Time Flow
Quantum Ranger
"flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
into>>present>>and on to a future?
My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
past, then exactly what is it that flows?
Dirk Van de moortel
a7ca00ed-feef-43d0...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
In physics (and engineering, and on the street) time is defined
as what we read on clocks. It is defined as a count of
transitions between atoms:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
So nothing flows here.
For "flowing time" you better turn to some philosophy
newsgroup of the armchair type. You'll hear lots of more
interesting and juicy stories there :-)
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
I have heard that in some models you can be thought of as a complete
and total dickhead.
My question is this: if the world is full of dickheads like you how does
anything get accomplished?
SolomonW
NO-SperM.hotmail.com says...
> For "flowing time" you better turn to some philosophy
> newsgroup of the armchair type. You'll hear lots of more
> interesting and juicy stories there :-)
>
There are three main views in philosophy none of which will give you a
flowing time.
The first is "the block theory" that Einstein liked that the past,
present and future are all real. The second is that the past and present
are real but not the future. The third, which I like is that only the
present is real.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Dirk Van de moortel
MPG.2314449fc...@free.teranews.com
Like I said, "you'll hear lots of more interesting and
juicy stories there".
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
wrote:
> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
> into>>present>>and on to a future?
Indeed... there are meters on the petrol
pumps which measure its flow so
you can part with some of your hard earned
cash in exchange for some dinosaur's hard
spent time.
<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications
Sue...
socratus
” It's not so much that there's something strange about time,
the thing that's strange is what's going on inside time.
We will first understand how simple the universe is when
we recognize how strange time is. “
/ J. A. Wheeler /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
=========.
Time. /My opinion./
There are two kinds of time:
a) the proper (individual) time and
b) the planetary time.
They are so familiar that we rarely give them thought.
Don’t we know, that time for living being is limited
and the planetary time is absolute for them ? It is.
But Einstein had another opinion. He wanted to know:
“ Where does the conception of time come from?”,
“ What is the essence of time?”.
And to explain these questions he created two theories:
SRT and GRT.
1.
SRT explains behavior and the proper time of light
quanta /electron. Why do I think so?
a)
One law (postulate) of SRT says that speed of light quanta
is constant c=1. Second law says no another particle
can reach this speed. So there are two incommensurable
quantities. Is it possible to bind them together? No. I was
taught at school from the first class that the incommensurable
quantities cannot be compared. The connection between these
incommensurable quantities is similar to the decision of a
problem: “What will be if the whale attacks the elephant?”
We can see whale in a ocean and elephant in a savanna,
but they never meet and fight in the same “ frame of reference”.
And the same is about light quanta and another particles.
We cannot see them together in SRT. We can meet only the
light quanta in SRT and no other particles in it.
b)
SRT was born from Maxwell's theory and it is a continuation
of the electrodynamics’ development . The electron is a main
and single hero in the Maxwell's theory and SRT. There
isn't the Maxwell's theory / SRT without electron.
It is not correct to compare electron/ light quanta with another
particles (protons…etc) and bodies (billiard balls, satellites,
astronauts, “twins”) because they cannot produce electromagnetic
fields. The electron and the another particles are also
incommensurable
quantities. They are absolutely different objects.
c)
Every epoch has its own delusion. Maxwell and Boltzmann
tried to explain electromagnetic fields using balls, wheels,
cog-wheels, springs…etc. Now we try to compare electron/photon
ability with astronaut’s and “twins’ ” opportunities. It is mistaken,
but what to do? We do it because this is our way of cognition
:” From vague wish to the bright thought”.
2.
So, how SRT explains time from electron/ light quanta point of view.
a)
When light quanta is in state of a rest its time is frozen,
and its own clock shows zero.
b)
When photon moves with constant speed c=1
its time is also frozen, and its own clock still shows zero.
c)
Only when photon moves with speed c>1 its zero time
changes and limited time appears. In this situation we
know photon as an electron. Photon works as an electron
and SRT explains this process.
d)
And when , for example, electron emits from an atom and
interacts with Vacuum all its parameters change. Its limited
time ends and its own clock shows zero again. Now it lives
in infinite/ eternal Vacuum until new incarnation, until its new
work, maybe, in an atom (molecule), or in a cell, maybe, in a blade
of grass or in a tree, maybe, in an animal or in a person.
In another words:” We are living beings until Light quanta/
Electron is present and works in our body.” Is it true? Why?
Because W. Pauli in 1924 wrote:" Each quantum state in the atom
is not limited to two electrons, but only one electron".
It means in the atom can be only one, single electron.
The electron manages the atom. If the atom contains more
than one electron (for example – two), this atom represents
“ Siamese twins”. Save us God of having such atoms and cells.
