21

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 04/02/2018 23:11:39 »

... is a continuous variable.

Do you want to reconsider your "is a" equivalence? The left-most part is omitted for clarity.

22

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 04/02/2018 13:27:34 »

I think your consideration has merit. As a singularity, you're saying time "now" could mathematically equate to the value of "1"

.
What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

If anyone can answer that, then, well, that person would get the keys to the Kingdom (presuming there be more than one).

23

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

« on: 02/01/2018 19:32:57 »

   In a space-like interval, an object can...

.
Keeping with the theme introduced by, uh, was it "Global Moderator?", yes, I believe it was: "space-like" seems combative in a thread that was created to resolve the term that appeared in one of legendary Albert Einstein's essays, "time-like"; that is, the English translation of the term, "time-like".

24

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the number 0 the real number 1?

« on: 02/01/2018 19:13:27 »

All of that is irrelevant. We all have choices in how we respond to adversity, we can choose to be polite and friendly or not. There are quite a few people on this forum who have or are experiencing significant problems, but they don’t use it as an excuse and remain positive and considerate.
Let’s keep it friendly and polite please as agreed in the forum acceptable use policy. Thank you.

Is there a way to block you?

On what basis do you, can you require that members "remain positive?" Did you recently arrive from Mars? I ask in all sincerity and mirth (I'm attempting to be positive.).

25

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the number 0 the real number 1?

« on: 02/01/2018 01:42:29 »

Use of bold text. Use of underlined text. The condescending manner of the posts. That is how it is coming across. Maybe you don't see that as confrontational.

English? Eh?
Accentuate. I'm accentuating

I'm terse, yes, but I have a cancer patient 24/7, if you must know, 5 years as I type. This is public knowledge on many of the international comments-sections that I frequent.

Shall I name them? I await your answer.

26

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the number 0 the real number 1?

« on: 01/01/2018 21:43:27 »

Zero is not 1 and it isn't rocket science.

.
Who made the claim that "zero is no[t] 1?" I don't recall typing anything that obscenely obvious. Thanks in advance.

(I added the ' t ' after the ' o ' to make 'not'.)

27

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the number 0 the real number 1?

« on: 01/01/2018 21:36:09 »

Happy New Year scherado. Please try to be less confrontational.

Happy New Year; Do you take issue with anything in my post? No? Yes?

I take issue with your characterization of my post. Will you please identify the content that is confrontational? Thanks.

28

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the number 0 the real number 1?

« on: 01/01/2018 13:51:49 »

But if I am interested in a journey I must of course start at zero distance  from my start point

.
If your journey has not begun (started), then you have NOT traveled any distance and it has not started; and everyone, everywhere and at any time ever who plans, has planned or will plan (in the past/future) a journey, has yet to begin accumulating units of distance traveled. This value can be represented with that thing called zero. In this sense, it doesn't make any sense to state, "start at zero"--the journey is yet to start, has not started.

Further, (get out the duct-tape and apply to cranium) when everyone has started (begun), the distance traveled--expressed in the units of time called seconds, fractional or otherwise--by anyone (person, human) for ANY unit(s) of time,  will never be equal to any other traveler at any time after commencing when measured by a device accurate to ≥ 10 decimal places (units==seconds).

29

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the number 0 the real number 1?

« on: 01/01/2018 10:24:30 »

This question has been bothering computer programmers for decades: Is the first element of an array referenced by index "1" or index "0"?

.
I was a computer programmer and it never bothered me once. My fellow students at college didn't seemed to be bothered about the index origin, which could be 2 or 3 or..., eh? AND my professors, not one of them, seemed to be bothered about the index origin--unless it was a question on a test. Further, computer programmers know that the number of entries (occupied or NOT) in an array or matrix is the same no matter the index origin. Eh?
.

I’ve always thought, everything works for the number 0, and we can’t get out of a shape/consciousness existence because we perceive it wrong.
Any ideas, on this perception?

.
I think this perception is wrong, leads nowhere, and ought to be suppressed, rejected and maligned at every possible opportunity.
.

If you are counting apples, do you start at zero?

.
If you ask me the number of apples I possess, then, when I don't have any, I answer either, "I don't have any" or "zero."

If I wan't to provide an answer (a number) when counting the number of apples I possess, then I want to start "counting" using a number line (or sequential set of numbers) which begins with zero and proceeds (sequentially) 1, 2, 3, ...; I stop at the number which represents the count of apples I possess.

This is NOT rocket science.

30

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 31/12/2017 22:54:34 »

w

In a black hole there is no energy so there is no time within a black hole. There is only kinetic energy 100% in a black hole. Energy is extremely dilated by the inverse square law causing mass to stretch when entering a black hole. Out in space between galaxies energy has the greatest density and clocks tick rate is the greatest because the energy particles are closest. Mass dilates energy by causing the energy to move electrons.

