Proving time is static using the equivalence principle

What an idiot... CptBork has said nothing and I provided the link... and it doesn't cancel to 1. It only cancels to 1 when there is a zero redshift you idiot. You can't even get the math right!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll repeat myself so you can see this is more directed at you than really paddo, since paddo admits to not being a mathematician.

You've got the math so terribly embarrasingly wrong. Only for \(z = 0\) do you find unity. Hence why it is 1 + something else. If that something else = redshift and it is zero, then yes, everything will cancel out to 1 because there is no redshift.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By the way, there is a subscript copy typo carried on, it should be source at the bottom. Anyway, it still doesn't cancel out to 1, only when z = 0 does it cancel to 1. And no, it isn't a made up equation, it's a real equation used in physics

You can view the equation here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

As most will see, Aqueous is out of his depth, he doesn't understand the equation and probably never seen it before since he was calling it salad math. Salad understanding from his behalf more like. Sign of total ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The OP is "Proving time is static using the Equivalence Principle".

Please explain why the provincial foundation of this thread is not a non sequitur.

Neither is it the only oxymoron in this thread.

Apart from the practice of appended free lanced words such as 'idiot'. Is there an equation-securing-adjective-usage invariably synonymous with authority?

I too admit I don't do math. Much at all.

Brian Greene for example does a heck of a lot of math. I dare say way too much.

He arrives and departs to and from places 'and' times that aren't here and/or there.

I recently heard from a degree bearing theoretical physicist that Brian Greene's dog & pony show is approved by the SPCA.

That the guy is charming and sexy. I am so swooned out. My paradigm has been consummately dominated.

"No I'm saying time doesn't exist, it's emergent from the dynamics of changing systems. In other words, therefore the definition of time itself may as well simply be just change. My question is, why not simply just stick with it instead of adding time, which adds many problems in our equations?"

In saying that the OP is not the only oxymoron in this thread - the other two are in the above quoted three consecutive sentences.
Masterfully established in the sequential development of three fairly short sentences in the above OP's quote. However reiterative this sentence may be: yours seems contagious (When in Rome?).

By this I mean the refinement of the first sentence - "I'm not saying time doesn't exist, it's emergent from the dynamics of changing systems."
Until further qualification exonerating the inherent contradiction of that specification, I'm just saying it's self evidently equivocal, which is not equal to equivalent. Like I said I don't do (much) math.

"In other words, therefore the definition of time itself may as well simply be just change."
The profundity of that imperative certainly prepares the reader of it to anticipate something powerful, but the promised black mariah doesn't arrive. (Perhaps delayed - or lost - in timeless space?)

"My question is, why not simply just stick with it instead of adding time, which adds many problems in our equations?"
The telling operative word in that one is "...which adds many problems in our equations." I'll bet it does too.
The interrogative punctuation closing that otherwise imperative is precious beyond numeration.
Like Brian Greene, you certainly do line up the scattered ducks and shoot them down your way. Strung out indeed.
Incidentally you've piqued my interest in several grateful ways here and I thank you however redundantly for that.

 

Do you really think it is not obvious that you do not understand any of the stuff you are copying from other people. Everytime you try to use some of your highschool algebra to manipulate the equations it is a disaster.

Maybe people that have no math background are fooled. Is that your goal? Does it make you feel better about yourself to fool a few people?

Really, really odd.

 

You need to be careful with math proof, since math is only as good as the assumptions it uses. As a example of this effect, say I decided gravity was due to the repulsion of matter by space. Matter will clump to avoid and minimize space, with dense areas of mass the ideal location for matter to clump. We know this is not a good theory, but I could simply use a reverse of existing math and come up with equations since math can be led anywhere. It is important to reason at the conceptual level and not the math level to make sure the logic is sound to avoid special effects.

The artist Escher first expressed this concern with art. If you look at art, as plot of data, with plots of data often coming first in scientific discovery, with the equation added second he plotted data, as art, to show one can model illusions with math. Below is plot that can exist on paper and can be modeled with math but can't exist in the real world.

The problem for the student is he sees the finished product and not the sequence of steps in investigation with theory then experimental data plotted first and then the math guys come to form an equation to fit the data. If we use only theory for things that may be hard to experiment with, we can go from the structures of the assumptions to form a rough plot, then fill in the math to reflect what we what it to do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you're wrong and should re-read his equations.

If time separates events, and time is static. It follows that nothing is happening.

\(z+1=1\) it follows that \(z=nothing\)

But if we can't have \(nothing\) then \(1=1\) and they equation is still balanced.

Is that better?

 

Oh, this is a proof that 1 = 1!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I thought he was showing a proof that Reiku is clueless on math, physics, science, etc.

Thanks for the 'heads up'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hell lets ignore mass and length to then the equations get real easy, useless, but easy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you could fathom anything beyond highschool algebra, time may not be such a burden for you to work with.

 

No that's what you are all doing, copying each other arguments and then when someone gets something wrong, you all get it wrong. Aqueuous can't even work out a simple equation, and the fact you are sticking up for him to try and ''reserve'' face he has left is just sad, knowing he just made this mistake. It's quite simple really, if everything really did simplify to 1, you'd have something glaringly wrong with the dimensions, since it is 1 + z. If it's just unity, then what is z? If z is the shift and the shift is non-zero then yeah, it doesn't cancel out like Acqueous says. This is the problem see just coming here to troll rather than talk science, half the time you half-wits don't even know how to get it right! Just like when you thought U and V had different dimensions and you couldn't even identify a langrangian!

 

No, it's proof none of you can do simple math.

PS. and it appears you can't, saw a comment with you in it. You can't even perform a square root sign properly.

 

Geeze your a hoot.

 

Considering you can't even perform a square root sign properly, understand what a langrangian is, or understand that a redshift cannot be unity if there is a non-zero shift, I wouldn't worry about being a hoot. At least retard doesn't come under my category.

 

I have to admit I have made errors....the horror.

Your errors however are legend, but you have no way of knowing that because the equations you copy are so far beyond your limited education as to be absurd.

So do you have to sit outside of Mcdonalds or something to get online so that your can dishonestly get around the bans that you so rightly deserve? Don't you have a scrap of integrity?

 

Yes, I suppose a qualifier is needed, Rekiu. How about dishonest retard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Eh? The right hand side of the expression Aq Id quotes equals unity, 1. So z can ONLY be zero, if this equation is correct. What's wrong with it?

 

No the real horror is making a mistake and then not noticing it or taking on board you have made a mistake. It's easy though when technically it wasn't your mistake to begin with, just like this thread case. BUT! And this is a BIG but, you need to stop copying down the answer sheets of people because if you start stealing from people who think they know better, turns out all of you are wrong.

Funny how yesterday paddo said the resident experts have exposed it for what it is... I laughed and thought what experts? CPTbork said next to nothing, and anything Acquous said has got terribly wrong, embarrasingly wrong. The fact you are now just continuing the exposed mistake, is just sad.

Learn to have a bit of humble pie, lick your wounds and come back another day, eh?

 

Yeah you have it backwards. The 1 + is added to the z in case of unity. It clearly isn't unity when you go into negative numbers, or positive numbers, depending on how much redshift or blueshift you measure, and it is measured with a non-zero z.

 

Also, another reason why I think there is a level of confusion, concerns the left hand side looking like it is one thing divided by the same thing, and it isn't. If you look closer, subscripted make the numerator and denominator different.

 

WTF are you talking about? Just slinging crap around as usual I suppose.

You would have no idea if any of what you copy down is right or not...

You really are a hoot - that from you! How deep is your delusion I wonder? Do you acutally believe yourself or do you know that you are a know-nothing that is pretending. That actually is a bit of a scary thought. Could you actually believe you know what you are talking about? Nah, not possible, you are putting on an act of the physicist - it is just a really bad act.