Timelessness is a meaningless concept
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago
0A friend of Jomine, methinks
"It is my boggling for 'advance physisists?"
We have to wonder about the accuracy of statements made about physics when someone can't spell physicist. Are you boggled?
My pleasure, sunshine
As said : space is the tangible "thing".
time is the imposed observation, the "measure of || measuring of" the thing. I explained this to someone before:
0 (zero as the thing) exists and does not exist, with or without measure. To measure is to impose time (as the measuring of the perimeter the center, etc etc).
PS:
Nice, France? Ooooh, lala. Have a great trip!
James.
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
It's maybe a timelessfool concept. Maybe like timefoolness
hehehe
I've got nothing against delirious speech. I'll add a bit.
When you're high, for instance, you don't feel time passing.
Like time was frozen. But just on your point of view.
After you start getting a bit down and you go to the fridge to devour something solid, your eyes cross that big clock you have on a kitchen wall. Then you say :
far out ! I didn't realize it was so late !
So time ends up by always catching you.
This speech is fully anti relativenessless.
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Onusonusposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
But, I do understand relativity. You don't, but pretend you do. And, it is the pretending that is most obvious in your posts as you string words together in an attempt to sound smart.
Mokowsi??
ps, why is that fellow/femme Kiriu not getting it.
Is it a language issue.
James.
You string words together that have no meaning. You constantly bring up Fractals as an answer when it has no connection whatsoever. You refer to crank and crackpot websites and popular science magazines for you information.
It is so obvious, it appears to be blatantly intended.
Who knows your motives best but you?
But, it is work of which you have no understanding and have made that blatantly obvious.
Could you please describe then how Minkowski spacetime is related to the Lorentz Tranformations and time dilation?
Why are the vectors in Minkowski spacetime orthogonal?
Take your time.
I read a lot, but it appears you don't read much at all. In fact, on many occasions you have not read what I've linked nor even read what you've linked, often having it backfire on you when I do read what you present and connect it to the flaws and contradictions in your posts.
That's odd, where do you get the notion I don't know that when in fact I have said it here myself?
Yes, you love to string words together and pretend. Hilarious.
you have such invented memory.
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Kiriuposted 12 years ago0
- Twenty One Daysposted 12 years ago0
Here is another example:
Torah/Tanakh:
It is a mathematical, semiotic and graphical 'measurement' of events, objects, etc --yet it, like any other tool, cannot exceed its purpose or use. The objects were measured --in words, glyphs, maps(graphs), symbols -- in order to make them as tangible as possible for the reader. Unless one can exceed the measurements, they cannot achieve the experiential results of what those measures represent.
Now, let's all go bake a Génoise cake and put those relative/relevant, measures to good use!
James. - Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
No worries, just start from the very beginning with the basics of physics and you'll eventually get there.
Actually, the fact is that you wouldn't know relativity if it bit you in the leg. But, it is entertaining to watch you pretend you do.
or......... meaningless is timeless.
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
But, you seriously never learned those theories.
Yourself included.
You're joking, right? You're talking about yourself.
Says the kettle to the pot.Often, it is your sources that are suspect to be crackpot and crank sites.
No, what it does is to provide clear definition, just like you try to do by referring to a dictionary.
Sorry, but the details you provide are erroneous and flawed, hence your version of the "larger picture" is also flawed.You have no clue about physics, that is a fact. Many times you post misinformation and fallacies that sho well beyond a shadow of doubt you haven't got a clue. Often you will refer to Jung and Mandelbrot for your explanations when neither are related in the least to the subject matter.
But, please feel free to keep pretending as it is wonderful entertainment.
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
I am wondering if [he] truly understands the Einstein Theory of Equivalents --which is commonly called Relativity. The theory itself comes from the work by the likes of an English 'nobody' Faraday, who clearly defined electromagnetic rotation. Another was the French Lavosier, who trimmed the idea of 'tiny shifts' using a theory of the mass of rust on metallic objects and of course Newtonian Principle.
