Space, time, the works.
Alex
here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
really exist. It's something that humans created to explain their
world. If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them. Am I wrong
in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
the system we have?
This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
Thanks,
Alex
Gernot Frisch
"Alex" <al...@fortworks.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b71d3208.04092...@posting.google.com...
Time strongly depends on the existance, distance and ammount of matter
around your 'clock'. There is time. You can proove it simply because
you have evidence that you lay your pen on the desk and now it's
there. It wasn't there before. And it won't be after you lifted it
again. The chronological order stays, thus there is time. How much
time there was between it, that's a harder question. And how to
measure it.
You cannot even measure time by the distance light travelled during
"that time", since the speed of light has been prooved not to be
constant, either.
-Gernot
robert j. kolker
Alex wrote:
>
> This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
Time doesn't exist? You begin your life as a squalling infant, and if
you have not met with accident or disease you end your life as a
wizened, shrunken weak thing. Some non-existence that is.
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.
Bob Kolker
Mark Fergerson
> There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
> here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
> really exist. It's something that humans created to explain their
> world.
Who says so? What's their qualification to say such a thing? How do
they know? Sounds like some mendicant philosoper's bullshit to me.
If humans invented time, what did other species make do with before
we came along?
> If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
> developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
> that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
> there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them. Am I wrong
> in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
> relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
> the system we have?
>
> This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
Stick with what can be measured. Great way to get deconfused.
Mark L. Fergerson
Uncle Al
>
> There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
> here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
> really exist.
Radioactivity and particle decays. PLONK. Frequencies of
electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum. PLONK. Acceleration.
PLONK.
> It's something that humans created to explain their
> world. If it doesn't exist,
Self-serving idiot
> why is it that physics people are
> developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
> that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
> there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> Am I wrong
> in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
> relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
> the system we have?
>
> This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
Become a poli. sci. major.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Morituri-Max
> Time strongly depends on the existance, distance and ammount of matter
> around your 'clock'. There is time. You can proove it simply because
> you have evidence that you lay your pen on the desk and now it's
> there. It wasn't there before. And it won't be after you lifted it
> again. The chronological order stays, thus there is time. How much
> time there was between it, that's a harder question. And how to
> measure it.
Correct.
> You cannot even measure time by the distance light travelled during
> "that time", since the speed of light has been prooved not to be
> constant, either.
Not correct. The speed of light is the ONLY constant in the universe.
Maleki
> Radioactivity and particle decays. PLONK. Frequencies of
> electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum. PLONK. Acceleration.
> PLONK.
In order to have a notion of "sequence" a brain and its
model-making and image-making properties are needed. Are you
denying this? Only within brain such notions as "time" are
created. Same goes for the notion of "change". You need a
brain to define it. It takes place inside some brains.
--
nun nadAre bokhoreh piyAz mikhore eshtehAsh
vAsheh.
Uncle Al
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:40:24 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > Radioactivity and particle decays. PLONK. Frequencies of
> > electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum. PLONK. Acceleration.
> > PLONK.
>
> In order to have a notion of "sequence" a brain and its
> model-making and image-making properties are needed. Are you
> denying this? Only within brain such notions as "time" are
> created. Same goes for the notion of "change". You need a
> brain to define it. It takes place inside some brains.
Hey stupid - you have a curie of tritium today. 12.43 years later
<http://nwql.usgs.gov/Public/tech_memos/nwql.94-10.html>
you have a half-curie of tritum. That is true for any and all local
measurements anywhere under any circumstances. Outside inertial
observers' measurements may vary. Insiders' do not.
Maleki
> Maleki wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:40:24 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
>>
>>> Radioactivity and particle decays. PLONK. Frequencies of
>>> electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum. PLONK. Acceleration.
>>> PLONK.
>>
>> In order to have a notion of "sequence" a brain and its
>> model-making and image-making properties are needed. Are you
>> denying this? Only within brain such notions as "time" are
>> created. Same goes for the notion of "change". You need a
>> brain to define it. It takes place inside some brains.
>
> Hey stupid - you have a curie of tritium today. 12.43 years later
>
> <http://nwql.usgs.gov/Public/tech_memos/nwql.94-10.html>
>
> you have a half-curie of tritum.
Yes but you cannot relate it to the amount of it 12.43 years
earlier unless you have a brain that has stored that earlier
information in it. It is the recollection of various images
of things that brain compares and reasons with. Outside our
brains everything is only at the present. No motion!
"Motion" is what a brain conceives by comparing the present
and the previous _recollection_ of it. It is just something
inside your mind.
--
khAteri chand agar az to shavad shAd bas ast
zendegAni be morAde hame kas natvAn kard
"Sa'eb"
Constantine
"Alex" <al...@fortworks.com> wrote in message
news:b71d3208.04092...@posting.google.com...
> There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
> here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
> really exist. It's something that humans created to explain their
> world. If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
> developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
> that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
> there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them. Am I wrong
> in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
> relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
> the system we have?
>
I can't resist to answer that... If you really believe that time does not
exist, try to explain that to your boss when he sucks you for being late.
Friendly, Kostas.
Dirk Van de moortel
This has not been tried as an answer yet:
In physics, time is defined as what an experimenter reads on
a deviced called "clock". With this the experimenter can start
working and creating models and theories about the world.
Philosophers occupy themselves with creating theories about
time. The only thing you can do with *these* theories, is getting
confused.
Dirk Vdm
Paul Draper
Yes, you are confused. What you may have heard is that time is not
what we once thought it was. We once thought that it was something
completely different than space, a different animal entirely. What we
learned is that space and time are different parts of one thing:
spacetime. However, that doesn't mean that spacetime could do without
the notion of time entirely -- on the contrary, the "signature" of
spacetime explicitly includes something beyond spatial dimensions
alone.
This is very similar to the revelation that electricity and magnetism
are not disassociated ideas -- indeed, one feeds the other because
they are both parts of the electromagnetic field. That does not mean,
though, that we can explain all magnetic fields in terms of electric
fields and vice versa.
The timelike part of spacetime has some unique and interesting
properties -- the direction of its "arrow" for example, revealed in
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
PD
dar7yl
news:1odudsh0i3f23.v...@40tude.net...
> In order to have a notion of "sequence" a brain and its
> model-making and image-making properties are needed. Are you
> denying this? Only within brain such notions as "time" are
> created. Same goes for the notion of "change". You need a
> brain to define it. It takes place inside some brains.
Aren't we getting a bit esoteric here? You belong in the class of people
who can't figure out the problem of the sound of one hand clapping.
( That's the one-armed deaf woodsman congratulating himself after chopping
down the tree in a bush :)
After anthromorphising the universe, does it actually care whether the puny
life-forms living within it actually believe it exists?
regards,
Dar7yl.
dar7yl
-> should be anthropomorphizing.
"dar7yl" <no_r...@accepted.org> wrote in message
news:urm4d.125518$XP3.84673@edtnps84...
> "Maleki" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1odudsh0i3f23.v...@40tude.net...
>
>> In order to have a notion of "sequence" a brain and its
>> model-making and image-making properties are needed. Are you
>> denying this? Only within brain such notions as "time" are
>> created. Same goes for the notion of "change". You need a
>> brain to define it. It takes place inside some brains.
>
> Aren't we getting a bit esoteric here? You belong in the class of people
> who can't figure out the problem of the sound of one hand clapping.
> ( That's the one-armed deaf woodsman congratulating himself after chopping
> down the tree in a bush :)
>
> After anthropomorphizing the universe, does it actually care whether the
Paul Cardinale
! So that's why so many of my cow-orkers show up late!
Paul Cardinale
h?
G?
Maleki
Such concerns as "care" and "believe" only come up inside
the brains of some of us. If there are structures in the
universe, other than our brains, capable of image-making and
modeling, then such concerns may come up for them as well.
--
Atash An nist ke az sho'leye 'u khandad sham'
Atash An ast ke dar kharmane parvAneh zadand
"Hafez"
David Canzi -- non-mailable address
I hope so too. But I can't help you because there isn't time.
--
David Canzi
Uncle Al
c, G, h; and probably Boltzmann's constant to make an
all-possible-theory tesseract rather than cube. It's more interesting
that way.
Greysky
Alex, Time is just nature's way of saying 'shit happens'. We humans use
the concept of time as a reference to gauge how much shit is happening. This
is why personal time is subjective - waiting the last few seconds for the
clock to time out and for the school bell to ring is an eternity to a 4th
grader . Other processes, like the decay of a radioactive element are on
their own 'time'. We have rules that allow us to tell how much shit is
happening in a particular circumstance to a particular process... but it all
just boils down to 'shit happens'. What we call time is also just a process
and so has its own set of rules - but never forget what it's there for...and
you'll be all right.
Greysky
Alex Fort
Paul Draper wrote:
> al...@fortworks.com (Alex) wrote in message
news:<b71d3208.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
>>here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
>>really exist. It's something that humans created to explain their
>>world. If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
>>developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
>>that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
>>there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them. Am I wrong
>>in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
>>relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
>>the system we have?
