A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to the semantics analysis term “space-time” is an “empty” term in the sense that it does not correspond with any physical reality and also does not correspond with any mathematical reality.

Right, spacetime does not correspond with any physical reality! This would mean, of course, that nothing actually exists, since every physical object must have length, width, height and duration! Ergo, according to you, since spacetime is an "empty" term that does not correspond with any physical reality, nothing exists!



Oh, and it does not correspond with any "mathematical reality," except for the tons of mathematical reality that it DOES correspond with!



Christ, you are an idiot.

Beware, Peacegirl! You have a "Fly the Crazy Flag" competitor in newcomer Bob Savegan. In fact, he has started five threads in the Philosophy fourm alone!

Be careful! We may all grow bored with you and migrate over to Bob's threads for comic relief!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought this was very descriptive and helpful

Of course it's helpful. It fits your reality. I would appreciate that you don't immediately judge the author before you even have a chance to read what someone writes. That is a dishonest way to win an argument.

Einstein definition of time is based on its measurement: “Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it”. He did not say what time exactly is. Out of his definition follows that time is numerical order of events, more precisely “time is numerical order of material change i.e. motion that we measure with clocks. This definition of time corresponds exactly to the measurement in a physical world. With clocks we do not measure time in which material change run, we measure its numerical order. In physics term “time” is a meaningful term in a sense that it corresponds to the numerical order of material change.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0101v1.pdf

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to the semantics analysis term “space-time” is an “empty” term in the sense that it does not correspond with any physical reality and also does not correspond with any mathematical reality.

Bollocks. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Here, educate yourself:

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I mean really, read and learn.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it is. It is a dimension by definition.

Time is a measurement of change. It is not a physical entity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In actual reality we are not moving between two points, a beginning and an end, we are in motion in the present.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is literally meaningless.

The words past and future are symbols that represent what has occurred or what has yet to occur, but they don't represent a physical reality in that there is no past or future timeline that is equivalent to a location in space. The past is what I leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something that happened and if I lose my memory, the past doesn't exist for me; neither does the future. That is because, in actuality, only the present exists. Sorry but you will never get to meet your great great grandmother in a time machine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is harrassment when I already answered you...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you haven't answered my questions. You're just lying again.

I answered your questions; you answered your questions, and now I don't want to hear anything more about those questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What more do you want Spacemonkey?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Honesty.

I've been honest and you just can't let go.

[peacegirl]

added

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Think about it this way peacegirl , without including time as a coordinate you wouldn't be able to locate anything or even describe the state of much of anything because change is constant. Can you tell me the location of the WTC twin towers using only 3 dimensions? Can you tell me the location of a moving car using only 3 dimensions? Can you describe the exact state of a pot of water heating on the stove using 3 dimensions?

This guy really knows what he's talking about but, of course, you will call him a crackpot.

Term “space-time” was created by the German mathematician Herman
Minkowski. He developed the formalism for four dimensional space where fourth dimension is X4= ict. Equivalently as Euclid space is 3D Minkowski space is 4D. From the point of mathematical formalism term “space-time” is inadequate. According to the semantics analysis term “space-time” is an “empty” term in the sense that it does not corresponds any physical reality and also does not correspond any mathematical reality. Correct term for Minkowski space is a “four dimensional space” instead “space-time”.

Right understanding of Space-time excludes Time Travel
This un-correct naming of Minkowski 4D space has caused more than 100 years conviction namely that “space-time” is a fundamental arena of the universe. As one can travel in both direction of fourth dimension X4 = ict some of physicists discuss about hypothetical time travel into past. They do not understand that moving back along the X4 doles not mean moving in time. X4 is spatial coordinate equivalently as are X1, X2, X3.

One can move and travel in space only. Time is a numerical order of its motion (6). The proposal here is that in physics term “Minkowski space-time” is replaced with the term “Minkowski 4D space”. This will help next generations of physicists to have a right understanding of time as a numerical order of change running in a 4D space. 99.999 percent of today physicists are convinced time is a 4th dimension of space although mathematical formalism X4 = ict shows 4th dimension is spatial too. Language has an immense power over the human mind. That’s why it is important to use meaningful terms especially in exact science as physics.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0101v1.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bollocks. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Here, educate yourself:

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I mean really, read and learn.

I am positive that I will have the same view after I read more and learn more. Time is not a dimension that has a physical location such that we could ever travel back in time or forward in time. Time is a measurement of change ONLY as we move from point A to point B.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Right, spacetime does not correspond with any physical reality! This would mean, of course, that nothing actually exists, since every physical object must have length, width, height and duration! Ergo, according to you, since spacetime is an "empty" term that does not correspond with any physical reality, nothing exists!

Duration? That is just motion in space. We measure motion using time (clocks) but that doesn't mean time itself is a dimension. Nothing you have said adds anything of import.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and it does not correspond with any "mathematical reality," except for the tons of mathematical reality that it DOES correspond with!



Christ, you are an idiot.

Beware, Peacegirl! You have a "Fly the Crazy Flag" competitor in newcomer Bob Savegan. In fact, he has started five threads in the Philosophy fourm alone!

Be careful! We may all grow bored with you and migrate over to Bob's threads for comic relief!

Be my guest! Why not have an exodus and take all your cronies with you. It will be a breath of fresh air for me. Then I can leave in peace.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One can move and travel in space only. That's what I meant by a space timeline.

How, then, did you type those two moronic sentences that I just quoted? When you began typing them, it was an earlier time relative to the typing of the period of the last sentence, which was at a later time!



Every time you open your mouth the Big Stupid falls out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One can move and travel in space only. That's what I meant by a space timeline.

Everyone is traveling in time, in one direction only, (so far) and within the same time frame, at the same rate.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Everyone is traveling in time, in one direction only, (so far) and within the same time frame, at the same rate.

Actually, no. People on earth essentially share the same inertial frame for all practical purposes, but astronauts have aged less than people on the ground.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks Hermit, but we're not in the new world. We're living in a free will environment and that's the environment people are operating in. Some people (not everyone) would take advantage of this. I remember trying an experiment on Halloween. I left candy out and left a note. I trust that you will just take one.I came back and all the candy was gone within a matter of minutes. I wasn't surprised but this has nothing to do with the change in environmental conditions of the new world that will necessitate a change in behavior.

You were probably dealing with very young "trick-or-treaters" who couldn't read yet. You should have vetted everyone to be sure they could read.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Hermit

That's simple. Here's what you do: Upload the PDF to any or all of those cloud services. Preface it with the following comment: "I promise not to blame you. Please don't do the wrong thing by downloading this knowledge." Voila! Nobody will download the knowledge.

Knowing human nature and how a persons conscience works, that should take care of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit weaseling and do what you told me you can "absolutely" do. Tell me where the twin towers are without using time. Tell me where a moving car is without a time coordinate.

We are traveling through space. To say this is where I will be at this particular time is a measurement between two points. This motion can be measured by clocks, but time itself is not a separate dimension.

this doesn't prove that the past and future actually exist on some kind of imaginary timeline that we can go to and visit.You're being deceived by faulty logic.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have never once said that I think we can "visit" another time. In fact I have stated several times that we cannot.

That is the implication LadyShea and you know it. You are weaseling now.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody has said that we can. Just because something is theoretically allowed mathematically doesn't mean it's thought to be achievable in any practical way.

No, it's not achievable because it's impossible to achieve, not because it's not practical to achieve.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not being deceived, you are because you accept the arguments of a bunch of crackpots

There you go again calling people crackpots like you did my father. I think this is a defense mechanism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

who don't understand the things they are criticizing. You are using this "visiting" thing as a strawman because you can't address the actual arguments being made. Dishonest weaseling, again.

But this IS the belief, that if time is a dimension we could one day (if we created the perfect time machine) achieve the impossible. We could enter our time machines and travel anywhere we wanted. Just click on a button, mention the year, and off we go. Then we could get back in our time machine and click a button, mention the year, and travel to the future. Isn't that a little like photons getting there before they get there?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it's helpful. It fits your reality. I would appreciate that you don't immediately judge the author before you even have a chance to read what someone writes. That is a dishonest way to win an argument.

Again you are accusing someone of prematurely judging what others have written, but you don't know what that someone has read of that particular author. You are making accusations out of ignorance, but then that's typical of you and Lessans, making statements out of ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You were probably dealing with very young "trick-or-treaters" who couldn't read yet. You should have vetted everyone to be sure they could read.

