Re: Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?


"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1140821367.049689.200220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140574074.354859.260630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> AllYou! wrote:


>> You said the units for time were seconds, minutes, hours,
>> etc.......so
>> are those the same units for the passage of time?
>> If so, then what's the inverse of a second?
>>
> I said those are our units - the same we use to show the passage of
> time.

So what is the inverse of a second?

Why do you claim there is such a thing?

I don't, but you did. "Time is a property of matter and passes inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects." So if the passage of time can be expressed in seconds, what's the inverse of a second?


>> You also said that *state of motion* and *being in motion* were
>> synonomous, so in what units would you express being in motion?
>>
> The same units for both. But apparently you disagree as to their
> synonymity, and if so, state your argument(s) why you think they > are
> not synonymous.

So what units would you use? I know you'd use the same for both, but
what are they?

The same units we use to measure motion.

I know we measure velocity, and I know we measure speed, but I'm not aware of any units for motion. Are you claiming that speed and motion are also synonymous? Well, they're not, but if you think that motion can be expressed in terms of mph, then are you saying that time can be expressed as hpm?


>> that a singular condition of existence is a variable quantity, and
>> there's such a thing as the inverse of a second.
>>
> These are two of the lies you made up in your own mind based on > your
> very low level of comprehension.

A state is a singular condition of existence, yet you claim that it has
have a variable quantity.

In what way does the latter conflict with the former? Are you claiming
that a state cannot have a variable quantity? If so, why not?

Because a state is defined as a singular condition of existence.

"Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water. "

You really do need to gain a much better understanding of scientific terms. You're making a fool of yourself. To say that an object is in a state of motion is simply to say that it's in motion, and not that it's moving with any given quantity. The speed at which something is moving is the quantifiable property, but not the motion itself. "Nope, that road stays right there"


You claim that a *state* of motion is
inversely proportional to the passage of time.

Not so. That's your own mental state playing tricks on you. I never
claimed that.

Did you not say that for a given object, the passage of time is inversely proportional to the state of motion? If so, then it follows that the state of motion is inversely proportional to the passage of time, correct? If y/x is inversely proportional to x/y, then isn't x/y inversely proportional to y/x?

Well, the passage of
time is a variable quantity, so therefore you must believe that a
*state* of motion is variable too. Yet a *state* is a singular
condition of existence. Where is any of that incorrect?

Your use of the term, "yet", indicates you believe that a state cannot
be variable and if so, you need to show why as I think states are
variable in that they can change from one state to another.

You're horribly confused. This is precisely where your imprecision with words and terms leads. The word *variable* implies more than just true ~ false or on ~ off. Variable means a quantity capable of assuming any of a set of values whereas a state means one condition of existence. By definition, a state is simply not something which is quantifiable. Something is either in a particular state of existence, or it is not. As you yourself have admitted, to say that something is in a state of motion is the same as saying that it's in motion. However, if you want to quantify something about it's state of motion, you can quantify its speed, but not the fact that it's in motion. That's either true, or it's not.

Thus, when
you say, "state", that is a singular condition at the time of
measurement,

States are not measured at all. Please try to grasp that concept.

but when said in the plural, the reference is not to a
singular condition but a variety of them.

Well, whereas the preimise of your statement was wrong, this part is gibbereish.


> My assertions are clear but the ideas in them are difficult to
> understand for any normal person.

<snicker>

Snicker all you want, but it doesn't hide the fact of your very low
comprehension level.

:-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Arrow of Time"
    ... motion without the use of time. ... and there's no evidence that time exists. ... As to entropy ... None of what you talk about can happen without the passage of time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Timetable & Gravitational forces of Big Bang perplexing?
    ... inversely proportional to the state of motion of discrete objects." ... if the passage of time can be expressed in seconds, ... Because a state is defined as a singular condition of existence. ... in order to maintain the inverse proportionality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Arrow of Time"
    ... > the passage of time refutes the metaphysical claim that time does> not ... and then point to it's existance in those constructs as evidence of its physicallity. ... Just like distance, and mass and so many other naturally occuring physical properties of matter and energy, we could just as easily measure speed by arbitrarity picking a naturally occuring speed, and use that as a standard by which we measure all other speeds. ... What we should've done is taken distance, and motion, and derived time as a function of the two of those. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: EXPLAINING TIME DILATION
    ... ROTFLOL....This idiot claimed that his idea about universal time is the same ... There is only universal time exists and the rate of passage of universal ... time is the independent of the state of motion of the clock. ... An interval of a clock second in the rest frame of the clock (observer) ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "The Arrow of Time"
    ... concept used to compare the aggregate change in the state of the ... the passage of time refutes the metaphysical claim that time does not ... to measure motion. ... the universe would simply exist *in the moment*. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast