Thread reported so that it can be put in the correct section. My preference would be the cesspool, but it is not my call.Note that item 12 has changed due to consistency with Special Relativity.
12.........Define "time interval" = Delta t = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n = 1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]...............…........................….0-11
Sure, that's "regular intervals", but they have nothing to do with time or angular momentum.I can define "regular intervals" in terms of space and then require quantum rotations. Here goes: define equal lengths on the circumference of the circle, this is regular intervals.
So the planet earth is partially imaginary? Since it's a sphere (very roughly), and you are claiming spheres are partially imaginary.It comes from the imaginary number plain it is the i-axis.
No, I don't. I can simply say that time is fundamental, and there's nothing more that needs to be added.Then you got to define some clock as more fundamental than the other one.
Sure, that's "regular intervals", but they have nothing to do with time or angular momentum.
So the planet earth is partially imaginary?
No, I don't. I can simply say that time is fundamental
So your argument turned out to be circular (again); glad you're seeing that too, now.Forget the angular momentum definition.
What do you mean by "/Im C"?Item 5 has changed and item 4.1 was added:
4.1...…..Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC/Im C.....................................................................A1, 0
I'm getting lost by all the revisions you are doing. Can you post the complete revised argument?5...……..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space integer coordinate and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S.............................................................................................................................…A1, 4, 4.1
What are spheres without "coordinate axises"? How are you the spheres you are constructing "special"? And how does this address what I said?No, we were constructing special spheres that still have coordinate axises.
Right, but you've failed to produce such an argument up till now.If time was definable with just one axiom (A2: Time exist.) it would not need to depend on anything else,
Please explain why not.but you can't define Time like that.
What do you mean by "/Im C"?
Can you post the complete revised argument?
What are spheres without "coordinate axises"?
How are you the spheres you are constructing "special"?
And how does this address what I said?
Please explain why not.[\QUOTE]
Time does not exist, only a union of spacetime exists. If using say "A3: Spacetime exists." the immediate question that follows is: "What is it like."
So it's: "Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC The Imaginary Axis"The Imaginary Axis.
I think you forgot to count a couple of axioms here, by the way.Here is the complete revised argument:
A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.
Index.....Statement...…………………………………………………………………………………….. Reason
0......…...Import all mathematical operations...................................................…......Plato's Forms
Transform how? Into what? I've asked you this before, and all I got in response was incoherent gibberish. After I pointed that you, you ignored the point, only to repeat yourself here. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.1...…...….Construct S = C x C.......................................................................................A1, 0
1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................................................................…...1
2......…...S can transform...……………………………………........................................……...A1, 1, 0
Erm… What do Plato's Forms have to do with physical terminology? Also, why don't you add the axioms you're importing here to the total count?3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 0
4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 0
4.1......…Import all physical terminology...............................................................…..Plato's Forms
Another revision? Where did the "/Im C" go? Was it incorrect (as I suspected) after all?4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, 0
This is incoherent: you are trying to derive the existence of time, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" are meaningless. Once again, you are using a circular argument. In fact, it's one that I pointed out earlier in this very thread, which you couldn't address. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) when encountering a space node of integer coordinates and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S
........................................................................................................................….............A1, 4, 4.2
And again: please demonstrate that this "time interval" you end up with is identifiable with (physical) time. Please stop ignoring important issues raised; that's intellectually dishonest.7......…..Define "Change in Sub-frequency" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....4
8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4.................................................................1
11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in Sub-frequencies.
..........................................................................................................................................5,7
12.........Define "time interval" = Dt = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]
..........................................................................................................................................0-11
I think you forgot to count a couple of axioms here,
Transform how? Into what?
Erm… What do Plato's Forms have to do with physical terminology?
Another revision? Where did the "/Im C" go?
This is incoherent: you are trying to derive the existence of time, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" are meaningless.
And again: please demonstrate that this "time interval" you end up with is identifiable with (physical) time.
Not really though. Things like equality (as in: the equal sign) are axioms, if I'm not mistaken. For example, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Logical_axiomsSince I am only using mathematical operators and physical terminology, I don't think it is necessary to include mathematical and physical axioms. These exists apart from anything needing axioms.
Erm… You are using the properties of the operators, so yes, you do need those.I don't need the properties of the operators, just the operators themselfs
That you have specified where?By any conformal map or the Riemann Sphere.
So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?They are also ideas that fit in this category.
Are you sure? The only definition of "/Im C" that you gave turned out to be gibberish.It's an equivalent statement.
OK, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" that you use may have nothing to do with the words "dynamic" and "frequency" as they are used in English and science. Why not pick different words to avoid confusion then?Item 5 defines them.
"Ticks" and "moving" presuppose time. Once again, you are using circular argument. Remember: you are trying to derive time. That means you cannot use anything related to time, because what would be begging the question.It ticks like a clock for anything moving in space.
And thus time exists in a fundamental way. Which is the alternative I brought up, but you dismissed. Yet here you are, proving that time is inherent in the system of physics that you are using. So once again, your reasoning fails. (And since we're in the science-section, I get to note that I'm starting to get decent statistical significance on a pattern that I'm seeing.)All objects move in space since there isn't a distinguished static point of space.
Not really though. Things like equality (as in: the equal sign) are axioms, if I'm not mistaken.
That you have specified where?
So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?
Why not pick different words to avoid confusion then?
Are you sure? The only definition of "/Im C" that you gave turned out to be gibberish.
"Ticks" and "moving" presuppose time.
Also, any chance of you responding to my post #34?
And it's not so difficult: 1 second per second (assuming you're comparing the same clocks).
Please provide evidence that particles have such a log book.
False. Log books like that are not required to "not lose information"; information theory is quite clear on this.
Yet here you are, proving that time is inherent in the system of physics that you are using.
And it's not so difficult: 1 second per second (assuming you're comparing the same clocks).
And it's not so difficult: 1 second per second (assuming you're comparing the same clocks).