[guest39538]

∑E_t = (ε+)+(ε-) = t

Δt = ΔE_t

The interwoven manifold of energy and space that manifests a duration of time.

G= t→←t

Time is attracted to time.

[guest39538]

ss.jpg (31.65 kB . 740x464 - viewed 1344 times)

[guest39538]

change.jpg (17.32 kB . 740x464 - viewed 1335 times)

[guest39538]

Time - A quantifiable measurement directly proportional to a duration of existence.

My definition allows for time dilation ,   it doe's not matter what your frequency  of time is, the total measurement of your duration of existence will always measure true.

[guest39538]

td1.jpg (20.81 kB . 740x464 - viewed 1330 times)

Think people .....I am correct

[guest39538]

alex.jpg (35.09 kB . 740x464 - viewed 1324 times)

[Bored chemist]

It would be better if you found a blogging site to clutter up with your nonsense.

[guest39538]

It would be better if you found a blogging site to clutter up with your nonsense.

Nonsense would be your subjective opinion and not objective facts.   Please refrain from spreading your subjective negativity in my threads of new theories.  My new theory does not require subjective dogma.  My theory is only stating objective truths, it is not my opinion, it is of facts. 

Facts

1) space does not age

2) space cannot be destroyed

3) An empty space has no means of measurement of time

4) space-time is subjective dogma with no relevance

5) Things age relative to space

6) The measurement of time is relative to the existence of ''matter''

7)  Time only exists for the ''matter'' relative to the duration of the ''matters'' existence.


''Your'' legalese definition of time, time is its measurement, the measurement is that of matter and not of space. The measurement is dependent of the matter and the state of that matter.
If you have not noticed, space does not ''care'' what the Caesium is doing because the space does not alter.

[Bored chemist]

Nonsense would be your subjective opinion and not objective facts.

Objectively, you have not explained the terms you use and the diagrams are inadequately labelled
So it's nonsense objectively, as well as subjectively.

It would still be better if it was on a blog where nobody else found it getting in their way..

[jeffreyH]

[guest39538]

Nonsense would be your subjective opinion and not objective facts.

Objectively, you have not explained the terms you use and the diagrams are inadequately labelled
So it's nonsense objectively, as well as subjectively.

It would still be better if it was on a blog where nobody else found it getting in their way..

You are so funny and such a troll, I can tell you are involved in politics, smile while you talk nonsense and deflect away from the subject.  If you cannot understand simple diagrams and the epsilon symbol, well what can I say. 

I am not going to keep repeating myself because you do not have the ability to understand. 

[guest39538]

You know that S is entropy and you know k is space and you know the epsilon sign.

[jeffreyH]

My equation is quite valid.

[guest39538]

My equation is quite valid.

Please explain then ,

Δk = Δt = easterbunny

[guest39538]

delta R� = delta t = easter bunny

is that what you said?


∑t={ε_neg}+{ε_pos}/k