What is time??

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Shadow1, Feb 5, 2011.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    No the "perceptual error" was, and still is, yours.

    This is specious crap.

    Unfortunately you had zero evidence for your "theory" and it was based on a misunderstanding.
    And, on the contrary, as shown by the equation given (de Marre) it failed to hold up. It invalidated your contention, thus: "theory" countered.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saquist Banned Banned

    implication, devoid of explication

    More implicity.

    So far so is this.

    Well then show it and elaborate the contradiction between my theory and the equation, rather than pursuing a course of dictation.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    I see. Pot/ kettle?

    Already done: here.
    Course of dictation? As you did in that thread where you failed consistently to support your point and merely repeated that it must be so? :shrug:

    As JamesR has pointed out more than once:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Only if you're blind...

    SO, what we've learned here is that inspiration is bound and subjected by the equation for armor penetration. AND what JAMES R defines by authority is truth.
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Really? You claim I misperceived (and provide no support) yet when I claim the same of you I get called on it?
    Double standard then, I get it.

    No what we have learned here (again) is that you're misapplying an equation and drawing unfounded conclusions. Also that you appear to think "inspiration" is covered by "the rules of logic".
    Oh, and that you STILL fail to realise your error and would rather attempt to sidestep this with snide remarks rather actually follow the logic (your own, as it happens) that would invalidate your erroneous contention.
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    I explicitly corrected your interpretations of my presentation of the time distance equation. You just didn't accept it and I'm not responsible for that how ever if you make an accusation and fail to support (as you have done) there is thus no double standard.

    Different words similar meaning...
    So you're saying the same thing...inspiration has rules...
    Sorry don't agree.

    Funny, I thought you were the one applying unrelated equations to my inspiration. That's not logical.

    OH, now you know what I "realise."

    Under the rules of logic even IF the premise is wrong it does not mean the conclusion is false and this is a FREQUENT formal fallacy on the forums known as an argument from fallacy... Which is premature as the fallacy isn't explicit it's conceptual.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2011
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Inertia is mass times area (it has units kgm[sup]2[/sup]). An object (usually described as a material particle) with a fixed velocity is in an inertial frame of reference, because it isn't accelerating. But what is the velocity of a particle relative to?

    This is essentially why time is a function of velocity. Velocity can be "defined" by time, but it makes more sense to say that a function of space (velocity) is also a function of time--after all time is really just a convenient fiction, a completely passive "component" which is universal.
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Also wrong. You CLAIMED something that you had no evidence for (i.e. that "You and he believe that I was using a mathematical figure to define time rather than understanding that the figure was an express of inspiration.") In other words your "explanation" was an assumption of yours.
    On the other hand YOUR misperception was explained in the relevant thread: "You posted a quote from Wiki and have interpreted it to mean something it doesn't."
    More specifically you ignored the final words of the quote you used to "support" your contention: -
    In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.

    No I'm not saying that. Obviously you have difficulty reading.

    On the contrary I showed, using an equation that used the elements under consideration, that your interpretation doesn't hold up.

    The fallacy is in the conclusion.
  12. Saquist Banned Banned

    That's implicit too, you just don't know it.

    Exaggeration: I had limited evidence for defined by what we know about gravity, space and time and the nature of expansion of the universe. Far from nothing.

    That is the first perception that you've had that is correct and unmolested by illusion.


    I didn't ignore the final words.

    Then you should explain yourself because either applying means inserting numerical values into the equations (which I never did) or you think applying means to associate on with another.

    SO, Oil... what was the interpretation?

    implication devoid of explication. How was it proven fallacious?
    (Since I clearly have to ask)
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Your assumption (used as "explanation") was false.

    No. The evidence was there, the interpretation was wrong.

    In your (fallacious) opinion.

    You left off the critical words when you used that line as "justification".
    Post 22.

    You should get yourself a better dictionary.
    Yet, at the same time, YOU asked for the numerical values. Strange...

    Your interpretation?
    As you have stated in this thread: that motion is required for time to pass.