>>
>>This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Alex
>
>
> Yes, you are confused. What you may have heard is that time is not
> what we once thought it was. We once thought that it was something
> completely different than space, a different animal entirely. What we
> learned is that space and time are different parts of one thing:
> spacetime. However, that doesn't mean that spacetime could do without
> the notion of time entirely -- on the contrary, the "signature" of
> spacetime explicitly includes something beyond spatial dimensions
> alone.
>
> This is very similar to the revelation that electricity and magnetism
> are not disassociated ideas -- indeed, one feeds the other because
> they are both parts of the electromagnetic field. That does not mean,
> though, that we can explain all magnetic fields in terms of electric
> fields and vice versa.
>
> The timelike part of spacetime has some unique and interesting
> properties -- the direction of its "arrow" for example, revealed in
> the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
>
> PD
The only reason I asked this question, is becuase I realized in algebra,
the only reason imaginary numbers exist, is because there was a
discrepency in the system, and they had to invent something that would
explain it. I figured maybe time was like this, but I guess I was wrong.
All that I was really getting at, is that maybe time DOESN'T exist, and
we just created the word and theory to explain what happens. But I
suppose that's all science is, is coming up with theories that explain
what's going on.
Just wondering, how many of you are physics professors, or have at least
a degree in physics?
Btw, I find it VERY annoying when I ask an honest question politely, and
SOME of you reply, insulting me, calling me stupid, and such. That's not
a good way to teach someone. Why bother replying, if you are going to
talk like that?
Thanks,
Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mitchell
The proof that time exists lies in the fact that it can be slowed down.
In search for the substance of time the only thing I truly know
about it is that it can be slowed down.
The physical slowdown can be quantified.
IF ITS PHYSICAL THEN IT BELONGS IN PHYSICS.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
Alex Fort
Greysky wrote:
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:64050551.0409...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Jeff Relf <Usen...@JeffRelf.Cotse.NET> wrote in message
>>news:<_Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET>...
>>
>>>Here are the top ten trolls,
>>> ranked by the number of direct replies received
>>> ( the number on left ) as collected by my X program,
>>> http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/X.CPP.
>>
>>I feel sorry for anyone who hires you to write software, and even more
>>so for anyone who has to maintain it.
>>
>>Paul Cardinale
>
>
> Hey, don't say anything bad about 'spaghetti code'. I write stuff much,
> much worse than this on purpose. I even take a look at the finished
product
> and say to myself : "What other stuff can I put in this program to
make it a
> miserable, painful, experience for anyone with a life to deal with?"
Then I
> put in some more spaghetti. If anyone could maintain, or even easily
> understand what I did, then I consider it a personal failure. If you
want
> someone else to completely rewrite a new program 20 years from now,
then I
> figure I've done my part to provide employment to the next generation
that
> is currently in diapers.
>
>
Spaghetti code in c++...I knew it could be done, but I had no idea on
what level it could exist on. I've seen some REALLY bad perl code before
that beats that. I once wrote a spider script in 10 lines of code. Try
and read THAT.
Mike
> here can point me in the right direction.
In no time?
v = at+v0, if t = 0 then v = v0 and I can't point you in any direction
other than the one you already have (v0).
In order for me to point you in a certain direction, you have to give
me some "time".
> First of all, time doesn't
> really exist.
Then, I'm sorry. Stay with V0. I can't point you anywhere. You are
doomed. I'll work with someone else who gives me some "time".
> It's something that humans created to explain their
> world. If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
> developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
> that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
> there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them. Am I wrong
> in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
> relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
> the system we have?
>
> This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
>
You have to give it some time. Otherwise you'll stay confused (your
V0.
Mike
> Thanks,
> Alex
ZZBunker
But it doesn't really matter that much what the
first, second, and third Laws Of Thermodyanics used to say.
Since after Scientists added the 0th Law
of Thermodynamics to the other three. What
they used to do, don't do the same thing
anymore.
The 0,1,2,3 Laws of Thermodynamics are not
really arrows to anywhere. They are now the
"new" and "improved" Charleton Heston Law of Monkeys.
>
> PD
Gernot Frisch
"Morituri-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Dti4d.16536$Gn3....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
http://www.ldolphin.org/speedo.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=slowing+down+speed+of+light
George Kinley
Till we come up with some thing else other then speed of light,
Paddy
> Btw, I find it VERY annoying when I ask an honest question politely, and
> SOME of you reply, insulting me, calling me stupid, and such. That's not
> a good way to teach someone. Why bother replying, if you are going to
> talk like that?
Sorry Alex, but you were called an idiot, not stupid.
Your claim to idiocy lies with your statement about
the non-existance of time based on it's subjectivity.
Now you've compounded that impression with a strange
statement about imaginary numbers.
Anyway it was Uncle Al who called youan idiot. He's
usually a good judge of character, although a lifetime's
exposure to complex chemicals has left his brain mure
curmudgened than most.
Just ingnore the funny looks, Alex, and tell us why you
think complex algebra was invented.
ZZBunker
> There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
> here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
> really exist. It's something that humans created to explain their
> world. If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
> developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
> that we invented? There's no proof that time really exists, or that
> there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them. Am I wrong
> in my assumtions here? Is there really time? Or is "special
> relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
> the system we have?
>
> This is really confusing me, and I hope someone can help...
That is were the deception is though.
Philosophers make theories of time though,
by constantly exposing physics for
what it really is, a theory of time.
So physics is not really a theory of time.
It's a micro-managed communist tradeoff study between time and space.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
Alex Fort
I've always thought that imagninary numbers served no purpose, other
than to explain what happens when you get the square root or a negative
number. Is there some other purpose than that?
As to me saying "time doesn exist", I admit that it was kind of a stupid
statment, and I should have said "does time actually exist?"
Aside from my mistakes in composing, all I really want to do is learn
and I thank you guys for answering my questions so well.
thanks,
Paul Draper
>
> The only reason I asked this question, is becuase I realized in algebra,
> the only reason imaginary numbers exist, is because there was a
> discrepency in the system, and they had to invent something that would
> explain it. I figured maybe time was like this, but I guess I was wrong.
No, that's not right, and I don't know who told you that. Imaginary
numbers have all sorts of implications and uses. (Doing integrals you
can't do otherwise, understanding AC electronics, connecting
transcendental functions with hyperbolic transcendental functions, and
so on and on.)
>
> All that I was really getting at, is that maybe time DOESN'T exist, and
> we just created the word and theory to explain what happens. But I
> suppose that's all science is, is coming up with theories that explain
> what's going on.
No, I don't think so. Time as a concept predated any organized
scientific thought. If anything, we struggle to confront our modern
notions of time (as in the following statement: Time began with the
Big Bang) with our intuitive notions of time.
Let me put it to you this way. If time didn't exist, then what else
would you use instead to describe the term of your car loan
(interval), the growth of your kid sister (change), or the moment you
last sneezed (event), or whether you ran that red light
(simultaneity)?
>
> Just wondering, how many of you are physics professors, or have at least
> a degree in physics?
I have a degree in physics, yes.
>
> Btw, I find it VERY annoying when I ask an honest question politely, and
> SOME of you reply, insulting me, calling me stupid, and such. That's not
> a good way to teach someone. Why bother replying, if you are going to
> talk like that?
>
To tell you the truth, I find it annoying as well. It's not very
helpful to dismiss someone's misconceptions without trying to ferret
out the source of the misconception and correcting it. Flaming does
nothing but scorch. On the other hand, it IS frustrating to realize
that someone has wasted a whole bunch of time pursuing a dead end when
that time could have been better spent learning or conversing with
someone who can recognize the error before going WAY down the wrong
road. And then there are those who persist arrogantly despite having
their error clearly pointed out. So far, you haven't done much of
that, but don't wander too far now that you've asked and and been
advised.
PD
PD
Alex Fort
With this new information I have at hand, let my revise my views on time:
Time DOES exist.
Time cannot be measured acuratly. (A clock will keep ticking down one
second, even if time slows, halts, or speeds up, correct?)
Time is a measure of how much is happening, and how fast it's happening,
And it also determines what order things are happening.
Time can be slowed down by a large mass. (A large mass will warp
space-time around it, and slow down time, and bend light, correct?)
There is no universal time, becuase time is relative to what it is being
measured from.
Does this seem correct to you guys?
Thanks,
Dirk Van de moortel
"Alex Fort" <8...@fortworks.com> wrote in message news:4153...@post.usenet.com...
No.
Time is per definition "what is measured on a clock".
Dirk Vdm
Paddy
> than to explain what happens when you get the square root or a negative
> number. Is there some other purpose than that?
Sorry for poking fun at you, but that is the source of some of the amusement
that some of us derive from usenet.
But, about complex algebra... maybe you could think that students doing simple
geometary problems in their schoolbooks are working in two dimensions. For
example, a point on a graph has an X position and a Y position. In real life,
though, we live in three dimensions (at least), so you need another axis on
your graph for the Z position... that is the source of the imaginary axis.
Basically, it is the third dimension.
It can all be explained a great deal more correctly and more clearly than that,
of course, but not by me before breakfast.
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> Such concerns as "care" and "believe" only come up inside
> the brains of some of us. If there are structures in the
> universe, other than our brains, capable of image-making and
> modeling, then such concerns may come up for them as well.
You probably wonder why there aren't more solipsists.
I've always wondered why the philosophy of solipsism actually
requires a name. Who is it we are using this name to talk to?
Socks
Maleki
wrote:
No it's different from solipsism. I'm talking about a set of
functions in our brains that we tend to take for granted. It
must've started from the time that taking advantage of the
surroundings began.
Reading some of the reports on disfunctional brains and the
consequences can be quite revealing.
Anyway, I was trying to compare ourselves, in observing the
surroundings, to that of, say, a stone. The only advantage
we have over a stone is the model-making machinery in us.
That's why we see the surrounding differently from a
"stone". For a piece of stone the surrounding is always
exactly one image (made by whatever effect it has on the
stone, light, heat, touch, etc). Never more than one,
because there is no recollection and comparison of previous
images whatsoever, or predictions of what's to come. Always,
only, one lone snapshot and nothing else. It takes a life
form to get anything more than that. A plant gets perhaps
the same input that a stone gets, but it also has something
to compare the input with and based on that construct a
model as to when to blossom and bloom and when to shed
leaves, etc. Same with humans. This is all I'm saying, this
isn't solipsism.
But outside our bodies, for everything else in the world
other than a living form, there's just that one snapshot to
have from the surroundings. Nothing more, ever.
--
zire shAlesh ghorseh.
Nth Complexity
Time is per definition "what is measured on a clock".
>
> Dirk Vdm
What a stoopid definition. What if the clock breaks?? But of course
SRian relativists have no problem with broken clocks, rubber rulers,
and loopy time zones.
Patrick Powers
> There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
> here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
> really exist. It's something that humans created to explain their
> world.
> If it doesn't exist, why is it that physics people are
> developing theorys about it, when it's something purely theoretical,
> that we invented?
You already have the answer: because it explains the world. It is
useful.
> There's no proof that time really exists, or that
> there are "dimensions" or whatever you want to call them.
The "dimensions" are also useful to explain the world.
> Am I wrong
> in my assumtions here?
You are correct.
> Is there really time? Or is "special
> relativity" something we invented to account for the discrepencies in
> the system we have?
>
Special relativity is actually an updating of Newton's laws of motion
to take into account the bizarre fact that the speed of light is
constant in all frames of reference. It is a theory that accurately
describes the world.
Note that the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, etc. are also merely useful
concepts.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Nth Complexity" <sp...@this-dot-instead.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:41534...@127.0.0.1...
> > Dirk Van de moortelwrote:
> Time is per definition "what is measured on a clock".
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> What a stoopid definition. What if the clock breaks??
Then you can use your heart beat.
When your heart stops, then you don't need a clock anymore.
We all hope that yours will stop any day now.
Start looking for a corner.
Dirk Vdm
tadchem
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7976c46.04092...@posting.google.com...
"Solipsism" is simply self-centeredness, arrogance, and conceit raised to a
pathological extreme.
I suspect that the reason it was proposed as a "philosophy" was that some
self-centered, arrogant, and conceited 'philosopher' who wasn't quite
*there* yet (and thus feeling twinges of guilt) needed it to justify himself
*to* himself.
"Solipsism" is almost by definition dysfunctional and should probably be
redefined as a mental disorder - perhaps a form of Narcissism.
One thing that most mental health professionals agree upon is that such
disorders of the mind (which by their nature disqualify any outside efforts
to 'help') are difficult if not impossible to cure.
Rule #1 in philanthropy - You can't help anyone who doesn't want to be
helped.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Mike Helland
>
> > Time strongly depends on the existance, distance and ammount of matter
> > around your 'clock'. There is time. You can proove it simply because
> > you have evidence that you lay your pen on the desk and now it's
> > there. It wasn't there before. And it won't be after you lifted it
> > again. The chronological order stays, thus there is time. How much
> > time there was between it, that's a harder question. And how to
> > measure it.
>
> Correct.
>
> > You cannot even measure time by the distance light travelled during
> > "that time", since the speed of light has been prooved not to be
> > constant, either.
>
> Not correct. The speed of light is the ONLY constant in the universe.
According to QED light doesn't travel at constant speeds.
Most would accept that QED supercedes relativity on a theoretical basis.
What about Planck's constant as a constant in the universe?
Mike Helland
> There's been something that's been bugging me, and I hope someone one
> here can point me in the right direction. First of all, time doesn't
> really exist.
I have an arguement that says otherwise:
I observe time, therefore it exists.
Can you refute my argument?
By the way, I agree with you that time as physicists think of it
doesn't exist.
My view of time rejects a continuum or medium of some kind, where time
exists as the analysis that change has occured, ie that there are
different states.
Morituri-Max
> According to QED light doesn't travel at constant speeds.
Not correct. The speed of light is the ONLY constant in the universe [that we
have observed yet, anywhere]. Regardless of what you think QED says, light is
constant, nothing else ist. If you have observed something that shows the speed
of light isn't constant, publish, get nobel prize.
Nth Complexity
Dirk Vdm[/quote:391a55f560]
So time runs faster when I'm jogging eh!
Typical stupid relativist.
-- Nth Complexity --
"The teaching of science and mathematics must be purged of its
authoritarian and elitist characteristics, and the content of these
subjects enriched by incorporating the insights of the feminist,
queer, multiculturalist and ecological critiques." -- A.D.S.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Nth Complexity
"Nth Complexity" <sp...@this-dot-instead.no-spam.invalid> wrote
in message news:41534...@127.0.0.1...
> Dirk Van de moortelwrote:
> Time is per definition "what is measured on a clock".
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
> What a stoopid definition. What if the clock breaks??
>
Then you can use your heart beat.
When your heart stops, then you don't need a clock anymore.
We all hope that yours will stop any day now.
Start looking for a corner.
Dirk Vdm[/quote:9c30f366b7]
ZZBunker
You should have said:
Not, only does SPACETIME not exist, Captain Kirk invented it!!!!!".
And the Betelguesians are landing in Los Angelos
LAX at this precise moment. So somebody call Spock to get
all of this data beamed down by a sub-warp mindmeld
to the Hawking guy.
And the one and only reason that imaginary numbers exist
is to give Fourier wannabees like Newton a second chance in life.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Nth Complexity" <sp...@this-dot-instead.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:41544...@127.0.0.1...
> > Dirk Van de moortelwrote:
> "Nth Complexity" <sp...@this-dot-instead.no-spam.invalid> wrote
> in message news:41534...@127.0.0.1...
> > Dirk Van de moortelwrote:
> > Time is per definition "what is measured on a clock".
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > What a stoopid definition. What if the clock breaks??
> >
> Then you can use your heart beat.
> When your heart stops, then you don't need a clock anymore.
> We all hope that yours will stop any day now.
> Start looking for a corner.
>
> Dirk Vdm[/quote:9c30f366b7]
>
> So time runs faster when I'm jogging eh!
Yes, and for you it stops when you die next year or so.
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
Dah, Dirk he lives in a round house, now he'll be
gone for a few weeks....
Mark Fergerson
http://www-com.physik.hu-berlin.de/~scharnh/media16.htm
This strikes me as quibbling though; c is _always_ local and while
it's usually isotropic in vacuum, excluding some possible propagation
modes anisotropically could predictably introduce velocity anisotropy.
Mark L. Fergerson
Mike
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> All that I was really getting at, is that maybe time DOESN'T exist...
[snip appeal to ignorance fallacy]
The reason you get flamed here is because you are asking a
metaphysical question inappropriate for a physics forum. Then, if you
have spent time reading a bit, you would know the subject has been
worked extensively and your idea is as old as Parmenides of Elea (550
BCE) or Julian Barbour (2004 AD) :
""If time is removed from the foundations of physics, we shall not all
suddenly feel that the flow of time has ceased. On the contrary, new
timeless principles will explain why we do feel that time flows. The
pattern of the first great revolution will be repeated. Copernicus,
Galileo and Kepler taught us that the Earth moves and rotates while
the heavens stand still, but this did not change by one iota our
direct perception that the heavens do move and that the Earth does not
budge." Julian Barbour.
I hope you start reading a bit and return back to sci.physics after
let's say 10 years with a good new idea that has empirical content.
Mike
> Thanks,
tj Frazir
Time is the rate energy reacts with energy.
The rate is allways C.
space is energy under presure DARK ENERGY is all the energy that ever
was is still inside the blast of the big bang and we are still inside
the explosion.
A low is less energy expanding per time unit.
Condennced energy is space in motion a eddy of energy a wavical that
takes up more space per time unit.
God created a division ...
Can anyone in here point that divison out ?
Alex Fort
Perhaps you should read my other posts, before attempting to flame me. I
am in no way set in my misconceptions, all I want to do is learn, and
it's people that are flaming me, such as you, that get in the way. I am
not trying to spread false theories, trying to be a troll, or anything.
