Dick
Posts:
6
Registered:
10/4/06
|
|
Re: Let us be positive and find solutions
Posted:
Oct 5, 2006 8:57 AM
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:19:17 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear Dick:
>
>"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:4ff8i2dk7a5geehgcvhj9ng7lagmogre8s@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:27:06 +0530, "Researcher"
>> <notmy@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:52:27 +0530, "Researcher"
>>>> <notmy@email.com>
>>>> wrote:
>...
>>>> >I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into
>>>> >believing about 'Time Travel'.
>>>> >
>>>> >So, let me make my patented statement.
>>>> >
>>>> >There is nothing called going back in time; except
>>>> >in one's imagination.
>>>> >
>>>> >Researcher
>>>> >
>>>-------------------------------------------
>>>Dear Dick,
>>>
>>>We can't say time is not going forward.
>>>
>>>Time does progress in a steady rate. No relativity
>>> involved in case of an Universal clock.
>>
>> How can you even discuss time progressing until you
>> know what time is.
>
>How can you discuss objects moving without knowing what space is?
>
>> I do know my perception of change varies widely.
>
>That is why we use instruments in Science.
>
>> If I am reading an interesting book, time flies, if I am
>> bore time drags. At least my perception of time
>> changes.
>
>Yet instruments indicate the correct amount of time passage.
>Time is not limited to what we perceive it to be. Space is
>neither as "discrete" as our eyes have it be (based on various
>artifacts of human vision), nor as continuous as our intruments
>show it to be (based on QM).
>
>>>Now, is just a line between a past full or dead records
>>>[which might just be viewed like a movie if captured by
>>>travelling faster than light but never again physically
>>>relived] and the future of continually incrementing
>>>changes and there fore is a cursor on the time scale or
>>>dimension as we understand. There is nothing wrong
>>> in that.
>>
>> You claim a "time scale," the scale we have is based
>> on standardized units of energy. Every clock has
>> some form of energy which is metered and adjusted
>> to International Standards.
>
>The bromate clock is not. The meter is also "metered and
>adjusted to International Standards".
>
>> The "clock" compares how many standard units are
>> generated by the energy source while 2 or more
>> changes take place, such as, 2 horses running same
>> distance on 2 tracks.
>
>Nuclear decay, chemical change, orbtial motion... all vary with
>time, and not all require "units of energy" to move.
>
>> The horse moving across the standard length in the
>> fewest energy units is called the fastest.
>
>Yet it may expend the most energy of all the horses doing so.
>
>> It seems to me what we call time is only relative
>> movement in space and energy. This is predicated on
>> there only being one "now" at a time. Movement is a
>> change between historical now positions which the
>> current position.
>
>You are still defining a timeline. Is "time" a problem for you
>because of how the English language defines it?
>
>David A. Smith
>
David, you and I will never be able to discuss "time." I accept time
as a convenience. You see it as an independent dimension.
dick
|
|