And the living being begins its life from one, singe cell.
e)
Trying to understand “ the electrodynamics of moving bodies”
Einstein wrote that it is the result of time and space changes.
It is not exactly correct , because these changes are secondary
in SRT. And the first point of SRT is that light quanta changes
its spin. The former Planck/ Einstein’s spin (h) changes in
Goudsmit /
Uhlenbeck's spin (h = h / 2pi), and as a result of this act all its
parameters
change and the time and new space
appear.
3.
GRT explains the conditions of gravitation and the secret of
planetary time. Why do I think so?
a)
When Einstein worked on GRT, he asked astronomers:
“ What is the average mass of matter in the Universe?”
The result was lamentable. The quantity of mass was
insignificantly small. It was impossible to keep gravitation
law with such insignificantly little mass and so, the Universe
must be “open”, endless. But what to do with the infinite
space, Einstein didn’t know. Therefore he took (from the
heaven) “ the cosmological constant” in order to “close”
the Universe. The taken mass was enough for creating the
condition of gravitation. Without “ the cosmological constant”
the Universe is endless.
b)
In 1922 Friedman wrote, that we could not take “ the
cosmological constant” in calculation. Instead of it, it is
enough to take “time” and the Universe will be “closed”.
Friedman was correct, but why? Because “time”, by its
nature, is a limited physical quantity and, be taken in
mathematical calculation, automatically gives “closed” result.
c)
So, the detected material mass of the
matter in the Universe is so small (the average density
of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law doesn't work.
Astronomers and astrophysicists know about this fact and
therefore (to save the gravitation law) invented new matter
a "dark matter", a new energy a “dark energy” and another
abstract objects. This “ invention” is only a result of our
mentality , which says: ” If in a theory you meet infinity it
means the theory is nonsense”. It is very hard to take that
the Universe is infinite. It is no easy matter to give up
a lifetime of habit .
d)
On my opinion it is impossible to use GRT to Universe as
a whole. The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct
only in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum
as a whole is endless.
e)
So, how does GRT explain time?
According to GRT the time depends on the mass
and speed it means, of moving matter.
It means that different masses and speeds can create
different time. For example, our planet Earth has its
own time but for us it is absolute.
The other planets have another mass and speed and
therefore they have their own time. This time according
to GRT is relative. But their habitants will think their
time is absolute. But if they know GRT they will
not make this mistake.
=============
According to SRT and GRT time is relative.
SRT says about proper/ individual time of an
electron/ light quanta.
GRT says about planetary time of a Planet..
The time cannot exist without matter and speed,
in another words, without moving matter. But
different reasons and different moving of a matter
create the proper and planetary time.
=================..
Is it possible to see the different manifestation of
time in a human being?
Here is an article “ Even the time is pressed from fear”
by Dr. Vadim Chernobrov (collaborator of MAI -
- Moscow Aviation Institute).
He wrote, that we usually think time is a constant quality.
But Einstein’s relative theory says time is relative.
Question. Is it possible to check it in our life?
Answer. Russian and foreign researches say it is
possible. The documents (secret in the past) testify
that “cataclysm of time”, “ phenomenon of time’s
perversion “,” the changes (its deceleration) of time”
often is observed by people whose profession connected
with risk: astronauts, pilots, drivers, soldiers.
1.
The test pilot Mark Gallay wrote in his book
“The test in the sky” when his airplane was caught
with fire “ the time began to go in another scale. The time
almost stopped. Every second took ability of expansion,
and in this situation it was possible to do many things.”
He confirms that tested such feeling many times.
2.
The test pilot Marina L. Popovich said the same,
in the dangerous, catastrophic situations “ the time
is stretches”.
3.
In June 1989 the soviet airplane MIG-29 crashed near
Paris, in Le Bourget airport , in the time of its air show.
The notes of “the black box” showed that during the
four (4)seconds the test pilot Anatoly Kvochur made as
many operations as in normal situation it would take some
minutes. The test pilot later said: ” the time was stretched”.
4.
The captain N.Z.(fought in Afghanistan) remembers:
“the fly of the bullet was so beautiful that I didn’t guess
to evade from it, although I have enough time to do it”.
5.
The sergeant V. Ch (fought in Afghanistan) told:
“ The black barrel of gun seems very big, even enormous.
Time is stopped and full silence came. And I moved slowly
a step a side and the bullet passed close to me.”
6.
Etc…
His conclusions.
The people in a critical situation, on the border of death,
suddenly for themselves begin to see everything as in the
slow down film and in this time their speed reaction and
power increase in tens and hundreds times. And this explains:
a) why a man who escaped from wolves, can quickly reach
up the top of the naked tree,
b) an old woman took out a big trunk from her burned house,
which later two strong firemen couldn’t rise.
c) etc…
=============..
