What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: JT on 18 Jul 2010 06:33 On 18 Juli, 12:05, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/18/10 4:58 AM, JT wrote: > > > > > > > On 18 Juli, 11:48, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/18/10 4:33 AM, JT wrote: > > >>> Time is the ***universal nonevariant linear ratio*** we chosen to > >>> measure motion and change, when causual events take place(sets off). > > >> Not so. Time is not independent of space. Read this 1905 paper > > >> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > > Even if i beleived in time dilation it really would be delayed variant > > time units ala SR, that is not time Sam time is the nonevariant flow > > of change it is not the variant units that you hold so dear. I think i > > have to go Seto and declare PROPER TIME. > > > JT > > You do like to ignore both theory and evidence, don't you JT? > > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - With your sloopy use of units the 1 kg IPK unit of mass will be 3 kg at another world although the mass is the same. It is though interesting to notice that the volume measure litre for a liquid or a gas will change between different worlds. Maybe you really propose that SR meters and time have gas and liquid like properties bwhahahahahahh. Once upon the time the *******idiots********* proposed that there was relative mass to, but they had to back on that one didn't they bwahahahahah. JT
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jul 2010 06:54 On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS.
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 08:50 On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > > No Sam time is the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with > > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to > > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower > > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. > > Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are the same thing. We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can derive many things. [1] Relativity [2] HUP [3] WP-Duality [4] A correct understanding of causality [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck Length [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the balls to hold my feet to the fire.
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 09:48 > [1] Relativity > [2] HUP > [3] WP-Duality > [4] A correct understanding of causality > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > Length > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain conservation without resorting to a magic wand. You guys do nonstandard physics like Jackson Pollock paints pictures, here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.
From: John Stafford on 18 Jul 2010 10:10
In article <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad26245a2(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [1] Relativity > > [2] HUP > > [3] WP-Duality > > [4] A correct understanding of causality > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > Length > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jackson Pollock paints pictures, > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it. |