The truth about Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Helland on 29 Apr 2010 17:06 On Apr 26, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 4:26 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 3:59 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > In fact there are two. They are the universal rates that GR and SR > > > > > slowdown from. The math is inverse Gamma slow for the Two Times that > > > > > express themselves together as one flow over energy. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Time Gravity > > > > > xxein: The truth about Burt. Idiot. > > > > Stephen Hawking uses the concept of two times. > > > So does Einstein. So does Newton. So did the Greeks. > > > The question is organizing them into an information system. That's too > > big of a job for equations to do properly. > > > So when you're dealing with equations, its best to simply ignore > > absolute time altogether. > > > You can prove the world wrong of course, but I sincerely suggest > > computation rather than equations for that line of thinking. > > For truth's sake Einstein never saw that time was more than one > slowdown but his theories vouch for it. "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" [Heisenberg] asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the determination of time." "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. > How do you back up your claim about Newton? From the principia: 2. Absolute time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion 3. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; > Where are the Greeks two times? One with the Sun the other with the > dial? Plato's cave, there was relative time and space inside the cave, and absolute time and space outside the cave.
From: Androcles on 29 Apr 2010 17:33 "Michael Helland" <mobydikc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:813896cc-bedc-4098-a4b4-c2dfd07bc34d(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... On Apr 26, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 4:26 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 3:59 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > In fact there are two. They are the universal rates that GR and SR > > > > > slowdown from. The math is inverse Gamma slow for the Two Times > > > > > that > > > > > express themselves together as one flow over energy. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Time Gravity > > > > > xxein: The truth about Burt. Idiot. > > > > Stephen Hawking uses the concept of two times. > > > So does Einstein. So does Newton. So did the Greeks. > > > The question is organizing them into an information system. That's too > > big of a job for equations to do properly. > > > So when you're dealing with equations, its best to simply ignore > > absolute time altogether. > > > You can prove the world wrong of course, but I sincerely suggest > > computation rather than equations for that line of thinking. > > For truth's sake Einstein never saw that time was more than one > slowdown but his theories vouch for it. "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" [Heisenberg] asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the determination of time." "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. > How do you back up your claim about Newton? From the principia: 2. Absolute time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion 3. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; > Where are the Greeks two times? One with the Sun the other with the > dial? Plato's cave, there was relative time and space inside the cave, and absolute time and space outside the cave. =========================================== You are confusing "relative and absolute" with "subjective and objective". This is Newton's time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time Both apparent time and mathematical time are measurable, the sundial does not agree with the clock, but both are objective. Sleeping in a cave and waking up hungry so that it is "time" to eat is subjective, even if it is midnight outside the cave and still 8 hours from breakfast. The time outside the cave in Plato's day was relative time (no clocks) and the time inside the cave was subjective time. Einstein's time is idiot time. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
From: Michael Helland on 29 Apr 2010 17:40 On Apr 29, 2:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Michael Helland" <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:813896cc-bedc-4098-a4b4-c2dfd07bc34d(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 26, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:26 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 3:59 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In fact there are two. They are the universal rates that GR and SR > > > > > > slowdown from. The math is inverse Gamma slow for the Two Times > > > > > > that > > > > > > express themselves together as one flow over energy. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Time Gravity > > > > > > xxein: The truth about Burt. Idiot. > > > > > Stephen Hawking uses the concept of two times. > > > > So does Einstein. So does Newton. So did the Greeks. > > > > The question is organizing them into an information system. That's too > > > big of a job for equations to do properly. > > > > So when you're dealing with equations, its best to simply ignore > > > absolute time altogether. > > > > You can prove the world wrong of course, but I sincerely suggest > > > computation rather than equations for that line of thinking. > > > For truth's sake Einstein never saw that time was more than one > > slowdown but his theories vouch for it. > > "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but > observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" > > "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" > [Heisenberg] asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the > fact that it > is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute > time > cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving > reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the > determination of time." > > "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but > it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more > diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep > in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite > wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. > > > How do you back up your claim about Newton? > > From the principia: > 2. Absolute time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably > without regard to anything external, and by another name is called > duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, > and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether > accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion > > 3. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything > external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some > movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses > determine by its position to bodies; > > > Where are the Greeks two times? One with the Sun the other with the > > dial? > > Plato's cave, there was relative time and space inside the cave, and > absolute time and space outside the cave. > =========================================== > You are confusing "relative and absolute" with "subjective and objective".. Uh... no. Objective time is relative. > This is Newton's time: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time > > Both apparent time and mathematical time are measurable, the sundial > does not agree with the clock, but both are objective. Sleeping in a cave > and waking up hungry so that it is "time" to eat is subjective, even if it > is > midnight outside the cave and still 8 hours from breakfast. The time > outside the cave in Plato's day was relative time (no clocks) and the > time inside the cave was subjective time. Uh, no. The time of one of the prisoner's was subjective. The time of all the prisoners was objective. Both were relative to the prisoners. Absolute time is outside the cave. The same is true for space and matter. > Einstein's time is idiot time. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
