Re: complex time revisited
From: Rob Woodside (rwmw_at_telus.net)
Date: 06/15/04
- Next message: John Norris: "Re: Job Description: Heathen Scientist"
- Previous message: Ron: "What's in a Name? It Depends on Who's Doing the Naming"
- In reply to: Paul Cardinale: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Next in thread: Aaron Denney: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Reply: Aaron Denney: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Reply: ZZBunker: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Reply: .sSweetMarie: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Jun 2004 10:15:42 -0700
pcardinale@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.0406110744.ff4fda4@posting.google.com>...
>
> Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
> dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
> two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
> garbage.
>
> Paul Cardinale
Newton said "time is defined to make motion look simple". The crucial
property is to be able to order events. The real numbers satisfy
"Achimedean ordering" which says of any two real numbers T1 and T2,
one of the following is true: T1=T2; T1<T2; T1>T2. For time this is
interpreted as T1 and T2 simultaneous, T1 earlier than T2, T1 later
than T2, respectively. This ordering fails for complex numbers or any
"higher dimensional" time and confirms Paul's conclusion.
- Next message: John Norris: "Re: Job Description: Heathen Scientist"
- Previous message: Ron: "What's in a Name? It Depends on Who's Doing the Naming"
- In reply to: Paul Cardinale: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Next in thread: Aaron Denney: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Reply: Aaron Denney: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Reply: ZZBunker: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Reply: .sSweetMarie: "Re: complex time revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
