What is Time?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russ_Watters said:
It's not a belief, it's a definition.

Your paper doesn't say anything of value to science: It contains no math or testable predictions.
Click to expand...

Definitions do not come from the God. Definition can be accepted or not. You have accepted.

Can you please click the link pasted in the paper? You will find very important contexts. For example, how to express meters in eV. Or seconds in eV. Or have you known these for ages?
 
Sorry, now I have to go. Please gather your questions and tomorrow if I have time, I'll give you answers. BUT do your homework. Read my paper -- 10 minutes. And please note: I am not a neurologist, I don't cure hysteria.
 
edtk said:
I have heard neither reasons nor facts - just emotions. You are angry and aggressive. :mad: Don't worry, this is just a physics theory. :smile:
Click to expand...


You do not want to hear any reasons or facts that will show your hypothesis to be invalid.
I'm not angry either, just somewhat mystified at so many that come here with delusions of grandeur and inflated ego.
You have already posted in the wrong section, most probably to gain some attention after your last debacle attempt at putting the same nonsense.
That is two banning offences....wrong section, and trying to skirt a moderator's previous decision.
In summing, if you had any new definition of time, you would not be here...You would be getting it properly reviewed.
But the truth is as I have mentioned...a collection of jumbled up scientifically sounding words to try and impress.
Sorry, no one seems impressed.
 
If the only thing you can do is crying over spilled milk please take me a favor and delete my all posts. Or tell me at least, where is the delete button.
 
edtk said:
Definitions do not come from the God. Definition can be accepted or not. You have accepted.
Click to expand...
Correct. And you haven't. So what?
Can you please click the link pasted in the paper? You will find very important contexts. For example, how to express meters in eV. Or seconds in eV. Or have you known these for ages?
Click to expand...
Oy, really? You can't even do simple dimensional analysis? No, I won't increase your hit count to see just how bad it gets.

Let's try it this way: give me one testable prediction that your idea makes.
 
I have posted the following to various Threads relating to time.
Einstein once wrote something like the following about time, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it.

When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.

There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.
Click to expand...
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.

I can remember reading philosophy texts with multi-pages of word salad realting to time. None were close to being as cogent & succinct as the above by Albert.
 
edtk said:
Emotion: envy. Fact: nothing. Cure: Refused.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There was no envy, this is the science section and Russ simply asked you for a prediction from your idea that is testable. That is science. If you have none then you clearly do not have a theory.

edit to add: It is obvious that you do not have a theory. You have what we call a unevidence wild ass conjecture.
 
Prediction: if a mass travels in the Universe and a>0 (acceleration of mass is grater than 0) and the gravity does not stop it, the acceleration will permanently increase.
OR, there are more kinds of time, the dark matter uses its own time not our time.
OR, light has time. That makes possible that photons and all particles work with algorithms that time runs .
etc.
 
edtk said:
Prediction: if a mass travels in the Universe and a>0 (acceleration of mass is grater than 0) and the gravity does not stop it, the acceleration will permanently increase.
OR, there are more kinds of time, the dark matter uses its own time not our time.
OR, light has time. That makes possible that photons and all particles work with algorithms that time runs .
etc.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that if a rocket starts to accelerate and there is no gravity to stop it that it will accelerate forever? Even after it runs out of fuel?
 
origin said:
So you are saying that if a rocket starts to accelerate and there is no gravity to stop it that it will accelerate forever? Even after it runs out of fuel?
Click to expand...

The are special galaxies out there that accelerate without fuel.
 
edtk said:
Prediction: if a mass travels in the Universe and a>0 (acceleration of mass is grater than 0) and the gravity does not stop it, the acceleration will permanently increase.
Click to expand...
That's just Newton's first and second laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

It doesn't provide any value for your idea, unless you present a testable prediction of your idea that is different from what is already incorporated into current science.
OR, there are more kinds of time, the dark matter uses its own time not our time.
OR, light has time. That makes possible that photons and all particles work with algorithms that time runs .
etc.
Click to expand...
Please state those as testable predictions. That's what the question was.
 
That was. I have to go. Next time! Chiao
origin said:
Really? Could you please identify one of the 'special galaxies'?
Click to expand...

Yes. Every galaxy is like this. New fact for you: our Universe expands. But now I really have to go. Ciao!
 
origin said:
So you are saying that if a rocket starts to accelerate and there is no gravity to stop it that it will accelerate forever? Even after it runs out of fuel?
Click to expand...
It could be externally fueled (lasser propulsion). That isn't specified. So this "prediction" has no real value since it is just a cumbersome restatement of something that has been known for 400 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top