Re: Revised Hypothesis
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 11/12/04
- Next message: Jem: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Previous message: Jem: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- In reply to: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- Next in thread: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- Reply: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:49:05 -0500
"xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cce403e3.0411111854.236c933e@posting.google.com...
> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:<qqednViCvYJu8w7cRVn-sw@conversent.net>...
> > > I did not forget your motion. Its comparison is dependent on order,
> > > which is time.
> > >
> > > I hope I said something that makes an essense of time more tangible
> > > and fundamental to you.
> >
> > You've given me lots to consider and forced me to think through my position in much
> > greater detail, but what you've said, WADR, is that you still do not understand the
> > argument because you are not able to conceptualize the notion, right or wrong, that
motion
> > is fundamental and directly measurable. As long as you are not able to see the
argument,
> > even if you completely disagree with it, then we can't go much further. That's not to
say
> > that I refuse to acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong, but until you even
understand
> > the argument, there is none to be had.
>
> xxein: I can give you that motion is a fundamental feature - no
> problem. I can give you that distance is as fundamental as a space to
> work in/with.
>
> Still, you cannot compare motions with each other without a sliding
> 'order' of magnitude. That 'order' is cause and effect which implies
> a time.
It only implies time to the extent that you cling to the notion of time as having some
sort of scientific validity. Why do you even need to consider time at all? Try it. Try
to think of comparing motions without the concept of time. Granted, since you've been
conditioned to believe it to be valid since your ancestors climbed out of the caves it'll
be difficult, but give it a shot.
As to the order to which you refer, take 10 differently sized balls and put them in order
according to size. In that case, you've achieved order without ever using time. Order
does not imply time at all. You simply infer it when there's no need. The order of which
you speak is simply sequence of events which all matter produced along their paths through
the universe. At one point along the path of any given particle, all other particles had
a particular spatial relation. As that particle continued on it's path, so did all others
and all of those relationships changed. The order in which all of this occurred can be
traced along it's path. We humans, have the need to record and conceptualize that order.
That should tell you something of the true value of the notion of time. It would not
exist in the physical realm if not for our for it in this way.
> Moreover, different motion implies different velocity. Distances may
> be fixed, but we cannot say for sure that we can measure them with
> present theories --- even using light. Remember that a tangent
> light-path bends (gravity). Is there no same-class effect for
> incident light? Present theories really screwed up on that one.
Different motions imply different velocities, and velocity = distance / motion.
> So: Because we cannot measure distance (even though fixed) because
> of our motion, we are left with an imaginary motion measurement that
> relies on a relativity to decipher it for us. The idea of relativity
> is not bad in itself, but this particular (present) breed of
> relativity leaves much to be desired. It refuses to recognize any
> logical absolute, and when it does recognize something as absolute, it
> is wrong.
>
> What's more, basic motion is energy-related (although not completely)
> so that there is, again, no standard and no comparison from within
> your approach. What you refer to as motion is not an absolute and
> relies on comparisons which are observer-relative.
All I've ever said is that motion is as valid in physics as is distance, mass, and other
phenomena. To the extent that we have no way of measuring absolute distance does not mean
that the property of distance is any less valid. My claim about motion is equivalent to
yours about distance. But your claim about time is certainly no more valid that what you
assign to distance, and it's my hypothesis that's it's a whole lot less valid.
> I'll even give you that we may be in a cycle of rebounds in this
> universe (time + = time -). But each is different in its iterational
> effects. There is a chaos that supersedes a (+, -) repeatability.
> This, again, implies a time for comparative purposes. I'll repeat
> "adiabaticity" as a prime indicator of time.
>
> While this might not prove to you that time exists, time is still a
> relation of all that you wish to provide as fundamentals. It is the
> active interconnection of your fundamentals that exists as surely as
> your fundamentals do. In my mind, time is inseparable from
> fundamental properties at large.
- Next message: Jem: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- Previous message: Jem: "Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help"
- In reply to: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- Next in thread: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- Reply: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
