# What is "time"

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Saint, Nov 9, 2014.

1. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit-
unless you're taking both, physics and mathematics.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
not true. you're speaking from lack of experience.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,551
I asked what you meant by a "negative hermitian". And you respond thusly
Which is a lie - you did no such thing
This is pure gibberish. I suspect (but have no way of knowing) you might be referring to the trace, but even then I cannot parse the claim

to hide all adverts.
7. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
studied ? that's it ?
more like " i clicked on a bunch of links for the past ten years " and possibly do not understand most of what was clicked on/ " studied ".
again, you are speaking from lack of experience, clicking on links doesn't mean you have experience.

8. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,551
If I understood what this means I might try. But I don't

What is a "matrix pilot matrix"? What does it mean to "solve" for the trace so-called matrix pilot matrices other than just adding the diagonals? This sum would not ordinarily be called a "solution"

9. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
It doesn't. But sometimes it helps when trying to understand what someone is trying to say.

10. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
so where did the 14 come from ?
having an intelligent conversation does not mean throwing around science terms and pretending.
then you make inexperience comments that are not true, like the ones i have quoted and addressed.
i'm sure this is exactly why you are here. you want to push your hypothesis that you probably claim is a theory, that does nothing except to attempt to re-establish an existing theory. this is common and pathetic.

Last edited: Dec 12, 2014
11. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Your conclusion suggests aboslutes again. Bad thing when you exclude exceptions.

12. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
again, where does the 14 come from.
also, 14 years of college, you should have at least one PHd in any subject. yes i know you have a handle of DR., but it's becoming more obvious that, that is not true, like most of your pretending.
oh, you mean " more like " i clicked on a bunch of links for the past ten years " and possibly do not understand most of what was clicked on/ " studied ". "

13. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
it's a conclusion from being part of the reality.
if you read what i have been saying, you would see how obvious it is.

14. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
baiting ? baiting what ? i just re-posted your responses.
i'm just trying to figure out why, what you say does not add up.
but it appears it doesn't add up because there's pretending going on.
again, you are obvious to me.

15. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
you used the word bating to fulfill your diversion.
it's as simple as that.

16. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,551
Let's pick it up here (for the benefit of those who are interested but do not pretend to understand things they quite clearly do not)'

1. An operator (aka a linear transformation) acts on vector spaces as $T:V \to W$ where one need not insist that $V \ne W$. Thus $T(v) = w$

2. Any operator of this type has a matrix representation whose rows (say) are the scalar components of the vector being transformed, and whose columns (say) are the scalar components of the transformed vector

3. An operator is said to be Hemitian if it is equal to its conjugate transpose - that is take the complex conjugate of every entry in its matrix representation and then transpose the matrix. One may write something like $(T^*)^t\equiv T^{\dagger} = T$

4. And if $T^{\dagger}T=TT^{\dagger}=I$ (this last being the identity matrix/operator), one calls this a unitary operator

5. This implies that a unitary matrix and is conjugate transpose are mutual inverses.But note this crucial point......

.....the inverse of an operator is NOT found simply by reversing the sign of each of the entries in its matrix representation

None of this seems to have infiltrated our good "Dr's" thinking

17. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
Without time, we would have no space.....space, and time, henceforth known as spacetime, is the vehicle for change.
space, time, spacetime, gravity, matter, energy all exist and are all as real as each other. To deny the reality of one, is to deny all.
Time and Space as we know them, evolved from the BB.

18. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,699
Right, because, obviously, movement along a single dimension (taking time) is impossible, neh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW it's Au contraire, not "Oh".

19. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703
No contraire about it at all.
The relationship between space and time should be well known. .
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. – Hermann Minkowski, 1908

And of course the more obvious point that the BB was an evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] as we know them.
One cannot and will not exist without the other.
Which is why in mainstream circles the reality of both space and time, being non absolute, is accepted.

20. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703

No, he did not say that....And as much as you want to dramatise it, wont change that fact.
He did say, he didn't understand his theory himself, since the mathematicians had got hold of it.
Certainly not in anyway disagreeing with the spacetime concept as put by Minkowsky.
And just as obviously, if there is any monetary values to be exploited, I suggest it would be you, going on your record here so far.
Your ability to mislead and misquote is not yet on par with Farsight [God rest his soul] but you aint far behind.

21. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,699
In other words your statements were less than accurate.

22. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,703

:shrug: You can defy mainstream accepted opinion as much as you like.
And of course Einstein did not say or suggest what you would like him to have suggested.

23. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Time IS this - In the diagram we have 1 central mass that emits 4 beams outwards. All the beams travel at c, all the beams take 1 light year to reach the corners of the void.
The central mass that observes all the beams, observes also 1 light year has past, being the observer and the counter of the time it takes the light to reach the corners of the void.
Time relative to the observer does not change in motion or in a stationary position relative to the light.
Relative to the third observer, which is now you viewing the diagram, you also have just observed no change in time to you or the central observer , whilst you were reading this. Relative to the void we all experience the same time.

File size:
26.7 KB
Views:
2