A force or not a force

So you didn't actually read my wording?
"The time taken is found".
There was no "requirement" that motion is needed in order for time to pass.
The amount of time that passes is found by using the equation.

No, that equation, given no motion would indicate that the time taken is zero.
(But it does not mean that given no motion there can be no time.)

No it isn't.
Time is the (non-spacial) interval between two events.
IF there is motion then the time taken can be given a numerical value.
But it's not "defined as" d/v.

That sounds somewhat tautological to me.
If it's contracting there must be motion.
Or alternatively, if it isn't actually contracting (which it "should" do because of the attraction between all the matter) then it must be expanding due to something else.
Friedman, from what I can see, "merely" (ha! merely) put a value on that expansion and explained it in terms of GR field equations.

No, it doesn't follow.
It could be the case, but it doesn't appear to be a "result" of Friedmann's work.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Negative:
Not only did I read your wording exactly as you meant it, I also understood
why you were being so precise. It is my intention to test the theory by means of logic. What better than mathematicly? Thus I allowed for your precise wording. It should not matter.

Wiki-

I quote, "Any mathematical Model that combines space and time..."
Is this not what I have done? I knew this as a matter of rule. Do you not?

You said there is "No requirement" that motion is needed in order for time to pass. Thus I ask you ...Is it possible for a distance to be traveled without the passage of time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet you misrepresented it:

Which is not true.

Probably not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You were attempting to add a qualifier to the eqations which is why it didn't matter. The qualifier "Found" is not part of the Math.

t = d/v


In math this equation means litterally. Time (t) is (=) Distance (d) Through or into (/), rate of speed (v). So I ask you again do you understand the use of this mathematical model does indeed describe space/time and by default it must be mathematical true?

 

Attempting to add a qualifier?
No, I actually gave the "qualifier".
And it does matter.

No, it doesn't mean it literally.
The equation is used to discern the amount of time taken.
It's an operational equation.
If you contend that that it actually means time actually IS d/v over then you'll have provide some source for it.

If I gave the equation, WV[sup]2[/sup]=(t/d)[sup]n[/sup] for example (de Marre, for armour penetration) and then rearranged it to find the value of W (mass of penetrator) would that mean that in order for an armour piercing projectile to have a mass there MUST be penetration of some armour?
Of course not.
The mass is not dependant upon there being a penetration and neither is time dependant upon there being motion.
Unless you can provide sources, of course.

 

So do you guys have an answer that maybe someone can make sense of it of what is time?

 

I have given you that proof.
The model is a description of Space....and Time....according to the wiki.
So if you don't agree then on what basis?

Logical.
It is not a Time Space model. But I didn't bring this up. You did. It's thus an ineffective example of your disagreement. Can you explain further if I have miss understood in some way?

 

I believe so.
And I believe it was right under the nose the whole time. Oil, doesn't agree because he doesn't believe that is how the equation was meant to be interpreted yet conventional reasoning sourced through the wiki says that any mathematical model that describes time and distance. Yet it describes spatial interactions appropriately.

 

You posted a quote from Wiki and have interpreted it to mean something it doesn't.
Everything that exists exists in space time.
It's not "proof" it's an interpretation.

Eminently, but wrong.

Actually, since it deals with with things that exist and is therefore incorporated in space-time (it even has a term for velocity - the "v") how is it ineffective?
If the equation given was taken further to find the amount of time required to penetrate would that mean the the penetrator would have no mass if there were no armour?

And one further thing to consider on this "gravity is actually the Earth expanding" model: if that is the case why does the Moon orbit the Earth?

 

Some people think they can: so far with little success.
Sasquatch for one.
Second hint by the way.

 

Then define a mathematical model of Space Time that the wiki refers to as a propper example.

Okay. I see where you're going.
Is it possible to isolate the spatial varriables in the equation?

 

As given: when considering the combination space and time as a single continuum it's certainly not on the gross physical, everyday level.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...pace time" equations&meta=&btnG=Google Search

In WV[sup]2[/sup]=kd[sup]3[/sup](t/d)[sup]n[/sup]
(I just noticed I missed a couple of terms in the post above).
W is mass (lb) the formula dates from a while back
V is velocity (ft/ sec) (Length/time)
k is dimensionless
d is a diameter (inches) (length)
t is thickness (inches) (length)
n is dimensionless

So alternatively, you could rearrange it to put the V on one side: (that includes time as a dimension).
So if the projectile has no velocity would that mean that the armour has no thickness or the penetrator has no mass?

 

Yes...I googled them too...but I didn't find that how I looked at the equation was wrong. Maybe I am.

I don't know let me see what this looks like after I isolate only one of the variables on a single side.

 

Would we not need more than just one varriable to solve this equation?
Just Zero would be insufficient...to truely solve the equation.

...and I have gotten one isolated variable V but I have not the mathematical experience to get t and d isolated.

 

Okay, typical figures (although a numerical solution isn't required).
W = 17 lb
d = 3 inches
V = 2900 feet per second
n = 1.414
k = 10[sup]6[/sup] from memory

I thought you said you were an engineer?
Transposition of equations is very basic.

WV2= kd3(t/d)n (without the superscripts)

therefore (WV2/kd3)=(t/d)n
therefore nth root(WV2/kd3)= (t/d)
therefore d(nth root(WV2/kd3)=t or were you just looking for the previous expression?

Tidied up d((WV[sup]2[/sup])/(kd[sup]3[/sup]))[sup](1/n)[/sup])=t

You can't handle basic transpositions but you're proposing to get into much deeper and far more abstruse mathematics? :shrug:

I think we're about to run into a full stop here.

 

Man, did this thread ever go downhill.

 

My math is cranky.
I understand physics fairly well. Understanding physics through the math that's true understanding and where I'm headed. If Einstein had taken your advice where would we be?

I like to challenge myself, why not. It can only come to a greater understanding and better now than later when I run head long into the classes.
I'm a drafter in an engineering field, Oil, and I'm going for a bachelor's in engineering. The math has always been my achillies which is why I haven't moved faster.

T= is exactly what I was looking for. I can find D through this aswell.
Before you were asking So if the projectile has no velocity would that mean that the armour has no thickness or the penetrator has no mass?

Then the answer is different. Velocity and (armor thickness) have no intrinsic relationship. The same is not true of velocity and mass. Mass and Velocity have a dual relation even if it is not expressed in this equation which was not designed to express that relationship. t=d/v does have dependent variables.

t relates to d symbioticly.
As you said it's not likely possible to describe motion without time. That relationship simply doesn't exist between the the thickness and velocity in this equation you offer.

I can't say the same for the relationship between velocity and mass which also seems to be another dual spatial relationship. It appears that all mass has relative motion.

but why did you pull such an old equation that doesn't use the same variable assignments?

 

Um, physics IS maths.

So am I. (Mostly)

And transposition (in the UK at least) is stuff that 12-year olds get taught.
You wouldn't be accepted for a BSc if you can't do this level of maths.

And your reading/ English is equally bad.
Third notice.

If there is no velocity is there still mass?

You are misreading the meaning of the equation.
Completely.

It (or its derivatives) is the equation I use far more than any other in my life.

 

wiki-
Actually its the examine of natural concepts through math.
I've never though that math and physics were the same. math is a language that describes many things, physics is one of them.

What field?

So you assume.
Then I'll give you your first notice. It's Saquist not Sasquatch pronouced say-kwist not sack-wist.

No. I don't think mass can exist an not move. Matter seems contingent on motion.

Then explain and then prove.
What you've said has not been sufficient.
I need sources to understand your position.

Give all the variables, please.