There is no time without some physical process. Is there time without matter? I think not: what is the object of discussion (subject) when there is no matter? Further, what would the temporal qualities of inert matter?

Let's get to the point, using a recent cosmological news item (livescience.com: at the link, we learn that two black holes were in a merge-spiral then became one or something other that two black holes, that is certain. We can assert positively that the event occurred over some time period, known or unknown, it doesn't "matter"--what's relevant is that it event occurred. On what basis does one assert or speculate that there is no time within a black hole when two actual, factual black holes spent some period of TIME spiraling ever closer and to then merge, the entire event taking ____ units of "Time" (duration)?

I'll await a reply...from someone, anyone.

31

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 18/10/2017 02:33:17 »

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Physical_definition That's appropriate "non-active"

Let's get one thing straight. I consider a link to wikee-pee-D-uh to be an insult.

Would anyone care to address the question of "singularity"? Singular or plural.

32

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

« on: 17/10/2017 21:29:20 »

First point is that the term is an English translation of the original. From the Publisher's Note, page viii:

...
--The papers were originally published by the 
Querido Verlag in Amsterda. In fairness to Professor 
Einstein, his American publishers would like to make 
it clear that although they have his full authorization 
to translate the German text as published in Holland, 
and although the documents from which the original 
publication was made have his authentication, there 
has been no further collaboration by him.
...

The subject term is at the end of the passage quoted below.

From page 82 Essays in Science, essay Notes On The Origin Of The General Theory Of Relativity, by Albert Einstein, published 1934:

--A material point, which is acted on by no force, 
will be represented in four-dimensional space by a 
straight line, that is to say by a line that is as 
short as possible or more correctly, an extreme line. 
This concept presupposes that of the length of a linear 
element, that is to say, a metric. In the special theory 
of relativity, as Minkowski had shown, this metric was a 
quasi-Euclidean one, i.e., the square of the "length" ds 
of the linear element was a definite quadratic function 
of the differentials of the co-ordinates.
     If other co-ordinates arrew introduced by means of 
a non-linear transformation, ds² remains a homogeneous 
function of the differentials of the co-ordinates, but 
the co-efficients of this function (guv) cease to be 
constant and become certain functions of the co-ordinates. 
In mathematical terms this means that physical (four-dimensional) 
space has a Riemannian metric. The time-like extremal 
lines of this metric furnish the law of motion of a material 
point which is acted on by no force apart from the forces 
of gravity.

What is the meaning of "time-like?"

33

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 15/10/2017 20:42:09 »

Who are "we"?

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here:

From the book Essays in Science, published 1934, by Albert Einstein, Clerk Maxwell's Influence On The Evolution Of The Idea Of Physical Reality, page 45:
 

    The last and most successful creation of theoretical 
physics, namely quantum-mechanics differs fundamentally
from both the schemes which we will for the sake of 
brevity call the Newtownian and the Maxwellian. For the
quantities which figure in its laws, make no claim to 
physical reality itself, but only the probabilities
of the occurence of the physical reality that we have in view.
Dirac, to whom, in my opinion we owe the most logically 
complete exposition of this theory, rightly points out that it
would probably be difficult, for example, to give a theoretical
despcription of a photon such as would give enough information
to enable one to decide whether it will pass a polarizer 
placed (obliquely) in its way or not.
     I am still inclined to the view that physicists will not
in the long run content themselves with that sort of indirect
description of the real, even if the theory can eventually 
be adapted to the postulate of general relativity in a 
satisfactory manner. We shall then, I feel sure, have to return
to the attempt to carry out the program which may properly be
described as the Maxwellian--nameley, the description of 
physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial
differential equations without singularities.

could it be that time is not a line or a ray but only a point - a singularity of some sort, that all the other dimensions of space some move relative to or through and we experience the movement through this point - or perhaps the rotation of this point, as ongoing yet solitary-momentary time?

I'll pose the question to you: with or without singularities?
.
.
I am he
As you are he
As you are me
And we are all together
- John Lennon, The Walrus

34

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 12/10/2017 23:03:29 »

To see the language we associate with time in Science, you could start here

Who are "we"?

35

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 10/10/2017 12:23:00 »

What are all the considerations involved in this possibility or non possibility?

Though I have read and heard about many conceptions and constructions and speculations of 'Time', I have never had any reason to accept anything other than those five words.

I have chosen "non possibility" for the reason that the only conception of time known to use with certainty is some physical process, three of which are:

Earth's rotation

Earth's orbit

"9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields." (link not provided due to forum guidelines)

36

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 10/10/2017 09:59:17 »

"Time is a physical process."

Though I have read and heard about many conceptions and constructions and speculations of 'Time', I have never had any reason to accept anything other than those five words.