From: Androcles on 29 Apr 2010 18:14 "Michael Helland" <mobydikc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:70ff1ba4-2fe9-43f4-af90-e97cf1273266(a)u30g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 29, 2:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Michael Helland" <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:813896cc-bedc-4098-a4b4-c2dfd07bc34d(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 26, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:26 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 3:59 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In fact there are two. They are the universal rates that GR and > > > > > > SR > > > > > > slowdown from. The math is inverse Gamma slow for the Two Times > > > > > > that > > > > > > express themselves together as one flow over energy. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Time Gravity > > > > > > xxein: The truth about Burt. Idiot. > > > > > Stephen Hawking uses the concept of two times. > > > > So does Einstein. So does Newton. So did the Greeks. > > > > The question is organizing them into an information system. That's too > > > big of a job for equations to do properly. > > > > So when you're dealing with equations, its best to simply ignore > > > absolute time altogether. > > > > You can prove the world wrong of course, but I sincerely suggest > > > computation rather than equations for that line of thinking. > > > For truth's sake Einstein never saw that time was more than one > > slowdown but his theories vouch for it. > > "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but > observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" > > "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" > [Heisenberg] asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the > fact that it > is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute > time > cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving > reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the > determination of time." > > "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but > it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more > diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep > in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite > wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. > > > How do you back up your claim about Newton? > > From the principia: > 2. Absolute time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably > without regard to anything external, and by another name is called > duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, > and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether > accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion > > 3. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything > external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some > movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses > determine by its position to bodies; > > > Where are the Greeks two times? One with the Sun the other with the > > dial? > > Plato's cave, there was relative time and space inside the cave, and > absolute time and space outside the cave. > =========================================== > You are confusing "relative and absolute" with "subjective and objective". Uh... no. Objective time is relative. ========================================= Uh... No! Uh... objective time is not uh... measurable. Uh... you are confusing "uh... relative and uh... absolute time" with " uh... subjective and uh... objective time". > This is Newton's time: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time > > Both apparent time and mathematical time are measurable, the sundial > does not agree with the clock, but both are objective. Sleeping in a cave > and waking up hungry so that it is "time" to eat is subjective, even if it > is > midnight outside the cave and still 8 hours from breakfast. The time > outside the cave in Plato's day was relative time (no clocks) and the > time inside the cave was subjective time. Uh, no. The time of one of the prisoner's was subjective. The time of all the prisoners was objective. ================================================ Uh, no. The uh, time of all the uh, prisoners is uh, subjective. Both were relative to the prisoners. ================================================ Uh, no. The uh, time of all the uh, prisoners is uh, subjective. Absolute time is outside the cave. ================================================ Uh, no. Uh, relative time is uh, measured by the uh, position of the uh, sun. Uh, absolute time is uh, measured by the uh, position of the uh, stars (or a clock, but Plato had no clock). Uh, there are 365 solar days in a uh, year and 366 sidereal days in a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time Uh, both Sun and uh, stars are uh, outside the uh, cave. The same is true for space and matter. ================================================ Uh, not uh, relevant. > Einstein's time is idiot time. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
From: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 18:39 On Apr 29, 2:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Michael Helland" <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:813896cc-bedc-4098-a4b4-c2dfd07bc34d(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 26, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:26 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 3:59 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In fact there are two. They are the universal rates that GR and SR > > > > > > slowdown from. The math is inverse Gamma slow for the Two Times > > > > > > that > > > > > > express themselves together as one flow over energy. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; Time Gravity > > > > > > xxein: The truth about Burt. Idiot. > > > > > Stephen Hawking uses the concept of two times. > > > > So does Einstein. So does Newton. So did the Greeks. > > > > The question is organizing them into an information system. That's too > > > big of a job for equations to do properly. > > > > So when you're dealing with equations, its best to simply ignore > > > absolute time altogether. > > > > You can prove the world wrong of course, but I sincerely suggest > > > computation rather than equations for that line of thinking. > > > For truth's sake Einstein never saw that time was more than one > > slowdown but his theories vouch for it. > > "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but > observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" > > "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" > [Heisenberg] asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the > fact that it > is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute > time > cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving > reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the > determination of time." > > "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but > it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more > diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep > in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite > wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. > > > How do you back up your claim about Newton? > > From the principia: > 2. Absolute time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably > without regard to anything external, and by another name is called > duration: [Absolute time is to be contrasted with] relative, apparent, > and common time, [which] is some sensible and external (whether > accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion > > 3. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything > external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some > movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses > determine by its position to bodies; > > > Where are the Greeks two times? One with the Sun the other with the > > dial? > > Plato's cave, there was relative time and space inside the cave, and > absolute time and space outside the cave. > =========================================== > You are confusing "relative and absolute" with "subjective and objective".. > This is Newton's time: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time > > Both apparent time and mathematical time are measurable, the sundial > does not agree with the clock, but both are objective. Sleeping in a cave > and waking up hungry so that it is "time" to eat is subjective, even if it > is > midnight outside the cave and still 8 hours from breakfast. The time > outside the cave in Plato's day was relative time (no clocks) and the > time inside the cave was subjective time. > > Einstein's time is idiot time. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein was right and Heisenberg and Bohr were wrong. Science is wrong about Einstein and judged him. It was wrong and the future of quantum mechanics will show it. Mitch Raemsch
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 295) Next: E = m (c - Hd)^2 |