Re: Consistent definitions of time
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 06/06/04
- Next message: Edward Green: "Re: Quantum propagation from a Dirac initial point"
- Previous message: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- In reply to: Mike Helland: "Re: Consistent definitions of time"
- Next in thread: jam: "Re: Consistent definitions of time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:16:50 GMT
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.0406061303.2e6eb73c@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<7sFwc.146310$XF6.7376007@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:40C31A00.B1DCBDDE@mchsi.com...
> > > Mike Helland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In my views there time does not exist as a dimension or a continuum in
> > > > nature. The dimension concept has allowed us to do some useful things,
> > > > I agree. However, it is my opinion that this putting so much stock
> > > > into this concept is what is holding back science from a single
> > > > consistent theory. Same for space. There are no dimensions for space.
> > > > We can look at it that way, and do some useful things, but for a
> > > > single theory that notion is a roadblock.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dimension
> > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
> > >
> > > Time
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Time.html
> > >
> > > Dimensional Analysis
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DimensionalAnalysis.html
> >
> > He'll mutter that this is "merely mathematics" ;-)
>
> I wasn't actually going to say anything to Sam. He didn't provide any
> argument; he merely posted some information about the ideas that we're
> discussing and challenging. Which is welcome.
>
> PS, epicycles are merely mathematics. The reason we abandonded them is
> we found something simpler. If time and space are dimensions we need
> to assume the existence of three things (matter, space, and time) and
> this we way can describe a phenomenon in nature. In my view, we assume
> the existence of one thing (a phenomenon in nature) and this way we
> can deduce three things, matter, space, and time. As no one has really
> pointed out why my defintion of time is inconsistent and because my
> conceptual understanding of phenomena appears to be built on less
> assumptions than the existing model, I think we might have a winner on
> our hands. You're free to disagree and encouraged to provide counter
> arguments against claims.
Ha, but you have no claims.
You have wind.
I don't provide arguments pro or against wind :-)
Dirk Vdm
- Next message: Edward Green: "Re: Quantum propagation from a Dirac initial point"
- Previous message: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- In reply to: Mike Helland: "Re: Consistent definitions of time"
- Next in thread: jam: "Re: Consistent definitions of time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