That's even worse. That would mean the parents (who can read) would have allowed their children take the candy. I doubt if children that young would be trick or treating by themselves.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Actually, no. People on earth essentially share the same inertial frame for all practical purposes, but astronauts have aged less than people on the ground.

Yes, I should have said the "same inertial frame" and at "approximately" the same rate.

Strictly speaking, could it be considered that astronauts in orbit are in a slightly different inertial frame that people on the Earth?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then tell me the location of the Sun without using a time coordinate.

Seriously, just imagine a 3d grid, with x, y, and z axes, then stick a timeline under it to locate events. This is not difficult. I am a layperson, talking from an everyday understanding of these things. Co-ordinate systems can be abstract for goodness sake.

______

What does this prove? We know nothing can move without motion, but this does not prove that time is a physical entity. You are trying to attribute properties to time that it doesn't have.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this IS the belief, that if time is a dimension we could one day (if we created the perfect time machine) achieve the impossible. We could enter our time machines and travel anywhere we wanted. Just click on a button, mention the year, and off we go. Then we could get back in our time machine and click a button, mention the year, and travel to the future. Isn't that a little like photons getting there before they get there?

Are you now saying that it is impossible for photons to get there before they have had time to get there? That is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying for more than 3 years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not even logic, it's just horse sense! I can't even set an appointment using only the map location...must have a time coordinate to do anything.

We experience time, so we've created a model, one that works, one that even you agree is useful, to describe that experience.

That's all well and good, but in reality time measures change when we're in motion. Experiencing time and creating a model is fine. Without measuring time we would have problems keeping our appointments. The danger is when people start making false propositions about the nature of time as a 4th dimension. That's the beginning of crackpottery.

[thedoc]

The problem here is that Peacegirl is using a very strict definition of dimension, that is a measurement that we can move along in either direction and go to whatever point we choose. Others are using dimension as a unit of measurement, in this case the passage of time, without the capability of controlling where on that dimension we are, or which direction we travel. We are here, now,

Spaceballs - When does this happen in the movie?! - YouTube

and are going in the direction of the future. It is possible to have some limited control of how fast we travel along the dimension of time, but there are difficulties.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you now saying that it is impossible for photons to get there before they have had time to get there? That is in direct contradiction to what you have been saying for more than 3 years.

I have always maintained that you have to travel to get anywhere, but if there is no travel time in the efferent account, then calculating travel time doesn't apply.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you mean to say this? Let's see a measure any kind of change without referencing time!

It all depends in what capacity time is referenced. I will refer you back to a previous post.

The proposal here is that in physics term “Minkowski space-time” is replaced with the term “Minkowski 4D space”.

That would allow for duration using time as a reference point, but not as a fourth dimension.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One can move and travel in space only. That's what I meant by a space timeline.

Four-velocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Four-acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The danger is when people start making false propositions about the nature of time as a 4th dimension. That's the beginning of crackpottery.

Bollocks again. Time as a fourth dimension is the basis of special and general relativity, which is part of the scientific and technological state of the art.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would either Angkuk or Dragar feel threatened by genuine discoveries* that could bring world peace? Those that would feel threatened are those who would be stripped of power in the New World.

That's not what I meant.

It is very upsetting that I don't have connections to the right people who could thoroughly investigate this knowledge and bring it to light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't connect with "the right people" unless you can first identify them. How do you determine who exactly are the right people? Why are they the right people? Where would these right people most likely be found?

*Which has not been demonstrated in regards to Lessans ideas

I want to reach people in the philosophy field who are interested in these concepts. People most likely to be interested in these concepts are people who already have an intuition that man's will is not free. I would love to reach anyone who is open to new ideas like Wayne Dyer, Marianne Williamson, Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, and many others. This book has had very little exposure. Many books come and go, but this book will not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's stupid to criticise relativity (or physics in general) for treating time as a dimension (or rather, spacetime as a four-dimensional coordinate system) when it's just a model, and a model we know is wrong deep down. Maybe time isn't really a dimension, and it's an emergent phenomena (there's a lot of research linking spacetime to thermodynamics, suggesting there are microscopic properties that are only described in gross as spacetime). Physicists are quite happy with this possibility - claiming they're somehow 'wrong' about it is just ridiculous when it's part of a working model!

Well that certainly gets them off the hook. Good work Dragar!