My experience.
The speed on the curve was so fast that to keep the balance of
the car I went on other road line and flew straight at the
“forehead’ of a green mercedes. The driver of the mercedes
was in panic, in horror. He threw the wheel and closed his face
with his hands. Suddenly the time stopped for me and I made
many actions before my car kicked only the side back door
of the mercedes.It was long time ago, but writing this article
I understood better what happened. In that time most neurons
of my brain stopped their electric pulse (time almost stopped)
and my Light Quanta/Electron in this new condition
(superconductivity) had possibility to increase my speed reaction
and power on a short period of time and maybe saved my life.
I must to thank Him.
===================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
The TimeLord
<paul.v...@ntlworld.com> in
a7ca00ed-feef-43d0...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
> into>>present>>and on to a future?
The idea of time flowing can be traced to some German philosophers in the
early 19th century, even though the idea was probably around way before
then. The claim was that if time was like a stream of water, then you
could go back in time by "swimming against the stream".
The idea really has no scientific value.
>
> My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
> past, then exactly what is it that flows?
Feynmann had the idea that antiparticles were just particles going back
in time. There really isn't any way to disprove this, but it is
intriguing since it is consistent with a lot experiments in particle
physics. It also has a corresponding concept of advanced and retarding
waves. For more info go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
and just browse the links.
You might also want to look at
http://www.phys.cwru.edu/undergrad/Senior%20Projects/SeniorProjectPosters/
KevinEngelPOSTER.pdf
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
Sue...
> Time. /My opinion./
>
> ” It's not so much that there's something strange about time,
> the thing that's strange is what's going on inside time.
> We will first understand how simple the universe is when
> we recognize how strange time is. “
> =========.
> Time. /My opinion./
>
===
> There are two kinds of time:
> a) the proper (individual) time and
> b) the planetary time.
Can you cite some references where physicists
respect this distinction? Do they use symbols
like t_I and t_P in calculations?
I suspect you intended to compare philosopy
with the OP rather than offer argument for or
against a farily solid physical concept
of time offered in my post.
socratus
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical
physics and the calculus of variations. Noether's theorem allows a far-
reaching generalization of earlier work on constants of motion in
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.
My point of view.
1.
a)
In mechanics, a constant of motion is a quantity that is conserved
throughout the motion, imposing in effect a constraint on the motion.
However, it is a mathematical constraint, the natural consequence of
the equations of motion, rather than a physical constraint (which
would require extra constraint forces). Common examples include
energy, linear momentum, angular momentum and the Laplace-Runge-Lenz
vector (for inverse-square force laws).
b)
In SRT and QM a constant of motion is a speed of light quanta: c=1.
2.
a)
Lagrangian mechanics is a re-formulation of classical mechanics that
combines conservation of momentum with conservation of energy. It was
introduced by Joseph Louis Lagrange in 1788.
Lagrange's equation for the classical mechanics is the difference
between
kinetic and potential energy.
b)
For the QM this difference between kinetic and potential energy
describes by formula: E=Mc^2.
3.
a)
Hamiltonian mechanics is a re-formulation of classical mechanics that
was introduced in 1833 by Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton.
It arose from Lagrangian mechanics, a previous re-formulation of
classical mechanics introduced by Joseph Louis Lagrange in 1788, but
can be formulated without recourse to Lagrangian mechanics using
"symplectic spaces" (See Mathematical formalism, below). The
Hamiltonian method differs from the Lagrangian method in that instead
of expressing second-order differential constraints on an n-
dimensional coordinate space, it expresses first-order constraints on
a 2n-dimensional phase space[1].
As with Lagrangian mechanics, Hamilton's equations provide a new and
equivalent way of looking at classical mechanics. Generally, these
equations do not provide a more convenient way of solving a particular
problem. Rather, they provide deeper insights into both the general
structure of classical mechanics and its connection to quantum
mechanics as understood through Hamiltonian mechanics, as well as its
connection to other areas of science.
b)
Hamiltonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics are equivalent .
Israel Sadovnik.
The TimeLord
<isra...@bezeqint.net> in
957ba65d-9fa3-4078...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> There are two kinds of time:
> a) the proper (individual) time and
Careful with terms. Proper time is defined to be the time between colocal
events on the object being observed
> b) the planetary time.
Huh? Planetary time? What's that?
[...]
> quanta /electron. Why do I think so?
> a)
> One law (postulate) of SRT says that speed of light quanta is constant
> c=1. Second law says no another particle
Actually it says that c=speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all
observers. That was based on experimental evidence. So Einstein just took
the experimental evidence as a foundational axiom.
