Reference Frames according to Philochrony

Anyone worth their salt would never presume that.

A lot of good science can yield "mistruths". Pseudoscience is what you seem to be illustrating. It is (among other things) the deliberate charade of arguing some personal view by the application of random formulas or principles which are supposed to prop it up.

That would invalidate all of the rest of your statements.

Ohm's law explains the natural relationship between voltage, current and resistance. It's one of a family of laws that are linear.

Here you're categorically wrong. "Laws" and "reference frames" are not equivalent.

It's determined by the initial height and velocity of the weight plus the length or the arm. But it's not clear what you are trying to say about reference frames in this statement.

In common usage, it wouldn't be relativistic if it were negligible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Posted by M. D.:

Wise words. Thanks a lot.

Posted by Sibilia:

That's humility.

Posted by Aqueous:

What's the difference? Can you explain it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This alone should buy you a ticket out of here.

"The laws of Physics are true only under certain conditions or frames of reference."

Ignorance is a choice. You continue to remain ignorant by choice. They should call this section of the forum 'rump dump'. Based on the crap that gets posted her.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Posted by Brucep:

You don't care the way I think.

And besides,

There are people who know a lot, these are intelligent. There are others who are prudent and sensible, they are wise. Some intelligent people with no wisdom become reckless.

 

I care that you've chosen ignorance. Because of the nonsense it drives you to post in this forum. Intellectual dishonesty is a product of choosing ignorance. For you the choice is scientific illiteracy. You're not wise you're a ignorant crank by choice.

 

My interest is the discussion on knowledge, not on female gossip. Next time try to bring some contribution to the thread. I am both wise and intelligent.

 

I have nothing against women, but the gossip. In Latin-american culture women are mostly gossipy.

 

DIMENSIONS

One dimension is the direction in which are projected the reference points and generate the line or the length (1D), the area or the surface (2D), the volume (3D) and the time (4D). The length is projected towards the right or towards the left of the reference point (R. P.). The height is projected upwards or downwards of R. P. The width is projected forward or backward of R. P. The time is only projected from before to after (We know from experience). Although with no chromnesia we wouldn't perceive time. Without memory an experience would always seem new and we wouldn't distinguish between past and future. Time is the dimension of becoming, even in Mathematics treats time as a dimension of space. The dimensions of space generate forms, the becoming generates new changes and new beings.

Why the use of two concepts: becoming and time?
Because the becoming is real and perceptible and time is a mathematical entity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sibilia, I really like your artistic way of expressing ideas. Like poetry in motion. Keep it up, I enjoy reading it.

 

Thank you very much. Eres muy amable.

MIND AND DIMENSIONS

The representation is the ability to evoke images from the senses. Thought is the act of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to handle abstract symbols. Imagination is the ability to form ideas that aren't originated in the senses.
We can think of a fourth dimension of space, but neither we can represent it (mentally) nor we can imagine it, nor we intuit it because doesn't exist. We can think of time and intuit it (It exists) but neither represent it nor imagine it. Using a measure of time, e.g. 30 sec, we think and intuit that interval.
To represent, to imagine and to think are different.

A projection of the fourth dimension of space. The tesseract in movement

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Time is an epiphenomenon of becoming.

Epiphenomenon: A secondary phenomenon that results from and accompanies another.

 

PHILOCHRONY

The Philochrony is the theory that describes the properties of space and duration, and the relationships between them. Space is characterized for having extension and three dimensions (length, height and width). Duration is characterized for having becoming (continuous succession of changes) and one dimension (time).
Speed ​​is the magnitude that relates space and duration indicating the distance traveled in the time unit.

Do the trajectories exist in the space-time graphics really?

"You're still at 3 feet from me. Your "trajectory" in the space-time graphic is a straight vertical line shown in the figure".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

X axis: distance (meters). Y axis: time (seconds).

The trajectories in space-time graphics are not real, they are only observable if the observer is outside of time, and no observer can be outside of time. In the graphic, the time of the observer and the subject pass equal, parallel. This also applies to the curvature of space-time graphic. The curvature of light when passes near the sun is a real phenomenon and different to the curvature of space-time graphic. The light is bent by the sun gravity. This is a spatial curvature, and not of the space-time.

 

MODIFIED GRAPHIC

"You're still at 3 feet from me (green). Your "trajectory" (red) in the space-time graphic is a straight vertical line shown in the figure".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're a bonehead concerning physics and reality. I'm never stupid enough to speak poorly of women. Most women I know would think you're a scientific illiterate and a bit of a bigot.

 

Brucep, it's not my intention to offend anyone. I'm not judgmental and I hate dealing personal matters in the forums. I have exposed my ideas and have been flexible to the criticism and I have defended respecting even who attacks me. Among the ideas that I posted there are many that are obvious, but clash with the current trend.

 

What conditions or frames are the laws of physics not true?

 

We can't use the formula (law) of uniform circular motion in the uniform linear motion.
The laws of the microcosm (atom) do not apply to the macrocosm. That is, quantum theory does not apply to the planets.
First is the reference frame and later the law.

 

WTF? We can't use the law of subtraction for division, either - what does that have to do with anything?

Sure they do.

Sure it does - the macroscopic is a result of the microscopic quantum effects.

You don't have the slightest idea what a reference frame is do you?

 

Posted by origin:

You didn't understand my answer.

Are you really sure? Do you know something or not?

Have you read all my posts? Sure not.

 

You look it up. You're ignorance is not my problem. It's your problem. Posting nonsense in this forum is offensive by my standards. This is completely stupid:

"The laws of Physics are true only under certain conditions or frames of reference"

Origin is perfectly fine. You're the one with communication problems.