Constructing Time from an Axiom

[Willem]

Note that item 12 has changed due to consistency with Special Relativity.

12.........Define "time interval" = Delta t = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n = 1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]...............…........................….0-11

 

[origin]

Note that item 12 has changed due to consistency with Special Relativity.

12.........Define "time interval" = Delta t = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n = 1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]...............…........................….0-11

Thread reported so that it can be put in the correct section. My preference would be the cesspool, but it is not my call.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

... wrong thread.

 

[Willem]

The new 12 plus another construction about advancing when encountering a physical space node would be consistent with Special Relativity.

 

[NotEinstein]

I can define "regular intervals" in terms of space and then require quantum rotations. Here goes: define equal lengths on the circumference of the circle, this is regular intervals.

Sure, that's "regular intervals", but they have nothing to do with time or angular momentum.

It comes from the imaginary number plain it is the i-axis.

So the planet earth is partially imaginary? Since it's a sphere (very roughly), and you are claiming spheres are partially imaginary.

Then you got to define some clock as more fundamental than the other one.

No, I don't. I can simply say that time is fundamental, and there's nothing more that needs to be added.

 

[Willem]

Sure, that's "regular intervals", but they have nothing to do with time or angular momentum.

Forget the angular momentum definition. Item 5 has changed and item 4.1 was added:

4.1...…..Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC/Im C.....................................................................A1, 0

5...……..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space integer coordinate and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S.............................................................................................................................…A1, 4, 4.1

So the planet earth is partially imaginary?

No, we were constructing special spheres that still have coordinate axises.

No, I don't. I can simply say that time is fundamental

If time was definable with just one axiom (A2: Time exist.) it would not need to depend on anything else, but you can't define Time like that.

 

[NotEinstein]

Forget the angular momentum definition.

So your argument turned out to be circular (again); glad you're seeing that too, now.

Item 5 has changed and item 4.1 was added:

4.1...…..Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC/Im C.....................................................................A1, 0

What do you mean by "/Im C"?

5...……..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space integer coordinate and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S.............................................................................................................................…A1, 4, 4.1

I'm getting lost by all the revisions you are doing. Can you post the complete revised argument?

No, we were constructing special spheres that still have coordinate axises.

What are spheres without "coordinate axises"? How are you the spheres you are constructing "special"? And how does this address what I said?

If time was definable with just one axiom (A2: Time exist.) it would not need to depend on anything else,

Right, but you've failed to produce such an argument up till now.

but you can't define Time like that.

Please explain why not.

 

[Willem]

What do you mean by "/Im C"?

The Imaginary Axis.

Can you post the complete revised argument?

Here is the complete revised argument:


A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

Index.....Statement...…………………………………………………………………………………….. Reason
0......…...Import all mathematical operations...................................................…......Plato's Forms
1...…...….Construct S = C x C.......................................................................................A1, 0
1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................................................................…...1
2......…...S can transform...……………………………………........................................……...A1, 1, 0
3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 0
4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 0
4.1......…Import all physical terminology...............................................................…..Plato's Forms
4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, 0
5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) when encountering a space node of integer coordinates and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S
........................................................................................................................….............A1, 4, 4.2
7......…..Define "Change in Sub-frequency" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....4
8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4.................................................................1
11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in Sub-frequencies.
..........................................................................................................................................5,7
12.........Define "time interval" = Dt = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]
..........................................................................................................................................0-11

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You still haven't commented on Plato's Forms to my satisfaction.

I'm not special, just interested

 

[Willem]

What are spheres without "coordinate axises"?

You read wrong my RSxRS has the two coordinate axises projected on them.

How are you the spheres you are constructing "special"?

They have infinity at the north pole.

And how does this address what I said?

Don't know what you are referring to.

Please explain why not.[\QUOTE]

Time does not exist, only a union of spacetime exists. If using say "A3: Spacetime exists." the immediate question that follows is: "What is it like."

 

[NotEinstein]

The Imaginary Axis.

So it's: "Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC The Imaginary Axis"

That's grammatically incorrect. Please rephrase or correct.

Here is the complete revised argument:


A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

Index.....Statement...…………………………………………………………………………………….. Reason
0......…...Import all mathematical operations...................................................…......Plato's Forms

I think you forgot to count a couple of axioms here, by the way.

1...…...….Construct S = C x C.......................................................................................A1, 0
1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................................................................…...1
2......…...S can transform...……………………………………........................................……...A1, 1, 0

Transform how? Into what? I've asked you this before, and all I got in response was incoherent gibberish. After I pointed that you, you ignored the point, only to repeat yourself here. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 0
4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 0
4.1......…Import all physical terminology...............................................................…..Plato's Forms

Erm… What do Plato's Forms have to do with physical terminology? Also, why don't you add the axioms you're importing here to the total count?