Einstein simply considered the 'relevance' of conditions such as cause-effect --meaning without equal push and pull, nothing could hold together. In that theory he stated 'time and space are not absolute BECAUSE motion and distance are measured by the observer. That gravity WITH motion CAN effect time and space, making gravity partly independent of the measures of time and space. Which in itself is "whack" (for lack of a better word). Less than 5 years later, Alex (Sasha) Friedmann used the Equivalents Theory ( Relative Principle ) to hypothesize the Bang Bang Theory. If correct, that was the mid 1920's. In less than 100 years, physics has grown and proven even a single expression (image) in the human mind --an object without this supposed Field Theory is able to exist void of mass, measure, weight or cause-effect/push pull.
[We] have since learned space is not just a vacuum of nothing and that time is simply a 'yardstick theory' that cannot be proven apart from human application of the 'stick' itself. Space (the whole sum-substance) is actually defiant to the Equivalents Theory. Quantum (even quantum mechanics) has shown that sub frequencies (particles) have no mass or weight, no gravity or relativity, yet are the fundamental building blocks that are the universe.
James.
ps how was the holiday, did you bump into Marcus.ooooh goodie, a new book to read
ps, traditional paella must have a crunchy bottom. nom nom nom!you got that right
As for Einstein and Newton, neither has been dismissed, nor is either 100% correct/incorrect. Their ideas although novel and maybe noble, were derived from some of those mentioned and a host of others; And has since been reconstructed by various new physic applications, with or without mechanics. (Very interesting you mention Sir Penrose. His father was a brilliant mathematician). His Interpretation -to me- is a bit naive, but again, he is on to something, same as Newton, same as Aristotle and the rest. In another 100 years, the entire physic regime is going to change again, when we supersede measures as we know them. Should be fun.
The issue, again comes back to the objects and the difference between the observable and observer. As said, 95% of the [known] universe is unobservable; the remaining 5% is a mere revealing of projective-reflective. My work regarding this has found much to debunk gravity theories, warps, collapses, etc --producing semiotics, 'voice/sound' variations and 'spectral genetic' patterns that match human DNA structures quite closely. As believed, ultra subatomic frequencies generally have no mass, measure, nor collision --yet are constantly interchanging properties --expressing all three properties while maintaining the universe as we know it. It is like some kind of dance that is simply amazing to know even exists; to be able to observe, nothing short of a wonder --and to become the object --an attainable timelessness.
James.
Please describe why Einstein was not right?
Nonsense, Newton's theories and formulas are still used today, he was never discarded. Why should Einstein's theories be discarded, they work quite well?
Yes, and Penrose has failed miserably in that regard.
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
- Uirikposted 12 years ago0
Related Discussions
- 710
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...
- 265
Explain Why Religion Exists?
Hello Hubbers,I found myself wondering the questions below......Now, you don't need to give any response, if youdon't choose to, but....these questions were someof the questions I had as a kid and for some of myadult life. However, since I have my answers....Iwant to hear what others have to say on...
- 24
spacelessness is a meaningless concept
Not existing is something you can illustrate. When I say there is nothing existing, my mind interprate this as space. So, spacelessness is a meaningless concept!Otherwise illustrate for me the meaning!
- 372
nobody can deny the existence of God
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEISTNormally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is...
- 114
The times are a-changing
The debate of whether God exist ( and that he created the Universe, and thus intelligent life on earth) has been the subject of so much debate, rational or otherwise, on HubPages. Atheists base their non-belief mantra solely on the fact that God could not be perceived by their 5 senses. Theists...
- 48
What makes a god a god?
Oh, my guide. When I was a lot younger I remember two people of the Jewish faith talk about their deity. I remember that they explicitly said that they never refer to their deity as "god," and that when their people first reunited in contact with their creator, YHWH, long after the...