    Because the equation I gave also implied (using your "logic") that motion is also required for mass to have any meaning, or even length. Which is clearly not the case.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  14. Saquist Banned Banned

    Which doesn't prove the concept false nor does that make the inspiration invalid as you purported so this is still implicit.

    No is right. There was evidence.

    That's a confidence statement.

    Pure perception. I have no reason to lie.
    And your evidence shows no contradiction.

    Not in my original concepts.
    You're referring to me Entertaining your objections of the concepts. I'm inquisitive. I described premises in my opening statement which were never dis-proven.

    No that's my theory not my interpretation of the equation.

    Universal motion was not apart of that armor penetration equation so...no that was not proven.
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Nope: You assumed what my view was and "corrected" that. Therefore,since your assumption was incorrect there was no explanation behind your comment.

    No, it's a fact. You're assuming (again) what my perception is.

    On the contrary. That quote clearly shows that you omitted the final words.

    But they were.

    Yet you used the equation to "make your point". In fact you also used the equation of motion and claimed directly that it implied such.

    False. How was "universal motion" not a part? It specifically included motion.

    You're a waste of time and effort.
  16. Saquist Banned Banned

    Omission and lie are not synonymous and omission does not impart meaning of intent.
    That's your interpretation.

    Am I not allowed to speak in the present tense.?
    I have been stead fastly correcting you on my current perceptions and you seem to be determined to prove that which is not present of my perceptions.

    All motion does not equal universal motion.

    It was your time and effort to waste.
    And your perceptions that your efforts were expended against.
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Your current perception?
    Post 48, this thread.
    Post 53, this thread.
    Still the same, apparently.

    The equation of motion used in that thread no more (or less) used "universal motion" than did the de Marre. What, exactly, is "universal motion"?

    Ah, another false assumption of yours.
  18. Saquist Banned Banned

    Which still represents my current theory. My theory hasn't changed just my understanding of trying to interpret that equation literally in reference to the theory.

    So the equation includes the expansion of the universe itself?

    Correction, my perception made possible by the fact that your use of logic was impaired as omission does not equal lie. You're definitely fighting your own perception of what is and not the reality or even what I've been telling you on this thread.
  19. Emil Valued Senior Member

    For those who want link time to mechanical force, mass, motion.
    Please do not forget the chemical processes,
    halving the isotopes or to generate power in a acumlator etc ..
    Even the process of aging.
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    And you're wrong. As has been shown.

    Neither shows that. Fail.

    Except that the omission was ignored: the equation you asked for does not treat space and time as single manifold. Therefore the argument was null and void.

    Wrong again. The misperception is yours and you persist is assigning motives and perceptions to me that do not pertain.

    I'm done with you.
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Yes , I agree. You've changed my mind.
    I was wrong. Only as wrong as Einstein, which is nice, but still wrong.
    Describing it in terms of inertia does not help. You could just as easily describe it in terms of velocity, distance travelled etc., which wouldn't help either.
    Time is time. Referencing it to other things is circular.

    But why do we have a problem with time as a dimension?
    One reason is that our experience of time is not time itself.
    Sometimes it seems to us to pass more quickly or more slowly. That is an illusion.
    Another problem is that time seems to our minds to only to go in one direction.
    Possibly that is also an illusion.

    Otherwise it is no more difficult to understand as a dimension than distance.
    Distance is the difference in position between two points in space, and duration is the difference similarly in points of time.

    Why should we say "But What is Time?", any more than we say "But What is Distance"
    Whatever exists, exists.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  22. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Let us try to visualise the real picture. In reality what we can see/percept is matter , energy and space. Space is like a container and containing matter and energy both. Various objects are made of matter. These objects are in various motions in the space. Energy is also travelling in the space. So, in reality space exists, matter exists, energy exists. Does time also exist the same way ?? or time is an idea, a mental concept, a mathematical concept very useful tool in explaining and understanding static and dynamic behaviour of our Nature/Universe ; whose real existence is only in clocks.
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Time moves from present to past, future to present. That is our experience of time. Clock moves from present to future and past to present. So, if clock is moving clockwise ; time is moving anti-clockwise.

Share This Page