What is "time"

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

  1. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    edit-
    unless you're taking both, physics and mathematics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    not true. you're speaking from lack of experience.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    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
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued 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. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    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"

    Please stop posturing
     
  9. OnlyMe Valued 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 reality Valued 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. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Your conclusion suggests aboslutes again. Bad thing when you exclude exceptions.
     
  12. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued 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 reality Valued 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 reality Valued 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 reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    you used the word bating to fulfill your diversion.
    it's as simple as that.
     
  16. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,515
    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. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    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. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    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. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    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. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    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. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    In other words your statements were less than accurate.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    :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-constant12345 Banned Banned

    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.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page