In article <29807-3A6276E2…@storefull-264.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
GravityPhys…@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote:
> one last time.
I’ll take you at your word.
> curve in space time
An F-15 over Iraq.
> electrons apear in a patern in time.
Or they crash?
> time …A unit of space
Spaced-out time is meaningless:
Time is simply the timing of
one motion vs another motion(s).
> is ( presure in a piriod of time. ) All space
> is presure maintained.
Well, you have you work cut out
for you… explaining how gravity
and pressure can exist in the same
space at once! Good luck!
> Mater contibutes less presure to space
> than empty space dose.
And water burns, so in order to dowse it
one must pour gasoline over it.
> Electrons
> are part of space not mater.
Everything ultimately reduces to
motion. The problem we have in defining
"energy" ultimately as "motion" is that
our idea of physicality is exclusively based
upon its materiality (so motion without
something material moving is impossible
for our brains to compute).
> HO well….sigh
> Im taking my 1465mpg 88 cadalac
> to detroit this week. !
Wow! Impressed! (Them things’s gotta
weigh a ton!) Are you going to throw it
over your back, or just drag it to Detroit
with a rope?
S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com
web.sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
I don’t know about the stuff that was in your post; maybe you were just
having fun?
I have heard this assertion that time is a human invention however, from
numerous sources, and would like to comment on that. In one particular
sense, ‘time’ is an idea, and considering how our brains must work, any
abstract ‘idea’ like ‘time’ is essentially the outcome of experience,
perception, and more to the point, is something which can help us survive or
more successfully manipulate or negotiate our environments. So the idea of
time then, is an invention, but it did not come out of nowhere; it is in
fact representational of a myriad of natural phenomenon: A metaphor. If it
were not for the underlying phenomenon of radioactive decay, biological
aging, the relationships between matter and energy that can be measured at
the most fundamental levels, then there would be no reason to have all the
metaphor and symbologies for time. Quite simply, our concept of time is the
product or impression of a range of natural phenomenon, based upon a
continuum of observations, of physical reality. I don’t think people can
rationally lay claim for the invention of the underlying physical phenomenon
upon which the idea of time is based. Indeed, phenomenon upon which our
concept of time is based would certainly continue with or without the
presence of human beings.
Skler
"Time is a diabolical plot to prevent things from occurring simultaneously!"
"I feel more like I do now then I did when I wrote this!"
In article <93vft7$la…@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"sprinkle" <sprin…@probability.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Time as a dimension is only needed when
> 2 sentient lifeforms need to
> function together in the universe.
Hey, I said that!
> If there is one/no sentient lifeform/s in
> the universe then there does not
> have to be a time dimension.
> The Universe has no concept of past, present,
> or future – it is not aware.
Hey, I said that!
> An example: If I want to travel to a galaxy,
> I do not need ‘time’ to get
> there, I just need to know where it is
> as I take off. As I travel I just
> keep adjusting my ships direction to stay
> aligned with the galaxy. It may
> well be a long way of going about it,
> but it will work.
I wouldn’t say that: If that galaxy
were distant enough from ours that
the two galaxies were receding from
each other at +100 times the speed of
light… you’d have a pretty hard time
cranking it up to where you could even
say your ship was no longer moving away
from your goat by +99.999 or so
the speed of light.
> However, if I want to meet someone
> at the galaxy, I now need to incorporate
> ‘time’ into the equation otherwise
> the chances are we will never meet.
True. But why don’t you try
some of our local girls first?
> The
> same goes for communicating a description
> of the journey to other sentient
> life.Time is an invention of man, it
> enables us to communicate ideas,
> memories, plans. We use it as a tool
> to enable us to take the universe apart
> and understand it. Time as an invention
> is simple and uncomplicated. SDR way
> is so complicated as a function.
Hey: I’ve always said, "Time is
but our habit of timing one motion
against/by some other motion(s)."
I think that’s pretty simple & succinct.
> In fact I would like SDR to explain
> how 2 sentient lifeforms could arrange
> to meet in a distant galaxy,
Boy, you’re really intent on
going out with an E.T., aren’t ya?
> from 2 separate departure points in his
> timeless universe. How would they communicate
> the details of the journey?
Simple: "See ya there!" *
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
* Nothing else is required, since
it’s a cinch the girl’s parents
aren’t gonna let her go out with
a creature from another galaxy!!!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
"S D Rodrian" <SDRodr…@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:94168j$9hn$1@nnrp1.deja.com…
> In article <93vft7$la…@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "sprinkle" <sprin…@probability.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Time as a dimension is only needed when
> > 2 sentient lifeforms need to
> > function together in the universe.
> Hey, I said that!
Time as a dimension is needed to explain the electric and magnetic
properties of charged, moving bodies. That was the point of Einstein’s
special theory of relativity.
In describing the physics of things that move around- which is pretty much
_everything_, you can’t do away with time any more than you can do away with
space. Indeed, the two are so closely linked that modern physics talks not
about time and space seperately, but about ‘space-time.’
> > If there is one/no sentient lifeform/s in
> > the universe then there does not
> > have to be a time dimension.
> > The Universe has no concept of past, present,
> > or future – it is not aware.
> Hey, I said that!
Then you’re both wrong. Even without sentient beings, things would still
move around in the universe. Please construct a physics of moving bodies
that does not include something identical to what we call ‘time.’
> > An example: If I want to travel to a galaxy,
> > I do not need ‘time’ to get
> > there, I just need to know where it is
> > as I take off. As I travel I just
> > keep adjusting my ships direction to stay
> > aligned with the galaxy. It may
> > well be a long way of going about it,
> > but it will work.
> I wouldn’t say that: If that galaxy
> were distant enough from ours that
> the two galaxies were receding from
> each other at +100 times the speed of
> light…
No two galaxies have been observed to recede at _any_ multiple of the speed
of light. Theoetically, they can’t.
You can propose that they do, and perhaps one day someone will confirm the
proposal with direct observation. In the meantime you need a theory of
receding galaxies that allows them to move relative to one another at a
speed greater than light- a theory that somehow, from what you wrote above,
does not include time.
> you’d have a pretty hard time
> cranking it up to where you could even
> say your ship was no longer moving away
> from your goat by +99.999 or so
> the speed of light.
And unless you’re captian of the Enterprise, there is no use in trying.
–
Rodney Dunning
dunni…@wfu.edu
http://www.wfu.edu/users/dunnirb4
In article <93vft7$la…@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"sprinkle" <sprin…@probability.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The Universe has no concept of past, present,
> or future – it is not aware.
This is the H. Weyl’s universe (about 1927), I suppose.
The so called "block universe":
Does somebody know some reference about this?
I just found something in "Einstein and Religion",
Max Jammer, Princeton U.P., 1999.
Thanks
-scerir