Elvis Sibilia's Philochrony theory of everything

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Asexperia, Feb 14, 2020.

Page 24 of 24
  1. Asexperia

    Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,725
    Asexperia said. In the thread Does time exists? page 47.
    THE MAGNITIVE
    The magnitive is the property of beings that can be measured, but It is imperceptible. The magnitive is objective, but not concrete; for example in Physics: force, gravity and time. We feel the weight, but not gravity.
    Magnitive (created by Asexperia) is a modification of the word magnitude.

    DaveC426913 said:
    An interesting solution: name the ineffable quality.
    I do wonder if there is an existing word though.


    Look at this friends
    Do you remember this DaveC?
    Why did you change your mind?
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2024
    Asexperia, Mar 26, 2024
    #461

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,961
    You've invented a term for something the rest of us already know. You first mentioned it in post twenty, four years ago.

    Yes, Neither gravity nor mass nor time are things we experience directly. Instead we experience their effects.

    Got it.

    We got it in high school; did you? Do you think it'll take another four years and 460 posts to make a point we all already know? Can we maybe just skip ahead to post 920?

    This is all time you could have been spending reading up on basic science, methods and procedures.     Children are starving in Africa while you squander Earth's energy resources perpetually polishing the same tiny nugget.
     
    DaveC426913, Mar 26, 2024
    #462
    Pinball1970 likes this.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Kind of obvious, don't you think? Clocks measure time. Okay. Great.
    We synchronise our clocks. They don't do it by themselves. It is useful to us to know the time of day. The Earth, in its rotation, doesn't give a damn what your time of day is.
    You're making a circular definition, there: clocks measure time; time is the tool that clocks use to measure duration; duration is the the time measured by clocks. etc. etc.
    Circular, again. You're essentially saying that time gives itself existence.
    Technically, "time" is not the same as "time interval". If it was, we wouldn't need two terms for the one thing.

    But you're still going in circles: time measures moments; moments are things that happen in time. etc.
    You speak as if time is a sort of agent. Time really isn't like that. Time itself doesn't "cause" anything. The very ideas of cause and effect only exist because we have a notion of time. Time is what allows causes to happen, but it isn't a cause in itself.
    No, that's not really how it works, and you're making a similar kind of error again.

    The speed of an object, in itself, can't cause anything. Speed doesn't interact with anything. It's just a measurement of how far something travels in a given time interval. In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an observer effect. The reference frame of the observer gives the observer a particular "view" on time, if you like. Time dilation is only a thing when we start comparing the points of view of more than one observer.
    They are clocks. So.
    So "magnitive" is a just a word for things that can't be seen, felt or touched, but which are measurable?

    A rock is not magnitive, but entropy is?

    Many quantities in physics would appear to be magnitive, under this definition. Speed, for instance, would be magnitive, since you can't feel, see or touch speed, but you can measure it.

    Is "magnitive" just an attempt to distinguish conceptual things from objects made of matter? Don't we already have some good words to make that distinction?
    There couldn't ever be a "non-magnitive time", could there? A time you could touch? It's obvious, isn't it?
     
    James R, Mar 28, 2024
    #463
    Asexperia likes this.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asexperia

    Asexperia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,725
    James R said
    In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an observer effect. The reference frame of the observer gives the observer a particular "view" on time, if you like. Time dilation is only a thing when we start comparing the points of view of more than one observer.

    So the dilation of time is subjetive.
     
    Asexperia, Mar 31, 2024
    #464
  8. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,961
    It's frame-dependent.
     
    DaveC426913, Mar 31, 2024
    #465
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  9. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    No, because all observers everywhere are able to calculate exactly how time will look to any other observer.
     
    James R, Apr 4, 2024
    #466
Page 24 of 24

Share This Page