4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, 0

Another revision? Where did the "/Im C" go? Was it incorrect (as I suspected) after all?

5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) when encountering a space node of integer coordinates and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S
........................................................................................................................….............A1, 4, 4.2

This is incoherent: you are trying to derive the existence of time, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" are meaningless. Once again, you are using a circular argument. In fact, it's one that I pointed out earlier in this very thread, which you couldn't address. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

7......…..Define "Change in Sub-frequency" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....4
8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4.................................................................1
11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in Sub-frequencies.
..........................................................................................................................................5,7
12.........Define "time interval" = Dt = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]
..........................................................................................................................................0-11

And again: please demonstrate that this "time interval" you end up with is identifiable with (physical) time. Please stop ignoring important issues raised; that's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Willem]

I think you forgot to count a couple of axioms here,

Since I am only using mathematical operators and physical terminology, I don't think it is necessary to include mathematical and physical axioms. These exists apart from anything needing axioms. I don't need the properties of the operators, just the operators themselfs

Transform how? Into what?

By any conformal map or the Riemann Sphere.

Erm… What do Plato's Forms have to do with physical terminology?

They are also ideas that fit in this category.

Another revision? Where did the "/Im C" go?

It's an equivalent statement.

This is incoherent: you are trying to derive the existence of time, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" are meaningless.

Item 5 defines them.

And again: please demonstrate that this "time interval" you end up with is identifiable with (physical) time.

It ticks like a clock for anything moving in space. All objects move in space since there isn't a distinguished static point of space.

 

[NotEinstein]

Since I am only using mathematical operators and physical terminology, I don't think it is necessary to include mathematical and physical axioms. These exists apart from anything needing axioms.

Not really though. Things like equality (as in: the equal sign) are axioms, if I'm not mistaken. For example, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Logical_axioms

I don't need the properties of the operators, just the operators themselfs

Erm… You are using the properties of the operators, so yes, you do need those.

By any conformal map or the Riemann Sphere.

That you have specified where?

They are also ideas that fit in this category.

So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?

It's an equivalent statement.

Are you sure? The only definition of "/Im C" that you gave turned out to be gibberish.

Item 5 defines them.

OK, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" that you use may have nothing to do with the words "dynamic" and "frequency" as they are used in English and science. Why not pick different words to avoid confusion then?

It ticks like a clock for anything moving in space.

"Ticks" and "moving" presuppose time. Once again, you are using circular argument. Remember: you are trying to derive time. That means you cannot use anything related to time, because what would be begging the question.

All objects move in space since there isn't a distinguished static point of space.

And thus time exists in a fundamental way. Which is the alternative I brought up, but you dismissed. Yet here you are, proving that time is inherent in the system of physics that you are using. So once again, your reasoning fails. (And since we're in the science-section, I get to note that I'm starting to get decent statistical significance on a pattern that I'm seeing.)

 

[NotEinstein]

Also, any chance of you responding to my post #34? It's quite intellectually dishonest to just ignore the issues I raised there. (Edit: I'm starting to get statistical significance on TWO patterns, in fact!)

 

[Willem]

Not really though. Things like equality (as in: the equal sign) are axioms, if I'm not mistaken.

So I need more axioms. It will be rewritten.

That you have specified where?

Where should I specify them?

So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?

I use terminology further on in the derivation.

Why not pick different words to avoid confusion then?

I did pick "Sub-frequency". Replace "Dynamic" with "Non-static".

Are you sure? The only definition of "/Im C" that you gave turned out to be gibberish.

You omitted a devide by sign. After the following item they are equivalent:

1.1...…...Label S by indices of axises S_1,2,3,4 in order: Re, Im, Re, Im…………………………………………………………………..1

"Ticks" and "moving" presuppose time.

Replace with:

13...…..Delta t advances like a clock and is consistent with Special Relativity...…………………………………………………….12

Also, any chance of you responding to my post #34?

In my next reply.

 

[Willem]

And it's not so difficult: 1 second per second (assuming you're comparing the same clocks).

That is circular.

Please provide evidence that particles have such a log book.

I don't have evidence it is just speculation.

False. Log books like that are not required to "not lose information"; information theory is quite clear on this.

Can you prove that?

 

[Willem]

Yet here you are, proving that time is inherent in the system of physics that you are using.

What do you mean by "inherent"?

 

[Michael 345]

I have given up reading this thread as my 3 neuron brain cannot stand the G forces coming from my impression of the head spinning in The Exorcist

 

[Willem]

And it's not so difficult: 1 second per second (assuming you're comparing the same clocks).

It is not circular but for a given system you cannot prove which clock gives the correct time without my derivation.

 

[Willem]

And it's not so difficult: 1 second per second (assuming you're comparing the same clocks).

It is not circular but for a given system you cannot prove which clock gives the correct time without my derivation.