> can reach this speed. So there are two incommensurable quantities. Is
Actually, it's not really a law, but a result of the SRT since in the SRT
nothing with mass can approach c in speed without sucking up more energy
than is available in the universe.
> it possible to bind them together? No. I was taught at school from the
> first class that the incommensurable quantities cannot be compared.
[...]
> And the same is about light quanta and another particles.
Mmmmmm. I sort of understand what you are driving at, despite the poor
example of whales and elephants, and it's sort of valid. Since photons
have no mass, they are fundamentally different from particles that do
have mass.
[...]
> b)
> SRT was born from Maxwell's theory and it is a continuation of the
> electrodynamics’ development . The electron is a main and single hero
> in the Maxwell's theory and SRT. There isn't the Maxwell's theory / SRT
> without electron.
Actually both theories don't need the electron. Example: let the charge
density and current density be zero in the Gauss part of the both
theories. You still have a valid theory in both cases, but no electrons.
In this case you get EM waves.
> It is not correct to compare electron/ light quanta with another
> particles (protons…etc) and bodies (billiard balls, satellites,
[...]
> quantities. They are absolutely different objects.
Once again, bad example. In that example, you simply make no sense.
> c)
> Every epoch has its own delusion. Maxwell and Boltzmann
> tried to explain electromagnetic fields using balls, wheels, cog-wheels,
> springs…etc. Now we try to compare electron/photon ability with
I'm not sure they were trying to do that, but anyway...
[...]
> So, how SRT explains time from electron/ light quanta point of view. a)
> When light quanta is in state of a rest its time is frozen, and its
> own clock shows zero.
My clock is at rest with respect to me. It's time is not frozen. It still
ticks right along. Since SRT does not distinguish between what the
observer is made out of, this also applies to light quanta. So your
statement is wrong.
> b)
> When photon moves with constant speed c=1 its time is also frozen, and
> its own clock still shows zero. c)
Not true. Since the clock is colocal to itself, we have the following
relation
t = t0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where t = time between events in frame moving at speed v
and t0 = time between events in rest frame.
When v=0 then t=t0, and when v=c then t=0.
> Only when photon moves with speed c>1 its zero time
No, when v>c then t is imaginary for all real t0, which in terms of the
underlying metric means that time makes no real physical sense. If you
think about it, how can you measure time on something that outruns its
capacity to be detected?
[...]
> d)
> And when , for example, electron emits from an atom and
> interacts with Vacuum all its parameters change. Its limited time ends
How do you know? Its spin changes? Its charge changes? I doubt it.
[...]
> In another words:” We are living beings until Light quanta/ Electron is
> present and works in our body.” Is it true? Why? Because W. Pauli in
> 1924 wrote:" Each quantum state in the atom
> is not limited to two electrons, but only one electron".
Right, because an electron is a fermion. However the statement does not
apply to bosons like the photon; and we know that more than one boson can
occupy the same space at the same time. Example: Bose-Einstein condensate.
[...]
(Basing science on religious prejudice is not a good idea.)
> Trying to understand “ the electrodynamics of moving bodies” Einstein
> wrote that it is the result of time and space changes. It is not exactly
> correct , because these changes are secondary
> in SRT. And the first point of SRT is that light quanta changes its
Not sure what you mean by that, but oh well...
> spin. The former Planck/ Einstein’s spin (h) changes in
Light changing its spin? That certainly does not happen because of SRT
since spin is more associated with QM.
> Goudsmit /
> Uhlenbeck's spin (h = h / 2pi), and as a result of this act all its
> parameters
> change and the time and new space
> appear.
Planck's constant h, which Einstein used in his paper on the
photoelectric effect is not necessarily spin. It is in both Einstein's
theory and Planck's theory a proportionality constant. The constant
hbar=h/(2*pi) is used when spin quantum numbers are discussed because it
is more natural in that context than using h and then having another
constant 2*pi floating around in the equations.
> 3.
> GRT explains the conditions of gravitation and the secret of
> planetary time. Why do I think so?
Yeah, why indeed?
> a)
> When Einstein worked on GRT, he asked astronomers: “ What is the average
> mass of matter in the Universe?”
Average mass - in the universe? That is not a well-constructed statement.
Do you mean average mass density?
> The result was lamentable. The quantity of mass was
> insignificantly small. It was impossible to keep gravitation law with
Average mass density is small, but the total mass is quite high.
> such insignificantly little mass and so, the Universe must be “open”,
> endless. But what to do with the infinite
Actually the universe seems to be open because the mass density is just
slightly subcritical for closure. That does not invalidate gravitation,
since the whole concept of open or closed universe depends on gravitation.
> space, Einstein didn’t know. Therefore he took (from the heaven) “ the
> cosmological constant” in order to “close”
> the Universe. The taken mass was enough for creating the
That's true, but Abell showed that the general solution to Einstein's
Field Equations includes the cosmological constant as a constant of
integration. The rule in physics is that you never set a constant of
integration equal to zero unless experiment demands it.
> condition of gravitation. Without “ the cosmological constant” the
> Universe is endless.
Not true. cf above.
> b)
> In 1922 Friedman wrote, that we could not take “ the cosmological
> constant” in calculation. Instead of it, it is
Alexander Friedman probably wrote that because a non-zero cosmological
constant would under the right condition result in a static universe,
which is why Einstein introduced the constant in the first place. Later
Edwin Hubble showed that the universe is not static.
[...]
> c)
> So, the detected material mass of the
> matter in the Universe is so small (the average density
> of all substance in the Universe is approximately
> p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law doesn't work.
Actually it does.
> Astronomers and astrophysicists know about this fact and therefore (to
> save the gravitation law) invented new matter a "dark matter", a new
No, dark matter is the result of observing that in galaxies the inner
stars seem to rotate in Keplerian orbits, whereas the outer stars seem to
be orbiting in a way that is a combination of Keplerian and solid body
rotation. It is as if there is matter in the galaxies that can't be seen,
hence that matter is "dark" matter.
> energy a “dark energy” and another abstract objects. This “ invention”
Dark energy comes from the fact that the expansion of the universe as
observed by the red shift of galaxies seems to differ from the expansion
as observed by supernovae in those same galaxies when they are very far
away. It appears as though those distant galaxies get an extra
"umph" that can't be accounted for by the Big Bang. That extra energy is
called "dark" energy because there is no other evidence of its existence.
[...]
> d)
> On my opinion it is impossible to use GRT to Universe as a whole. The
So why does it work so well on the universe as a whole?
[...]
> e)
> So, how does GRT explain time?
Why would it need to?
> According to GRT the time depends on the mass and speed it means, of
No. It's clear you don't know anything about GRT.
[...]
> GRT says about planetary time of a Planet.. The time cannot exist
GRT really doesn't say anything about planetary time, since you just made
it up.
[...]
> possible. The documents (secret in the past) testify that “cataclysm of
> time”, “ phenomenon of time’s perversion “,” the changes (its
> deceleration) of time” often is observed by people whose profession
> connected
> with risk: astronauts, pilots, drivers, soldiers. 1.
> The test pilot Mark Gallay wrote in his book “The test in the sky” when
> his airplane was caught with fire “ the time began to go in another
> scale. The time
Maybe Mark Gallay was on drugs. Maybe he was suffering from hypoxia.
Maybe he was hysterical. One thing is for sure: no one was able to verify
his experience independently.
[...]
> The test pilot Marina L. Popovich said the same, in the dangerous,
> catastrophic situations “ the time is stretches”.
It is known that time *appears* to dilate when that person is under
stress. However, that does not mean that time is actually dilating.
[...]
> My experience.
[...]
Unless your experience involved measuring time with a clock and
independent verification, it is meaningless and irrelevant as far as
Relativity goes.
> and power on a short period of time and maybe saved my life. I must to
> thank Him.
I'm glad you're alive and if you thank a providential power such as God,
more power to you. Nevertheless, your experience has no bearing on
Relativity.
Your post leads me to think that you really need to take a physics class
since you make some really silly statements about SRT and GRT.
Hayek
Uwe Hayek.
Hayek
And all too complicated for technicians to understand.
Uwe Hayek.
Hayek
Well, time does not exist at all. There is no fourth dimension.
There are three dimensions, and there is motion.
The variation in motion is controlled by inertia.
A clock is an inertiameter. Look at what a clock is, it swings a
weight/quartz/electron back and forth. Lower the inertia and it swings
easier thus faster, increase the inertia and it swings slower.
Inertia is caused by masses around you, like a whole universe, the earth
contributes as one in a billion.
No time travel possible, the past is just another configuration of the
same objects we have at the present, and the future is made of a new
configuration of the same objects, and they move from one configuration
in the other. Our brains memory retains the notion of the past, as it
remembers the previous positions of objects, with
the exception of your car keys.
Uwe Hayek.
Dirk Van de moortel
48ab4a26$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
> Quantum Ranger wrote:
>> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
>> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
>> into>>present>>and on to a future?
>>
>> My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
>> past, then exactly what is it that flows?
>
> Well, time does not exist at all.
No, when Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher looks at his clock,
he sees nothing at all.
> There is no fourth dimension.
No, Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher cannot define an event
with three numbers to specify where and one number to specify when
it occurred. Ask Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher to tell about
his birth, and he'll tell you the altitude, latitide and the elevation, but he
cannot possibly tell you when it happened since Armchair Philosophers
are not allowed to use four numbers to describe things.
>
> There are three dimensions, and there is motion.
>
> The variation in motion is controlled by inertia.
>
> A clock is an inertiameter. Look at what a clock is, it swings a
> weight/quartz/electron back and forth. Lower the inertia and it swings
> easier thus faster, increase the inertia and it swings slower.
Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher has personally investigated the
inner workings of atoms, molecules and nuclei, and has experimentally
established that something is swinging down there, just like the weight
in Zijne Herbert Sr. The Rocking Chair Philosopher's grandfather clock.
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
> 48ab4a26$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>> Quantum Ranger wrote:
>>> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
>>> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
>>> into>>present>>and on to a future?
>>>
>>> My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
>>> past, then exactly what is it that flows?
>>
>> Well, time does not exist at all.
>
> No, when Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher looks at his clock,
> he sees nothing at all.
That would be you, since you see time on a clock.
I see an inertiameter, by the way the clock is constructed.
>
>> There is no fourth dimension.
>
> No, Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher cannot define an event
> with three numbers to specify where and one number to specify when
> it occurred.
Your Dork claims he is such a wiz in mathematics.
But even as early as high school I learned that when you could write an
axis in terms of the other axes, then it is NOT an independent dimension.
This is exactly what relativity shows us.
QUOTE
On 21 September 1908 Minkowski began his famous lecture at the
University of Cologne with these words:-
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality. "
FROM
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Time_2.html
Not in Dorkafisiks ? or in Dorkamats ?
> Ask Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher to tell about
> his birth, and he'll tell you the altitude, latitide and the elevation,
> but he
> cannot possibly tell you when it happened since Armchair Philosophers
> are not allowed to use four numbers to describe things.
You can, but then you are not talking about nature.
This is sci.PHYSICS.relativity, and NOT sci.mathematics.relativity.
And I have nothing against a REPRESENTATION by four dimensions, you can
calculate, and get results. But if it leads to NOT understanding the
point, like is is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBVVVVIOOOOUUUS
in your hopeleslly brainwashed point of view, then I disagree.
>>
>> There are three dimensions, and there is motion.
>>
>> The variation in motion is controlled by inertia.
>>
>> A clock is an inertiameter. Look at what a clock is, it swings a
>> weight/quartz/electron back and forth. Lower the inertia and it swings
>> easier thus faster, increase the inertia and it swings slower.
>
> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher has personally investigated the
> inner workings of atoms, molecules and nuclei, and has experimentally
> established that something is swinging down there, just like the weight
> in Zijne Herbert Sr. The Rocking Chair Philosopher's grandfather clock.
Well you know what they say about theories. They do not get accepted,
the people who cling to the old theories just die out.
I pity you, that means there is absolutely no hope for you ever to
understand.
Uwe Hayek.
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> 48ab4a26$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>>> Quantum Ranger wrote:
>>>> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
>>>> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
>>>> into>>present>>and on to a future?
>>>>
>>>> My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
>>>> past, then exactly what is it that flows?
>>>
>>> Well, time does not exist at all.
>>
>> No, when Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher looks at his clock,
>> he sees nothing at all.
>
> That would be you, since you see time on a clock.
Me, and every physicist, and every engineer, and every man in
the street see time on their clocks. Onze Hayek The Armchair
Philosopher sees nothing at all.
>
> I see an inertiameter, by the way the clock is constructed.
>
>>
>>> There is no fourth dimension.
>>
>> No, Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher cannot define an event
>> with three numbers to specify where and one number to specify when
>> it occurred.
>
> Your Dork claims he is such a wiz in mathematics.
> But even as early as high school I learned that when you could write an
> axis in terms of the other axes, then it is NOT an independent dimension.
Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher learned as early as
high school that one cannot define an event with 4 numbers.
>
> This is exactly what relativity shows us.
>
> QUOTE
>
> On 21 September 1908 Minkowski began his famous lecture at the
> University of Cologne with these words:-
>
> "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
> from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
> They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
> doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
> two will preserve an independent reality. "
>
> FROM
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Time_2.html
>
> Not in Dorkafisiks ? or in Dorkamats ?
From this quote, Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher concludes
that one cannot define an event with 4 numbers.
>
>
>> Ask Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher to tell about
>> his birth, and he'll tell you the altitude, latitide and the elevation,
>> but he
>> cannot possibly tell you when it happened since Armchair Philosophers
>> are not allowed to use four numbers to describe things.
>
> You can, but then you are not talking about nature.
Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher was not born in nature.
He was born Armchair Philosophia where events cannot be
defined with 4 numbers.
>
> This is sci.PHYSICS.relativity, and NOT sci.mathematics.relativity.
This is sci.PHYSICS.relativity, not ALT.ARMCHAIR.PHILOSOPHY.
>
> And I have nothing against a REPRESENTATION by four dimensions, you can
> calculate, and get results. But if it leads to NOT understanding the
> point, like is is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBVVVVIOOOOUUUS
> in your hopeleslly brainwashed point of view, then I disagree.
Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher wants to really
UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND
time in terms of anything, as long as it is not what we read on
clocks.
>
>>>
>>> There are three dimensions, and there is motion.
>>>
>>> The variation in motion is controlled by inertia.
>>>
>>> A clock is an inertiameter. Look at what a clock is, it swings a
>>> weight/quartz/electron back and forth. Lower the inertia and it swings
>>> easier thus faster, increase the inertia and it swings slower.
>>
>> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher has personally investigated the
>> inner workings of atoms, molecules and nuclei, and has experimentally
>> established that something is swinging down there, just like the weight
>> in Zijne Herbert Sr. The Rocking Chair Philosopher's grandfather clock.
>
> Well you know what they say about theories. They do not get accepted,
> the people who cling to the old theories just die out.
>
> I pity you, that means there is absolutely no hope for you ever to
> understand.
Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher pities those who can
define events with 4 numbers without losing any sleep over it.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher has spoken.
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
> That sounds very perpetual sue. What happens to the emissions ? Is any
> mass lost during the process, or rather are you just re-displacing
> mass ? Well. We could have picked up a potato from the ground and
> placed it onto the table to make the same brilliant realisation.
>
<< In the mass spectrum, the heaviest ion (the one with the
greatest m/z value) is likely to be the molecular ion. A
few compounds have mass spectra which don't contain a molecular
ion peak, because all the molecular ions break into fragments.
That isn't a problem you are likely to meet at A'level. >>
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/analysis/masspec/mplus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio
Sue...
Hayek
> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> 48ac5bf8$0$182$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>> 48ab4a26$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>>>> Quantum Ranger wrote:
>>>>> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
>>>>> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
>>>>> into>>present>>and on to a future?
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
>>>>> past, then exactly what is it that flows?
>>>>
>>>> Well, time does not exist at all.
>>>
>>> No, when Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher looks at his clock,
>>> he sees nothing at all.
>>
>> That would be you, since you see time on a clock.
>
> Me, and every physicist, and every engineer, and every man in
> the street see time on their clocks.
What a wonderful scientific argument, I suggest you all vote for it.
> Onze Hayek The Armchair
> Philosopher sees nothing at all.
A parrot repeats the same thing a lot, without any understanding of the
subject.
>>
>> I see an inertiameter, by the way the clock is constructed.
>>
>>>
>>>> There is no fourth dimension.
>>>
>>> No, Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher cannot define an event
>>> with three numbers to specify where and one number to specify when
>>> it occurred.
>>
>> Your Dork claims he is such a wiz in mathematics.
>> But even as early as high school I learned that when you could write an
>> axis in terms of the other axes, then it is NOT an independent dimension.
>
> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher learned as early as
> high school that one cannot define an event with 4 numbers.
A straight line is defined by two points. Why should you use three points ?
>>
>> This is exactly what relativity shows us.
>>
>> QUOTE
>>
>> On 21 September 1908 Minkowski began his famous lecture at the
>> University of Cologne with these words:-
>>
>> "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
>> from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
>> They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
>> doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
>> two will preserve an independent reality. "
>>
>> FROM
>> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Time_2.html
>>
>> Not in Dorkafisiks ? or in Dorkamats ?
>
> From this quote, Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher concludes
> that one cannot define an event with 4 numbers.
The problem is : you conclude nothing from the words of Minkowski.
You do not have a clue what he is talking about.
If you claim otherwise, prove it here.
>>
>>> Ask Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher to tell about
>>> his birth, and he'll tell you the altitude, latitide and the elevation,
>>> but he
>>> cannot possibly tell you when it happened since Armchair Philosophers
>>> are not allowed to use four numbers to describe things.
>>
>> You can, but then you are not talking about nature.
>
> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher was not born in nature.
> He was born Armchair Philosophia where events cannot be
> defined with 4 numbers.
I narrowly escaped the Belgian "educational system", better defined as
"a thought holocaust". Too bad it completely killed of your ability to
think for yourself.
>
>>
>> This is sci.PHYSICS.relativity, and NOT sci.mathematics.relativity.
>
> This is sci.PHYSICS.relativity, not ALT.ARMCHAIR.PHILOSOPHY.
