INTRINSIC property of the universe
> but depends entirely on a reference frame.
> 
> Such dependence means that we cannot talk about an ABSOLUTE
> THING known as time. 
> 
As time is known to be a relative thing,
present in ANY reference frame,
as reference frame, space and time
are part of our reality models.

Time rate in different frames
may seem to be different,
compared to each other,
and 2 events occurring simultaneously in one
may not do so in other frames.

-- 
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]

#618330 — time is not a dimesnsionality per se

the speed of light is solely dependent
upon the indices of refraction,
through which the wave must pass;
the secondpower of c is the rate of growth of the wavefront,
mod pi in the simplest case (taken per usual practice

> Time rate in different frames
> may seem to be different,
> compared to each other,
> and 2 events occurring simultaneously in one
> may not do so in other frames.
> 
> -- 
> 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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web