All I want to do, is learn as much as I can, and try to correct my views
on physics, so that I might better my knowlege.
Mike
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
[snip]
>
>
> Perhaps you should read my other posts, before attempting to flame me. I
> am in no way set in my misconceptions, all I want to do is learn, and
> it's people that are flaming me, such as you, that get in the way. I am
> not trying to spread false theories, trying to be a troll, or anything.
> All I want to do, is learn as much as I can, and try to correct my views
> on physics, so that I might better my knowlege.
>
> Alex
>
I did not flame you. If I were to do so, I would explicitely call you
a troll, a stupid and an idiot. But I didn't. I gave you a reference
you can start from and learn about the subject you are wondering
about. This subject deals exclusively with philosophical issues,
specifically epistemological and ontological ones. Perhaps, you do not
understand the meaning of theee terms in a deep enough level for now.
If you sit and read, after a reasonable period of time, usually 10
years or so, of exaustive and intense all day long reading, you will
be in a pisition to ask the proper questions but you will have no
answers. Start reading then and stop complaining like a kidengarden
child:
1. Julian Barbour, The end of time.
2. Principia Mathematica, Isaac Newton
3. Specicum Dynamicum, Leibniz
4. The Presocratic Philosophers, Barnes
5. Google search "time + physics", 5,410,000 entries found
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:9c1b39be.04092...@posting.google.com...
> Alex Fort <8...@fortworks.com> wrote in message news:<4154...@post.usenet.com>...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> [snip]
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you should read my other posts, before attempting to flame me. I
> > am in no way set in my misconceptions, all I want to do is learn, and
> > it's people that are flaming me, such as you, that get in the way. I am
> > not trying to spread false theories, trying to be a troll, or anything.
> > All I want to do, is learn as much as I can, and try to correct my views
> > on physics, so that I might better my knowlege.
> >
> > Alex
> >
>
> I did not flame you. If I were to do so, I would explicitely call you
> a troll, a stupid and an idiot.
But that, my dear "Undeniable" aka "Bill Smith", is exactly what
you are.
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Hi Dirk, Are you still working on a definition of sqrt? You and Alex
can make a nice team. He thinks there is no time so you got all the
time in the world to think about sqrt.
Plonk Dirk
Mike
Alex Fort
Mike wrote:
> Alex Fort <8...@fortworks.com> wrote in message
news:<4154...@post.usenet.com>...
>
>>**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>Perhaps you should read my other posts, before attempting to flame me. I
>>am in no way set in my misconceptions, all I want to do is learn, and
>>it's people that are flaming me, such as you, that get in the way. I am
>>not trying to spread false theories, trying to be a troll, or anything.
>>All I want to do, is learn as much as I can, and try to correct my views
>>on physics, so that I might better my knowlege.
>>
>>Alex
>>
>
>
> I did not flame you. If I were to do so, I would explicitely call you
> a troll, a stupid and an idiot. But I didn't. I gave you a reference
> you can start from and learn about the subject you are wondering
> about. This subject deals exclusively with philosophical issues,
> specifically epistemological and ontological ones. Perhaps, you do not
> understand the meaning of theee terms in a deep enough level for now.
> If you sit and read, after a reasonable period of time, usually 10
> years or so, of exaustive and intense all day long reading, you will
> be in a pisition to ask the proper questions but you will have no
> answers. Start reading then and stop complaining like a kidengarden
> child:
>
> 1. Julian Barbour, The end of time.
> 2. Principia Mathematica, Isaac Newton
> 3. Specicum Dynamicum, Leibniz
> 4. The Presocratic Philosophers, Barnes
> 5. Google search "time + physics", 5,410,000 entries found
The point is not to just get some paper off google, but to learn from
people that know (obviously not you) about the things I want to know. If
I wanted to just google something, I surely would, however, I thought it
would be interesting to find other people's opinions. I was not counting
on the fact that anyone would be immature enough to get all snippy about
asking some honest questions. Why even bother replying?
And congratulations, your now on my block list.
Alex
P.S, you spell it "kindergarten"
dar7yl
> The only reason I asked this question, is becuase I realized in algebra,
> the only reason imaginary numbers exist, is because there was a
> discrepency in the system,
Imaginary numbers exist because the universe contains more than 2
dimensions, and i-numbers allow us to mathematically map operations over
these multiple dimensions.
The heart of the matter is the square root of a negative number. Because
the square root of a positive number has two roots (positive and negative),
it effectively multiplies the dimensionality of a number. The square root
of a negative number does the same thing, except that the dimension mapping
is orthoganal to the positive case.
Perhaps, "Imaginary" is a misnomer. It adds a bit of mystery that somehow
confuses people's interpretations.
> and they had to invent something that would explain it.
"Invent" is probably the wrong word here. Time is not invented by our
observations of it. It does exist apart from our perceptions. What we did
was try to find a mathematical explanation for it. That explanation is
easier due to imaginary numbers.
> I figured maybe time was like this, but I guess I was wrong.
Time flies like an arrow.
> All that I was really getting at, is that maybe time DOESN'T exist, and we
> just created the word and theory to explain what happens.
In our local frame, time still ticks merrily along at one second per second.
And there is nothing we can do (given our current understanding) which can
prevent this.
regards,
Dar7yl.
Mitchell
and how light can move.
The Aether is absolute time moving at the speed of light.
Time is the unified field.
Time moves at C in every direction to make space.
Space is in motion as gravity.
The motion of space carries matter/falling or moves
through matter/weight.
Matter is condenced energy - eddies and wavicles - formed under pressure.
You're right on TJ. I dig your style.
Why does matter not resist gravity?
What kind of force is it that can move a potentially
unlimted mass with no resistance?
Why is mass bouyant in gravity TJ?
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
tj Frazir
Gravity is the low energy presure as less energy can expand wile
matter takes up space.
yer a long way from understanding Gods division.
Gods active force is dark energy .
God put a division in the firmement.
The firmement is the energy under presure.
A division is a fraction a low.
Gravity is a push to less energy.
EMF is waves coliding razing the energy between or passing will lower
the energy between . Outgoing waves take some energy with the wave.
AS intence waves and orbits push out Gravity pushes in .
Light changes direction to remain at C.
It cant go faster and cant go slower.
C is the rate energy reacts with energy.
Your soul is all you know on evry carbon atom and evry carbon atom will
fall into the black hole .
You are your own wittness.
You will live in the internet of reality.
All time and all things will be evryones.
Jesus can be seen in UV holographic images inthe quarts in the walls of
the cave.
Jesus put his carbon atom in your dna to make copies and he never left
you.
When will Jesus return .....he never left you.
Beware of the falts profit ...but fear a real profit.
2012 will be the day.
Then the 5 billion years will pass in an instant .
As if I could tell you what God said.
I learned physics from God. God spoke words I understand even if the
Bible makes noncence to you.
Im not a born beleaver.
Im reborn . Older than coal. I saw it all.
A pice of gold as clear as glass.
Ever hear of a holographc life form ??
Holy ? I might play your carbon atom back to you from one of the
carbon atoms from your dna. Facts that are stranger than fiction.
The alien is stronger richer and the giant is getting larger.
4 billion have read the bible.
None understood it.
So why would anyone understand me ??
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Morituri-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:Dti4d.16536$Gn3....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > Gernot Frisch wrote:
> >
> >> Time strongly depends on the existance, distance and ammount of
> >> matter
> >> around your 'clock'. There is time. You can proove it simply
> >> because
> >> you have evidence that you lay your pen on the desk and now it's
> >> there. It wasn't there before. And it won't be after you lifted it
> >> again. The chronological order stays, thus there is time. How much
> >> time there was between it, that's a harder question. And how to
> >> measure it.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> >> You cannot even measure time by the distance light travelled during
> >> "that time", since the speed of light has been prooved not to be
> >> constant, either.
> >
> >
>
> http://www.ldolphin.org/speedo.html
> http://www.google.com/search?q=slowing+down+speed+of+light
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
Bye,
Bjoern
Paul Draper
>
>
> The point is not to just get some paper off google, but to learn from
> people that know (obviously not you) about the things I want to know. If
> I wanted to just google something, I surely would, however, I thought it
> would be interesting to find other people's opinions. I was not counting
> on the fact that anyone would be immature enough to get all snippy about
> asking some honest questions. Why even bother replying?
> And congratulations, your now on my block list.
>
And now perhaps you understand the risk of soliciting opinions in an
unmoderated, unfiltered environment on the internet. You have no way
of determining which of these responses come from competence or
incompetence, from compassionate or derisive, from skilled teachers or
bumbling wannabes.
Some among these responses have suggested that you invest your time
where there is a higher likelihood that you are speaking to a
competent, compassionate, skilled teacher -- who will no doubt give
you a ton of work to do to become similarly competent, compassionate,
and skilled at teaching.
There is no shortcut to this process unfortunately.
PD
Mike
I bet your annonymous server has a good blocking feature.
Bye crank.
Mike
tj Frazir
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> "Solipsism" is simply self-centeredness, arrogance, and conceit raised to a
> pathological extreme.
Says who? <bigwidegrin>
Socks