As if you would now...
>> And I have nothing against a REPRESENTATION by four dimensions, you can
>> calculate, and get results. But if it leads to NOT understanding the
>> point, like is is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBVVVVIOOOOUUUS
>> in your hopeleslly brainwashed point of view, then I disagree.
>
> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher wants to really
> UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND
> time in terms of anything, as long as it is not what we read on
> clocks.
The problem is that if you give Phd's to parrots, they start to believe
they can think for themselves.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are three dimensions, and there is motion.
>>>>
>>>> The variation in motion is controlled by inertia.
>>>>
>>>> A clock is an inertiameter. Look at what a clock is, it swings a
>>>> weight/quartz/electron back and forth. Lower the inertia and it swings
>>>> easier thus faster, increase the inertia and it swings slower.
>>>
>>> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher has personally investigated the
>>> inner workings of atoms, molecules and nuclei, and has experimentally
>>> established that something is swinging down there, just like the weight
>>> in Zijne Herbert Sr. The Rocking Chair Philosopher's grandfather clock.
>>
>> Well you know what they say about theories. They do not get accepted,
>> the people who cling to the old theories just die out.
>>
>> I pity you, that means there is absolutely no hope for you ever to
>> understand.
>
> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher pities those who can
> define events with 4 numbers without losing any sleep over it.
>
>>
>> Uwe Hayek.
>
> Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher has spoken.
>
> Dirk Vdm
You are getting even worse than the RT denialist crowd that roams here.
They still try to present some arguments and reasoning, an ability which
you totally lost.
The point is, that if you do not even understand my simple arguments.
you really if an inferior mind, unable to grasp reality. You may be good
at parroting integrals, like mathematica does, and you might be even
proud of it, but it does not lay eggs if you want to understand time.
And THAT is THE BBBIIIGGG challenge of relativity.
You are a very weak link, Goodbye.
Uwe Hayek.
Thomas Heger
model, but nobody seems to understand it. Maybe you.
It goes like this:
Think of the Euler equation e^ipi =-1. Then imagine a light cone with an
observer P at the tip,
Now I want to define a multiplicative space with three imaginary axes. Best
is to imagine that as 'connected' points, that rotate each other. Since this
space is antisymmetric each point has an orientation and actually only the
orientation moves.
Three rotations are assumed to generate an imaginary spinning sphere.
This sphere has a pole and the connection from P to the pole is the
direction of time.
Perpendicular to this direction I define a hypersheet, that moves with this
sphere along the worldline of the sphere. The sphere has an orientation and
a rotation. So I draw a circle on this sheet around the pseudovector of
rotation.
Then I perform a Wick rotation and make time imaginary and space real. A
circle on the timelike hypersheet is than a cloud-like sphere around a
massive core (what looks quite like an atom).
This space called spacetime has only three dimensions, if we regard the
degrees of freedom as dimension and has a timelike behavior, that has no
degree of freedom.
Thomas heger
Dirk Van de moortel
g8i5mi$c9e$03$1...@news.t-online.com
I understand the part where you say "but nobody seems to
understand it".
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> 48ac5bf8$0$182$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>>> 48ab4a26$0$196$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
>>>>> Quantum Ranger wrote:
>>>>>> I have heard that time can be thought in some models to be able to
>>>>>> "flow"..or is it percieved by observers to flow from a past>>
>>>>>> into>>present>>and on to a future?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is this, if there are no particles in, still around in the
>>>>>> past, then exactly what is it that flows?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, time does not exist at all.
>>>>
>>>> No, when Onze Hayek The Armchair Philosopher looks at his clock,
>>>> he sees nothing at all.
>>>
>>> That would be you, since you see time on a clock.
>>
>> Me, and every physicist, and every engineer, and every man in
>> the street see time on their clocks.
>
> What a wonderful scientific argument, I suggest you all vote for it.
In order to make some kind of a living, armchair philosophers tend
to confuse definitions with arguments.
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Heger
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:g8j739$k1p$1...@news-pa1.hpl.hp.com...
There is a interesting connection between the position operator of quantum
mechanics and a formula for quaternion rotations. If we think of an interval
as a quaternion, it would make some sense, because we have a scalar part and
a vector part. The interpretation is that this quaternion is the quotient of
two vectors. Since the orientation of these vectors rotate around a point,
we can use the euler equation to generate a sine wave and count the peaks to
get a scalar of time (counts are scalars). Now we can extend that in two
directions and have two sines perpendicular in an imaginary space around a
point, what generates an imaginary helix. If we multiply another sine, we
get a cloud around a spinning sphere (what looks like an atom - as I think -
if we turn the perpective into our usualy space of observation).
TH