What is time??

[Dywyddyr]

Your error is your perception as was his.

No the "perceptual error" was, and still is, yours.

Under the rules of logic not only does my inspiration does not need to be mathematical but but you would still have to counter the principle itself.

This is specious crap.

Ultimately you're attempting to counter a theory when none of the evidence objects to it.

Unfortunately you had zero evidence for your "theory" and it was based on a misunderstanding.
And, on the contrary, as shown by the equation given (de Marre) it failed to hold up. It invalidated your contention, thus: "theory" countered.

 

[Saquist]

No the "perceptual error" was, and still is, yours.

implication, devoid of explication

Unfortunately you had zero evidence for your "theory" and it was based on a misunderstanding.

More implicity.

This is specious crap.

So far so is this.

On the contrary: as shown by the equation given (de Marre). It invalidated your contention, thus "theory" countered.

Well then show it and elaborate the contradiction between my theory and the equation, rather than pursuing a course of dictation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

implication, devoid of explication

I see. Pot/ kettle?

Well then show it and elaborate the contradiction between my theory and the equation, rather than pursuing a course of dictation.

Already done: here.
Course of dictation? As you did in that thread where you failed consistently to support your point and merely repeated that it must be so? :shrug:

As JamesR has pointed out more than once:

Saquist:
I think you ought to stick to discussing religion from now on. Your physics is quite cranky, and it's quite obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Second: Please ignore Saquist. Science isn't his strong point.

 

[Saquist]

I see. Pot/ kettle?

Only if you're blind...

Already done: here.
Course of dictation? As you did in that thread where you failed consistently to support your point and merely repeated that it must be so? :shrug:

As JamesR has pointed out more than once:

SO, what we've learned here is that inspiration is bound and subjected by the equation for armor penetration. AND what JAMES R defines by authority is truth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Only if you're blind...

Really? You claim I misperceived (and provide no support) yet when I claim the same of you I get called on it?
Double standard then, I get it.

SO, what we've learned here is that inspiration is bound and subjected by the equation for armor penetration.

No what we have learned here (again) is that you're misapplying an equation and drawing unfounded conclusions. Also that you appear to think "inspiration" is covered by "the rules of logic".
Oh, and that you STILL fail to realise your error and would rather attempt to sidestep this with snide remarks rather actually follow the logic (your own, as it happens) that would invalidate your erroneous contention.

 

[Saquist]

Really? You claim I misperceived (and provide no support) yet when I claim the same of you I get called on it?
Double standard then, I get it.

I explicitly corrected your interpretations of my presentation of the time distance equation. You just didn't accept it and I'm not responsible for that how ever if you make an accusation and fail to support (as you have done) there is thus no double standard.

No what we have learned here (again) is that you're misapplying an equation and drawing unfounded conclusions.

Different words similar meaning...
So you're saying the same thing...inspiration has rules...
Sorry don't agree.

Also that you appear to think "inspiration" is covered by "the rules of logic".

Funny, I thought you were the one applying unrelated equations to my inspiration. That's not logical.

Oh, and that you STILL fail to realise your error and would rather attempt to sidestep this with snide remarks rather actually follow the logic (your own, as it happens) that would invalidate your erroneous contention.

OH, now you know what I "realise."

Under the rules of logic even IF the premise is wrong it does not mean the conclusion is false and this is a FREQUENT formal fallacy on the forums known as an argument from fallacy... Which is premature as the fallacy isn't explicit it's conceptual.

 

[arfa brane]

Inertia isn't defined by distance/ time, it is defined by mass.
But, yes, you are right that it is no use defining time in terms of the other parts of the equation.

Inertia is mass times area (it has units kgm[sup]2[/sup]). An object (usually described as a material particle) with a fixed velocity is in an inertial frame of reference, because it isn't accelerating. But what is the velocity of a particle relative to?

This is essentially why time is a function of velocity. Velocity can be "defined" by time, but it makes more sense to say that a function of space (velocity) is also a function of time--after all time is really just a convenient fiction, a completely passive "component" which is universal.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I explicitly corrected your interpretations of my presentation of the time distance equation. You just didn't accept it and I'm not responsible for that how ever if you make an accusation and fail to support (as you have done) there is thus no double standard.

Also wrong. You CLAIMED something that you had no evidence for (i.e. that "You and he believe that I was using a mathematical figure to define time rather than understanding that the figure was an express of inspiration.") In other words your "explanation" was an assumption of yours.
On the other hand YOUR misperception was explained in the relevant thread: "You posted a quote from Wiki and have interpreted it to mean something it doesn't."
More specifically you ignored the final words of the quote you used to "support" your contention: -
In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.

Different words similar meaning...
So you're saying the same thing...inspiration has rules...
Sorry don't agree.

No I'm not saying that. Obviously you have difficulty reading.

Funny, I thought you were the one applying unrelated equations to my inspiration. That's not logical.

On the contrary I showed, using an equation that used the elements under consideration, that your interpretation doesn't hold up.

OH, now you know what I "realise."
Under the rules of logic even IF the premise is wrong does not mean the conclusion is false and this is a FREQUENT formal fallacy on the forums known as an argument from fallacy... Which is premature as the fallacy isn't explicit is conceptual.

The fallacy is in the conclusion.

 

[Saquist]

Also wrong.

That's implicit too, you just don't know it.

You CLAIMED something that you had no evidence for

Exaggeration: I had limited evidence for defined by what we know about gravity, space and time and the nature of expansion of the universe. Far from nothing.

In other words your "explanation" was an assumption of yours.

That is the first perception that you've had that is correct and unmolested by illusion.

On the other hand YOUR misperception was explained in the relevant thread: "You posted a quote from Wiki and have interpreted it to mean something it doesn't."

Correct.

More specifically you ignored the final words of the quote you used to "support" your contention: -
In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.

I didn't ignore the final words.

No I'm not saying that. Obviously you have difficulty reading.

Then you should explain yourself because either applying means inserting numerical values into the equations (which I never did) or you think applying means to associate on with another.

On the contrary I showed, using an equation that used the elements under consideration, that your interpretation doesn't hold up.

SO, Oil... what was the interpretation?

The fallacy is in the conclusion.

implication devoid of explication. How was it proven fallacious?
(Since I clearly have to ask)

 

[Dywyddyr]

That's implicit too, you just don't know it.

Your assumption (used as "explanation") was false.

Exaggeration: I had limited evidence for defined by what we know about gravity, space and time and the nature of expansion of the universe. Far from nothing.

No. The evidence was there, the interpretation was wrong.

That is the first perception that you've had that is correct and unmolested by illusion.

In your (fallacious) opinion.

I didn't ignore the final words.

Lie:

I quote, "Any mathematical Model that combines space and time..."

You left off the critical words when you used that line as "justification".
Post 22.

Then you should explain yourself because either applying means inserting numerical values into the equations (which I never did) or you think applying means to associate on with another.

You should get yourself a better dictionary.

# (v. i.) To make request; to have recourse with a view to gain something; to make application. (to); to solicit; as, to apply to a friend for information.
# (v. t.) To visit.
# (v. t.) To put to use; to use or employ for a particular purpose, or in a particular case; to appropriate; to devote; as, to apply money to the payment of a debt.
# (v. t.) To fix closely; to engage and employ diligently, or with attention; to attach; to incline.
# (v. i.) To ply; to move.
# (v. t.) To lay or place; to put or adjust (one thing to another); -- with to; as, to apply the hand to the breast; to apply medicaments to a diseased part of the body.
# (v. t.) To make use of, declare, or pronounce, as suitable, fitting, or relative; as, to apply the testimony to the case; to apply an epithet to a person.
# (v. t.) To busy; to keep at work; to ply.
# (v. t.) To betake; to address; to refer; -- used reflexively.
# (v. i.) To apply or address one's self; to give application; to attend closely (to).
# (v. i.) To suit; to agree; to have some connection, agreement, or analogy; as, this argument applies well to the case.
# (v. t.) To direct or address.

Yet, at the same time, YOU asked for the numerical values. Strange...

SO, Oil... what was the interpretation?

Your interpretation?
As you have stated in this thread: that motion is required for time to pass.

implication devoid of explication. How was it proven fallacious?
(Since I clearly have to ask)

Because the equation I gave also implied (using your "logic") that motion is also required for mass to have any meaning, or even length. Which is clearly not the case.

 

[Saquist]

Your assumption (used as "explanation" was false.

Which doesn't prove the concept false nor does that make the inspiration invalid as you purported so this is still implicit.

No. The evidence was there, the interpretation was wrong.

No is right. There was evidence.

In your (fallacious) opinion.

That's a confidence statement.

Lie:

You left off the critical words when you used that line as "justification".
Post 22.


You should get yourself a better dictionary.

Pure perception. I have no reason to lie.
And your evidence shows no contradiction.

Yet, at the same time, YOU asked for the numerical values. Strange...

Not in my original concepts.
You're referring to me Entertaining your objections of the concepts. I'm inquisitive. I described premises in my opening statement which were never dis-proven.

Your interpretation?
As you have stated in this thread: that motion is required for time to pass.

No that's my theory not my interpretation of the equation.

Because the equation I gave also implied (using your "logic") that motion is also required for mass to have any meaning, or even length. Which is clearly not the case.

Universal motion was not apart of that armor penetration equation so...no that was not proven.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Which doesn't prove the concept false nor does that make the inspiration invalid as you purported so this is still implicit.

Nope: You assumed what my view was and "corrected" that. Therefore,since your assumption was incorrect there was no explanation behind your comment.

That's a confidence statement.

No, it's a fact. You're assuming (again) what my perception is.

Pure perception. I have no reason to lie.
And your evidence shows no contradiction.

On the contrary. That quote clearly shows that you omitted the final words.

Not in my original concepts.
You're referring to me Entertaining your objections of the concepts. I'm inquisitive. I described premises in my opening statement which were never dis-proven.

But they were.

No that's my theory not my interpretation of the equation.

Yet you used the equation to "make your point". In fact you also used the equation of motion and claimed directly that it implied such.

Universal motion was not apart of that armor penetration equation so...no that was not proven.

False. How was "universal motion" not a part? It specifically included motion.

You're a waste of time and effort.
Goodbye.

 

[Saquist]

On the contrary. That quote clearly shows that you omitted the final words.

Omission and lie are not synonymous and omission does not impart meaning of intent.
That's your interpretation.

Yet you used the equation to "make your point". In fact you also used the equation of motion and claimed directly that it implied such.

Am I not allowed to speak in the present tense.?
I have been stead fastly correcting you on my current perceptions and you seem to be determined to prove that which is not present of my perceptions.

False. How was "universal motion" not a part? It specifically included motion.

All motion does not equal universal motion.

You're a waste of time and effort.
Goodbye.

It was your time and effort to waste.
And your perceptions that your efforts were expended against.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Am I not allowed to speak in the present tense.?
I have been stead fastly correcting you on my current perceptions and you seem to be determined to prove that which is not present of my perceptions.

Your current perception?

Time equals motion.

Post 48, this thread.

In order for time to elapse a certain distance must be traveled.

Post 53, this thread.
Still the same, apparently.

All motion does not equal universal motion.

The equation of motion used in that thread no more (or less) used "universal motion" than did the de Marre. What, exactly, is "universal motion"?

And your perceptions that your efforts were expended against.

Ah, another false assumption of yours.

 

[Saquist]

Your current perception?

Post 48, this thread.

Post 53, this thread.
Still the same, apparently.

Which still represents my current theory. My theory hasn't changed just my understanding of trying to interpret that equation literally in reference to the theory.

The equation of motion used in that thread no more (or less) used "universal motion" than did the de Marre. What, exactly, is "universal motion"?

So the equation includes the expansion of the universe itself?

Ah, another false assumption of yours.

Correction, my perception made possible by the fact that your use of logic was impaired as omission does not equal lie. You're definitely fighting your own perception of what is and not the reality or even what I've been telling you on this thread.

 

[Emil]

For those who want link time to mechanical force, mass, motion.
Please do not forget the chemical processes,
halving the isotopes or to generate power in a acumlator etc ..
Even the process of aging.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Which still represents my current theory. My theory hasn't changed just my understanding of trying to interpret that equation literally in reference to the theory.

And you're wrong. As has been shown.

So the equation includes the expansion of the universe itself?

Neither shows that. Fail.

Correction, my perception made possible by the fact that your use of logic was impaired as omission does not equal lie.

Except that the omission was ignored: the equation you asked for does not treat space and time as single manifold. Therefore the argument was null and void.

You're definitely fighting your own perception of what is and not the reality or even what I've been telling you on this thread.

Wrong again. The misperception is yours and you persist is assigning motives and perceptions to me that do not pertain.

I'm done with you.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

.....my point is that if the definition of time has "time" anywhere in its derivation then it is circular. Einstein acknowledges that his definition of time is circular as well, by the way. I personally don't have an affinity for circular or recursive definitions if they can be avoided.

Yes , I agree. You've changed my mind.
I was wrong. Only as wrong as Einstein, which is nice, but still wrong.
Describing it in terms of inertia does not help. You could just as easily describe it in terms of velocity, distance travelled etc., which wouldn't help either.
Time is time. Referencing it to other things is circular.

But why do we have a problem with time as a dimension?
One reason is that our experience of time is not time itself.
Sometimes it seems to us to pass more quickly or more slowly. That is an illusion.
Another problem is that time seems to our minds to only to go in one direction.
Possibly that is also an illusion.

Otherwise it is no more difficult to understand as a dimension than distance.
Distance is the difference in position between two points in space, and duration is the difference similarly in points of time.

Why should we say "But What is Time?", any more than we say "But What is Distance"
Whatever exists, exists.

 

[hansda]

Let us try to visualise the real picture. In reality what we can see/percept is matter , energy and space. Space is like a container and containing matter and energy both. Various objects are made of matter. These objects are in various motions in the space. Energy is also travelling in the space. So, in reality space exists, matter exists, energy exists. Does time also exist the same way ?? or time is an idea, a mental concept, a mathematical concept very useful tool in explaining and understanding static and dynamic behaviour of our Nature/Universe ; whose real existence is only in clocks.

 

[hansda]

Time moves from present to past, future to present. That is our experience of time. Clock moves from present to future and past to present. So, if clock is moving clockwise ; time is moving anti-clockwise.